Unnamed: 0 Unnamed: 0.1 policy_abbreviation title policy_index policy_text 0 0 0 WP:SK3 Wikipedia:Speedy keep 0 "Speedy keep is the process of closing deletion discussions with a result of ""speedy keep"" before the normal discussion period ends, but without unlisting or deleting the actual discussion. This guideline applies only to ""speedy keep"" closures; the criteria for speedy deletion cover the circumstances under which pages may be deleted immediately. Reasons for a speedy keep decision are: Absence of delete rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD, or (b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Exceptions: The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion.If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed and the page renominated on the correct forum, with the original nomination, and any comments made so far, copied over to the new nomination. The closing comment should indicate where the discussion has been moved. This does not strictly count as a speedy keep, since the page still remains nominated for deletion. Please realize that while you may personally dislike having a deletion tag on your favorite article/template/image/etc, the harm it does is minimal, and either the article or the tag will be gone in around a week. Also be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion, is not necessarily vexatious, and does not imply the nominator has neglected to read the page. === What is not a speedy-keep === The ""snowball clause"" is a valid criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for a speedy keep, but it is not a speedy keep criterion itself. Specifically, discussions must meet specific criteria to be speedily kept. ""Snowball closes"" are justified by ""Ignore all rules"" and ""Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"" as opposed to a specific set of guidelines. For that reason, ""snow closes"" may be controversial and additional care is warranted. Though the two may seem similar, closes under the snowball clause should never be closed as ""speedy keep."" ==== Notes ==== When a discussion is closed as a speedy-keep, close the debate as you would a standard close, but use the result ""speedy keep"" instead of ""keep"". The procedure for administrators closing AfD discussions are laid out at WP:AFD/AI and for limited cases of non-administrator closings, at nominator withdrawal or here. Guide to deletion Introduction to deletion process Procedural closure Snowball clause" 1 1 1 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 1 "This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be ""keep"", ""delete"" or some other objective. Some of the infirm arguments covered are those that are irrelevant or at best side issues, do not address the merits of the reason to keep or delete, are based in anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more—and almost all share the trait of not being based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, no original research and biographies of living people. The arguments covered in this page are far from exhaustive. If an argument you were planning on using is listed here, you might want to reconsider using it. However, just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid. Remember that a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an ""argument to avoid"", may still contain the germ of a valid point. For example, if a person argues that an article is interesting, and in making that point, cites evidence that could also be used to support a determination of notability, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below). While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. (see also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages) This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise do not point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever. === Just a vote === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep –ThoughtlessMcKeep (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete –DeleteyMcSheep (talk), 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, ""The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments"" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of ""Keep"" or ""Delete"" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing ""Keep"" to ""Strong keep"" or ""Speedy keep"" or even ""Weak keep"" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on cogent reasons. === Per nominator/X === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete per nom. – Trustfull (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep as per User:IvanIdea's statement. – Sup (talk), 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes (see also § Just a vote). Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of § I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions. If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient. (Example: ""Delete per nom. I find their argument that such and such policy is not met compelling"") Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT position. === Per majority === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep per everyone else. –Grouper (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete since most others here think this should be deleted. –Copycat (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete Most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. –SelfFulfillingProphecy (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions. Consensus can change, and it is not uncommon for attitudes to shift during a deletion discussion. When it seems after just a few days that it'll surely go one way, often one single statement can turn the tide. Also, articles can be improved over the course of a discussion, leading others to change their minds. It can be the statement or the salvaging work of one person who is at first in the minority that makes all the difference. === Just unencyclopedic/doesn't belong === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete as unencyclopedic. –Cyclops (talk), 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOT –NotSpecific (talk), 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Delete Does not belong here. –MembersOnly (talk), 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Keep This definitely belongs in an encyclopedia. –TrustMeItFits (talk), 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms ""unencyclopedic"", and its flip-side ""encyclopedic"", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how? An example of a well-specified deletion nomination is ""The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and therefore violates WP:NOT#DICDEF"". === There must be sources === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep. This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. – The Great Prejudger (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep. There must be plenty of sources. – The Great Presumer (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep. We shouldn't delete this, because it's possible there are sources that we haven't found. – The Great Speculator (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep. You should find sources, instead of deleting it. – ItsUpToYou (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep It's possible that this might have been covered somewhere, so keep. –Anything'sPossible (talk), 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable. === Just notable/Just not notable === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete as non-notable. –NotableGuru (talk), 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Delete: NN. –NNDeclarer (talk), 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Keep: Meets WP:N –DialNforNotability (talk), 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Keep It is clearly notable. –NotabilityDiviner (talk), 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Keep Topic is notable. –OracleOfNote (talk), 09:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both ""Just unencyclopedic"" and ""Just pointing at a policy or guideline"". Instead of just saying, ""Non-notable"", consider instead saying, ""No reliable sources found to verify notability"", or ""The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability"", or ""The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard."" Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability. Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability; this is often seen when trying to assert notability under a sub-guideline (like music or internet content). Self-promoting wannabes have, for example, tried to get themselves into Wikipedia by falsely claiming to pass a notability criterion that they did not actually pass — musicians claiming charting hits that never really charted, writers claiming award nominations they were never really given, etc. — so the notability test is not passed just by stating passage of a notability criterion, but rather requires reliably sourced verification that the claim to passing a notability criterion is true. Additionally, the subject may possibly pass WP:N, but fails a more stringent set of standards: for example, articles about notable living people may be deleted if they are marginally notable, and must be deleted if they are defamatory. The standards of inclusion don't mandate inclusion; they merely suggest it. === Just pointing at a policy or guideline === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep Meets WP:NOR –Policylover (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. –Pilingiton (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep because we should ignore all rules! –Anarwikist (talk), 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. As noted above, deletion discussions are not ""votes"". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing ""Original research"", or ""Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability"", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. ""Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources"" or ""Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts"". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.) Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above. === Assertion of notability === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete No assertion of notability. –If It Was It'd Say So (talk), 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Delete There's no way anyone could be notable just by doing that. –Not a chance (talk), 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Keep Text of article explains why it is notable; that is good enough –VouchingForMyself (talk), 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Keep Article says that the topic is very important to the history of underwater basket-weaving. –RightOnTheTin (talk), 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Keep The article's content asserts importance and significance for the topic. –WhoNeedsProof (talk), 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)An assertion of importance or significance (not ""notability"", as such, though these are often and unfortunately conflated and confused) is related to a potential reason to delete an article, but not one that is relevant at Articles for Deletion, where the merits of notability are determined. This formula is the purview of CSD A7, A9 and A11, three of the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are a test of what is seen in the article content and only apply to specific subject areas and conditions. If an article on an A7- A9- or A11-eligible topic does not make a credible assertion of importance or significance for that topic, it should be nominated for speedy deletion, which is a much faster and simpler process than nomination at Articles for Deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is based on whether the topic itself meets the criteria – not on what is or is not currently in the article. Thus, whether an article asserts significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article. === Begging for mercy === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Keep I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? –DoNotHurtMe (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your ""deletes"" to ""keeps"" –Mindchanger (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep I need more time to work on it –NotFinishedYet (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home –InTahiti (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep I placed this template on top of the page so it wouldn't get deleted –ConstructionSign (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep I placed hidden text at the top of this page telling others they were not supposed to delete it –WarningMarker (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either. You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's canvassing guidelines before you solicit ""votes"" one way or the other in a discussion. If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space. Over the years, several templates have been created to be placed on top of pages indicating that they are new and may take time to complete to Wikipedia's standards. These include {{newpage}}, {{construction}}, and {{newlist}}. If such a template is found on a newly created page, as a common courtesy, new page patrollers and others should not rush to delete the page unless it is obvious that it can never meet inclusion guidelines. If one is uncertain of this, or if it appears no progress has been made in a reasonable amount of time, the creator should be contacted regarding his/her intentions, and given a reasonable amount of time to reply. It is recommended for one who is considering putting it up for deletion to consider userfication as an alternative. === Won or did not win something === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Delete The person lost in the competition/event, so he/she couldn't possibly be notable. –Jesse NoVotewens (talk), 00:00, 1 January 2000 (UTC) Delete He didn't make first string, so delete. –Mr. Olympia (talk), 00:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete The company went bankrupt, so the article should be deleted. –Jeff Wikipezos (talk), 00:02, 1 January 2002 (UTC) Delete The film has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so it doesn't deserve its own article –Roger that, Ebert! (talk), 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Delete This awful game has a well-deserved 8/100 on Metacritic! –The Angry Wikipedia Nerd (talk), 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Delete This album has a 1 out of 5 rating on AllMusic, something this horrid album deserves instead of a Wikipedia article. —Editor In The Shadows (talk), 00:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Keep She won a high school poetry contest and thus passes WP:ANYBIO -AllAwardsAreCreatedEqual (talk), 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Yes, it's true that subjects winning notable awards or landing on ""best of"" year-end lists by independent publications can significantly impact their notability. However, arguments which base notability or lack thereof upon winning, wins, success or popularity make no use of policies or guidelines. In fact, plenty of subjects, like The Room, Birdemic: Shock and Terror, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, and Hotel Mario, are significantly important and covered in several reliable sources due to their unusual amount of failure. We do not have articles only because people and/or organizations are successful; everyone and everything makes mistakes! We have articles rather because they are notable and have verifiable and reliable sources. If a celebrity or organization is ""failing"", then the content can mention that failure in a neutral point-of-view, provided there are reliable sources. In short: Just because a celebrity or organization is ""losing"" doesn't mean it's not notable! Further, awards do not necessarily confer inherent notability on their winners. It is necessary to establish that the award itself is notable in the first place, by virtue of being broadly reported upon by the media as a news story. For instance, a major national film, literary or music award that gets media coverage is a valid notability claim, while a regional, local or special interest award that lacks media coverage and can only be referenced to its own self-published primary source content is not. For some prominent awards that curate and announce shortlists of nominees in advance of announcing the final winner, such as the Academy Awards or the Grammy Awards, the nomination itself can be a sufficient notability claim for a nominee, whether or not they win. However, there have still been some instances of award nominees and winners who were deleted because of an inability to locate enough solid sources to actually support an article. For example, it may be much harder to actually write and properly source articles about a film's sound technician(s) than it is about the film's actors or director. Just as with winners, a nomination for a major award of this type is generally sufficient if the article can be reliably sourced, but may not be sufficient if you have to depend exclusively on primary sources. Note as well that some of our subject-specific notability criteria do in fact take winning into account. For example, our notability criteria for politicians generally require holding a notable office rather than just running for one and losing, and non-winning competitors in reality shows are not automatically notable just because they were on a reality show. Note losing in one competition/event does not preclude being notable for other reasons, such as being notable in other areas (for example, Cynthia Nixon), holding a notable public office (for example, Hillary Clinton), or accomplishing separate notable achievements beyond appearing in a reality show (for example, Jon Dorenbos and Jennifer Hudson). === Not built === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Delete The proposed complex has not been built yet, therefore it is not notable. –UN-Finished (talk), 00:00, 1 January 2000 (UTC) Delete It is still under construction, so it can't be notable. –Under Construction (talk), 00:01, 1 January 2000 (UTC) Delete Construction work was delayed and has not resumed; not notable. –Delay Time (talk), 00:02, 1 January 2000 (UTC) Delete The article is incomplete, so it's not notable. –Not done (talk), 00:03, 1 January 2000 (UTC)Such arguments make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability. A thing that is never built may still be historically significant as a proposal, with enough coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of the plan's failure to ever actually come to fruition, and people ten or twenty years from now may very well still be looking for information about what the proposal was and why it failed. This section covers deletion arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or guidelines. === I like it === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Example: Keep The Angry Young Popes are the best rock band in the world right now. –SuperFan (talk), 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC) Keep Because he's so cool! –Cool Hand Duke (talk), 02:03, 2 February 2002 (UTC) Keep This is a really great article, and I think it should stay. –Peacock (talk), 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC) Keep I firmly believe this article is notable. –EpicBeliever (talk), 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient. In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions. === I don't like it === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete: The Great White Dopes are the worst rock band ever. –SuperCritic (talk), 02:03, 2 February 2002 (UTC) Delete: It's annoying. –IAmReallyAnnoyed (talk), 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC) Delete: No need. –NecessityIsTheMotherOfInvention (talk), 06:07, 5 April 2004 (UTC) Delete as cruft. –Cruftbane (talk), 16:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Delete as trivia. –NoTriviaHere (talk), 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Delete: I'm so ashamed this article is on Wikipedia. –Mortified_Molly (talk), 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Delete: Got bored of reading. Not of interest to English-speakers. –HastyHannigan (talk), 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Delete: This makes me look stupid! –Reputation Defender (talk), 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Delete This offends me. –OnTheDefense (talk), 11:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Delete It's offensive to my religion. –MyGodIsBetterThanYours (talk), 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is ""unencyclopedic"" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. For example, while the ""cruft"" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called ""cruft"" has potential for verifiable inclusion. === They don't like it === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep: It would be censorship to delete this. –For We Are Many (talk), 13:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Keep. The Fooians don't want anyone to know this, we shouldn't bow to Fooian interests. –AntiFooian (talk), 12:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Keep. We can't get rid of an article just because it makes people uncomfortable. –PoliticallyIncorrectHero (talk), 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Keep. Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. –OccupyBaz (talk), 23:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)And on the converse of that converse (see I don't like it, directly above), while some editors may feel that deleting a page would be playing into the hands of a certain group, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be kept. Wikipedia is not censored, but this fact does not supersede its guidelines on notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, original research, etc. In addition, if such an argument is used against the nominator specifically, it constitutes a failure to assume the nominator's good faith and if severe enough may constitute a personal attack. It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate an article for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reliable sources and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be easy to refute. === It's interesting === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep Interesting. –Fascinated (talk), 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Delete Not interesting. –Borrrrrinnnnng (talk), 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway? –Indifferent (talk), 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. See also I like it and I don't like it, above. === It's useful/useless === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Example: Keep This isn't encyclopedic content, but it's still useful. –Usefulisgood (talk), 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Delete: No one is going to use this content, so we don't need it. –Judgmental (talk), 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC) Keep valuable. –My precious (talk), 05:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Keep: This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! –I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin (talk) Keep: This article is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children –SaveTheKids!Please! (talk) Delete adds nothing of value –Scrouge (talk), 05:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Delete: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. –SaveTheTroops!Please! (talk),Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument. A list of all the phone numbers in New York City would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikivoyage for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. If reasons are given, ""usefulness"" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information ""useful"". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, ""This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."" There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. Building a solid case for deletion on the basis of uselessness is unlikely because of Wikipedia's notability policy. All of this project's notability criteria imply that knowledge about a subject that meets them is useful. Whether it's through substantial coverage in reliable sources, receipt of major awards, winning international competitions, or writing oft-cited scientific papers, we can infer that somebody has found the subject to be of substantial interest. Therefore, if information about a subject is genuinely of no use here, the better bet is to argue against inclusion on the grounds of a lack of notability. Likewise, value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value without substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article or addition has value or does not; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument. Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan ""information"" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOBLECAUSE. === It's harmful/harmless === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. –Hippocrates2 (talk), 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Delete This article is very harmful to many people. Get rid of this now! –BiographyPolice (talk), 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)No content on Wikipedia is censored. Just because an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean the article should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.) But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable. The ""it does not do any harm"" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism. Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument ""it's not hurting anything"" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here. Whether something is harmful or harmless are also valid arguments for and against deletion of redirects at Redirects for discussion. This normally centres around harm (or lack of) to the encyclopedia, e.g. from a redirect being misleading or in the way of other content. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?. === It's funny === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep This article is hilarious. –ComedyExpert (talk), 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Keep LMAO...this article is SOOOO friggin' funny!!!!ha ha ha . –Stand-upGal (talk), 4:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Delete This article is hilarious. Obviously unencyclopedic!!!! –Meta-Parliamentarian (talk), 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor are they outright disqualified because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective nature of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia, as the ""Humour"" category shows, and even unintentionally funny articles are welcome. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Wikipedia, than in the article space. === I don't get it === Examples Delete What does this joke even mean? I can't understand modern humor. -Humor Critic 10:37, 9 January 1022Wikipedia is not a place for you to judge other people's humor. Articles cannot be deleted because of your view on humor, nor can they usually be created as such, even under the ""Humor"" category. Some articles can be created because of someone's view of humor, but these are usually created as sarcastic essays. === It looks good/bad === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples Keep Article is well laid out with good graphics –Styleoversubstance (talk), Keep Very nice format and design, esp. the use of multicolour layout –Bauhaus11:0 (talk), Keep Has been written by a professional Wikipedian; is complete with an infobox, pictures, and a navbox. –Well Dressed Editor (talk), Delete This article has such an ugly format –The Formatting Liker (talk), Delete There is nothing in this article but text -UseImages98 (talk),While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia. Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. A common maxim is that ""Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.) Note: The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate. This in itself is a controversial maxim, as essays such as WP:TNTTNT demonstrate. === Poorly written article === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete This article is rubbish. –TrashTalker (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Article is messy and poorly laid out. –LostWillToFix (talk), Delete It's not referenced properly –Lazy1 (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete It has such an awful title –JudgeAbookByItsCover (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete Half the article is in Spanish! MonoLingual (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep We'll find some sources later –NotRightNow (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep This article needs improvement, not deletion. –ButIgottaGo (talk), 04:23, 2 January 2001 (UTC)In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. By the same token, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article ""needs improvement, not deletion"" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility. Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it! If you are not able to move the article yourself for one reason or another, request someone else do it rather than nominate the whole article for deletion. With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible. === Offline sources only === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.Examples: Delete The only sources given are offline. –Cantmakeittothelibrary (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete With only offline sources given, there is no proof that this is not a hoax. –The Secret Keeper (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete One look online shows that this does not even exist. –Jumping to conclusions (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete Google Books only allows you to see pages 1-45 of this book, and the source claims it's on page 57. –Restricted access (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete All the sources given have fallen victim to linkrot. Therefore, we have no way of knowing about this. –Evidence Destroyed (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete The book sources don't have any ISBNs, so they must be fake. –IAmANumber (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the article. If an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. This will only occur with definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious, and not based simply on a hunch. As with the offline sources themselves, online proof that they do not exist is not needed. Good faith is assumed just as much if the editor seeking deletion knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the source does not exist or does not state what is in the article. === Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Article has been here for 2 years and is still a stub! –TheyDidntWork (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. –My Way or the Highway (talk), 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Creator has totally neglected this article –Plant and run (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete This is not the first, not the second, but the tenth time I put this up for deletion, all because the problems were not solved. Each time, User:WantItKept promised they would improve it after the discussion was closed. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise.Last straw was long ago (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete We've been waiting 10 long years for this article to improve. By now we know it'll never happen, and we can all agree this article doesn't belong.Time to give up (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Keep I really promise I'll improve it, I just have no time now to explain how.WantItKept (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline. The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way. A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process. In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time. Not all articles on Wikipedia look perfect. Most readers on Wikipedia already know they won't get all the information they are looking for from Wikipedia alone. Even if an article is not the best, even if it remains that way for many years, it can still provide some readers with just what they're looking for, and this is enough to make it worthy. The concept of ownership of articles is typically thought of to oppose a creator's rights to have it their own way. It can also be extended to say that once an article has been created and it meets inclusion guidelines, the creator has no obligation thereafter to maintain the article. Therefore, if one creates an article that appears to meet guidelines for a standalone article, but abandons any effort to complete or update it thereafter, regardless of whether that editor has been actively editing on Wikipedia, the article cannot be deleted on these grounds. When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field, removing unverifiable content and stubbing the article, or redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article, are better choices than deleting. Exceptions: Articles that are unambiguous advertising or promotion may be speedy deleted; less unambiguous cases might well be deleted at articles for deletion, if there is little to no content worth saving. While these sorts of arguments may not be good arguments for deletion, they are excellent arguments for a merge in cases where an excessive number of subarticles exists. Merge is a perfectly acceptable vote in a deletion discussion. === Orphan status === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Is an orphan. No articles link to this one, and probably none ever can or will. –Foster Parent (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete Is part of a walled garden. This is a group of articles that has no relation to anything else on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia has no place for them. We should delete them all. –Berlin (talk), 13:29, 9 November 1989 (UTC)An article being an orphan (having few or no incoming links) can pose some problems. But it does not imply a lack of notability, and therefore is not a valid reason for exclusion. An orphan is still capable of having reliable sources, and many do. De-orphaning articles and providing incoming links is a goal in improving the encyclopedia, not a requirement. Many orphans were created by newbies who are not familiar with the need to add references or to create incoming links. Some subjects are just very hard to link from anything. If reliable sources can be provided, even if incoming links can't, it is still notable. === Out of date === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete because this article is very much out of date. –Last Year's Edition (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete Information changes so often, it is impossible to keep up to date. –Scoreboard (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia is a work-in-progress encyclopedia, which means that it is not finished nor will it ever be. As in a paper encyclopedia, information on Wikipedia will often become inaccurate because it is simply out of date. But unlike a paper encyclopedia, in which a new edition is printed maybe every year or so, Wikipedia can be updated anytime. There is a very simple solution to all that: Change it! All you have to do is to click ""edit"", make the necessary changes, and save the changes, writing in the edit summary that you are updating the information. If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section. To consider a page for deletion on the basis that it is not up to date is to demolish the house while it is being built. === Susceptibility to policy violations === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Article is likely to be vandalised a lot. –Graffiti Wall (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete Has such a long history of vandalism that has made it an embarrassment to Wikipedia. –Tarnished (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete There is a constant edit war going on here. –We Just Disagree (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete An article about this will never meet Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines because there is so much controversy surrounding it. –Abortion Clinic (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete So many people hate this person that a fair article free of BLP violations is impossible. –Already Judged (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating the article if it's deleted. –WhackAMole (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Keep The canvassing campaign has made it impossible to get consensus on this. –MurkyWater (talk), 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues. Vandals, sock puppets, and edit warriors can be blocked. Articles can be protected. Sock puppets and canvassers can be traced. Templates can be placed on a page to let readers and editors know how it has to be fixed. If inaccurate information is frequently added erroneously but in good faith, this can be discussed until a consensus is reached. === Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection) === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Non-notable – I don't like redirects (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete Fails N and all relevant SNG –Who cares about ATD? (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since ""merger"" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for ""delete then redirect"" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD. === Existence === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep It exists. –LuitzenB (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep It is not a hoax. It is truly real. –DavidH (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep There is no doubt that the band exist...there are 3 local newspaper articles about their show dates, plus they have a MySpace page. –LoveGarageBandz (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep It is common household vocabulary what a spray stick is. Of course there should be an article about it. –Everyone knows Mr. Fresh (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep I know lots about this subject, so it must be notable. –Know-it-all (talk), 04:04 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep He has 10,000 subscribers on YouTube, so we don't need reliable sources because a lot of people want to know more about him. –YouTube Is The World (talk), Keep This slipped through the cracks and never got media coverage at all, so using its own self-published documentation is the only way we can rescue it from obscurity. –FixingTheOversights (talk), Keep I'm still emerging and haven't gotten media coverage yet, so I posted a press release about myself to a public relations platform to cover off the sourcing requirements –Circularity Rules (talk),Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information drawn from identifiable sources (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in WP:N. But it goes beyond that. If we wrote articles for everything that existed, we would end up writing about you, or your computer, or that leaf that fell in your pool the other day, or even that rock that keeps tripping you up on your morning walks. The last one was kind of ridiculous, but hopefully you understand what we are trying to say here: existence does not always yield notability! As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable. There have, for example, been hoaxes which attained notability because they were hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man. A related phenomenon is the fallacy of entitlement: the notion that mere existence automatically entitles someone or something to a Wikipedia article, and thus the need to create an article is so important that any form of sourcing is acceptable regardless of whether or not it meets reliable sourcing standards. However, Wikipedia's role is not to be about everything, or to help under-covered topics create their media presence. We are not a free public relations platform to advertise topics that haven't already received media attention — our role here is to follow media coverage, not to lead it. Before addressing ""how can this topic get into Wikipedia if it doesn't have media coverage yet?"", the question ""why does this topic have to get into Wikipedia?"" must be answered. === Google test === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. –GoogleBoy (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. –GoogleGirl (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete Zero Google hits, must be a hoax. –MustBeAHoax (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete Zero Google hits, so even if she is a tenured professor at Harvard, she must be non-notable. –GoogleMeasuresWorth (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete A Google Books search returned no hits, so must be non-notable –PrintIsDead (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. –FirstIsBest (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged ""Internet meme"" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as ""Y"" can demonstrate that ""Y"" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the redirects for discussion process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results. Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test. Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. However, since an article can be verified as notable entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that an article should be kept or deleted. === Article age === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples Keep. Article has existed since 2004. –Age Before Beauty (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. Article was only created yesterday, I'm still working on it! –Think of the New Articles (talk), 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Delete Article is brand new, has not stood the test of time –Catch22 (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Take, for example, Gaius Flavius Antoninus, a hoax article that lasted for more than eight years before getting discovered and deleted. Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved. Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by de facto practice could be put up for deletion. However, note that the fact that an article has not been edited in a long time is also not grounds for deletion, as explained above. Conversely, being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Wikipedia it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is. Remember that all articles are works in progress, and this is not by itself reason to keep an article. It is recommended to work on a new article in draft space or in userspace before moving it into mainspace, to avoid it being nominated for deletion in an obviously unfinished state. However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it, as explained above. Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state. === Subject age === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples Delete – It's a new company/startup, so it can't be notable.NewCompanyNoGood (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Keep This fence post has been standing for more than two hundred years— anything this old is certainly notable. –BetterWithAge (talk), 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Keep This company has been teaching people to dance like a sandhill crane since before I was born. A tradition of so many years becomes an institution after this long. –OldFeet (talk), 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Delete Any performer who hasn't been doing stage shows for at least six months can't possibly have achieved notability yet. She has no fan base, and no agent. –Incredulitiousness (talk), 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Delete This ink in this book isn't even dry yet— shouldn't we give it more of a chance to prove itself before we have an article on it? –WetBehindTheEars (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)These arguments are analogous to those above with regard to article age. Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter. Certainly what is old has had more chance to be noted, and what is new generally has not. But we do not decide which articles to keep and which to delete based on chances, we base it on the quality and nature of its citations. === Subject no longer exists === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Delete IntraState Airlines just went belly-up. Therefore, we should delete the article about it. -Liquid8R (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete The full citation proves it, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. -WeRemember (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete Rapid Racers went out of business more than 20 years ago. Why then should we have an article -No One Remembers (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete FadCo has discontinued the SuperWax Doodlies line -Get-A-Life (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete The Big Banger has not had a hit record for more than 10 years now -Out of print (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete Victorianville has been wiped off the map and is now the site of a strip mine -Ghost Town (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Keep FunHouse is out of business now. It is a safe bet that an article about them is not an advertisement. -Honorable Mention (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Notability is not temporary. The continuing existence of an article does not depend on the continuing existence of its subject. Even if it is a thing of the past, if sources can display its notability in the same way as a subject that exists today, then it qualifies no less for an article. It does not matter if the cessation of the subject occurred before or after the creation of the article. Even if links to the sources are no longer active, if the writer(s) of the article do the best possible job of documenting what they are, the article shall meet the standards for reliable sources. Wikipedia's goal is not merely to be a directory of things and people that currently exist today – defunct corporations and ghost towns and dead people can still be notable, and can still have legitimate and reliably sourceable reasons why readers might be looking for information about who and what they were. The only way a subject can be truly declared ""no longer notable"" is if the actual notability guidelines change to exclude the subject. Many of Wikipedia's notability standards are stricter now than they were a decade ago, so some articles that were formerly accepted as notable do fail contemporary standards; consensus can change, so such articles do not stay ""grandfathered"" in Wikipedia just because they used to be acceptable, but are deleted (or redirected to a related topic) if they cannot be improved to meet contemporary notability standards. === Pageview stats === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples Delete, Wikipedia does not need pages some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. –Trafficdirector (talk), 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 163rd most popular article. –Penguin enthusiast (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable. Conversely, just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope, although article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. Redirects for discussion is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many. === Support for article === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.Examples Keep There are more ""keeps"" than ""deletes"" –OutVoted (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep There is a huge crowd rooting for this article to be kept. –Petition Drive (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep The cause for keeping this has gone viral. –YouTube Fan (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep This nomination has made the news and been heavily criticized. It would be an embarrassment for Wikipedia to delete it. –Public Appeal (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Delete 25 people want to have this page deleted. –Down The Well (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Delete The only people voting ""keep"" are spammers –IDontLikeSpam (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. If you comment on the basis of the numbers already seen as in the above examples, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. And drawing others to cast such votes may be canvassing. Many AfDs in the past have had a outcome that contradicts the numbers, and many will in the future. It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa) if that single argument is really good and the remainder are just votes. However, community consensus is frequently taken into consideration when closing the discussion of an article's deletion, and although consensus is not identical to voting, indication of consensus as demonstrated by a large proportion of well-argued votes on one side or the other of a discussion is likely to factor heavily in the final decision. === Number of editors involved === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Keep Has been edited by lots of people –Busy at work (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep This is a huge project that many editors care about and work on every day –Teamwork (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep Surely if this many people have contributed to the subject, someone should know where to find sources –Who has the secret? (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Delete Only one person has made all the edits to this page –My Personal Article (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Delete The only editor who ever contributed to this article has not made any edits in 3 years, so if deleted, it'll not be missed –Who Cares? (talk), 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in the subject, but it does not measure the notability, the number of reliable sources, or its compliance with other inclusion guidelines. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found. Articles are not owned, even by their creator, and they are not judged based on who created them, how active that creator is or was on Wikipedia, or how many people besides themselves are interested in editing them. It is not uncommon for an individual to create or edit a single article in their lifetime, all while providing valuable information, and then never edit again. === Article size === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Keep Article has lots of information on the subject –Book of Wealth (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Article is only one line. Clearly a DICDEF –Mr. Webster (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete This article provides too little information on the subject –Flashcard (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Article provides so little information, you can easily recreate it should more information be available –Come back when you're more mature (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong, and if none of it belongs, neither does the article. On the other hand, even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a stub waiting for expansion. Being ""short"" is not grounds for deletion. As in a paper encyclopedia, some articles will be several pages long, others just a line or two. There is no minimum or maximum length that qualifies an article, just the reliable sourcing of the information. Since nothing is in stone, articles can grow, shrink, merge, split, and change in all different ways over time. But once the subject becomes clearly notable, they do not disappear. === Unreliable sources === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep I found all this information in another Wikipedia article –Wikifan (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Blogs aren't reliable sources –Format Error (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep The subject's site goes into great detail about it –Propaganda=Gospel (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep There is a whole web site devoted to this subject –Make It Notable Yourself (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep People are talking about it all over the blogs –Talk of the Town (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep This MySpace page tells all about it –Say What You Want (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Look what I found about it on Twitter –Tweet Me (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep There is an entry in Urban Dictionary on the subject –Street Speech (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page. A subject's own site can be used to verify some information, but surely not to establish notability. Sites like blogs and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Wikipedia article. On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or can be attributed to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper. And keep in mind that while sources such as blogs aren't usually suitable for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be perfectly suitable for verifying information within an article whose notability has already been established by other means. In other words, removing information sourced to a blog is not the same as arguing for the deletion of an article – these are separate acts with different sets of criteria for performing them and should not be conflated. === Trivial coverage === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep In all the publicity this school has received, they mention this particular honors student –WayToGo! (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep A restaurant that is often reviewed in the community times –HighRatings (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete A restaurant that only has magazine reviews –Didn'tSeeTheTimesFrontPage (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Of course this church is notable. This is where the city council always meets every Tuesday night. –EveryWordCounts (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep I always hear on the 5 o'clock news that the police have been called to this gas station –NuisanceProperty (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Splatter Road has been the site of 3 homicides in the past 10 years that have all received news coverage mentioning this location –DangerZone (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete One sentence is trivial coverage.HennyYoungman (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline. Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable. On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available. === It's in the news === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep I came here to find out more about the arrest and court case...should be kept and updated –NeedsToKnow1 (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep On the news tonight and on all major newspaper frontpages –NeedsToKnow2 (talk), 08:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Keep When I saw this I immediately looked it/them up here, as did many –CNNfan:) (talk), 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Keep Huge media interest in this celeb romance...so we should keep the article –NeedGoode..Luvin (talk), 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is not news, and there should be no news, period –Press-Free Zone (talk), 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Delete No one talks about this any more -- it was in the news a long time ago but you never see anything about it now. –Gone and Forgotten (talk), 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a news service—articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Due to its popularity, Wikipedia is many people's first port of call to find out more about a breaking story or other current event they've just heard about. Wikipedia does have articles that cover current events as well as those of the past, and it even selects certain newsworthy topics for display on the Main Page. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account. Wikipedia even has a sister project Wikinews, dedicated to hosting user generated news stories. Basically, Wikipedia is not a place for routine coverage, such as locally reported crime, community issues, regularly scheduled sports events, trivial matters, and other topics that are found in the daily paper. It is not here to take the place of the newspaper, regular broadcasts, or other forms of media that are to be expected. Some events are indeed notable and worthy of inclusion. The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD. If you plan to use either the WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWS arguments (or other similar guidelines) to support keeping or deleting an article, it is important to be familiar with the guidelines to be sure what news belongs and what news does not. It may also help to get a sense of what types of events either do or don't customarily have articles. === Geographic scope === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep It's of interest around the entire globe –World Traveler (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep People from 3000 miles away know what this is –Coast to Coast (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Everyone around the world needs to know about this –Reporting on importance (talk), 05:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Delete No one from outside this establishment's hometown has ever heard of it or ever will –Total Stranger (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville –Why Should I Care? (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Cumbertown is not the center of the world –Geocentric (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them. Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article. On the contrary, being spread out around a greater region, such as a country or the whole world, without satisfying notability requirements does not make a subject notable. At the same time, subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH, which do require wider regionalized coverage, and non-winning candidates for political office are not accepted as notable just because local coverage of the election campaign exists in the local media where that campaign would have been simply expected to garner coverage. Rather, the question of whether local coverage is enough or not depends on variables like the strength of the basic notability claim and the volume of coverage that can be shown. For example, predominantly or purely local coverage may be enough to get the mayor of a major city into Wikipedia, because the notability claim is strong enough that the geographic range of coverage does not matter, but purely local coverage is not necessarily enough to get a city councillor or school board trustee in the same city, or the mayor of a small town, through the notability door — these people may still qualify for articles if something truly substantial, and referenced to a significant volume of media coverage about them, can be shown, but are not guaranteed articles just because one or two pieces of purely local media coverage exist. Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. For example, few people are aware or interested in some obscure forms of living things, space bodies, or scientific concepts, and few people will ever know about them in the first place in order to even desire to read about them. Yet there is sourced information about them, so they qualify to be included. The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own. Another question is where to draw the line on a subject as being ""local"". Local could mean limited to a city or town. But others may view a state, province, or other similar region as being local. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. And though the boundaries of a jurisdiction are legally defined, determining a distance from that location in which coverage would be non-local is not possible. One may ask: does it not make sense that one part of the world has more articles on its local interests than another with a greater population? If so, this is not because Wikipedia is ever intended to be this way. Numbers of articles are not written in direct proportion with the population distribution of the world. Each article is written because just one person living wherever chooses to write that article. And some areas just happen to have more dedicated writers. Anyone, including you, can be devoted to writing about your hometown. (See Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance.) The Events Notability Guideline on the other hand does specify locality of coverage, recommending notable events more often have a national or international scope. === Arbitrary quantity === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. –Countvonnotable (talk), 04:56, 7 August 2006 Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. –Notbigenough (talk), 04:56, 7 August 2006 Keep This person's video on YouTube just passed 1 million views mark and over 1,000 comments which is notable. –Lotsofviews (talk), 04:56, 7 August 2006 Keep Site has existed for over 9,000 years! –Vegeta (talk), 16:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)A commonly seen argument at AfD is ""Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable"". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube. This does not apply to the position taken in WP:NUMBER that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold. === Subjective importance === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. –Iknownothing (talk), 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC) Delete People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable. –Provincial (talk), 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Delete Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? –Notknownhere (talk), 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Keep I know it well. It's on my way to school. –Myneighborhood (talk), 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so he should have an article about him. –Smalltownboy (talk), 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Keep Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. –OnlySchool (talk), 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A person may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community, it's likely (but not always the case) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable. This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions. === Crystal ball === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep This movement may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. –Youwillsee (talk), 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Of course this unreleased single is notable. It's by The Scrotums. –Mycrystalballisinforservice (talk), 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Keep We all know there will be a presidential election in 2032. –Everyone's a psychic (talk), 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Delete This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. –Shortattentionspan (talk), 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not. === Past inaction by sources === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete None of the source coverage would have occurred had the one event not occurred. –Lookherenotthere (talk), 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Keep Subject did not get the media coverage it deserved at the time because reasons, so Wikipedia should waive its reliable sourcing requirements in order to rectify that unfairness. –FixThePast (talk), 21:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of why people did not take notice in the past. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not. Note however that articles have been deleted under WP:BLP1E even when the subject's earlier actions were reported in the press (at a much later date) as a result of later actions (and in the context of those). === Past inaction by editors === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Nobody has added sources to the article, so it's not notable. – ArticleNotNotable (talk), 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)In general, articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, note that per the Biographies of living persons policy page, all BLP articles must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (See also § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.) === Notability is inherited === Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. Nor does it apply to speedy deletion or proposed deletion, as they are not deletion discussions. It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep She once worked with someone famous –Keeper (talk), 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) Keep This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too. –All the trees in the forest (talk), 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) Keep Is found in a navbox together with other similar or related articles. –Member of the club (talk), 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) Keep It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. –Wheredoesitend (talk), 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Keep his brother is a notable athlete. –Family Tree (talk), 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. –Adrian Listmaker (talk), 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Keep The artist is famous, so the album is notable. –The internet's busiest music nerd (talk), 9:29 15 August 2015 (UTC) Keep It's a high school; high schools are notable. –SchoolDaze (talk), 9:29 15 September 2015 (UTC) Keep They've given millions of dollars to a notable charity/school/hospital, which named a building after them. Here's a link to a press release! -Eleemosynary (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2022 Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. –Class Warfare (talk), 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Delete she's only the U.S. President's wife –First Lady (talk), 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. This is usually phrased as ""All ____ are notable"", for example, ""all high schools are notable"" or ""no elementary schools are notable"". Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as ""____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."" Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence. They are only mere personal opinion as in the examples above. Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child ""tree"") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an ""inherited notability"" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums. Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited ""up"", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable. Donations of significant amounts of money naturally are reciprocated by a certain amount of publicity, including press releases and even naming of buildings or entire academic departments. The mere giving of money in and of itself does not make the donor notable, and press releases (or routine coverage based on such press releases) will not satisfy WP:GNG. The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar. Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. This does not mean that such associations are never claims of significance (significance is a lower standard than notability, used for sections A7, A9, and A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion); it simply means that the association does not by itself make the subject notable. Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion; subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be merged or redirected to the article on the associated subject (see also the Just not notable section above). See also Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Summary Style. === Lots of sources === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep: there are many, many, many sources available. –IFoundLotsofSources (talk), 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Keep: Did you even look for sources? –SourceSearcher (talk), 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject, rather than a hopeless stub. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites. By the same token, do not base a keep argument solely on how many footnotes are present in the article. It is possible to generate footnotes by reference bombing it with dozens of footnotes that aren't actually building notability at all: social media posts, directory entries, blogs, sources that tangentially verify stray facts without actually mentioning the article subject at all, and so forth. The article's sources need to be measured for their quality and depth, in addition to the number of sources. === Wikipedias in other languages === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples Keep given the six interwiki links (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. –Interwikis=Notability (talk), 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Delete No interwiki –TrappedBehindTheLanguageBarrier (talk), 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article Jean Moufot was first posted on Netherlands Wikipedia and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it. On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted. It may be the case that nobody has yet written an article on another language's Wikipedia or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the case that the topic is notable in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. === What about article x? === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep Look, if we have an article on Pokémon species, we should be able to have an article on this band. – PokePerson (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. – Bleigh Tant Marqueter (talk), 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete You guys forced me to delete the article on a CEO, so you have to allow me to delete the article on this activist. – NoFair (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. From the logical perspective, this argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as ""appeal to worse problems"" or ""not as bad as""). Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. For this very reason, WAX arguments in AFD discussions sometimes backfire, by directly causing the other article to be immediately nominated for deletion. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. Note that this criterion also applies to the argument that an article has to be kept because it's a straight translation of an article that already exists in another language Wikipedia. All Wikipedias are vulnerable to the creation of articles about non-notable topics, and different-language Wikipedias may apply different notability standards to certain classes of topic — so the existence of an article on the French or Swedish or Urdu Wikipedias is not in and of itself an automatic exemption from the topic still having to clear the English Wikipedia's existing standards of sourcing and notability. Again, it may be that the other-language article needs to be deleted as well, and just hasn't been noticed by that Wikipedia's responsible editors yet. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say ""x was kept so this should be too"". However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an ""Other Stuff Exists"" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. When an editor introduces a novel type of article in Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of article doesn't exist because of inherent violations of core policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate. (See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and Wikipedia:Pokémon test.) ==== Other categories exist ==== The accepted practice around OSE applies differently to categories, because in some cases consistency is a desired trait of categorization schemes. For example, categorization guidance explicitly makes an exception for the creation of smaller-than-normal categories (WP:SMALLCAT) if such categories are part of an established scheme – as such an appeal to ""Other similar categories exist"" may be appropriate at times. Likewise, WP:CFD nominations regularly point out, for a new scheme, that ""Other stuff doesn't exist"" – in other words, this is a new scheme that would imply creation of many hundreds or thousands of new categories if expanded globally, and there may not be consensus for expanding it more broadly. As such, an appeal to ""Other similar category schemes don't – and shouldn't – exist"" may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category. There are no hard and fast rules here, and there are cases where existence (or non-existence) of one scheme does not have much bearing on whether a similar scheme should be created in a different tree, but it should be noted that OSE/OCE arguments tend to apply differently in category space than they do in article space. === All or nothing === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles about X. –AllOrNothing (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles about X, so this needs to go too. –NothingOrAll (talk), 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. That said, there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion. === Wikipedia should be about everything === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. –AllInclusive (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Keep You are trying to remove true information! –AllTruthful (talk), 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep This thing exists, so it should be included. –JohnPaulSartre&Ringo (talk), 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Per WP:NOTPAPER, Wikipedia has space for it –JohnPaulSartre&Ringo (talk), 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, ""all branches of knowledge"" does not necessarily mean ""everything"". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what articles should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not ""everything"" and not an indiscriminate collection of anything verifiable. So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia. === Do not lose the information or the effort === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep because we would lose the information otherwise. –Essential Essential (talk), 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Delete because the information is available elsewhere. –Redundant Redundant (talk), 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Keep Lots of people have worked on this. –TheyWorked (talk), 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines. In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Note that an argument from WP:PRESERVE does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion when material has been merged, as all contribution information may be lost, invalidating the licensing for the article. Deleted work can be restored to your personal page or to the draft namespace on request to an administrator. It is also usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review. === Better here than there === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Example: Keep If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article –APlaceForEverything (talk), 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called ""trivia"" or ""in popular culture"" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as ""use in fiction"" or ""cultural influences"", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Wikipedia. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. === That's only a guideline, proposal or essay === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. –DissentingView (talk), 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Delete WP:Notability (ABC) is only a proposal. –Idontlikeproposals (talk), 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Delete WP:XYZ is only a guideline. –GuidelinesNoGood (talk), 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting ""WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this"", but rather ""I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why"". Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Proposals, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as ""only an essay"" or ""only a proposal"" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. ""The page you linked to is an essay or proposal"" is not one of them. Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest ""WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it"". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's ""guideline"" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made. In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy. Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for departing from their guidance. === Arguments to the person === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. –BrandLoyalty (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Delete Creator has made only 27 edits so far. –NewbieHater (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. –BadNom (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Delete Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. –BadCreator (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Keep, nominator is a banned user trying to destroy Wikipedia. –Tenacious Defender (talk), 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Keep Politically motivated nomination. –POVPusher (talk), 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Delete Creator has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. And even though this page was created before their block, even so! –Indefinite Discriminator (talk), 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions. There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions. Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help. However, pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be speedily deleted, if there're no substantial edits by others. Such pages must be tagged with {{db-g5|name of banned user}} or {{db-banned|name of banned user}}. This criteria does not apply to pages created before the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban). As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found. === Repeated nominations === Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep Didn't we argue all this last month? –DejaVu (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. –Yawner (talk), 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Delete It's already had a bunch of AFDs, obviously people want it deleted. –TryAgain (talk), 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend ""Keep"" (or even ""speedy keep""), arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article. Repeated nominations for deletion do not necessarily indicate that the article is problematic. No extra weight is given to the rationales offered by nominators over rationales offered, whether for or against deletion, by other discussion participants. An article's survival of multiple AFDs indicates that the reasons given by the nominators, along with those given by others in favor of deletion, repeatedly didn't prevail over the arguments given by those who were opposed. === Blackmail === Examples: Keep If we don't keep this why should I even edit at all? —It stays or I go (talk), 11:31, 1 May 2001 (UTC) Delete This is the last straw. If we keep this Wikipedia isn't worth my time any more. —It goes or I go (talk), 13:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Keep Nobody will edit if we delete this. Aren't we losing editors? —Wikipedia is dying (talk), 01:01, 1 April 1900 (UTC) Delete A media pundit criticized Wikipedia for having this kind of article. —Just want them to like us (talk), 19:89 December 13, 1989 (UTC)Editors sometimes issue ultimatums to get their way, threatening to quit editing. Or they will claim that current or future editors will be driven off by the wrong outcome. Similarly, an editor's desired outcome is tied to some outside criticism of Wikipedia, often in connection with statistics on the decline in new editors, or criticism of the reliability of Wikipedia. It may be valid to argue that a decision will move the encyclopedia closer to, or away from, what Wikipedia is not but a relevant argument should focus on the merits of the article. === Citing greater problems === Examples: Keep The fact that this is marked for deletion while Foo isn't says a lot about the state of this website. —We Live In A Society 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Keep This discussion is a prime example of the inherent fooism and barism of online communities. Let's not reinforce such things. —Internet Justice Police 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Keep Of course any male editors (84%!) don't think this is notable, they just can't see female perspectives. —All Women's Official Spokesperson 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Keep Nonsense like this is exactly why we're losing editors! Do the site a favor and close this already. —This Will Bring Them All Back 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Delete This article has long been an insult to Wikipedia and our standards. —Begin The Purge 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Delete Let's rid this site of Foo-political bias. —Bar Politics Fan 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Wikipedia and related projects has a lot of problems, both proven and alleged, both big and small. There is a lot of bias, women are greatly underrepresented, and there are often allegations and concerns about power abuse and how to handle it. But a deletion discussion is about a specific article and not a place to right great wrongs with Wikipedia. Pointing out bias and abusive user behavior is not wrong, but doing nothing beside that does not contribute to consensus-building. Even if the outcome of a discussion could be considered problematic, Wikipedia is not governed like a court system and individual cases will usually not set an example for the future. If you believe the opposing side in a discussion is an example of one of Wikipedia's greater issues, explain this to them in relation to the article itself and existing policy – do not view the discussion as being ""symbolically"" about settling right from wrong for the whole website. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the site unrelated to the discussion you find yourself in, you should venues such as the Village pump, the Teahouse or one of the other places for centralized discussion. === Citing this page indiscriminately === Examples: Keep. All the ""delete"" !voters are just saying WP:PERNOM. —Bucking the trend (talk), 12:01 1 January 2017 (UTC) Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. —Stuff stuffity stuff (talk), 13:25 2 January 2017 (UTC)Used effectively, this page can be used to point out common types of fallacious reasoning. However, participants must still give a valid rationale in support of their position, rather than merely exposing the flaws in their opponents' reasoning. Moreover, they are not always bad arguments to make. If five people have !voted to delete per nom and you're the only person considering whether to keep the article, maybe the nominator has laid out the case so well that no more needs to be said. Also, some stuff exists for a reason. === Outcomes based === Example: Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that we keep secondary schools so this article should be kept —School spirit guy (talk), 12:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an effective summary of how deletion discussions on Wikipedia tend to be resolved, but using it as the only argument for keeping or deleting an article can lead to circular reasoning. Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions. The results of this February 2017 RFC on secondary school notability describe how school AFDs should be evaluated. Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Keep It does not matter if it is original research, or non verifiable. It's notable. –Original scientist (talk), 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Keep It is verifiable, therefore it is not original research. –VerifiableOR (talk), 00:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Keep The nominator's argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –You Know Who Else Had A Toothbrush Moustache (talk), 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Delete The arguments for keeping are basically WP:ITSUSEFUL. –I Am Weightless, I Am Rust (talk), 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Keep The nominator did not perform the steps in WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article is notable. –Use Head Before Hand (talk), 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Delete The ""keep"" arguments contain a logical WP:FALLACY.Wholly Chao (talk), 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. It basically consists in confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. All Wikipedia policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient. If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies: original research may be verifiable; articles which seem to be notable may be original research; notable biographies may be a violation of WP:BLP. The policies should be interpreted together and not alone. Factors that do not automatically render notability Avoid repeating arguments Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Encourage full discussions Liar Liar Pants on Fire Nothing Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid (index of essays on this theme) Wikipedia:Beyond civility Wikipedia:List of policies to cite in deletion debates User:Hiding/What notability is not User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates Wikipedia:Does deletion help Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Wikipedia:Discussing cruft Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability Wikipedia:Follow the leader Wikipedia:Myths and facts about deletion Wikipedia:I don't see why not!" 2 2 2 WP:verify notability Wikipedia:Notability 2 "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or ""worthy of notice"". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ""Presumed"" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that ""In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. ""Reliable"" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. ""Sources"" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. ""Independent of the subject"" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. === Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article === The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of ""significant coverage"" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is ""notable"" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already ""taken notice of it"". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability. Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept. Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City). What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap). Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. We require ""significant coverage"" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.) We require the existence of ""reliable sources"" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information. We require that all articles rely primarily on ""third-party"" or ""independent sources"" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the ""multiple"" requirement. We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). === Self-promotion and publicity === Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received. === Events === Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews may cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering. === Stand-alone lists === Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as ""List of Xs"" or ""Xs"") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as ""Lists of X of Y"") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. === Fringe topics === For guidance on fringe topics, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting: If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page. Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material. An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages for different aspects of notability can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia's article on Notability in the English Wikipedia. For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Notability and Category:Wikipedia essays about notability. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources Wikipedia:Viability of lists Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?] Wikipedia:Recentism Wikipedia:Relevance of content Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability {{assess table}} and {{source assess}}, two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article MOS:NOTE: Manual of Style on ""Instructional and presumptuous language""" 3 3 4 WP:IBP Wikipedia:Republishers 3 Republishers reproduce Wikipedia content wholesale in hard copy, usually for profit. The licensing terms may or may not be properly included in the publication. Publications that include some content from a Wikimedia project are not considered as republished. Using these republishers on Wikipedia Republishers are not reliable sources and not acceptable external links in articles per the verifiability policy. Articles that use a republished work as a source should be edited to either remove the work or to tag the source with {{Circular-ref}}. Leave {{backwardscopy}} on the article's talk page to identify Wikipedia as the original source. Legality of republishing Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit printing in hard copies. Republication is legal, so long as the licenses are complied with. Effect of non-compliance with licenses If the license is not complied with, then the republication is a copyright violation. You own the copyright to your contributions, not the Wikimedia Foundation. Legally, the Wikimedia Foundation is in the same position as the republishers (except that the WMF always complies with your license terms), because the WMF is republishing your copyrighted content under your license. If someone violates the terms of the license, then enforcement needs to come from the copyright owner. Consequently, complaints about violations need to be made by a person who actually wrote part of the improperly republished material.Note: While some republishers do not even attempt to use properly issued ISBNs, noting those that do enables circular refs to be spotted more easily. === Books LLC === === USA International Business Publications/International Business Publications === === Jean-Pierre Hombach (author) === === Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing === === eM Publications === === Global Vision Publishing House (publisher) === === Hephaestus Books === === VDM Publishing === VDM Publishing is the largest known republisher and operates at least 78 imprints: Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books 4 4 5 WP:ROADS Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways 4 6.8% List-Class 40.2% Stub-Class 26% Start-Class 15.3% C-Class 6.5% B-Class 4.8% GA-Class 0.1% A-Class 0.4% FA-Class WikiProject Highways is a wikiproject that aims primarily to standardize the format used in articles about highways, including freeways, expressways, throughways, and other major forms of road. A major part of this is the connectivity of highways and the analogous connectivity of their articles. The scope and aims of this project are likely to change in this early stage. If you are interested in joining, add yourself to the participants page. This project sets the standards for countries that do not have a country roads WikiProject yet. These standards are intended to be loose so that they are applicable worldwide. In addition to this, this project sets a few standards for country roads WikiProjects that do exist, to ensure uniformity across all highways articles. === Parentage === The parent of this project is WikiProject Transport. === Subprojects and task forces === === Similar projects === For the analogous lists for the various subprojects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Recognized content, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Recognized content, or Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Recognized content. === Featured articles === === Featured lists === === A-Class articles === === Featured pictures === === Good articles === === Did you know? articles === === In the News articles === === Main page featured articles === === Picture of the day pictures === The Assessment Department has resources related to the assessment of articles under the project's scope, including the project quality log. In addition, the project maintains A-Class Review and Peer Review forums. The department page also has directions on which talk page banners to use to assess articles under the project's scope. === Article alerts === Did you know 26 Mar 2023 – R319 road (Ireland) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Ritchie333 (t · c); see discussion 20 Feb 2023 – Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Red-tailed hawk (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 26 Mar 2023 – Autovía A-318 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Reywas92 (t · c); see discussion (5 participants) 26 Mar 2023 – C-13 highway (Spain) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 19 Mar 2023 – M13 (Cape Town) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – M58 (Cape Town) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted) 15 Mar 2023 – Highways in England and Wales (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted) 18 Mar 2023 – N25 Carrigtwohill-Cobh Interchange (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Rschen7754 (t · c) was closed as delete by Eddie891 (t · c) on 25 Mar 2023; see discussion (9 participants) 15 Mar 2023 – Settlements on the A38 (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Rschen7754 (t · c) was closed as delete by Guerillero (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023; see discussion (9 participants)Redirects for discussion 09 Feb 2023 – Oiled (road) (talk · edit · hist) →Asphalt concrete was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 18 Mar 2023 – N82 road (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to N82 road (Ireland) by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Autotoll (talk · edit · hist) move request to Autotoll Limited by Autotoll-hk (t · c) was closed; see discussionArticles to be merged 15 Mar 2023 – List of the highest roads in Scotland (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of highest paved roads in Europe by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – List of bridges designed by John Carr (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to John Carr (architect) by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion 31 Dec 2022 – Backroad (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Country lane by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion 31 Dec 2022 – Country lane (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Backroad by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion 31 Dec 2022 – List of road types by features (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Types of road by Rschen7754 (t · c); see discussion Each article should have an infobox, which is typically Infobox road, and a lead section which introduces all the article sections. The first sentence should provide a definition of the article subject, including location. If there is another common abbreviation for the subject, state it in the lead section. A map and image help the article. This is an example of map layout adopted by the U.S. Roads WP. The use of lists is discouraged; prose or tables should be used when more appropriate. For further exploration of road article structure, see road articles that are Featured Articles or any of the subprojects. === Infobox === As of 2010, the standard infobox, {{infobox road}}, has been updated to accommodate roads worldwide, and the subtemplates have been set up already for these countries. There is also {{infobox road junction}} for articles on individual junctions or interchanges. === Maps and images === Use a standard highway map style. Identify articles about highways and routes that need maps and place a regional request map template on the talk page. For further information see Images and media or Commons map resources. Identify and categorize existing historical highway maps, and list them at here. Add {{Image requested}} to the talk page of the road article, the request will end up in one of these Wikipedia requested photographs in places categories. === Route description === Each article should have a prose description of the route. One uniform direction should be followed; for example, in the United States, all route descriptions progress from south to north and from west to east. === History / Future === Where applicable, each article should have a history section and / or a future section, describing past and present affairs of this route. Details in the future section must be verifiable and not speculation, per WP:CRYSTAL. === Junction list / Exit list === Each article should have a list of junctions, or where applicable, a list of exits. This is normally not just a list; it needs to be in a table format. Exit lists need to follow MOS:RJL, the international road junction list section of the Manual of Style, as well. Here is a page of junction templates. === Stub sorting === The most general stub type for road and highway articles is {{road-stub}}. Use the most specific stub type applicable which are listed on the specific geographical wikiprojects listed above. Multiple stub templates can be used on a stub, but avoid adding more than two stub templates to any specific article. In order to create a new stub type, identify at least around 50 articles that would fall into the proposed stub category and then make a proposal on the WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals page. === Categories === The most general category for highway and road articles is Category:Roads Use the most specific categories applicable, deferring to the above only when the existing categories are not appropriate. Do not place articles into both a category and that category's parent category, but use the more specific of the two. Please help add comprehensive coverage worldwide on the Roads portal, and if there are any additions which could be made from many countries or regions that would be appreciated. For instance, a successful DYK could be added. Feel free to directly add quality, or featured road-related images or panoramas. If a photo is not recognised by being classified as quality or featured, then it should be of finer quality like would be in a magazine or print encyclopaedia. A portal showcases Wikipedia's finer work, in this case the roads portal showcases Wikipedia's finer roads-related works worldwide. Feel free to directly add Featured, A-Class or Good roads-content articles to the portal's selected article list. Articles on this list are now rotated automatically through the portal. Other articles may be nominated here. Assessment Department including: A-Class Review—the review forum to award A-Class status to articles. Countries list —list of countries and the state of their highway articles. Precedents—past precedents that have affected the project. 5 5 7 WP:D Wikipedia:Disambiguation 5 "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. For example, Mercury can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. There are three important aspects to disambiguation: Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called ""Mercury"" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title. For example, an editor of an astronomy article may have created a link to Mercury, and this should be corrected to point to Mercury (planet). Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. For example, the page Mercury is a disambiguation page—a non-article page which lists various meanings of ""Mercury"" and which links to the articles that cover them. (As discussed below, however, ambiguous terms do not always require a disambiguation page.)This page discusses the standard ways of handling the above issues. For detailed advice about the format of disambiguation pages, see the style manual. Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. There are three principal disambiguation scenarios, of which the following are examples: The page at Joker is a disambiguation page, leading to all the alternative uses of Joker. The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed.For how to decide which of these scenarios is appropriate in a given case, consider the following sections. If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a Foo primary concept or type, those should be included on a Foo (disambiguation) page. For example: Particle (previously a disambiguation page) is a broad and abstract concept used to address many different ideas in physics, generally relating to small units from which larger things are composed. Although there are many different kinds of particles at levels ranging from the subatomic to the macroscopic, the broad concept is properly susceptible to explanation in an article. Truly unrelated meanings, such as Particle (band), are presented only at Particle (disambiguation). A Supreme court, National trust, or Finance minister (or Ministry of Finance) is each a kind of entity occurring in multiple countries and possibly in other political entities and serving the same purpose in each. Rather than having disambiguation pages at these titles linking to existing articles on these entities by nation, each should contain an article describing in general terms what the concept is and how the different examples of this concept relate to each other. The Microsoft Lumia is a cell phone with many different design models. The fact that different models in the same series of product by the same manufacturer may have the same name, or the same combination of name and number, does not make them ambiguous. The relationship between these design models can and should be discussed on a page describing products created by or licensed by the same manufacturer. Central Asia, Northern Europe, and Southern United States are geographic designations that have been used with respect to different specific boundaries over time. Varying uses for broad geographic terms can be discussed in the context of an article describing the overall agreement of which areas definitely fall within that designation and which areas are only occasionally described as falling within that designation, for certain purposes. Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word ""football"" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article. Football (disambiguation) describes the various literal uses of the word including the actual balls. Many definitions of triangle center are used in Euclidean geometry, which coincide only in the special case of equilateral triangles. The article lists a dozen of these and also gives a validity criterion applicable to various definitions of center.In writing articles on these subjects, it is useful to directly address the scope of the term and the history of how the concept has developed. Each of the examples of the concept or type of thing should be included at some point in the article, possibly in a list, so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format. Consider using summary style to incorporate information about the subtopics into the main article. Pages needing to be expanded to describe the concept may be tagged with {{Broad-concept article}}. Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above. While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. === Determining a primary topic === There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include: WikiNav, which can compare outgoing traffic from a given disambiguation page. Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for the exact title of a page or a redirect) and redirect traffic statistics (for the total views of a page including traffic coming from its redirects). Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google Ngram viewer, Books, Scholar, News, and Trends. Simple web searches may be problematic due to limited sources, open interpretation, and personal search bias, but may be helpful if other methods are inconclusive. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere (their count).Some general principles for determining a primary topic include: While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Boston, Massachusetts is the primary topic for Boston, not the English town from which it took its name. A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. An attorney may read the word hearing and immediately think of a courtroom, but the auditory sense is still the primary topic. ==== Not ""what first comes to (your) mind"" ==== Perhaps the most commonly rejected criterion is that the primary topic should only belong to what ""first comes to mind"". This argument is inevitably tainted by the personal background, location, biases, ethnicity, and other pieces of one's own life, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is untainted by systemic bias. The primary topic is therefore determined without regard to (for example) the national origin, if any, of the article or articles in question. Because many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what ""first comes to mind"". An American might first think of the city in Alabama when Birmingham is mentioned, but primary topic belongs to the city in England, which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often. A Scot might think of the Scottish city when the city of Perth is referred to, but the primary topic belongs to the Australian city for essentially the same reasons as for Birmingham. Raleigh takes you directly to the American city, even though a Brit may not even know of the city and only think of the explorer or bicycle manufacturer when Raleigh is mentioned. What first comes to your mind when you hear the word Java? It may be coffee or a programming language, but the primary topic belongs to the island with over 140 million people living on it. Partial title matches should also be considered. Consider what users searching with the term in question are most likely to be seeking. For instance, New York City is a partial title match for ""York"" and is far more notable and likely to be sought (more page views) than is the British city from which it got its name, and the vast majority of the time that ""York"" is used in books, it is used in the names ""New York City"" and its containing state of ""New York"". However, since users are unlikely to search for New York with the search term ""York"", which is supported by the rare use of unqualified ""York"" to refer to ""New York"" in reliable sources, York still hosts an article on the British city, and no suggestion to change that would be seriously entertained. Likewise, ""Sofia"" has been the first name of countless girls and women throughout history; however, as a single term it most commonly refers to the Bulgarian capital, and anyone searching with plain ""Sofia"" is most likely looking for that city.To be clear, it is not our goal to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic. Anne Hathaway, as one of countless examples, takes the reader to the modern-day American movie star's page, not to the article on the wife of William Shakespeare. But in no case do ""what comes first to mind"" or ""what is astonishing"" have much bearing, either positive or negative, on which topic, if any, actually is the primary topic. === Redirecting to a primary topic === The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. For example: The city which is the subject of the article on Gdańsk used to be called Danzig in English, but is now usually referred to as Gdańsk. Thus the primary topic for ""Danzig"" is this city; Danzig redirects to Gdańsk, and the latter page contains a {{redirect}} hatnote linking to Danzig (disambiguation). The primary topic for ""ovens"" is the cooker but because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) the article is titled Oven. Here Ovens redirects to Oven, and a hatnote then links to Ovens (disambiguation). The primary topic for the search term ""Einstein"" is the physicist, but the article title is Albert Einstein. Here Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, and a hatnote then links to Einstein (disambiguation). The article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: ""defamation"", ""libel"", ""slander"", ""vilification"", and ""calumny"". Even though there is a film with the title Libel, the article at Defamation is still the primary topic for that title and the film must be disambiguated.There are times when a disambiguated article title, such as Apostrophe (punctuation), may be moved to its base name (unqualified title) based on a consensus that this is the primary topic for the unqualified term. When such a page move is made, the redirect template {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} should be used to categorize the redirect that results from the move under Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. Using the above example, Apostrophe (punctuation) would redirect as follows (where Apostrophe's topic is primary): #REDIRECT [[Apostrophe]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from move}} {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} }} === Primary topic when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name === When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name (all other suggested articles are red-linked), the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic. So: If the article with the blue link is the primary topic, it should be the primary landing page (possibly via a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). The disambiguation page should be at a page with the (disambiguation) qualifier. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be the primary landing page. On the rare occasions that a red-linked article would be the primary topic, the situation is treated as if there is no primary topic until the red-linked article is written.Please note, MOS:DABMENTION still applies: any red-linked entry must still have a blue link to an article that covers the redlinked topic. As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page. For example, Inflation is about the primary topic—a rise in prices—and a hatnote links to both Inflation (cosmology) and Inflation (disambiguation). === No primary topic === If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but there is no primary topic (per the criteria at § Is there a primary topic?), then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia: === Primary topic with only one other topic === If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article. If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) If an existing disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future, an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article). At the same time, the {{One other topic}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, one of them primary; thus it may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page. The {{One other topic}} template will also list the article in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic, allowing other editors to locate these pages and help in expanding them. If the two-dab page has been expanded to include additional ambiguous topics, {{One other topic}} template should be removed and a direct link in the primary article to the other article may not be needed anymore as a link to the disambiguation page alone may be sufficient. === Primary topic with two or more other topics === If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. === Different spelling variants === If the titles of two articles differ only in capitalization, pluralization, spacing, or punctuation (as per WP:DIFFCAPS or WP:PLURALPT), the articles each should contain a hatnote to link to each other: for example, Ice cube and Ice Cube. For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available: Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. Comma-separated disambiguation. Ambiguous geographic names are often disambiguated by adding the name of a higher-level administrative division, separated by a comma, as in Windsor, Berkshire. See Naming conventions (geographic names). Parenthetical disambiguation. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (emblem); or the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (cosmology); or rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, as in Vector (spatial), but it is usually better to rephrase such a title to avoid parentheses (for instance, Vector (spatial) was renamed to Euclidean vector).Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation; for instance, Fan district and hand fan are used instead of Fan (district) and fan (implement). If no unambiguous, commonly used, and clear natural disambiguation is available, another type of disambiguation is used. If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use ""(mythology)"" rather than ""(mythological figure)"". Naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas are listed in the box to the right; these often contain detailed guidance about how to disambiguate. In particular, for articles about people, see the Disambiguating section in the people naming convention. === Format === To conform to the naming conventions, the phrase in parentheses should be treated just as any other word in a title: normally lowercase, unless it is a proper noun (like a book title) that would appear capitalized even in running text. For common disambiguation words, see User:Jarry1250/Findings. Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore, any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates shown below. Disambiguation hatnotes are not article content—they are associated with the title, rather than any article topic content. In some cases there are multiple templates available, one including and another omitting information about the topic of the article. The shorter hatnote may be chosen if omitting the information is not likely to confuse the reader. On a primary topic page for a term that has one secondary topic only (no disambiguation page): Type {{about|TOPIC|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} to produce: Type {{for|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} to produce:On a secondary topic page for a term that has one other topic only (no disambiguation page): As above, but consider whether the hatnote is really necessary (see the first of the usage guidelines below).On a primary topic page that has an associated disambiguation page: Type {{about|TOPIC}} to produce: Type {{other uses}} to produce: or, if the disambiguation page is not in the default location, type {{other uses|NAME}} to produce:When the primary topic redirects to another page: If there is only one secondary topic, type {{redirect|REDIRECT|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} on the target page to produce: If there is a disambiguation page, type {{redirect|REDIRECT}} to produce:Other variations on these templates are available, including templates for specific subjects such as places, numbers, etc. Templates are listed and illustrated at Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Templates. === Usage guidelines === It is usually preferable not to add disambiguation hatnotes to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. However, for some topics this is a good idea. For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation), since many users might not know that there is more than one treaty with this name, and we cannot predict what external search engines will link to. In other cases, such a hatnote is not necessary. For example, Mirror (1975 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of ""Mirror"", and most users will know to type Mirror in the search box to find other topics. As noted above, disambiguation hatnotes should be placed at the top of an article, where they are most visible. For alternatives that are related to the article but are not a source of ambiguity, the ""See also"" section at the end of the article is more appropriate. Do not use piping to change the title of disambiguation entry links. Showing the actual linked entry title avoids confusion. (Piping may be used for formatting or technical reasons; see the Manual of Style exceptions.) Consolidate multiple disambiguation links into as few disambiguation hatnotes as possible. See Wikipedia:Hatnote for other guidelines on the proper use of disambiguation hatnotes. === Combining terms on disambiguation pages === A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include: Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. These should almost always share a disambiguation page. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe). Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms, or compound words. For example, the terms Eaglenest, Eagle Nest, Eagle's Nest and Eagle Nests all appear at Eagle's Nest, and Stars (disambiguation) redirects to Star (disambiguation). Variant spellings. For example, Honor and Honour both appear at Honor (disambiguation). Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith. Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article (e.g. ""a"", ""an"", or ""the"" in English). For example, Cure (disambiguation) also contains instances of The Cure.Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above. If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the disambiguation page into separate pages. When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it (or hatnotes, as appropriate) should be set up from all the terms involved. === Naming the disambiguation page === The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag ""(disambiguation)"" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation). When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the ""(disambiguation)"" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term); the choice should be made in line with the following principles: A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM. When no word can be formed, all capitals is preferred. For example, the disambiguation page for ""ddb"" is DDB, not ""Ddb"". English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages. Singulars are preferred to plurals. The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles; for example SA is preferred to S.A., and Shadow (disambiguation) is preferred to The Shadow (disambiguation). The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.In addition, when a disambiguation page exists at the ambiguous term, there should also be a redirect to it from the ""(disambiguation)"" title; in other words, if ""Term ABC"" is a disambiguation page, a redirect from ""Term ABC (disambiguation)"" should be created if it does not already exist. This type of redirect is used to indicate any intentional links to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from accidental or erroneous incoming links that should be disambiguated to the appropriate article. === Page style === Each disambiguation page comprises a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly titled links. Link to the primary topic (if there is one): A school is an institution for learning. Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment with the title in bold, and ending with a colon. For example: Blockbuster may refer to: Try to start each entry in the list with a link to the target page, unless the link provided gives context rather than a synonymous meaning. Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself (see the previous bullet), or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link; including more than one link can confuse the reader. Do not pipe the names of the links to the articles being listed. (See exceptions.) Entries are sentence fragments; do not end them with periods or other punctuation.Include the template {{disambiguation}} (or another disambiguation template, such as {{Geodis}} or {{Hndis}}) at the bottom as an indicator of the page's status. For more information, see the relevant Manual of Style subpage. For prime examples of disambiguation pages, see Lift and Aurora (disambiguation). === What not to include === ==== Long descriptions ==== The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a topic to the right page. It is common to add a little additional information (which may make reference to the full article unnecessary). For example, the disambiguation page for Roosevelt contains the entry ""Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), 32nd U.S. president"". On the other hand, ""Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), US president 1933–1945, Democratic Party, a central figure in world events, creator of the New Deal, in a wheelchair from polio since 1921, died in office"" would be inappropriate; it summarises the article rather than merely disambiguating. ==== Dictionary definitions ==== A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary. It is also not an interlanguage dictionary; while Geneva is Ginebra in Spanish and other languages, Ginebra is not listed in the Geneva article, so the Ginebra disambiguation page should not include Geneva. ==== Partial title matches ==== A disambiguation page is not a search index. A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them, is considered a partial title match, and should not be included. For example, Louisville Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because people outside Louisville would not readily identify it as the ""Zoo"", and including all zoos in the world in the disambiguation page is impractical (though List of zoos is listed in the ""See also"" section). Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the US state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called ""the Mississippi"". Placenames are often divided between a specific and generic part, for example North Carolina (where ""Carolina"" is the specific, and ""North"" the generic part). Common generics are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to include such placenames in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally under the generic title: Kingston upon Hull is properly listed at Hull (disambiguation) but we do not expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)). Instead of listing partial title matches, consider adding the {{look from}} or {{intitle}} templates in the ""See also"" section, which link to all articles starting with or containing a particular term, respectively. ==== Lists of names ==== To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified ""Lincoln"", so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named ""Herb"", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named ""Herb"" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page. ==== Related subjects ==== Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For example, a use of the term set is discussed in the article on volleyball, so Set (disambiguation) legitimately includes an entry for ""Set, a team's second contact with the ball in volleyball"". ==== Abbreviations, initials and acronyms ==== Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation—we are resolving an ambiguity, not making yet another dictionary of abbreviations. If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page. In particular, do not include people and other things simply because of their initials, unless those initials have been widely used. John Fitzgerald Kennedy is widely known as JFK and this is discussed in the article, so the initials are appropriately disambiguated; however, Marilyn Monroe was never commonly known as ""MM"", nor was A. A. Milne known as either ""AA"" or ""AAM"". Omit descriptions that are obvious from the title, like (for PNP): ""Philippine National Police, the national police force of the Republic of the Philippines"". ==== Sister projects ==== Disambiguation entries can, under certain circumstances, be created for articles that exist in a Wikipedia in another language. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Entries where the content is on any other sister project, like Wikidata or Wikivoyage, should not be created. ==== References ==== Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed. ==== External links ==== Do not include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page. === Preparation === Before constructing a new disambiguation page, determine a specific topic name for all existing pages, and the name for the disambiguation page. Move any page with a conflicting title (e.g. the same exact title) to its more specific name. Use the What links here list for the moved page to update pages that link to that page. === Construction === If an article has been moved to make way for the disambiguation page, use the What links here list of the moved page to access the redirect page created by the move, and replace that redirect page with the new disambiguation page. Use the new disambiguation page to find and replace (see Table of keyboard shortcuts#Text editing) any existing disambiguation links in existing pages with a link to the new disambiguation page. Note that the standard link templates will actually point to a Term XYZ (disambiguation) version of the new name. Use the red-link on an existing page to create a redirect page marked with the {{R to disambiguation page}} template. For example, Term XYZ (disambiguation) could be redirected to the new disambiguation page Term XYZ as follows: # REDIRECT [[Term XYZ]] {{R to disambiguation page}} === Categories === Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be categorized as such. Article categories should lead readers to relevant articles; disambiguation pages should be placed in disambiguation categories only. Some categories are automatically provided by use of the {{disambiguation}} template and parameters (geo, surname, etc.). Hidden categories may appear due to maintenance or other tags and templates, but other explicit categories (such as ""Category:Mountains of Fooland"") should not be used on disambiguation pages. When a disambiguation page includes a list of name-holders (in cases where the separate anthroponymy list article has not yet been created), explicit categories such as ""Category:Fooish surnames"" are acceptable on the disambiguation page until the anthroponymy article is split from the disambiguation page. === Deletion === Disambiguation pages can be listed for discussion at Articles for deletion. For uncontroversial cases, the simpler process of Proposed deletion is also an option. Disambiguation pages with no bluelinked entries, and those ending with (disambiguation) with only one bluelinked entry, can be summarily deleted using speedy deletion criterion G14. === Double disambiguation === A double disambiguation is a link to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page. This kind of disambiguation is typically more specific than one with a simplified name. This kind of disambiguation is relatively rare on Wikipedia. For example, Montgomery is a disambiguation page that includes a link to Montgomery County, a secondary disambiguation page. Because the intended target page is also a disambiguation page, the link is to ""Montgomery County (disambiguation)"" rather than directly to ""Montgomery County"". There are two reasons for this: One is so the page will not show up as an error needing to be fixed, and the other is so our readers know it is a link to a disambiguation page (see § Links to disambiguation pages for further information on creating intentional links to disambiguation pages). === Incomplete disambiguation === Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page (or to a section of it). This aids navigation and helps editors avoid accidentally creating new articles under the still-ambiguous title. Such redirects should be marked with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} (which places them under Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguation). For example, Aurora (album) is a redirect: # REDIRECT [[Aurora (disambiguation)#Albums]] {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page. For example, Cleveland (NFL) should not be a disambiguation page, but should instead redirect to List of Cleveland sports teams#Football. In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. As with any other term with a primary topic, it should either be the title of the article for that topic or redirect to it. See List of partially disambiguated article titles. A disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia should be connected to the corresponding disambiguation pages in other-language Wikipedias. In the default interface, these will be linked in a drop-down menu at the top (or, if using the pre-2022 settings, in Help:Interlanguage links § the sidebar). Such links are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking. === Links to disambiguated topics === Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link to a disambiguation page is intended for one or another of the topics with the ambiguous name, it should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them. Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created over a redirect, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. The resulting links will need to be corrected. For a handful of links, this can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by those who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed. === Links to disambiguation pages === Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports cannot distinguish cases where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through ""Foo (disambiguation)"" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page. For example: In text or in a ""See also"" section of an article that is not itself a disambiguation page: Incorrect: There are many places named [[Springfield]] Correct: There are many places named [[Springfield (disambiguation)|Springfield]] On a disambiguation page, an intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain ""(disambiguation)"" in the title: Incorrect: [[Springfield]] Incorrect: [[Springfield (disambiguation)|Springfield]] Incorrect: [[Springfield|Springfield (disambiguation)]] Correct: [[Springfield (disambiguation)]] In a hatnote: Incorrect: {{other uses|Springfield}} Correct: {{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation)}} Correct: {{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation){{!}}Springfield}}It may be necessary to create the redirect (""Springfield (disambiguation)"" in these examples) if it does not already exist. This is described below. ==== When to link to a disambiguation page ==== With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a list of articles that is likely to include what a reader is looking for when they have typed an ambiguous term into the search box. Disambiguation pages are not articles and so should not be tagged as orphans per the Orphan criteria. The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are: Disambiguation hatnotes: Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, which carries a hatnote linking to Watergate (disambiguation) for other uses. Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation. Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to John Laing (disambiguation). Exceptionally, in a ""See also"" list of interesting internal links where several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page. In a redirect page (below) ==== How to link to a disambiguation page ==== To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text ""(disambiguation)"", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect Springfield (disambiguation) rather than the target page at ""Springfield"". If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}. If you are linking within a template, such as a hatnote template, you can still use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. To do this, use the {{!}} character-substitution template.This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are ""cheap"" and are basically transparent to the reader. ==== Redirects to disambiguation pages ==== Valid causes for redirecting to a disambiguation page include: Incomplete disambiguation (see above) Redirects from misspellings: Britian redirects to the ""Britain"" disambiguation page. Redirects from alternative spellings if separate disambiguation pages are not warranted: Türk redirects to the Turk disambiguation page. Redirects from variations in capitalisation, word separation, or punctuation, if separate disambiguation pages are not warranted: Bullet Proof redirects to ""Bulletproof (disambiguation)"".The rule about linking through a ""(disambiguation)"" redirect does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages: Do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Bill Cox, a redirect from an alternative name, redirects to the disambiguation page and does not go through the redirect William Cox (disambiguation)). Although it is permissible for this redirect to be made, it generally should not be linked to in an article for the same reasons direct links to disambiguation pages are discouraged. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. ==== Visualizing links to disambiguation pages ==== Links to disambiguation pages can be displayed in orange in the settings under ""Gadgets"" by checking ""Display links to disambiguation pages in orange"". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts Help:Disambiguation Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Red links Wikipedia:Set index articles Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics, an essay Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects Dispenser's Dab solver, a tool for disambiguating links" 6 6 8 WP:NFP Wikipedia:Notability (films) 6 "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article. For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film. The general notability guideline states: ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."" The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article. Additional criteria for the evaluation of films are outlined in the sections below. One of the general notability guideline's criteria is that coverage should come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This section discusses a source's independence and reliability. Independence: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section's last paragraph regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent. Reliability: The content guideline to identify reliable sources says, ""Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."" Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable. If these sources also publish materials online, then it is usually fair to assume that these materials have a similar publication process (see WP:NEWSBLOG). If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully.To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, ""capsule reviews"", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. These criteria below are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is ""taught"" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. === Inclusionary criteria === Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as ""The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand"" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn) The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a ""major film studio"". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited. Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no ""sure thing"" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. Film character articles should follow the recommendations at WP:GNG and WP:NFICT before being created. If a film character was adapted from another medium or work, and the original incarnation of the character already has an article, a new article should not be created for the adptated version unless one of the following criteria has been met: This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight). This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy).Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article. Please also note that some franchises, such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force's WP:MCUCHARACTERS, have franchise-specific criteria which expand on this guideline. When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources: A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database, or similar databases, can provide valuable information including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability. Films which premiere at certain major film festivals (e.g. Toronto, Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Telluride) will very likely see reviews in significant WP:GNG-worthy publications within the next few days. A film's notability must not, however, depend on sourcing it to the film festivals' own self-published catalogues of their own film lineups; a film can screen at a major film festival and still not attain sufficient notability to qualify for an article. Wikipedia:Notability (media) Wikipedia:Notability (actors) Wikipedia:Notability (television) Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Film Notability, and Notability in general (user archived here) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_9#Please lend your voice to notability guideline discussions.21 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film" 7 7 9 WP:consensus can change Wikipedia:Consensus 7 "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal. === Through editing === Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work. Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute. Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to ""discuss"" the dispute every time they revert. === Through discussion === When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit-warring, abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions. === Consensus-building === Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help. ==== In talk pages ==== In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments ""I just don't like it"" and ""I just like it"" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible. Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others. ==== By soliciting outside opinions ==== When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows: Third opinion (3O) A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. Noticeboards Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions. Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved. Requests for comment (RfC) Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards. Village pump Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional editors who may help.Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. ==== Administrative or community intervention ==== In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice; as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent editors, as follows: Noticeboards As noted previously, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them. Administrators' noticeboard of incidents and general Administrators' noticeboard These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need. Requests for arbitration The final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) may rule on almost any behavioral or policy-interpretation aspect of a dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ArbCom does not settle content disputes or change policy. ==== Pitfalls and errors ==== The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus: Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust. Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona (""sock puppet"", or ""sock"") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, wikiprojects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to ""stuff the ballot box"" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive. Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as ""asking the other parent"".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. === Levels of consensus === Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others. === No consensus after discussion === For an essay recommending a best practice during discussion of contested material, see WP:QUO.What happens when a good faith discussion concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action? It depends on the context: When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept. However, in Redirects for discussion, no consensus closes may still lead to a retargeting or disambiguation. When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Copyright violation. When the material in question is a suspected copyright violation, it must be removed immediately and not restored when a discussion ends without consensus. External links. In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as ""against consensus"") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia. The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing. Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time. Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, and the sister wikis, are largely separate entities. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features (see meta:Limits to configuration changes), or accepting or rejecting some contributions, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. Information pages and Wikipedia essays concerning consensus: Wikipedia:Essay directory#Discussions and consensus Wikipedia:Consensus dos and don'ts Wikipedia:Closing discussions Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policiesArticles concerning consensus: Consensus decision-making False-consensus effect Truth by consensus" 8 8 11 WP:WWIN Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not 8 "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge. What to exclude is determined by an online community committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as things that Wikipedia is not. === Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia === Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. === Wikipedia is not a dictionary === Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Missing dictionary definitions should be transwikied there. Wikipedia articles are not: Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the definition of planet. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable. Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there. === Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought === Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Wikipedia is certainly not for things made up one day. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.) Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; WP does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles. === Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion === Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to ""climb soapboxes"", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has ""opinion"" pages allowing commentary on articles. Scandal mongering, promoting things ""heard through the grapevine"" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing.Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). === Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files === Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy. Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. === Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site === Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, nor a social-network game. It is not a place to host your own website, blog, wiki, résumé, or cloud. Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not: Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet service provider. The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. Wikipedia articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia. Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.) Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included.If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this. You do not own your userpage. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. === Wikipedia is not a directory === Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as ""people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y"" or ""restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth. === Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal === Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: Instruction manuals and cookbooks. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a ""how-to"" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the ""best"" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage. Game guides. An article about a game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE. As of a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples. FAQs. Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). Textbooks and annotated texts. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Scientific journals. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as ""Slate industry in Wales"" are fitting examples. Writing about ""Oak trees in North Carolina"" or ""Blue trucks"", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article. === Wikipedia is not a crystal ball === Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2036 U.S. presidential election and 2044 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; ""Tropical Storm Alberto (2024)"" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as ""septenquinquagintillion"") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and ""future history"" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on ""Weapons to be used in World War III"" is not. Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. === Wikipedia is not a newspaper === Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest. === Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information === To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1927 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included. Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. === Wikipedia is not censored === Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed. Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, ""being objectionable"" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes. === Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech === Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. === Wikipedia is not a democracy === Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution. === Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy === While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed. === Wikipedia is not a laboratory === Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community, but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is open and freely usable. However, research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt out of research. === Wikipedia is not a battleground === Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others. In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. === Wikipedia is not compulsory === Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time. Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a bad idea that had not been anticipated. (See WP:BEANS—it is, in fact, strongly discouraged to anticipate them.) In general, ""that is a terrible idea"" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible. When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider: Modifying the content of an article (normal editing). Turning the page into a redirect, preserving the page history. Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there. Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup § Style of writing—a list of templates that can be used to tag potentially inappropriate content when you can't fix the problem immediately yourself wmf:Resolution:Controversial content Pages titled ""Wikipedia is ..."" and ""Wikipedia is not ..."" Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes Wikipedia:Alternative outlets Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia Wikipedia:Recentism Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes for a more humorous version" 9 9 12 :WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary 9 "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. Our sister project Wiktionary has the goal of creating a dictionary. It is the ""lexical companion to Wikipedia"", and the two often link to each other. Wiktionary welcomes all editors who wish to write a dictionary. Both dictionary entries at Wiktionary and encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded. Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary entries. Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as ""pocket"" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent. In this section we compare Wikipedia and Wiktionary (as a concrete example of a dictionary), but the principle is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not simply that it is not Wiktionary. === Major differences === One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated. === Minor differences === === Not size === Dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. An entry in a comprehensive dictionary (or a topical encyclopedic dictionary) would probably contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; it could be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited, and some dictionaries being intentionally concise. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper; Wiktionary is not paper either. === Good definitions === Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. See also WP:REFERS. A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed. See also fallacies of definition. A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term. === Wikipedia is not a usage guide === Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc. ""should"" be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used). Articles that have been heavily cut to avoid becoming usage guides include gender-neutral pronoun and non-sexist language. Articles with information on how a word is used include singular they, homophobia, and sexism. By a simple extension of the latter, Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia. See meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey for a historical example. Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Note that Wiktionary is also primarily a record of how words are (or were) used rather than how they ""should"" be used, but it does aim to note when usage is slang, informal, archaic, non-standard, derogatory, offensive, etc. and how that status has changed over time. === Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary === There are reference works known as genealogical dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omitted, for a better-flowing, more rounded article. Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources. However, minor figures may be mentioned within other articles (for example, Ronald Gay in Violence against LGBT people). See also Wikipedia:Notability (people). === Neologisms === Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead. Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. While Wikipedia is a tertiary source, Wiktionary is a secondary source, so welcomes OR of this sort. Neologisms must at least have three independent uses for inclusion there, and additional requirements can be found on their Criteria for inclusion page. Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a ""true"" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles. In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. === When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject === In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability. Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), Orange (word), Thou, No worries, and most articles about individual racial slurs, profanity, and obscene gestures. In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a ""lens"" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the ""lens"" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this. === Fixing the introductory sentence: removing ""refers to"" === A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title). However, sometimes articles (particularly stubs) have poorly written dictionary-style introductory sentences, such as ""Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus."", or ""Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine."" Most Wikipedia articles are not dictionary entries, and opening sentences like the above ought to be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Editors should boldly replace these cumbersome phrasings (""is a term for"", ""is a word that means"", ""refers to"") with the more direct ""is"" construction, for example: ""A dog is an animal of the species Canis lupus."", or ""A dog is a domesticated canine."" (See: Writing better articles: Avoid using ""refers to"") Sometimes a Wikipedia article will also be poorly titled: its title will be an adjective or an adverb, or an inflection of a verb that isn't a noun. Such articles are dictionary articles only if they discuss the word or phrase as a word or phrase, rather than what the word or phrase denotes. If such articles should explain what the word or phrase denotes, then they should be renamed or merged to a title that adheres to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For example: the adjective ""supermassive"" doesn't by itself denote a subject. ""Supermassive black hole"", on the other hand, is a subject. === Misplaced dictionary entries === Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, spelling, pronunciation, and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase. If Wiktionary doesn't already have an entry for the word or idiom (which is unlikely), one can be created. Previously it could be copied to Wiktionary using the transwiki system by marking the article with the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} template, but that template was deleted by a 2021 TfD. However, after copying, the final disposition of the article here is up to Wikipedia. If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted. === Pointers to Wiktionary === A template can be used to point to a Wiktionary entry from a Wikipedia article which has encyclopedic content; for example, the code {{Wiktionary|dictionary}} produces a pointer to the Wiktionary definition of dictionary as illustrated here. For Wikipedia articles which could only ever be dictionary definitions and keep being re-created and re-deleted, or which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment, it is possible to effectively ""salt"" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary using code such as {{Wiktionary redirect|dictionary}}. The general guidelines for what is acceptable as a soft redirect to Wiktionary are enumerated in that template's documentation. Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English (essay; essentially, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary) Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources (essay) Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer (essay) Wikipedia:Dealing with dictionary definitions (essay) Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Category:Phrases – many phrase-related articles can be found in Wikipedia Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs – many of these short articles may be suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary ""Shallow Page"" on the MeatballWiki There is one exception to this rule - the Alemannic German Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a dictionary." 10 10 14 WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT Wikipedia:Redirect 10 "A redirect is a page which automatically sends visitors to another page, usually an article or section of an article. For example, if you type ""UK"" in the search box or click on the wikilink UK, you will be taken to the article United Kingdom with a note at the top of the page (or on mobile, in a black message bar at the bottom): ""(Redirected from UK)"". This is because the page UK contains special wikitext which defines it as a redirect page and indicates the target article. It is also possible to redirect to a specific section of the target page, using more advanced syntax. Redirect pages can contain other content below the redirect, such as redirect category templates, and category links (which provide a way to list article sections in categories). Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read; this page contains guidance on how to use them properly. For technical help relating to how redirects work, see Help:Redirect. Other relevant pages are Wikipedia:Double redirects, Wikipedia:Hatnote § Redirect and WikiProject Redirect. Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title (for example, Edson Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé). Plurals (for example, Greenhouse gases redirects to Greenhouse gas). Closely related words (for example, Symbiont redirects to Symbiosis). Adjectives or adverbs point to noun forms (e.g., Treasonous redirects to Treason) Less specific forms of names, for which the article subject is still the primary topic. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, whereas Albert is a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, since no Albert is regarded as the primary topic for that name. More specific forms of names (for example, Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union redirects to Articles of Confederation). Abbreviations and initialisms (for example, ADHD redirects to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). But often an abbreviation will have multiple meanings, none of which is a primary topic—in that case a disambiguation page should be created rather than a redirect. Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases. For example, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences : CMLS redirects to Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, based on its PUBMED entry. Alternative spellings or punctuation. For example, Colour redirects to Color, and Al-Jazeera redirects to Al Jazeera. Punctuation issues—some titles containing dashes should have redirects using hyphens, and vice versa. The proper title depends on official spelling (in the case of a name, such as Olivia Newton-John), or established Wikipedia policy and naming conventions (such as Spanish–American War). Representations using ASCII characters, that is, common transliterations (for example, Pele also redirects to Pelé while Kurt Goedel and Kurt Godel redirect to Kurt Gödel). Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). Note: this criterion typically does not apply to redirects from typos in template space; consensus is that such typos, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. Likely alternative capitalizations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection). This is not necessary for user searches made via Wikipedia's search engine, but may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry. To comply with the maintenance of nontrivial edit history, pursuant to Wikipedia:Merging#PROMERGE for copyright licensing requirements. Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) Redirects to disambiguation pages that do not contain ""(disambiguation)"" in the title (for example, Durham (disambiguation) redirects to Durham). These help maintenance by allowing deliberate links to disambiguation pages to be distinguished from links that need to be disambiguated. See WP:INTDAB for a fuller explanation. Shortcuts (for example, WP:V and Wikipedia:V redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability). This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space. Old-style CamelCase links (if already in existence) (AnnaKournikova redirects to Anna Kournikova). Links auto-generated from Exchangeable image file format information (Adobe Photoshop CS Windows redirects to Adobe Photoshop). Finding what links to a section, when links are made to the redirect rather than the section.There are redirect templates to explain the reason for a redirect. Note that redirects to other Wikimedia projects, other websites, or special pages do not work. These should be avoided or replaced with a {{soft redirect}} template. Soft redirects are also used in category space (using the {{category redirect}} template). Redirects from list titles to categories (e.g. a redirect from [[List of things]] to [[Category:Things]]) are highly discouraged. === Editing the source directly === To create a basic redirect using the source editor, type #REDIRECT [[target page name here]] as the only text on the page. The capitalization of the word REDIRECT doesn't matter. For instance, if you were redirecting from ""UK"" to ""United Kingdom"", this would be the entire body of the ""UK"" page: #REDIRECT [[United Kingdom]] === Using VisualEditor === To create a redirect using the VisualEditor: Open the ""page options"" menu (icon with three parallel horizontal bars) at the top right of the editor Select ""Page settings"" Check the box marked ""Redirect this page to"" Enter the name of the target page in the text box below the checkbox Click on the blue ""Apply changes"" button Save the page. You may enter an edit summary, or an automatic summary will be generated. === When moving a page === Redirects can also be automatically created when you move (rename) an existing page. === Requesting a redirect === If you can't create pages, you can request redirects at Wikipedia:Redirect wizard. Sometimes an existing redirect should really be handled by a full article, per Category:Redirects with possibilities. For example, the name of a notable musician (who does not yet have an article) may instead be a redirect to an existing article about a band of which the musician is a member. In this case, you can edit the redirect to make it into an article. Also, if an existing redirect points to the wrong page, you can edit the redirect to point to a different page. If you want to edit a redirect page you must use a special technique in order to get to the redirect page itself. This is because when you try to go straight to the redirect page and edit it, the redirect page will automatically redirect you to its target page (because this is what a redirect page is meant to do). Below is an example of why you might need to go to a redirect page itself (to do a small edit) and how to actually get there. For example, say Trygve Halvdan Lie did not have his own article, and so this link was a redirect to the page Secretary-General of the United Nations. If, later on, the page Trygve Lie was created as a biography, the page Trygve Halvdan Lie should be changed to redirect to Trygve Lie per WP:COMMONNAME. To do this, go to the redirect page by clicking the existing redirect note on the target page, which in this case would read ""(Redirected from Trygve Halvdan Lie)"". Once there, you may click the ""Edit"" tab, and change the page from #REDIRECT [[Secretary-General of the United Nations]] to#REDIRECT [[Trygve Lie]] When adding or changing a redirect, always verify the links that already point there. For instance, if another person named Trygve Lie becomes very well known, it would make sense to make Trygve Lie a redirect to his page (after renaming the existing Trygve Lie page). Such a change cannot be made without changing all the preexisting links to Trygve Lie; these links can be found by clicking on What links here in the left hand menu. Most redirects are untargeted, i.e. they lead simply to a page, not to any specific section of the page. This is usually done when there is more than one possible name under which an article might be sought (for example, Cellphone redirects to the article Mobile phone). For deciding which should be the actual title of the article, see Article titles. It is also possible to create a targeted redirect, i.e. a redirect to a particular point on the target page—either a section header or an anchor. For example, the page Malia Obama contains the code #REDIRECT [[Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama]], which redirects to the Malia and Sasha Obama section in the article Family of Barack Obama. Therefore, entering ""Malia Obama"" will bring the searcher straight to the content that deals with ""Malia and Sasha Obama"". Consider that when the target page is displayed, it is likely that the top of the page will not be shown, so the user may not see the helpful ""(redirected from... )"" text unless they know to scroll back to the top. This is less likely to cause confusion if the redirect is to a heading with the same name as the redirect. The text given in the link on a targeted redirect page must exactly match the target section heading or anchor text, including capitalization and punctuation. (While spaces and underscores are interchangeable in the current implementation of the Wikimedia software, it is generally good practice and aids maintenance to use exactly the same spelling in links as is used in the corresponding targets also for these characters.) (In the absence of a match, the reader will simply be taken to the top of the target page.) It is often helpful to leave a hidden comment in the target text, to inform other editors that a section title is linked, so that if the title is altered, the redirect can be changed. For example: ==Vaccine overload== To ensure that a redirect will not break if a section title gets altered, or to create a redirect to a point on the page other than a section heading, create an explicit target anchor in the page, e.g., by using the {{anchor}} template. Alternative anchors for section headings are ideally placed directly in front of the name of the heading (but after the equals signs): =={{subst:Anchor|anchor name}}Section title== Substitution ({{subst:Anchor}}) is preferable to simply using {{Anchor}} because otherwise, when the section is edited via its own ""[ edit ]"" link, the anchor markup and alternative section title(s) will appear as undesirable clutter at the beginning of revision history entries. Please see MOS:RENAMESECTION for further discussion of this. The anchor text will not be visible on the page, but it will serve as a permanent marker of that place on the page. Editors should generally not remove or alter such anchors without checking all incoming links and redirects. If several logically independent aspects of a topic are discussed under a single section header and should be linked to, it is sometimes useful to define separate anchors for them, if the current amount of information doesn't justify a division into multiple sections already. This makes it easier to rearrange contents on a page as it develops since those anchors can be moved with their corresponding contents without a need to fix up incoming links. For example, in the Google Search article, the text {{Anchor|calculator}} is placed at the point where Google Calculator is discussed. The title Google Calculator can then be redirected to Google Search#calculator. When a section title is known to be the target of incoming links, the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests creating a redundant anchor with the same name as the section title, so that such links will continue to work even if someone renames the section without creating an anchor with the old name. Technically, the redundant section and anchor names result in invalid HTML. However, when a document contains multiple tags with the same id value, browsers are required to return the first one, so in practice, this is not a problem.Be careful with anchor capitalization, as redirects are case-sensitive in standards-compliant browsers. The software will not follow chains of more than one redirect—this is called a double redirect. A redirect should not be left pointing to another redirect page. Double redirects often arise after a page is moved (renamed)—after moving a page, check whether there are any redirects to the old title (using the link on the move result page, or using ""What links here""), and change them to redirect straight to the new title. Double redirects are usually fixed by a bot in a few days; however, an editor should not leave behind any self-created double redirects. You can link to a redirect page just as you can link to an article page by placing the redirect page name within a set of double brackets, such as: replacing Redirect page name with the name of the redirect page to link. To link to a redirect page without following the underlying redirect, use: {{No redirect|Redirect page name}} replacing Redirect page name with the name of the redirect page to link. Clicking on a no-redirect link will send the reader to the redirect page rather than the final redirect destination. Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories. There are three types of redirect categorization that are helpful and useful: Maintenance categories are in use for particular types of redirects, such as Category:Redirects from initialisms, in which a redirect page may be sorted using the {{R from initialism}} template. One major use of these categories is to determine which redirects are fit for inclusion in a printed subset of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages for functional and alphabetical lists of these templates. A brief functional list of redirect category (rcat) templates is also found in the {{R template index}} navbar. Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category, e.g. Honey Lantree redirects to the band article The Honeycombs, but the redirect is placed in Category:1943 births and other categories which relate to Lantree as an individual. (Redirects appear in italics in category listings.) Discussion pages. If a discussion/talk page exists for a redirect, please ensure (1) that the talk page's WikiProject banners are tagged with the ""class=Redirect"" parameter and (2) that the talk page is tagged at the TOP with the {{Talk page of redirect}} template. If the discussion page is a redirect, then it may be tagged with appropriate redirect categorization templates (rcats). === Redirects from moves === When a page is renamed/moved, a redirect that is titled with the replaced page name is created and is automatically tagged with the {{R from move}} template. This sorts the redirect into Category:Redirects from moves. To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it on redirects for discussion. See the deletion policy for details on how to nominate pages for deletion. Listing is not necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article, or change where it points: see these instructions for help doing this. If you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request help from an admin in doing that. === Reasons for deleting === The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for ""New Articles"", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for ""Articles"", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if ""Adam B. Smith"" was redirected to ""Andrew B. Smith"", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" to ""Joe Bloggs"" (unless ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" is legitimately discussed in the article), or ""Joe Bloggs"" to ""Loser"". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.) The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting ""Apple"" to ""Orange"". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.) It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. ""MOS:"" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.) If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.) If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. === Reasons for not deleting === They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the ""Keystone State"" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form. === Neutrality of redirects === Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons: Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression ""Attorneygate"" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. Wikipedia follows the ""principle of least astonishment""; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: ""Hang on... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?"" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Normally, we try to make sure that all ""inbound redirects"" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this. For example: Alice Bradley Sheldon (August 24, 1915 – May 19, 1987) was an American science fiction author better known as James Tiptree Jr. ... James Tiptree Jr., redirects from Alice SheldonIf the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote (examples) should be placed at the top of the target article or targeted section that will direct readers to the other meanings or to a relevant disambiguation page. This is usually done using one of the redirect disambiguation templates (examples). It may also be helpful to search the List of Categories for related terms. Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.To make it easier for other editors to find the history of the blanked article, it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article, even if no content has been merged there. This is especially useful if the blanked article had few visits and infrequent edits. If the redirect replaces an article that has been deleted by an administrator, this notice is the only way for editors to know that a previous version of the article existed at all. === Content of the replaced article === The template {{R with history}} should be added to the resulting redirect. If the topic of the article can be reasonably thought to describe a notable topic, mark the redirect with the template {{Redirect with possibilities}} to indicate that it could be expanded in the future. You may also consider turning the article into a stub by removing all unsourced content and keeping the valid references, instead of blanking it. Note that certain forms of blanking are not allowed. Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing. Other forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable. If you want to rename the article by cutting and pasting text to a new article with a different title, you should instead move the page with the Move option. If you want to keep some content from the blanked article and add it to the target article, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging § How to merge. Both processes will create proper links to the edit history, which is required by the Wikipedia license for legal reasons to preserve attribution of content to its authors. There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to ""fix a redirect"". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that ""Franklin D. Roosevelt"" actually appear in the visible text. Editors should also not change redirects with possibilities like [[Journal of the Franklin Institute]] to [[Franklin Institute#Journal of the Franklin Institute|Journal of the Franklin Institute]], so that readers arrive at the more pertinent article in the eventuality that it is created. Reasons not to bypass redirects include: Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{R with possibilities}}). Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Non-piped links make better use of the ""what links here"" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links. (The Rdcheck tool is extremely useful in such cases for finding which redirects need to be changed after an article is updated.) Intentional links to disambiguation pages always use the title with ""(disambiguation)"", even if that is a redirect. If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic ""fixing of redirects"" may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the ""best"" article title.Good reasons to bypass redirects include: It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US Presidents}} at the end of George Washington). When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template. It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint or tooltip that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading (see Principle of least astonishment). Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. This does not necessarily mean that the misspelled redirect should be deleted (see {{R from misspelling}}). Links on disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Piping and redirects for rationale and exceptions. Radio and TV station call letters, since call letters given up by one station can be used later by a different station. In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move or merge should be updated to the new title for naming consistency. Links on the Main Page, to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting high-traffic redirects. (But note, as above, that redirects to article sections should never be bypassed.) === Self-redirects === Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found. This situation may arise if a redirect is created from a red link on the page, or if the title was once a separate page but was merged. However, linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article (redirects with {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}) is acceptable, as it facilitates navigation in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. In addition to readability benefits, when such redirects are marked with {{R with possibilities}}, they have the potential to become independent articles in the future. However, consider using section links instead, when such redirects do not already exist. A template can be redirected to another template in the same way, e.g., by entering the following markup at the top of a template T2: #REDIRECT [[Template:T1]] This allows the template name T2 to be used instead of the actual template name T1. All the parameters of T1 will be respected by T2. A redirect categorisation (rcat) template such as {{R from move}} may be added to T2 (on the third line below the #REDIRECT line) as follows: #REDIRECT [[Template:T1]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from move}} }} While template shortcut/alias redirects are common, they may infrequently cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template NT1, articles must be searched for {{T1}} and a separate search must also be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example). Moreover, changes to syntax, corrections, scans and other processes (for example tag dating) must take into account all applicable redirects. Sometimes, a redirect to an article pertaining to a very controversial topic will be fully or, more rarely, semi-protected indefinitely. This is done when any of the following criteria are met: There is no reason for it to be edited It is frequently expanded into whole articles It is an obvious vandalism target It redirects and/or refers to a very controversial topicRedirects that are protected include Obama, Hitler, and 9/11. Soft redirects that are protected include obvious vandalism targets like dumbass and fatass. Redirects in other namespaces may be protected for technical reasons or are protected under existing guidelines. For example, a template redirect (shorthand) used thousands of times qualifies it as a highly visible template, eligible for template protection. Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line #REDIRECT [[:Category:target category]] to a category page. Articles added to a ""redirected"" category do not show up in the target category, preventing proper categorization. What's worse, since redirected categories do not become ""red links"", editors won't be aware even when they add an article to a redirected category. For an attempt to fix this issue in MediaWiki, see T5311. Instead, ""soft"" redirects are used. It can be created by placing {{Category redirect|target}} in the category page. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories. When a page is moved, a redirect is automatically left behind. Some groups of users (those who possess a suppressredirect right) have the ability to prevent the redirect being created, by unchecking the box labelled ""Leave a redirect behind."" Currently these groups are administrators, bots, page movers, and global rollbackers. In some circumstances, a page should be moved, but a redirect from its current name is inappropriate, such as reverting page-move vandalism. Suppressing the redirect can avoid an extra action (page removal) and save time in these cases. However, in general, the redirect will be a useful entry in the history, and it is best to leave it behind, unless there is a good reason to suppress the redirect, such as vandalism, userfying recently created malplaced items or freeing a title to be occupied immediately by another page (e.g., moving term to accurate term and term (disambiguation) to term). Redirects leave a trail to help readers find the old article, in case a new article is created at its previous location, and to prevent linkrot. Therefore, we usually neither suppress nor delete redirects. As Brion Vibber said, ""Not breaking links helps everyone, especially us first and foremost"". He also said that the removal of (file) redirects is ""extremely user-hostile and makes the project less useful"". A Wikipedia redirect is not the same as an HTTP redirect—it does not generate an HTTP 302 (or other 30x) response. Instead, a page with almost the same content as the target of the redirect is generated by the MediaWiki software, differing in that a small-text note appears below the title of the page, identifying the name of the redirect used to get there (and linking to it in such a way that it can be accessed without the redirect, e.g. so it can be changed). When a user clicks on a redirect such as housecat, the page URL initially will be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housecat, but the URL shown by the browser will change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat after the page loads. On one hand, this allows links like housecat#Anatomy to work as expected, but it also requires redirects to anchors to be implemented as a piece of JavaScript that jumps to an appropriate section after the page has loaded. For example, second-stage boot loader, which is rendered as the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-stage_boot_loader, is a page defined as a #REDIRECT to Booting#SECOND-STAGE. ""SECOND-STAGE"", in this case, is a manually defined anchor (using the markup ""=== {{anchor|SECOND-STAGE}}Second-stage boot loader ==="") which will persist even if the section is renamed. However, whether a redirect points to a manually defined anchor, or an anchor defined implicitly via a section name, the behavior will be the same: the page will automatically be scrolled down to the pointed-to anchor only after the page finishes loading (at which point the URL bar will also change to reflect the redirected-to URL, including ""#anchor"" portion, rather than the redirected-from URL). Category:Redirect templates Category:Wikipedia redirects Wikipedia:Moving a page Help:Redirect Redirect technical help at Meta-Wiki Special:ListRedirects Special:BrokenRedirects Special:DoubleRedirects Template:Redirect Template:No redirect Template:Is redirect Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, to suggest a missing redirect Wikipedia:Hatnote (see above) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Soft redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace and by non-redirects/redirects Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection Capricorn, a Wikipedia gadget for categorizing redirects Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap Wikipedia:Redirects are costly" 11 11 16 WP:GEOPURP Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) 11 "Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question. This guideline summarizes the existing overall consensus for geographical feature notability and provides guidance on inclusion of information about geographic features into Wikipedia. For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. This guideline does not apply to geographical features in fictional works or to the features of other astronomical objects. Micronations are not covered by this guideline and are subject to the general notability guideline, even if they are geography-based. Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the ""legal recognition"" requirement and are also unreliable for ""populated place"" designation. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Disputed regions are generally considered case-by-case. Their notability for Wikipedia is independent of the validity of their claims. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to merge these articles into ones on a broader conflict or political movement, or to merge articles on multiple disputed names for the same region into one article. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans. Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or the criteria of a different section of this notability guideline. International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. Common AfD outcomes – Geography and astronomy articles – an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion policy Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents – listings of AfD outcomes from WikiProject U.S. Roads Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability – an essay about the notability of U.S. roads Wikipedia:Notability (highways) – an essay Wikipedia:Places of local interest – an essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill – an essay that discusses very common types of buildings and places Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) – a naming convention Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) – a guideline for celestial bodies Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements and User:Seav/Islands and administrative units Wikipedia:Notability – a guideline for topic notability Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – a policy" 12 12 17 WP:WAM Wikipedia:Asian Month 12 Wikipedia Asian Month is an annual online event that occurs in November and which aims to promote Asian content on Wikipedia. Since 2015, each participating community has run a local online Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on the Wikipedia site of their own language promoting the creation or improvement of the Wikipedia content about Asia except their own country. The participating community is not limited to Asian communities. Wikipedia Asian Month/2015 Wikipedia Asian Month/2016 Wikipedia Asian Month/2017 Wikipedia Asian Month/2018 Wikipedia Asian Month/2019 Wikipedia Asian Month/2020 Wikipedia Asian Month/2021 Wikipedia Asian Month/2022 Wikipedia Asian Month/2023 Meta-Wiki 13 13 18 WP:DELAY Wikipedia:Notability (events) 13 "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or ""worthy of notice""; that is, ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". Notable in the sense of being ""famous"", or ""popular""—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. Article deletion discussions have featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events, that have received intense media coverage. This guideline was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. ""a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"") and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reflects the community consensus regarding the handling of similarly situated articles. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, ""shock"" news, stories lacking lasting value such as ""water cooler stories,"" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. These factors are described below. === The event === ==== Lasting effects ==== An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. ==== Geographical scope ==== Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. === The coverage === ==== Depth of coverage ==== An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting. Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources rather than secondary sources. Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. ==== Duration of coverage ==== Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance. ==== Diversity of sources ==== Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source. A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. Media channels under common control or influence are usually counted as one local or national outlet and a single instance of coverage when they report a matter, even if they have several regional or national outlets. Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, ""AP reported that ...""), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment). Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter. === Routine coverage === Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts (""And finally"" stories). === Sensationalism === Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous ""silly season"" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability. Note that this guideline applies to articles about a wide range of subjects beyond just events including articles about living people, celebrities, and fringe ideas. === Criminal acts === Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of ""breaking news"", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. === People notable for only one event === People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. === Future events === All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Such articles are not appropriate if nothing can be said about the event that is verifiable and not original research. If an event is still being widely covered in the press, editors may place the {{currentevent}} template on it to inform readers of the changing nature of the article. === Don't rush to create articles === It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, June 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown. Anticipation of notability may be mistaken. Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote. For example, it was reported in January 2009 that a man was planning to travel to Washington to assassinate George W. Bush. It was reported several days later that he had no such plans and this event was shown to be nothing more than a routine arrest. However, articles about widely reported major unexpected or unprecedented events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto or the Death of Michael Jackson will almost certainly gain consensus to be kept even when created on the same day as the event occurred. === Don't rush to delete articles === Articles about breaking news events are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace. === Wikinews === Editors are welcome to write about news events in Wikinews as well as in Wikipedia. Moving a page to Wikinews is not possible as this would re-license it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible with CC-BY-SA, but the content could be reworked from the original sources for Wikinews with a soft redirect from Wikipedia. Conversely, Wikinews content can be freely incorporated into Wikipedia. If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Care should be taken not to give the event undue weight or violate our policy on biographies of living persons. If there is no suitable target for merging, a solution may be to rework the article to widen its context beyond a single event. Wikipedia:Deletion policy Category:Events, a category which may be a guide to the kind of articles about events considered acceptable by the community Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's in the news User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS Wikipedia:Big events make key participants notable Wikipedia:Future event Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability Wikipedia:News articles Wikipedia:Recentism Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers Wikipedia:AIRCRASH, a proposal for notability of aircraft disasters. Wikipedia:In the news Wikipedia:Let the dust settle Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:""Murder of"" articles Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles, essay on articles on ""International reactions"" to events Wikipedia:Notability (weather) (Specific notability essay for weather events)" 14 14 20 WP:NFT Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day 14 "Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website, blog or social media instead. Sometimes an editor is tempted to write an article about an idea that they or their friends have come up with, such as a new ball game, a new word or phrase, a film you uploaded to YouTube, or a new language. It's natural to want to tell the world, and Wikipedia seems like a great way to do that. There are several things wrong with doing this: Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable. There's no way that the rest of the world can verify your account of the new thing your friend said or did one day. It's not recorded and it's not documented. Sometimes, there's no way for the rest of the world to indeed verify that your friend even exists; just because they have an associated Wikipedia article doesn't mean that their invention is also known as well. Verifiability isn't up for postmodern debate; it's a standard criterion. All articles need to cite reliable sources; if you can't do that because there aren't any sources documenting what you invented, then your content is unverifiable and should not be posted on Wikipedia. Original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is, it aims to be a summary of information that has already been published. It does not seek to be a place where new information is published for the first time – for that we have newspapers, academic journals, publishers of books and so on. It does not exist to promote new things and spread new knowledge. If you find yourself arguing that your Wikipedia article is necessary because no one else has written about your new invention yet, you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here for documenting things in which precisely the opposite has occurred. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing. Wikipedia deals with subjects which are already notable and written about. It doesn't speculate on what might become well known in the future. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go into a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people has made up and is trying to make catch on is a neologism and may not be acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes. It is an encyclopedia. Our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free web hosting to people. Even if your article isn't taking up much space, you are still misusing Wikipedia, and the efforts employed in removing your article could be used instead in creating a usable encyclopedia. If you like the idea of having your own wiki, check out Fandom, or Miraheze, or try installing MediaWiki on a website. Of course, everything in Wikipedia was made up or discovered by someone at some point in time, so how can your idea join them? Essentially, you have to persuade others that it's important first – and those people have to think it's sufficiently important to write books, newspaper or magazine articles, or academic papers about (not just mentioning) your idea. Such resources are considered reliable, and therefore the subject can become eligible for Wikipedia. It is important that someone else other than the originator of the idea does the writing, as notability can be conferred only through independent attention; see Wikipedia:Notability. Advice on how one can obtain this kind of independent attention is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and as such seeking notability lies in the hands of the individual. Citing one's own book/academic paper/etc. may still be done after such independent attention has been garnered; however, it must be done in a neutral manner, and not in a style which suggests vanity. As an example, consider the history of the game Scrabble. It was originally invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1938. At first, he made only a few copies to give or sell to his friends, and contacted several game manufacturers, all of whom turned him down. Therefore, had Wikipedia been around in 1938, it could not have had an article on Scrabble. Even though Butts had invented a game that would eventually become a worldwide bestseller, at the time it was known only to a few people and little or nothing had been written about it. However, he was not disheartened: he kept promoting his idea until several years later it was bought by a games manufacturer, sold in many stores, and became widely known and widely written about. This is the point at which Wikipedia could have had an article about it, as opposed to when it was first invented. In August 2006, a Wikipedia article on the iPhone was deleted after discussion. At that point, little was known about the product outside Apple Inc. and it could not have had a Wikipedia article. Following the product's launch and mass-media coverage in January 2007, the article was recreated and has been improved ever since. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do not write about your own ideas and inventions on Wikipedia if you cannot cite reliable sources to show that they are notable and verifiable. For a full discussion of what counts as a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In particular, remember that people writing in blogs or posting on discussion forums are not considered reliable. Even if your ideas and inventions are notable and there are good sources to cite, it is often a bad idea to write about them yourself. Why? Because you have a conflict of interest (COI). The COI guideline applies to you and limits your ability to edit out any negative material that others may, with reliable sources, add later on. We have something called the ""Law of Unintended Consequences"" that will always apply to you. Read it carefully, because ignoring it can have serious repercussions for you, your family, your business, and your future in the real world. Editing here is not a game, so do it carefully. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Everything you do here is recorded for posterity and is publicly available information, too. If you cannot cite reliable sources, please write about your invention somewhere else. You could use your own website, one of the many social networking sites, or any of various alternative outlets which may have more flexible rules than Wikipedia on what content can be included. Wikipedia:Student assignments Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Before they were notable" 15 15 21 WP:DEPROD Wikipedia:Proposed deletion 15 "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. A nominated page is marked for at least seven days. If nobody has objected during this time the page is considered by an uninvolved administrator who reviews the page and either deletes it or removes the PROD tag. Any objection kills the PROD procedure, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present. Even after the page has been deleted, anyone may have a PRODed article or file restored through a request for undeletion. PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. A special case is for biographies of living people (BLPPROD): an article that has had the BLPPROD-tag removed still can be PRODed via the process described here. PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. There are three steps to the PROD process To nominate a page, place the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag at the top of the page. This is automatically converted to {{proposed deletion/dated}} which lists the page in Category:Proposed deletion. You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. The page is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the page). If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion, they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the page. The page may be undeleted upon request. === Before nomination === Is there a valid reason for deletion? For articles, consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. If a file meets the Wikimedia Commons scope and licensing requirements, consider moving it there. Review the page history to confirm it has not been recently vandalized. Confirm the page is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that: it has not previously been proposed for deletion. it has not previously been undeleted. and it is neither currently being, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD. Consider whether alternatives to deletion make more sense than outright deletion. Note: Only articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files hosted on Wikipedia (not on Commons) may be deleted using the proposed deletion process. === During nomination === Add the {{proposed deletion}} tag to the top of the page to nominate it, and provide a clear and non-generic reason like this: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} For articles, it is considered good practice to indicate the general subject area or what notability guidelines it falls under. Provide a clear edit summary indicating the page has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor. Consider adding an {{Old prod}} tag to the talk page. Consider adding the page to your watchlist. The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion. This should be done by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag, or other appropriate text.If you use the above template, you do not need to add a section header, as the template will do this for you. Twinkle has an option (which can be configured as the default in Twinkle preferences) to inform the page creator. === To second a proposed deletion === If you see a {{prod}} tag on an article, and endorse its deletion, consider seconding it with the {{prod2}} template. This goes on the line after the {{prod}}, and can be filled out with an optional comment: {{prod2|Notability is mostly inherited from his interaction with the Stardust Crusaders, and a search of secondary literature has failed to reveal any mention of his research into Stands.}}This template should not be SUBSTed. Category:Endorsed proposed deletions lists pages proposed for deletion by multiple editors. To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article or the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} tag from the file. You are encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page (the conreason parameter of the {{Old prod}} template is available for this purpose). Notify the editors who placed or seconded the PROD by placing a {{subst:Deprod}} tag on their user talk page. Add or modify an {{Old prod}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past proposed deletion candidates for tracking. Improve the page to address the concerns raised.If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article's creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If an editor's intent is unclear, an objection should be assumed. Removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, may be restored. In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block. After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion.If the page has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion. Any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request (unless there are other reasons for keeping it deleted, such as a copyright infringement), but it may then be nominated for a deletion discussion. A person requesting undeletion must comply with WMF's Terms of Use (especially in the context of the required paid-contribution disclosure). Pages that are proposed for deletion are listed in the subcategories of Category:Proposed deletion by date of tagging. Any editor may patrol the category to check that pages are correctly nominated, and either endorse the PROD by adding {{Prod2}} or remove the PROD tag. You are encouraged to give an explanation whenever you endorse or remove a PROD. You can use either the edit summary or the talk page for this purpose, or both. Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling has further information on checking PRODs. Pages that have been tagged for at least seven days are listed in Category:Expired proposed deletions. Administrators should check the pages in this category, and follow the deletion advice below. === Deletion === Before deletion, administrators should check the page, its history, and deletion log to confirm that: The nominator's edit summary stated that the page was proposed for deletion. The {{proposed deletion}} tag has been visible on the page for at least 7 continuous days. No objections have been raised on the talk page. The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion.If you decide to delete the page, provide an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator or editor who clarified the nominator's reason – not just ""expired prod"". Note that once the page is deleted, the reason that was given in the {{proposed deletion}} can only be seen by administrators. If you are using an automated script, make sure it leaves an adequate message. To ensure independent judgement, a page should not be deleted by the same person who added the {{proposed deletion}} tag. After deleting the page and its talk page, it is recommended to check What links here to find any redirects to the page which should be deleted. In addition, consider unlinking incoming links from other pages (except discussions, archives and tracking pages), and list entries should be removed altogether if notability concerns were raised. If you decide not to delete the page, consider editing it to deal with the concerns raised, or nominating the page for a deletion discussion. You should document that it has been contested with an {{Old prod}} on the talk page. === Undeletion === An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion. A user may request undeletion as per WP:DELETED#Undeletion. All biographies of living people (BLP) must have at least one source that supports a statement about the subject, or else it can be proposed for deletion. The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until a reliable source is added, and if none is forthcoming within seven days the article may be deleted. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the BLP prod has been legitimately removed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Common outcomes Alternative outlets Deletion guidelines for administrators Archived deletion discussions Wikipedia:Files for discussion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling – WikiProject to ensure pages are correctly PRODed and de-PRODed Centralized discussion Undeletion policy Category:Past proposed deletion candidates Category:Proposed deletion – This category contains a list of the pages which have been PRODed" 16 16 23 WP:salt Wikipedia:Protection policy 16 "In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that can not be prevented through other means such as a block. Otherwise, Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection are detailed below, and they can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source code (wikitext) of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism, disruption, or abuse is occurring by multiple users and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes. The following technical options are available to administrators for protecting different actions to pages: Edit protection protects the page from being edited. Move protection protects the page from being moved or renamed. Creation protection prevents a page (normally a previously deleted one) from being created (also known as ""salting""). Upload protection prevents new versions of a file from being uploaded, but it does not prevent editing to the file's description page (unless edit protection is applied).The following technical options are available to administrators for adding protection levels to the different actions to pages: Pending changes protection (only available for edit protection) requires any edits made to the page by unregistered users and accounts that are not confirmed to be approved by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator before the changes become visible to readers who are not logged in. Semi-protection prevents the action by unregistered users and users with accounts that are not confirmed. Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 protection, prevents the action if the user's account has not yet reached at least 30 days of tenure, and has not made at least 500 edits on the English Wikipedia. In most cases, it should not be a protection level of first resort, and should be used where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Activation or application of this protection level is logged at the Administrators' noticeboard. Template protection prevents the action by everyone except template editors and administrators (who have this right as part of their toolset). Full protection prevents the action by everyone except administrators.Any type of protection (with the exception of cascading protection) may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests may be made at Requests for unprotection. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. === Semi-protection === Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. ==== Guidance for administrators ==== Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) if blocking individual users is not a feasible option. Subject to edit warring if all parties involved are unregistered or new editors. This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. Subject to vandalism or edit warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address-changing schemes. Article discussion pages, if they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. If a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Protection should be used sparingly on the talk pages of blocked users, including IP addresses. Instead the user should be re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. When required, or when re-blocking without talk page editing allowed is unsuccessful, protection should be implemented for only a brief period not exceeding the duration of the block.Today's featured article may be semi-protected just like any other article. However since the article is subject to sudden spurts of vandalism during certain times of day, administrators should semi-protect it for brief periods of time in most instances. For the former guideline, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. === Pending changes protection === Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from most readers (specifically, unregistered editors – the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (IP addresses) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as pending review. Readers that are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks ""edit this page"" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. If the editor is not logged in, their changes join any other changes to the article awaiting review – for the present they remain hidden from not-logged-in users. (This means that when the editor looks at the article after saving, the editor won't see the change made.) If the editor is logged in and a pending changes reviewer, and there are pending changes, the editor will be prompted to review the pending changes before editing – see Wikipedia:Pending changes. If the editor is logged in and not a pending changes reviewer, then ... If there are no unreviewed pending edits waiting, this editor's edits will be visible to everyone immediately; but If there are unreviewed pending edits waiting, then this editor's edits will be visible only to other logged-in users (including themself) immediately, but not to readers not logged in.Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits. ==== When to apply pending changes protection ==== Pending changes may be used to protect articles against: Persistent vandalism Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Copyright violationsPending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead, semi-protection should be considered. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested of any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. === Creation protection (salting) === Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles may be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Pre-emptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as ""salted"". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Administrators should choose the appropriate level of create protection—autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full. Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). === Move protection === Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism. Pages subject to a page-name dispute. Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved, such as the administrators' noticeboard and articles selected as ""Today's featured article"" on the main page.Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files are implicitly move-protected; only file movers and administrators can rename files. === Upload protection === Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It may be applied by an administrator to: Files subject to persistent upload vandalism. Files subject to a dispute between editors. Files that should not be replaced, such as images used in the interface or transcluded to the main page. Files with common or generic names. (e.g., File:Map.png)As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. === Extended confirmed protection === Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 protection, allows edits only by editors with the extended confirmed user access level, granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days tenure and at least 500 edits. ==== As escalation from semi-protection ==== Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). ==== As general sanction enforcement ==== Four topic areas are under Arbitration Committee ""extended confirmed restrictions"" as a general sanction, in which only extended confirmed users may edit affected content; one is under a similar community general sanction. The extended confirmed restriction slightly differs from the earlier ""30/500 restriction"", which was independent of extended confirmed status. Administrators are authorized to enforce this restriction through extended confirmed protection or any other means. It applies to: The Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:ARBPIA4—ArbCom extended confirmed restriction since September 2021, superseding previous sanctions dating to May 2015) The history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–1945) (WP:APL—ArbCom extended confirmed restriction since September 2021, superseding previous sanction dating to May 2020) The Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR—community extended confirmed restriction since October 2022) The Indo-Pakistani conflict (community 30/500 restriction imposed in February 2019, rescinded and folded into the India–Pakistan ArbCom discretionary sanctions regime in October 2021) ==== Discretionary usage ==== When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the topic-wide restrictions discussed above.) Some community sanctions grant similar discretionary authorizations. High-risk templates may be extended-confirmed protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption.Extended confirmed protection may be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. ==== Logging and edit requests ==== As of September 23, 2016, a bot posts a notification in a subsection of AN when this protection level is used. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. A full list of the 4272 pages under 30/500 protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. === Template protection === A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower may be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. === Full protection === A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. The protection may be for a specified time or may be indefinite. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. ==== Content disputes ==== While content disputes and edit warring may be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. ==== ""History only"" review ==== If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, blank it or replace the contents with {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. ==== Protected generic file names ==== Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. === Cascading protection === Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: Should be used only to prevent vandalism when placed on particularly visible pages, such as the main page. Is available only for fully protected pages; it is disabled for lower levels of protection as it represents a workflow flaw. See below as well as this bug ticket for more information. Is not instantaneous; it may be several hours before it takes effect. See Phabricator:T20483 for more information. Should generally not be applied directly to templates or modules, as it will not protect transclusions inside tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the documentation subpage. See § Protection of templates below, for alternatives.The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. === Permanent protection === Administrators cannot change or remove the protection for some areas on Wikipedia, which are permanently protected by the MediaWiki software: Edits to the MediaWiki namespace, which defines parts of the site interface, are restricted to administrators and interface administrators. Edits to system-wide CSS and JavaScript pages such as MediaWiki:common.js are further restricted to interface administrators. Edits to personal CSS and JavaScript pages such as User:Example/monobook.css and User:Example/cologneblue.js are restricted to the associated user and interface administrators. Interface administrators may edit these pages, for example, to remove a user script that has been used in an inappropriate way. Administrators may delete (but not edit or restore) these pages. Edits to personal JSON pages such as User:Example/data.json are restricted to the associated user and administrators.Such protection is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. In addition to hard-coded protection, the following are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time (though not necessarily with interface protection): Pages that are very visible, such as the Main Page. Pages that should not be modified for copyright or legal reasons, such as the general disclaimer or the local copy of the site copyright license. Pages that are very frequently transcluded, such as {{tl}} or {{citation needed}}, to prevent vandalism or denial of service attacks. This includes images or templates used in other highly visible or frequently transcluded pages. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more information. === Office actions === As outlined in Meta:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff, pages may be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. === Superprotect === Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who are in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014, and used the same day to override community consensus regarding the use of the Media Viewer on the German Wikipedia's primary site JavaScript, common.js. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. On November 5, 2015, the WMF decided to remove superprotect from all Wikimedia wikis. ==== Restricted namespace protections ==== The Gadget and Gadget definition namespaces have namespace-wide protection, and the permissions to edit them are only available to WMF Staff. There is one page on the English Wikipedia in these namespaces. A request for local access to this namespace has been pending since 2019. === Cascading semi-protection === Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. === Pending changes protection level 2 === Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who are not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. It was suggested then that ""Pending changes level 1"" be referred to in the future as simply ""Pending changes"". === Article talk pages === Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. === User talk pages === User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection may be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests may be considered if a reason is provided. ==== Blocked users ==== Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. === User pages === Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous IP users. An exception to this includes an unconfirmed registered account attempting to create or edit their own user page. IP editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently-registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a "".css"" subpage (ex. User:Example/Userpage.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/Userpage.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in "".css"", "".js"", and "".json"" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs (and interface administrators), this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. ==== Deceased users ==== In the event of the confirmed death of a user, the user's user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. === Protection of templates === Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often edit protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that don't use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider any of the following: If the set of subtemplates is static (even if large), protect them using normal protection mechanisms. If the set of subtemplates is unbounded, use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to protect all subtemplates using a particular naming format (as is done for editnotice templates and subtemplates of Template:TFA title).Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. === Sandboxes === Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. The following templates may be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext Special:ProtectedPages Special:ProtectedTitles Wikipedia:Edit lock Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection Wikipedia:Make protection requests sparingly, an essay Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea, an essay metawiki:Protected pages considered harmful metawiki:The Wrong Version Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks" 17 17 24 WP:NENT Wikipedia:Notability (people) 17 "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be ""worthy of notice"" or ""note""—that is, ""remarkable"" or ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. ""Notable"" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted, or further developed. For advice about how to write biographical articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as ""John Doe"" or ""Jane Doe"") would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Travis Walton UFO incident. Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. If a notable person's main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information, such as George Orwell bibliography. If the person was the victim of a notable murder, then a title such as Murder of Kitty Genovese is appropriate. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion. === Any biography === The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). === Academics === Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as ""academics"" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. === Creative professionals === Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. === Crime victims and perpetrators === A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes), The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.For perpetrators, The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. === Entertainers === Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3) === Politicians and judges === The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. === Sports personalities === A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline). That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings. For most topics, search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the search results and linked webpages. If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered: If speedy deletion criterion A7 applies, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion. For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the {{subst:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process, where its merits will be discussed for 7 days. === Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria === If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context. Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged. If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written. === Failure to explain the subject's notability === If an article does not explain the notability of its subject, try to improve it by: Adding the {{cleanup biography}} template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc. Rewriting it yourself Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. === Insufficient sources === If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Look for sources yourself Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert needed}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, the disambiguation page Travis Walton redirects those looking for Travis Walton UFO incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. It is important to remember that ""notable"" is not a synonym for ""famous"". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections). Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. Some Wikipedia editors are the subject of an article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status as Wikipedia editors by itself has no effect on their notability, regardless of whether they edited Wikipedia before or after their articles were created. (The conflict of interest guideline still has bearing on their editing of articles about themselves.) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies, such as this guideline, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Recently dead or probably dead" 18 18 27 WP:TVSPLIT Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television 18 "This is a style guide for those who edit television-related articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Remember that Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and that articles therefore should try to be prosaic instead of lists of arbitrary information pulled out of IMDb or other such user-contributed sources. Articles should be verifiable and establish notability. Please cite your sources wherever possible. Articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective. Remember, this is only a guide, and may change depending on Wikipolicy or participant consensus. For other guidelines: If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for the article being created, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or ""Cape Feare""). If an article already exists with the name of a television show for the article being created, use one of the following disambiguators as necessary: If only non-television articles exist with the name, use (TV series) or (TV program)/(TV programme) in the title: Show Title (TV series) (e.g. Firefly (TV series)). If a television article already exists with the name of the show for the article being created, use: (YEAR TV series) in the title, if the years are different: Show Title (YEAR TV series) (e.g. The Incredible Hulk (1982 TV series) and The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series)). (NATIONALITY TV series) in the title, if the country of broadcasts are different: Show Title (NATIONALITY TV series) (e.g. The Office (British TV series) and The Office (American TV series); Blue Murder (British TV series) and Blue Murder (Canadian TV series)). Other genre/format words may be used, subject to a Wikipedia:Requested moves proposal, if using the preceding methods fail to resolve the ambiguity.Article titles for television shows are properly italicized as long as {{Infobox television}} is used in the article. If not, {{italic title|string=Show Name}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} may be used. The former has the advantage of continuing to work in case the disambiguation suffix is changed or removed from the article's title. If an article already exists with the name of an episode title or character, then the title of the article should contain the name of the episode or character followed by (SERIES NAME): Episode/Character name (SERIES NAME) (e.g. ""Through the Looking Glass"" (Lost) or Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). In order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template should be used. Disambiguation for list of episodes or list of characters articles may or may not need to be used, depending on if other list articles exist. (e.g. NCIS: New Orleans and List of NCIS: New Orleans episodes; The Flash (2014 TV series) and List of The Flash episodes; Mistresses (American TV series) and List of Mistresses (American TV series) episodes, and Mistresses (British TV series) and List of Mistresses (British TV series) episodes). Once again, in order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template should be used. The above is only a summary of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) to cover most situations. For the most current guideline and expanded examples, refer to that page. The structure of television articles, season/series articles, and episode articles should generally follow the suggested formatting outlined below. The basic order of these pages tends to follow: Lead, plot, cast lists, production, broadcast and home media, and reception, with any other miscellaneous sections coming afterward. If a section consisting of an article-spanning table (i.e. the ""Episodes"" section with {{Episode table}}) is being pushed down by the infobox creating a large amount of whitespace (example), then that section can be moved further down in the article. However, if said section contains plot or episode summaries, it should ideally be as high up the page as possible, since Wikipedia uses plot information as context for understanding the real world information to follow in the article. This is the same setup used on WikiProject Film articles, which have a similar structure as television articles. === Infobox === Below are the three main infoboxes to use across the project with the code to copy: {{Infobox television}} for parent articles; {{Infobox television season}} for season articles; and {{Infobox television episode}} for individual episode articles. For any questions or problems with these templates, please consult each template's documentation or start a discussion at the corresponding talk page(s). All parameters are not meant to be used on every article, as some are not relevant to many television articles. If multiple entries are required for any individual field, for example for the starring parameter, {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} should be used, over
. Additionally, if any individual field becomes excessively long, again using the starring parameter as an example, it may be beneficial to link readers to a corresponding section of the article (in this case, the ""Cast"", ""Characters"", or ""Cast and characters"" section) instead. As well, flag icons should not be used for countries in the infobox. === Image === Depending on the article in question, a different image should be used in the infobox, based on Non-free content criteria: For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used. Failing that, a home media cover may be used. If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. For season articles, a season-specific promotional poster or home media cover should be used, or possibly a season-specific title card if one exists. Individual episode articles are less likely to have an infobox image, but if a promotional poster or image exists then it may be used. Other options include an episode-specific title card or home media cover (if the episode received an individual release), or a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode. The latter may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood.Additional images in an article outside of the infobox must also comply with Non-free content criteria (again to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood) and should always strive to use free images whenever possible. Free images can be used from Wikimedia Commons. (Examples of when not to include non-free content can be seen at WP:Non-free content § Images.) After uploading a suitable image, which can be done with the File Upload Wizard: On the file's description page, add a short description of the image (e.g., ""This image is the current opening title for the series.""), a source of where the image was found, the copyright holder (the network the series aired on or its production company), a fair use rationale (the image will be deleted with out one) and an image copyright tag. Fair use rationales templates include: {{Non-free use rationale title-card}}, for title cards/intertitles {{Non-free use rationale poster}} for posters {{Non-free use rationale video cover}} for home media covers {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}} for screenshots Image copyright tags include: {{Non-free title-card}} for title cards/intertitles {{Non-free poster}} for posters {{Non-free video cover}} for home media covers (Blu-ray, DVD, VHS, etc.) {{Non-free television screenshot}} for other screenshotsExample images that meet the criteriaTitle card/intertitle – File:Cheers intro logo.jpg Season home media cover – File:The Big Bang Theory Season 5.jpg Season promotional poster - File:Agent Carter season 2 poster.jpg Episode promotional image – File:Doctor Who Nightmare In Silver title card.jpg Episode promotional poster – File:WandaVision ""Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience"" poster.jpg Screenshot – File:Legends of the Hidden Temple (assembling monkey).jpg, File:The Bus from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.png === Lead paragraphs === The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the topic, and as a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For example, an article on a television series should begin with basic information about the show, such as when it first premiered, genre(s) and setting, who created or developed the show, its primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode), etc. All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should be reliably sourced and comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. A series's nationality (country of origin) should be referenced by reliable sources, directly if possible, but otherwise by referencing the country or collaboration within which principal creative control was exercised. If singularly defined, it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can reliably be referenced. A good example of a first paragraph:The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company. It is a satirical parody of the middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its titular family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The show is set in the fictional town of Springfield, and it lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself. The lead should also summarize the major points of the rest of the article: premise, basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique. The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. (For appropriate-length guidelines, please see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section § Length.) A rule of thumb is to write at least one sentence on each section of the article, though this will depend on the article itself. Information summarized in the lead should always be given due weight, so if an article has twice as much information on writing the series as it does filming it, the lead should also emphasize the writing. The lead should avoid peacock words and superlatives. The phrase ""award-winning"" should not be used since it provides insufficient context to the reader; major awards and accolades received by the television show may be mentioned in the lead using no more than a single sentence. References to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense, as the show will still exist even after it is no longer airing new episodes (e.g. ""The Dick Van Dyke Show is a show that aired from 1961 to 1966.""). In the case of some defunct non-fiction and live programs, most production and broadcast information should be referred to in past tense. However, the program's existence should still be in present tense (e.g. ""The Afternoon Show is a British talk show which was broadcast by Channel 1 between 2008 and 2011. The programme was hosted by Susan Jones and John Smith and recorded in London...""). === Plot section === Plot summaries provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as ""Production"" or ""Reception""). Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or as close to the start as possible. In addition to ""Plot"", other appropriate headings for this section may be ""Premise"", ""Synopsis"", or ""Overview"". All articles should contain a few sentences in the lead to summarize the overall storyline, generally done via a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary. Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it. Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names. Overly detailed summaries are unencyclopedic and summaries copied verbatim from other sources can risk a breach of US copyright law. Furthermore, plot summaries may not be copied from elsewhere unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use. Also note that Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers is that all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without disclaimers or warnings. Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include ""lost"" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by a secondary source. For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a ""plot summary"" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format or gameplay rules; in such cases, the heading for this section may be changed to ""Format"" or ""Gameplay"" as appropriate. This will likely be enough for such shows as news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines noted in the paragraph above. === Cast and characters information === Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways: Cast list: In a section labeled ""Cast"" or ""Cast and characters"", indicate the name of the cast member and their noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Fringe (TV series); see also Jonny Lee Miller example below Characters list: In a section labeled ""Characters"" or ""List of characters"", indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Mutant X (TV series); see also Frasier Crane example belowIn accordance with the guideline on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicized. Follow correct syntax when compiling lists. List items in MediaWiki cannot contain line breaks, as they create accessibility problems. To insert a line break in the output, use the
tag, or a template such as {{break}}. Style should be consistent throughout a given list, and examples include: Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer), a radio psychiatrist Michael Gaston as Mark Sampson (season 3; recurring season 1; guest season 2), a Jewish friend of Frank's living in San Francisco, who later relocates to the Neutral ZoneIn some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members, or series where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form. It could be presented in an appropriately titled section (e.g. ""Presenters"") or as a subsection of the ""Production"" section (such as at The Price Is Right). To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. It may be more appropriate to use a character list for series where an actor portrays several characters. Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and far fewer will deserve an individual article (the average TV series has no characters that need stand-alone articles). It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by ""Main"" and ""Recurring"" cast or characters. If the series is long-running, and has a large number of recurring guest stars, it may be better to create a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on ""List of ..."" pages). The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though ""main"" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes) or (episodes 1–6), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or ""Production"" section with a reliable source. New casting information for forthcoming characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above. A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a ""recurring"" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status. All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used. Cast tables (such as the one found at The Killing (American TV series) § Cast) can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal. Only cast members who have been part of the main cast for at least one season should be included. If a program has a separate article about casting, the table should only appear in that article or in the parent article but not both. A separate cast table for recurring cast can be included in articles listing characters and cast but should never be included in parent television series articles. Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further ""in-universe"" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb. === Contestant progress tables === In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in a table, but there are circumstances that may justify excluding a table, and such tables should comply with accessibility guidelines. In general, the presence (or not) of tables should be consistent across a particular show. Tables supplement and enhance prose. The existence of vandalism alone is insufficient a reason to exclude tables from an article. === Background and production === Whether for the main article, season, or episode article, this section could contain the following parts: Development: This section can cover the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format (such as with a game show or reality series). Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode. Writing: This section can include notable writers and the development of any scripts. Production design: This section could highlight information about set design or special features that make up a set or scene, or other design elements such as costumes, makeup and practical effects, or title sequences. Filming: This section can cover aspects related to filming, such as locations, single-camera vs. multi-camera format, equipment used, and filming dates. Visual effects: This section could include individuals or companies related to the visual effects of a program, and how the effects were developed and incorporated in the show. Music: This section could include involved composers and how any scores or themes were developed and recorded. The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although cover images of the albums are discouraged. Given that album covers are generally visually similar to posters and other material for a series, season or episode, having cover images for the album is considered extraneous. If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see notability guidelines for albums), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article. Tracks from the score can be identified and discussed in prose, or used with the {{Track listing}} template. Cancellation and future: This section may address details that led to a program's cancellation or the status of any future plans for a program.This section should be structured to fit the available content and the type of article being written. Not all television shows will have information on each of these elements. For example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections by the parts above, or it may be more beneficial to have some material combined (i.e. a ""Development and writing"" or ""Filming and visual effects"" section). This section should not be an indiscriminate collection of information about the production, but provide context for what is included. For example, it should not simply list crew members, film locations, or dates of events (e.g. David Nutter was an associate producer) but instead be relevant in context (e.g. John and James Smith left their roles as executive producers in 2007 after a falling out with the studio, with Susan Doe taking over for the series' eighth season. Doe would leave after one year so that she could produce a new show for the network.) === Themes and analysis === Themes are unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a television show's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature. Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a shows's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced by this inclusion. A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the ""Production"" or ""Reception"" sections. This information may be more applicable to a series or a season article than to an individual episode article, although episode articles may contain such information if available. === Release === A section titled ""Release"" can be added if information exists for two or more of the following subsections. If only one of those below is able to be used, do not use any subsections under ""Release"" to avoid single subsections. It may be beneficial to forgo the inclusion of this section if the only information available results in a single sentence such as ""[Series] aired on [Network] from [Date 1] to [Date 2]."", as this information can be noted in a preceding section. ==== Broadcast ==== This subsection should cover broadcast and release information about the series or season. This can include: the original network or streaming service of release in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who, or the American and British networks for a co-production such as Sherlock); a change in network throughout the run, such as with Futurama; start and end dates; and discussion of technical data such as picture and audio format, when it is accompanied by critical commentary. Days or timeslots are not inherently notable, but if covering a series that switches these during its run, it may be helpful to note them for each season. Please note that if episodes are released all at once on a streaming service (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon Prime), it may be more appropriate to title this section ""Release"" rather than ""Broadcast"". Any syndication deal can also be noted. As Wikipedia is not a television guide, do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series appeared on in countries outside the country of production. Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced. These can include: broadcasts in primarily English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; special cases such as an American series airing its finale first in France; or a mass international distribution deal, such as Netflix acquiring the international rights for Riverdale and Designated Survivor. If reliable sources exist for English broadcasts in other countries, a talk page discussion should decide whether these are notable. ==== Home media and streaming services ==== This subsection should be used to detail release on home media (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray etc.; written as prose). Features about a home media set should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged — this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate. This section can also include reviews about the home media (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.) and sales information. The addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service can also be noted here. Given the information available, it may be beneficial to combine this information with physical home media information, rather than having separate sections for each. === Reception === The reception information should include details such as critical reviews and analysis, audience viewership (ratings), any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact. For the main article, it is best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole, while season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment publications (such as TV Guide, The A.V. Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). These reviews can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer. Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible, with editors avoiding vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode. Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. If a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. Reviews from the show's country of origin are recommended, though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable. Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews; caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates, or where reviews of selected episodes are averaged to form an incomprehensive season or series score. Unless quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary, do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and their authors have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its ""Audience Says"" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Information about audience viewership should use reliably sourced official ratings data, such as Nielsen ratings (US), Numeris (CAN), BARB (UK), OzTAM (AU) and similar reliable sources (see the Television FAQ page for suggested sources). Depending on the nature of the article, it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page using a template such as {{Television season ratings}}, while season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for each episode using {{Television episode ratings}}). Unless the ratings of all episodes are below one million viewers, viewership should be presented in tables or templates as being rounded to the nearest million (for example, 2,653,000 should be written as 2.65). Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced. Similarly, ratings should only be included for the first run of a program unless reliable sources show that the ratings for a subsequent release are particularly noteworthy. Lists of ratings on episode articles should be included under headers that state the season involved, without a year, to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings in not having headers duplicate any pre-existing headers. Awards and nominations can also go in this section. In order to present a global perspective, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception. Any awards tables should follow WP:ACCESSIBILITY. This section can also contain information on how the show has impacted society: If the show created a craze, popularized a word (Seinfeld with ""yada, yada, yada"", etc.), revolutionized the medium (Sesame Street in children's television, or the mini-series Roots), or something similar (many stores and businesses closed early on Mondays to allow employees to get home in time to watch I Love Lucy). === Media information === This section can be broken up into individual sections if need be. It can typically consist of marketing and merchandising, adaptations to other media (novels, comics, video games, etc.), or spin-off series. When creating an article on a single character of a television show, note that the section headers below are not mandatory, and various good and featured articles on fictional characters have different section headers (and placement) than one another. Find the structure that works best for the article in question; regardless of whether these headers are used, the information they present is important to establishing an article with real world context. === Infobox === General character infoboxes can be found at Template:Infobox character, though editors should see if the character article they are creating is part of a larger Wikipedia community (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse or Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons) as those respective communities may have a special infobox already created. When filling in the infobox, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, the average reader is probably not going to know who every member of Chloe Sullivan's family is, so it would not be essential to list them all. On the other hand, the average reader probably knows who Lois Lane is, and listing her as Chloe's cousin would be essential to understanding the character. The same can be said for information that is rather obvious to the reader. If the image in the infobox clearly shows a black female, then listing the race and sex of the character would be redundant; this is regardless of the fact that the show the character appears on happens to contain characters that appear female but are really male. Now, if the character image is of a black female, but in fact the sex of the character is ""male"", then it would be essential to indicate this in the infobox – be sure to cite a source for this type of information. === Lead paragraphs === Like any article, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the character: who created the character, where they first appeared, who portrayed the character (if applicable), a general overview of where the character has appeared (no specific episodes). The subsequent paragraphs should be filled with generalized information on the character itself: characteristics, influences in popular culture, and anything else that summarizes the character's importance. As an example of lead paragraphs:Professor Bernard Quatermass is a fictional character, originally created by the writer Nigel Kneale for BBC Television. Quatermass appeared in three influential BBC science fiction serials of the 1950s, and returned in a final serial for Thames Television in 1979. A remake of the first serial appeared on BBC Four in 2005. The character also appeared in films, on the radio and in print over a fifty-year period. Kneale picked the character's unusual surname from a London telephone directory, while the first name was in honour of the astronomer Bernard Lovell. Quatermass is an intelligent and highly moral British scientist, who continually finds himself confronting sinister alien forces that threaten to destroy humanity. In the initial three serials he is a pioneer of the British space programme, heading up the British Experimental Rocket Group. The character of Quatermass has been described by BBC News Online as Britain's first television hero, and by The Independent newspaper as ""A brilliantly conceived and finely crafted creation... [He] remained a modern 'Mr Standfast', the one fixed point in an increasingly dreadful and ever-shifting universe."" In 2005, an article in The Daily Telegraph suggested that ""You can see a line running through him and many other British heroes. He shares elements with both Sherlock Holmes and Ellen MacArthur."" === Images === Like every article, the use of non-free images must comply with Wikipedia's policy on fair-use images. When looking for images for the character infobox, it would be best to find images that best represent the character in question – this can sometimes be promotional images, which provide better lighting on the character. Images in the body of the article could consist of concept designs for the character, behind-the-scenes images, and any other image that has critical commentary adjacent to the image, which requires an image to better understand what is being said. === Role in ""SHOW NAME"" === This section should chronicle the characters appearances on their respective show, and any other appearances on other programs, or media. If the character has only appeared on the one television show, and no other media, then the section of the title could be what is represented above, or something similar (e.g. Character storyline). If the character has appeared in media outside of the television show, like a comic book based on the show, or a film adaptation, then it may be better to subdivide by medium (e.g. ""Television"", ""Film"", ""Literature"", etc.) and label the section ""Appearances"". Regardless of the title of the header, this section is not a character's biography and should not be a detailed recording of the character's every move, as this can create an overly long section devoted entirely to in-universe information – think of it as being similar to a plot section of an episode article; the information should be succinct. Instead, try and summarize major events that occur with the character. Avoid using ""Biography"" in the header for this section, as it can insinuate that the section should detail everything that happened to the character. For drama shows where there are long-running character arcs, it is reasonable to describe a character's arc split by individual seasons, but do avoid using a per-episode breakdown. Instead consider the key, holistic events that happen to the character across multiple episodes, tying in with major events of the actual show. It is still a good idea to provide episode names inline or episode citation references to help with verification of the content. In other shows like sit-coms where there is little to no continuity between episodes, then one should write about characters from the perspective of the entire show. === Concept and creation === Similar to a production section of an episode article, this section should contain information about how the character was first envisioned, what ideas helped create the character, and how the creative team went about casting an actor for the role. If the actor portraying the character had to wear make-up or body prosthetics, then this is the place to detail the work that went into giving the character their specific appearance. === Characterization === Included here should be information about the character's personality, motives, and interpretations of their actions. If essential to understanding the character, include a description of their physical appearance (not the same as describing the work that went into creating their physical appearance). Not every character's physical appearance is noteworthy, so use good judgement. Information for this section will typically come from secondary sources, like scholarly journals analyzing the character or the show, or television critics. It could also come from the creative team of the show. === Reception === Reception for a specific character may not always be found, or it may have a better home in another section. Generally, this would be where critical response to the character—not necessarily an analysis of the character, like what would be found in the ""Characterization"" section—would be placed. A character might be deemed to be a hindrance to the show because of poor writing, or poor acting; on the other hand, the character could be deemed important to the show for the very opposite of reasons. Information on how the character has progressed throughout the series, or how they were portrayed would also be important aspects to consider. === Impact on popular culture === Some television characters have influences on other television shows, or in other entertainment mediums. For instance, Billy West based his performance as Zapp Brannigan on The Simpsons character Troy McClure. A character might be so popular that toys, video games, and other merchandise are created based on said character. This section deals with how a television character reaches outside their respective show, and becomes part of popular culture in some fashion. Analyses should be backed by reliable sources and not just by personal observations. The overall list structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual series or list of characters, but the following guidelines should be followed in most cases. (General list-article guidelines are available at WP:Stand-alone lists.) === Image === A single representative image should be placed at the top of the list article, aligned to the right, with an appropriate caption. The image should be uploaded and include an appropriate fair use rationale to comply with Wikipedia policies. Ideally for episode lists, this image will be the title screen from the series, or the typeface logo of the series name. For character lists, an image showing the whole cast, or most of the series regulars, is useful at the top of the article, while an image for every individual character is generally not appropriate, unless the amount of critical commentary on the character's appearance warrants an illustration. When offering such commentary, cite the sources of the commentary in addition to the source of the image, for example in the thumbnail of the image, in the paragraph commenting on the image or both. Additionally, multiple non-free images should not be used within a list article. === Lead === The lead of an episode or character list should keep the recommendations of Wikipedia:Lead section, and for episode listings, follow the general idea stated above with regard to article leads. For a good episode example, see List of The O.C. episodes: For a good character list example, see Characters of Kingdom Hearts, although it is not a television-related article: === Episode listing === Ideally, the episode list will be presented as a table. There are various ways to create the episode table, refer to the list of featured episode lists to find the table that best represents that article being created. Episodes should generally be arranged in order of airdate, with any notable production discrepancies covered in appropriate notes or in a production section. However, there may be situations where ordering by airdate would not be beneficial to readers, such as with Firefly and List of Futurama episodes, and should be discussed to determine the best approach to list the episodes, with reliable secondary sources needed to support a different ordering. Episode title, writers, directors, episode numbers, airdates, production codes, and viewership numbers must be reliably sourced, either from the opening/closing credits or from secondary sources (preferred, see WP:RSPRIMARY). In the WGA screenwriting credit system, an ampersand (&) is used to indicate a writing team or duo, while ""and"" is used to separate multiple writers who are not part of a team. Such distinctions, as credited, should be used in tables. A summary of the plot can be included and should be brief (100–200 words), but complete, including spoilers. If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers such as ""Season 1"", ""Season 2"", or ""Series 1"", ""Series 2"" if that is the identifier for the show. ==== Series overview ==== When a television program has produced 2 or more seasons/series, it may be advantageous to summarize episode data with a series overview table. This table should be placed where a reader would expect to find information about specific episodes. If a program's episode list is on the main article, the series overview should be presented at the top of the episode list. If a separate ""List of episodes"" article exists, the series overview table should be presented in a ""Series overview"" section just below that article's lead, then transcluded to the episodes section at the main article. ===== Example ===== The basic overview table should contain: If a television program has enough reliable sources to support viewership data, the overview should resemble the following: If additional viewership information can be obtained with adequate sources, the fully-expanded overview should resemble this format: ===== Contents ===== A new season should be added to the overview table only after a section header has been created for that season (either because an episode table has been created, a season article exists, or substantial information about the season is available; see MOS:TVUPCOMING for more details). If a new season is airing on a new network from previous seasons, a ""Network"" column should be added after the ""Last aired"" column. If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced or routinely calculated with a public method approved by consensus and not as the result of one's personal private calculations. Sourcing or reproducibility is crucial for accuracy and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism. Since many series do not have proper ""premieres"" and ""finales"", such language should be avoided in the overview, with ""first aired"" and ""last aired"" used instead. There are practical reasons for this: Some networks air series previews (e.g., Fanboy & Chum Chum) in advance of that program's official ""premiere"". Restricting the series overview to the literal ""first aired"" date in the intended market avoids any confusion; the first aired date would be that preview date. Also, if a series is cancelled before it can tie up loose ends with a proper ""finale"", the table header will not need to be changed to reflect this unpredictable event and will be consistent with other articles. Check the documentation of {{Series overview}} for multiple ways to add further information to a television series's overview. ===== Formatting ===== It is preferable to link the season number within the table to the appropriate section at the List of episodes article, or if a unique episode list article has not yet been created, link to the appropriate season section within the main article. The overview table should be presented compactly, for ease of viewing across multiple devices. Since some users have large monitors, overviews that span the user's entire screen are not useful. Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons. Colors must conform to the color guideline, which attempts to make content accessible for the visually impaired, such as readers with colorblindness. Once established, colors that meet that guideline should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion. ===== Miscellaneous ===== Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series. Home media release information is best suited within their own section on the List of episodes article or main article. If data does not exist yet, fields can be left blank. Alternatively, editors can use TBA (to be announced) as a placeholder, with the wikicode, {{N/a|TBA}} until the data becomes available. Once a trend has been established, it should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion. Additionally, if the data is determined to not be available, a blank or ""TBA"" field can be changed to ""N/a"" (not applicable, not available) to indicate such with {{N/a}}. ==== Multiple pages ==== For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. These lists are often the first stepping stone for season articles, but generally lack the amount of real world information (e.g. production, themes, etc.) that a season article has. They may contain some awards or a reception section, but they are generally a list of information pertaining to that respective season. If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries. Each section should have a {{main}} link to the sublist. These separate lists should include a full lead, as noted above, and follow the same guidelines laid out here as they will be evaluated as stand alone articles. In circumstances when a series with two or more seasons has achieved significant coverage earlier in its run and its main article can no longer contain all of the information sufficiently, beyond just episode tables and summaries, season pages may be created. ==== Forthcoming or announced seasons ==== When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead, depending on when and what info is revealed. An example is the lead from List of Person of Interest episodes, when the series was renewed for a fourth season in March 2014 with an air date that had not yet been announced: The second paragraph seen above is the proper formatting for this information, in order to comply with the seasons guideline. Once a scheduled premiere date has been announced, the information between the two reference tags above may be changed to indicate the scheduled start, as seen here: Years should not be added to a season section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been ""Season 11"" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to ""Season 11 (2013)"". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to ""Season 11 (2013–14)"" or ""Season 11 (2013–2014)"", depending on local usage of year ranges. Sections for ratings tables on episode articles should only include the season, not a year (see § Reception for more). Possible times where a section header may be added for a season before an episode table is ready could include: a separate article exists for the season and meets notability guidelines, in which case a section header followed by a ""main article"" link leading to the season article would be appropriate; or if substantial information for the season is available but there is no separate season article and it could not be easily included in the lead. An example of the latter is taken from the ""Season 8"" section on The Big Bang Theory list of episodes page, before a season page or episode table was created: ==== DVD and Blu-ray releases ==== The inclusion of DVD and Blu-ray releases in episode lists is not a requirement but up to editor preference. Such releases, if included, should be in a ""Home media"" section, which includes all primary release dates (i.e. Region 1, Region 2, and Region 4 DVD codes and A, B, and C for Blu-ray). If the series is available on VHS or Laser disc, name the section Home video releases instead and note the VHS releases with the DVD and Blu-ray information. Include a column in the table for VHS release date(s) if different from the DVD and/or Blu-ray release(s). This table's presentation is up to the editors of the article; feel free to inspect featured lists or featured articles to find an appropriate presentation of releases for the article. Please cite the sources for the release information using citation templates, such as the company website showing release information or the DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, or Laser disc itself. ==== Article splitting ==== When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikipedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account. Per that splitting guideline, a split should occur when an article reaches 50kB to 60kB of readable prose. To determine ""readable prose"" (using Prosesize), simply click the ""Page size"" icon in the banner on the left of the article's page. Readable prose will be highlighted in yellow. Because of episode table coding, episode summaries are not highlighted nor counted in this number. To assist editors, an episode summary of approximately 200 words (see WP:TVPLOT above) creates an estimated 1kB of readable prose. Considering episode summaries alone, it would take between 50 and 60 episodes to warrant separating those summaries off the main page to an List of Episodes page. However, additional content usually exists on a series parent article, so it is recommended that this guide be applied after determining the size of readable prose for the rest of the article. For example, an article with readable prose listed at 15kB, that has an episode list of 15 episodes, would be at approximately 30kB of readable prose. That would generally not be appropriate for splitting, regardless of how many seasons those 15 episodes encompass. An article that is 40kB of readable prose, not factoring in the episode table, would most likely require splitting as the main page is sufficiently large to justify the split. When splitting from a List of Episodes into season pages, or into individual episode articles, the size of the page may require a larger threshold before splitting IF the only information available are episode summaries and ratings for the show (as ratings themselves would never be counted as ""readable prose""). A List of Episodes page would need a threshold closer to 70kB to 80kB (approximately 70 to 80 episodes). There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content (e.g., reception specifically for that season, or that episode; production information for the season or the episode), or duplication of the season page's content (e.g., an episode article that contains 1 or 2 reviews, and used the overall production information about the season that isn't specific to any one episode). This is because notability is not inherited from a parent article, and all articles must stand on their own. So be careful when splitting pages too soon; if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it. Please remember that anytime a split has occurred, proper attribution must be noted, usually via the edit summary in the original article and the new article. === Character listing === Treat individual character sections within articles about programs as if they were mini-character articles and refer to the above style guidelines for assistance. Given that the character is part of a list, and does not have its own article, there probably will not be a reason to have subsections underneath the character header. If there is a lot of real world information available, but not enough to separate the character, then simply separate the distinctive topics into their own paragraphs. The preferred method for sourcing information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. (For instructions, see Help:Footnotes and WP:Citing sources.) In rare cases, it might be advisable to include a ""See also"" or ""Further reading"" section. Links to the Official Website or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article. Linking to a major fansite may be appropriate, if it can be determined that that fansite is more significant than any random fansite on the web. For example, Craig Byrne, the webmaster for Kryptonsite—a fansite devoted to Smallville and several other fantasy driven shows—has written four official companion books for the show that contain detailed interviews with the cast and crew, as well as behind-the-scenes information on the episodes of the show. As such, including a link to Kryptonsite in this section would be relevant, but editors must be careful as many shows inspire dozens of fansites, and Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to. In general, link relevant connections to another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully; articles explaining technical terms (e.g., ""diegetic music"", but not commonly understood words such as ""television"" and ""studio""), jargon or slang expressions, unless commonly understood; and articles about geographical places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features, locations and nationalities (e.g., ""British"", ""United States""), religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, common currencies (e.g., US$) and chronological items such as months and years. Rather than linking them in the body of the text using ""hidden"" pipes to plain years, which readers are unlikely to click on, consider either (1) listing ""Year in television"" links, unpiped, in the ""See also"" section, or (2) clarifying at least the first occurrence as an unpiped link within parentheses in the main text; e.g. ""(see 2002 in television)"". Consider linking only a more specific item where the target page links to a more general item nearby in the anchor text (Atlanta, Georgia). Generally link only the first occurrence of an item (there are possible exceptions). Always link to the article or section on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which it is linked: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics. The standard navigation box for television articles is the {{Navbox}} template. See the template's documentation for instructions on creating a navbox. Please categorize all TV articles appropriately. Try looking at similar shows as an example and use Category:Television programming as the starting point for finding the right categories. TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. Exceptions to this include co-productions (such as The 4400), or when a show changes networks during its original run. There are several components to a television article—which include articles on individual characters as well—that should be avoided, as they are either unencyclopedic in nature, or are better placed in another section. These include: === Taglines === As a general rule, do not include taglines in an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the television program, create a section for it and describe its effects. === Trivia sections === Trivia sections are unencyclopedic and indiscriminate information. Relevant information should be integrated into the body of the article. === Quotations === Extensive use of these may breach copyright, and many entertainment-related quotations are indiscriminate information. Consider adding these to Wikiquote instead. === Lists of featured music or song lyrics === Original song lyrics for a television episode breach copyright. References to featured music should be supported by reliable sources. Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show. === Technical errors and continuity issues (""bloopers"" or ""goofs"") === Unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided. If there is a major mistake that is discussed by a reliable source, it can become a part of the production section. === Differences in an adaptation === Sometimes television shows are adapted from other media (e.g., The Incredible Hulk), or another form of media. In either case, an article should not contain a mere list of differences. Differences can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within a relevant section of the article (e.g., Production, Themes, or Reception). A mere list of differences can provide undue weight to very minor aspects of the two source materials (such as, a character in a show usually wearing a black shirt, but in the original version/new adaptation wears a purple shirt). === Parental ratings === Parental ratings given to episodes of television series by television content rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In television articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a series or episode of television is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a television episode to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a television series or episode's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by American broadcast and cable networks to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual television shows or episodes if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how television shows/episodes were rated in their time period. It is recommended that parental ratings information be placed in the ""Production"" section of the appropriate article, but a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists. {{Infobox television}} – the infobox to use on these kinds of pages. {{Infobox animanga}} – an infobox designed for Anime, which has custom templates due to different media types for the subject. {{Navbox}} – the navigational box to use on these kinds of pages. {{WikiProject Television}} – the WikiProject Television banner. Add this to the article's talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types – lists various (mostly geographically sorted) templates for television-related stubs articles; these go between the article content and its categories. List of TV shows – An editable list of TV shows currently missing articles, ensuring coverage of all TV shows Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles – how to approach existing articles at variance with current style Wikipedia:How to streamline a plot summary" 19 19 29 :WP:F Wikipedia:Non-free content 19 "Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free. This includes all content (including images) that is fully copyrighted, or which is made available subject to restrictions such as ""non-commercial use only"" or ""for use on Wikipedia only"". (Many images that are generally available free of charge may thus still be ""non-free"" for Wikipedia's purposes.) The Wikimedia Foundation uses the definition of ""free"" described here. The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content; however, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects (with the exception of Wikimedia Commons) to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. Non-free content should be replaced by free content should such emerge. The non-free content criteria policy currently serves as the exemption doctrine policy of the English Wikipedia, while this document serves to provide guidance associated with this policy. Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below. The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law. Transcluded from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; this is the part of the current page that is official policy As per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007, this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia. === Rationale === To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law. To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. === Policy === There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,
, {{Quote}}, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. Minimal usage:Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. === Enforcement === A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added. A file on which non-free use is claimed that is not used in any article (criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification. A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Files. === Footnotes === The implementation of the non-free content criteria is done by having two specific elements on the non-free media's description page: A copyright license template The copyright license template identifies the type of copyright that the original work is under license. This is necessary to demonstrate that the image complies with United States fair use laws. You can find a list of these copyright license templates at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. A non-free rationale The rationale to use the non-free content is necessary to show that the non-free content criteria have been met. The rationale should clearly address and satisfy all ten points of WP:NFCC. Template versions to generate such rationales do exist, and include: {{Non-free use rationale}} – A generic template applicable for any non-free media. {{Non-free use rationale 2}} – An alternative template to the above. {{Non-free use rationale logo}} – A rationale template for logos, assuming they are being used as a header image (standalone or infobox) for the entity the logo represents. Several other boilerplate rationale templates can be found at Category:Non-free use rationale templates, but editors are cautioned that these are generally tenuous in terms of supporting WP:NFCC#8, and are encouraged to improve upon rationales if they can do so. You are not required to use the template forms, but whatever form you chose needs to clearly address all ten criteria in WP:NFCCP. It is important to remember that a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia. If the image is used in two separate articles, two separate rationales are needed, unique for both articles. If the image is used more than once in the same article, a separate and specific rationale is still needed for each use.Both the license and the rationale need to be included on the non-free media description page. The standard upload tool for Wikipedia will ask you enough questions during the process to fill in both the license and rationale for you, thus simplifying the process. If they are added manually, with or without the help of a template, it is recommended to put the rationale and license under separate sections ""Rationale"" and ""Licensing"" respectively. Failure to include a licensing template, or a rationale that clearly identifies each article the media file is used in, will lead to the media file being deleted within 7 days after being tagged with warning messages. === Meeting the no free equivalent criterion === Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. As a quick test, before adding non-free content, ask yourself: ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"" and ""Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion. Another consideration for ""no free equivalent"" are ""freer"" versions of non-free media, typically which include derivative works. For example, a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work. We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art. ==== Multiple restrictions ==== For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder. If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity. === Meeting the previous publication criterion === Very often, such as for most non-free content emanating from the news and entertainment industries, meeting this criterion is not in question. In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally ""leaked"" and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia. Usually, an accompanying copyright notice is considered sufficient evidence that a publication in the media has been made with appropriate permission. If, in this regard, an item of non-free content is questioned or is likely to be questioned, then details of an instance of prior publication with permission must be determined and recorded at the non-free media's description page. === Meeting the contextual significance criterion === Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance. To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used; for identification of specific coins and currency, images of the front and back are normally used. === Sourcing === While there is no specific requirement in the non-free content policy to identify the source from which a non-free file was obtained, editors are strongly encouraged to make note of the source on the media's description page; many of the non-free rationale templates already include a field for this information. This can aid in the cases of disputed media files, or evaluating the non-free or free nature of the image. Lacking a source is not grounds for media removal, but if the nature of the media file is disputed, the lack of a source may prevent the file from being retained. Non-free media must be from a published source; the unpublished non-free media is forbidden. Identification of the source will aid in validating the previous publication of the material. The source information should be sufficiently complete to allow any editor to validate that material. While completeness is not required, editors are encouraged to provide as much source information as they can. Some ways to source media files include: Scanned images Identifying the published work, page numbers, and the copyright owner. Screenshots and video clips Identifying the movie, television show, or other video source, its copyright owner, and the approximate timestamp where the shot or clip was taken. Images from the Internet Identifying the URL of the image itself or web page hosting the image, and the image's copyright owner (not necessarily the same as the website's). Music samples Identifying the album, artist, track number, and approximate time stamp of the sample. === Meeting the minimal usage criterion === ==== Number of items ==== Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so. For example, an excerpt of a significant artistic work is usually included only in the article about the work, which is then referenced in the articles about its performer and its publisher. A single item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic is preferred to multiple non-free items which each convey fewer such points. This is independent of whether the topic is covered by a single article, or is split across several. For example, an article about an ensemble may warrant the inclusion of a non-free image identifying the ensemble. This is preferable to including separate non-free images for each member of the ensemble, even if the article has been split with each member having their own sub-section of the article. ==== Image resolution ==== There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce. Some legal proceedings have discussed the issue, but are inconclusive here. At the low pixel count end of the range, most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels), obtained by multiplying the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of an image. This allows, for example, images with a 4:3 aspect ratio to be shown at 320 × 240 pixels (common for screenshots from TV, films, and videogames), while allowing common cover art to be shown at 250 × 400 pixels. To scale an image down to a specific number of pixels, use this formula: new width = target pixel count × original width original height {\displaystyle {\text{new width}}={\sqrt {\tfrac {{\text{target pixel count}}\times {\text{original width}}}{\text{original height}}}}} or use this tool to compute it for you. At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail. You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may nonetheless be reduced. An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail. In such cases, that text should be duplicated on the image description page. Care should be given to the recreation of copyrighted text: for example, while duplication is appropriate for credits from a movie poster that contains factual data, such duplication would not be appropriate for an original poem embedded within an image. If a small area of a large image needs high resolution to see details that are discussed in the article text, it may be better to crop the section to show the critical portion at a higher resolution, than to try to reduce the full image. If cropping is performed, editors should indicate the original source of the image and what modifications were made. If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers or a bot like DatBot. Note that these guidelines apply to the resolution as stored on the image file page; the reuse of these images in mainspace should follow the Manual of Style for image use, such as deferring to default thumbnail size to allow the end-user control of the image display. Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria above but does not fall under one of the designated categories below may or may not be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions. When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. If you want help in assessing whether a use is acceptable, please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. It may also be useful to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content; these are places where those who understand copyright law and Wikipedia policy are likely to be watching. See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, a guide to evaluating the acceptability of non-free images. === Acceptable use === The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Note that the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information. ==== Text ==== Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (e.g.(...)) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as ""(emphasis added)"" or ""(emphasis in the original)"". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting. ==== Audio clips ==== All non-free audio files must meet each of the non-free content criteria; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. Advice for preparing non-free audio files for Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Music samples. The following list is non-inclusive but contains the most common cases where non-free audio samples may be used. Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter (see Wikipedia:Music samples). Spoken word clips of historical events, such as speeches by public figures, may be used when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the speaker/author. ==== Images ==== Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used and is subject to the restrictions listed below at unacceptable use of images, notably #8, which forbids the use of press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos). Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Software screenshots. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the ""respect for commercial opportunity"" test. Images that are themselves subject of commentary. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail ""respect for commercial opportunity"". === Unacceptable use === The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. ==== Text ==== Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL. A complete or partial recreation of ""Top 100"" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner. (See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for further details.) Articles on individual elements from such lists can discuss their inclusion in these lists. Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include. Lists that have acceptable free licensing (as with AFI 100 Years... series) may be reproduced in their entirety as long as proper citations and sourcing are included. ==== Multimedia ==== An excessive number of short audio clips in a single article. A small number may be appropriate if each is accompanied by commentary in the accompanying text. A long audio excerpt, to illustrate a stylistic feature of a contemporary band; see above for acceptable limits. A short video excerpt from a contemporary film, without sourced commentary in the accompanying text.The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). ==== Images ==== Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respect all local property and privacy laws and restrictions. For example, we would not accept a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above. A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses. A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image) A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article. A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue was when the photo was taken) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it. An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty. A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data. A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. Board or card game artwork and photos where the game itself is shown more than de minimis; such images can nearly always be replaced by a free de minimis photograph of the game's layout while it is being played. Exceptions are made for parts of a board or card games that have received critical commentary. A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the Wikipedia article in textual form, with a citation to the newspaper article. A publicity image of a commercial product released by its manufacturer, if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken. The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable. === Non-free image use in list articles === In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists: Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly (as the ""extent"" of use is determined by the number and resolution of non-free images, and not the number of files.) Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements. An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use. For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. === Non-free image use in galleries or tables === The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered. In categories that include non-free content, MediaWiki's __NOGALLERY__ code should be used to disable the display of the content while still listing it. User-created montages containing non-free images should be avoided for similar reasons. Within the scope of NFCC#3a, such montages are considered as multiple non-free images based on each non-free image that contributes towards the montage. If a montage is determined to be appropriate, each contributing non-free item should have its source described (such as File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg). A montage created by the copyright holder of the images used to create the montage is considered a single non-free item and not separate items. === Exemptions === Certain non-article pages are exempt from the non-free content policy. These uses are necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia, such as special pages and categories that are used to review questionable non-free content uses. Categories that are exempt are listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Due to software limitations, TimedText pages for non-free video files will automatically include the video file, and as such, pages in the TimedText namespace are presumed to be exempted from NFCC#9. Fair use rationales are not required for such pages. Article images may appear in article preview popups. === Background === ""Free"" content is defined as that which meets the ""Definition of Free Cultural Works"". Material that is not free is permitted only if it meets the restrictions of this policy. This has been explicitly declared since May 2005. The stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports Wikipedia servers and software, is ""to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."" These concerns are embodied in the above requirements that all non-free content must meet, and our policy of deleting non-compliant content. Being generous to the world sometimes means being hard on ourselves. Please understand that these rules are not arbitrary; they are central to our mission. Wikipedia distributes content throughout the world with no restrictions on how people use it. Legally, we could use any copyrighted material for ourselves that is either licensed to us by the owner, or that fits the definition of ""fair use"" under US copyright law. However, we favor content that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright. To honor its mission, Wikipedia accepts incoming copyright licenses only if they meet Wikipedia's definition of ""free"" use. This is a higher standard than we would need just for our own use. But our ability to use a work does not guarantee that others may use it. We reject licenses that limit use exclusively to Wikipedia or for non-commercial purposes. Commercial use is a complex issue that goes well beyond a company's for-profit status, another reason to be careful. In fact, we reject any licenses with significant limitations. That is not free enough. Similarly, Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than U.S. copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art/product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meets U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations. Just because something is ""fair use"" on a Wikipedia article in the U.S. does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution. We do not want downstream re-users to rely solely on our assurances. They are liable for their own actions, no matter what we tell them. We therefore show them and let them make their own decision. To that end we require a copyright tag describing the nature of a copyrighted work, sourcing material saying exactly where any non-free content comes from, and a detailed non-free media rationale for every use of copyrighted content in every article, justifying why use in that article is permitted. A further goal of minimizing licensed and fair-use material is to encourage creation of original new content, rather than relying on borrowed content that comes with restrictions. === Legal position === ==== In general ==== Under United States copyright law, creative works published in the United States prior to 1928 are in the public domain. Some creative works published in the United States between 1928 and 1963 are still copyrighted. It is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. Unless a thorough search is conducted to determine that a copyright has expired or not been renewed, it should be regarded as copyrighted.Certain works have no copyright at all. Most material published in the United States before 1928, work published before 1978 without a copyright notice, with an expired copyright term, or produced by the U.S. federal government is public domain, i.e., has no copyright. Some such as photos and scans of 2-dimensional objects and other ""slavish reproductions"", short text phrases, typographic logos, and product designs, do not have a sufficient degree of creativity apart from their functional aspects to have a copyright. Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are ""fixed in a tangible medium of expression,"" not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary). If material does have a copyright, it may only be copied or distributed under a license (permission) from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use. If there is a valid license, the user must stay within the scope of the license (which may include limitations on amount of use, geographic or business territory, time period, nature of use, etc.). Fair use, by contrast, is a limited right to use copyrighted works without permission, highly dependent on the specific circumstances of the work and the use in question. It is a doctrine incorporated as a clause in United States copyright code, arising out of a concern that strict application of copyright law would limit criticism, commentary, scholarship, and other important free speech rights. A comparable concept of fair dealing exists in some other countries, where standards may vary. Anything published 1928 or later in other countries and still copyrighted there, is typically also copyrighted in the United States. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. ==== Applied to Wikipedia ==== Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. Uploading an image, audio or video file, or text quotation into Wikipedia, and adding that file to a project page, both raise copyright concerns. Editors who do either must make sure their contributions are legal. If there is any doubt as to legality, ask others for help, try to find a free equivalent, or use your own words to make the same point. Also, consider asking the copyright holder to release the work under an appropriate Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) or a CC BY-SA-compatible license (dual-licensing under a GFDL license is also possible). See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a sample form letter. If a work has no copyright or is licensed to Wikipedia under an acceptable ""free"" license, it is a free work and may be used on Wikipedia without copyright concerns. See public domain, copyright, and Cornell University's guide to copyright terms for discussion of works that are not covered by copyright. Also see free license regarding free licenses and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for a list of copyright tags for these works. Restricted licenses to these works offer some legal rights, but Wikipedia ignores them because they are not free enough for its purposes. Instead, works covered by inadequate licenses are treated the same on Wikipedia as works with no licenses at all. If a work is not free, Wikipedia requires that it comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. As explained above, this policy is more restrictive than US law requires. Logically, material that satisfies the policy should also satisfy legal requirements as well. However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. See fair use for further information, and the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, on the subject of fair use. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to remove unfree copyrighted content at any time. Note that citation sources and external links raise other copyright concerns that are addressed in other policies. Possibly inappropriate uses of non-free content can be either tagged with {{subst:proposed deletion}}, if deletion is uncontroversial per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, or reported and discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. This policy is specific to the English-language Wikipedia. Other Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedias in other languages, may have different policies on non-free content. A list of some of the projects and their policies on fair use can be read at Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy Requesting a free photo – ""How-To"" guide for acquiring free images (5 steps). More useful for novice editors still gaining experience with copyright licenses and uploading free images. Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues – essay explaining the rationale behind the fair use policy Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ Wikipedia:Copyright problems Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people (historical page) Wikipedia:Example requests for permission – how to ask a rights holder for free use of existing materials Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images – essay regarding the removal of images from user and template spaces Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches – Wikipedia Signpost article surveying non-free use policy Wikipedia:History of non-free content policies – survey of the development of the present NFC policy Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use Wikipedia:Quotations#Fair use Wikipedia:Veganism parable Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide Meta:Wikilegal/Primer on U.S. Fair Use/Copyright Law for Website – prepared by Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team TinEye.com, a useful tool to discover other online copies of an image. searchbyimages.com, another useful tool for determining the original author of the image. A Fair(y) Use Tale by Media Education Foundation Coverage of U.S. copyright term durations and the public domain by Cornell University Coverage of U.S. fair use law by Stanford University Guidance about fair use by the University of Texas at Austin U.S. Copyright Office index of fair use cases Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video by the American University Center for Media and Social Impact Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video background by the American University Center for Media and Social Impact" 20 20 35 WP:NTEAM Wikipedia:Notability (sports) 20 "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. If the article meets the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the general notability guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Any athletic entertainment event at which the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (for example, professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER. At this time there is no consensus that esports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline. Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the § Basic criteria for guidance. A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. === Athletics/track & field and long-distance running === Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons). Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above) Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships. Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year Have won the elite division of multiple notable* road races (including the same race multiple times), or have established a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top-threes) Have at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests, and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the relevant official body Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance Have a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list Have been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame.To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity), significant coverage is likely to exist if they meet the following criteria: Coaches who have coached many notable athletes, including at least one non-relay Olympic medalist, World champion, or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments. Coaches who have been the official head coach of an Olympic track and field team for a country with multiple medalists. Coaches who introduced a notable technique or training method, and are widely credited as the originator. Clubs that have received major international coverage for their successes and have a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (for example, Irish American Athletic Club). If a club's success is mainly due to one coach, then only the coach is notable.*Significant coverage is likely to exist for a road race is determined if it meets any one of the following criteria It has an international elite (as defined by the IAAF standards for that year) field of at least 5 different nationalities. It receives broadcast or cable television coverage beyond the local market (if coverage is through the internet, the site must be independent of the sport, for example Universal Sports). It is a directly competitive meeting between several notable performers (at least 5).The following criteria may also be used to satisfy road race notability, but does not count towards the notability of athletes who compete in these races It has been the site of exceptional performances or records (bests). It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors. It has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years. === Badminton === Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes in badminton if they meet any of the criteria below Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g., Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International). Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix. Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. === Basketball === Significant coverage is likely to exist for basketball figures if they Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category, of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA G League. === Boxing === Significant coverage is likely to exist for a boxer if they: Have won a regular/full (non-interim) non-world title listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment. Have been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine. Have fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal-winning country (for Men, see Medal table (1974–present), for Women see Medal table (2001–present)), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament. === Cricket === Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation (for umpires) Have been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC UmpiresAdditionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. === Cue sports (snooker, pool, billiards) === See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability, which covers players and other persons, as well as governing bodies, manufacturers, periodicals, tournaments, rulesets, equipment, and venues. It is a WP:PROJPAGE, explaining how WP:Notability applies to the topic area and outlining what is likely/unlikely to be found notable, rather than setting rules or attempting to establish any variances from WP:NBASIC and NSPORT in general. === Curling === Significant coverage is likely to exist for a curler if they Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event. Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, or Pacific-Asia Curling Championships. Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships. Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials. Are member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame. === Cycling === Significant coverage is likely to exist for a male cyclist if he meets: Won a UCI World Tour; Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument; Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships).Significant coverage is likely to exist for a female cyclist if she: Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won a UCI category race (including Continental and National Championships); Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship).Significant coverage is likely to exist for a team if it: Is a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier; Is a UCI team (including UCI women's team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.).Significant coverage is likely to exist for a race if it: Is ranked with the UCI (WT, 1.Pro, 1.1, 1.2, 2.Pro, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN, .HC); Is part of an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Holds significant recognition (for example, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic). === Equestrian sport === This section does not encompass notability issues for individuals in rodeo, which is addressed at WP:NRODEO, or horse racing, which is covered at WP:NHORSERACING. Equestrians competing at the highest level of international competition are not always ""professionals"", some earn money and some do not, but most have sponsors or receive money to support their activities. Both professionals and non-professionals have been put in the professional sports category for convenience. Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport Have medaled at the Pan American Games as a rider, driver, or official team coach Have medaled at the FEI World Equestrian Games (WEG) as a rider, driver, or official team coach If prior to a competition becoming part of the combined WEG, medaled individually or were on a team that won gold, silver, or bronze at the Eventing World Championship, Show Jumping World Championships, or Dressage World Championship, Combined Driving World Championships, Endurance World Championships or World Vaulting Championships Have won a FEI World Cup competition.Significant coverage is also likely to exist for persons or horses associated with equestrian competition who do not meet the criteria outlined above if they are or have been: A coach or horse trainer who worked with many competitors (human or animal) considered notable by the criteria above, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World Equestrian Games champion. Individual inductees into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame. Heads of national and international federations, for example, United States Equestrian Federation, Fédération Equestre Internationale. A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor. A horse notable for being a parent or ancestor of a major competitor. Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level). Individuals who made major contributions to the equestrian industry such as veterinarians, researchers, artists, and inventors. === Figure skating === Significant coverage is likely to exist for figure skating figures if they Have won a medal at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships Won their country's senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualifies). As coach or choreographer, have worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (for example, Pam Gregory and David Wilson) Have been the heads of national and international federations. Are members of the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame, or a major national figure skating hall of fame, such as the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame. === Golf === Significant coverage is likely to exist for golf figures if: They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup, or similar international competition They are enshrined in one of golf's recognized Halls of Fame (example: World Golf Hall of Fame) They have won at least one professional golf tournament (examples: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, PGA Tour Champions) They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (examples: U.S. Amateur, British Amateur) They have made the cut in one of the four Men's major golf championships, one of the Women's major golf championships (past or present), or one of the Senior major golf championships (past or present) They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year === Gymnastics === Significant coverage is likely to exist for artistic gymnasts if they meet any of the criteria below Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition* Won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships Won an individual medal at the senior national championships for any country that medaled in the team competition at the most recent Olympics or World Championships Have been inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of FameSignificant coverage is likely to exist for junior gymnasts if they meet any of the criteria below Won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia, China, Romania (females only) Won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition* Won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games or Junior World ChampionshipsSignificant coverage is likely to exist for coaches if they Have coached many notable athletes, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or world champion Have been the official head coach of an Olympic or World Championship team*An elite international competition is any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between at least eight notable athletes (examples of such competitions include: Pan American Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, European Championships, and Pacific Rim Championships). === Horse racing === Notability for people involved in sport horse disciplines other than horse racing are covered at WP:NEQUESTRIAN or WP:NRODEO Not all participants in horse racing are athletic ""professionals"", particularly owners and breeders, but due to purse money and profit motive throughout the sport they are put in the professional sports category for convenience. Significant coverage is likely to exist for Horse racing figures, including horses and/or their human ""connections"" (horse trainers, jockeys, or horse owners and horse breeders) if they have accomplished any of the following: Individuals who win a US Grade I/Group I graded stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. (Horses, due to their relatively short careers, at least once; humans best to have done so more than once) Individuals who have won multiple significant US Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations. Individuals who have won year-end championship titles, such as an Eclipse Award. Members of a national Racing Hall of Fame.Significant coverage is also likely to exist for horses or persons associated with horse racing who were not competitors or do not meet the criteria above, if they meet any of the following: Individual humans who were significant for new advancements or trailblazing achievements. (examples: Andrew Beyer, Florence Nagle, Diane Crump) Horses that may not have raced to any significant degree (usually due to injury), but had multiple significant progeny, such as Tapit. Horses who are ranked the leading sire or broodmare for a given year in their respective nations (again, see Tapit) Breeding farms or farm owners that do not race many horses themselves, but have produced or currently stand horses who became notable winners. (i.e., Adena Springs) Agents, race track announcers (e.g., Larry Collmus), racing journalists (e.g., Steve Haskin), venue owners (e.g., Frank Stronach) and other business professionals with a significant connection to horse racing. Horses and individuals involved in highly publicized thefts or other crimes, e.g., Shergar, scandals, or other nefarious activities, such as substitution scams, e.g., Fine Cotton. An individual person with a connection to a notable horse is not presumed notable for that reason only, see WP:BIO1E, though if the individual's role is a large one, a significant connection to a single notable horse might justify a spinoff article (e.g., Eddie Sweat, groom of Secretariat). Conversely, a horse is not presumed notable just because the owner is famous – of Jim Rome's racehorses, Shared Belief is notable, Gallatin's Run is probably not. === Ice hockey === Significant coverage is likely to exist for ice hockey players if they Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, First-Team All-Star) in the Mestis, Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Slovak Extraliga, HockeyAllsvenskan, National League, or American Hockey League; Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or First-Team All-Star) in the Eishockey Liga, Belarusian Extraleague, DEL2, GET-ligaen, ECHL, Elite Ice Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League, Elite.A, or Beneliga; Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or First- or Second-Team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, Central Collegiate Hockey Association, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, or NCAA Division I independent; or Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL Entry Draft.For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute ""coached"" or ""managed"" for ""played"" in the player guidelines. For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. For leagues still in existence, only those listed above satisfy the specified criteria. === Kickboxing === Significant coverage is likely to exist for a kickboxing athlete if they: Have been ranked in the world top-10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source, or Have been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications. === Mixed martial arts === Have been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com). === Motorsports === Significant coverage is likely to exist for motorsport figures if they A driver or rider who has qualified for any of the following events: A Formula One World Championship Grand Prix or a 500cc/MotoGP World Championship motorcycle Grand Prix. The Indianapolis 500. A driver or rider who has competed for at least one full season in any of the following series: Any primarily-professional single-class series of significant international importance, such as the World Superbike Championship, Formula E, or the World Touring Car Championship. Any category of a multi-class series of significant international importance in which there is not a requirement to run ""amateur"" or ""gentleman"" drivers, such as the LMP1 and GTE Pro classes of the FIA World Endurance Championship, or as a manufacturer entry in the World Rally Championship. A top-level feeder series to Formula One or MotoGP, such as the GP2 Series or the Moto2 World Championship. The modern-era (1972 or later) NASCAR Cup Series. A driver or rider who has finished on the overall podium of any of the following events: Any round of a series in the previous category, if the driver or rider in question did not complete a full season. The Le Mans 24 Hours, the Bathurst 1000 Kilometres, or a pre-World Championship Grande Épreuve. A driver, rider, or co-driver who has won any of the following events overall: A round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship, Stock Car Brasil, or Super GT. A high-profile international rally as a driver (such as the Dakar Rally, Coupe des Alpes, or non-world championship editions of the Monte Carlo or RAC rallies), or a round of the World Rally Championship as a co-driver. A non-championship national Grand Prix (including the Macau Grand Prix and the Gordon Bennett Cup) for cars or motorcycles. Various major road races, such as one of the high-profile inter-city races of the 1890s and 1900s, an Isle of Man TT event, the Targa Florio, or the Mille Miglia. A driver or rider who has won any of the following championship titles: The overall championship title of any series in the previous category without winning a race (a relatively common occurrence in series whose points-scoring systems favour consistent finishes over inconsistent victories). A major championship in which a large number of the competitors are amateur ""gentleman"" drivers or privateers, such as the European Le Mans Series, Intercontinental GT Challenge, or European Rally Championship. Any driver who does not meet the previous criteria who has received an FIA platinum driver categorisation. Significant coverage is likely to exist for Drivers who have received an FIA gold driver categorisation, although a minority of drivers in this group may not meet the general notability guideline. A current or former owner or team principal for a team in a major racing series (Formula One, the World Rally Championship, MotoGP, Formula E, Indycar, DTM, Super GT, the NASCAR Cup Series, V8 Supercars, CART, or top-level IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Cup Series crew chiefs. Enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame. A current or former holder of significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record. === Orienteering === Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete who competes in the field of orienteering if they meet any of the criteria below Have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships, the European Orienteering Championships, the overall Orienteering World Cup at the end of a season or the World Games.Significant coverage is likely to exist for an orienteering club if it meets any of the criteria below Has won a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla). Has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above.Significant coverage is likely to exist for an event apart from the championships mentioned above if it meet all the following criteria It has an international elite field. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors. It has been held over a period of 25 years.Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay. In addition, an event is also likely to receive significant coverage if it is a competition for developing elite athletes; this includes the Junior World Orienteering Championships, the World University Orienteering Championships and the European Youth Orienteering Championships. === Rodeo === Significant coverage is likely to exist for individuals who participate in the sport of rodeo if they Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, or Bull Riding Hall of Fame. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow NHSPHSATH. Significant coverage is likely to exist for named animals participating in rodeo, such as bucking horses and bucking bulls, if they have been named to a rodeo hall of fame such as those noted above. === Sumo === Significant coverage is likely to exist for sumo wrestlers if they have been ranked in either the top (makuuchi) division or second-highest (juryo) division. Significant coverage is not likely to exist for wrestlers who have only appeared in lower divisions, as they have not reached fully professional status. === Tennis === Significant coverage is likely to exist for tennis figures if they Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments: Grand Slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open). Men: ATP Tour tournaments (the ATP Finals, ATP Tour Masters 1000, ATP Tour 500, or ATP Tour 250). Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA 1000, the WTA 500, the WTA 250, or the WTA Finals). Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. (Until 2007 it was $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year). Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.Significant coverage is likely to exist for junior players if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title, have been in the top-3 of the junior ITF world rankings, or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. === Triathlon === Significant coverage is likely to exist for triathletes if they Have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games. Have had a top-ten finish in the final World Triathlon Series standings (or in the final World Triathlon Cup standings, prior to 2009). Have had a top-ten finish in an World Triathlon sanctioned championship event. Have an elite level podium finish at an World Triathlon Continental Championship. Have had a professional division top-ten finish at the Ironman World Championship or at the Ironman 70.3 World Championship. Have had a podium finish at the XTERRA Triathlon championships. Have won an event that has a starting pro/elite field of at least 15 male or 10 female competitors. Have set a record for a standard distance event or leg. === College athletes and coaches === College athletes and coaches are likely to have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage if they: Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame). Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Very rarely, a player may gain national media attention despite not being on a notable team, such as Lauren Hill. Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport. Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA Division I/University Division football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982). Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:NBASIC. === Gaelic games === Significant coverage is likely to exist for GAA figures if that figure is or has been a: Gaelic footballer who has played in the National League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship Gaelic handballer who has won at senior inter-county level Hurler who has played in the National League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship === High school and pre-high school athletes === High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. === Teams and clubs === This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa. === Olympic and Paralympic Games === Significant coverage is likely to exist for Athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924) e.g. Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Laurentia Tan. However, winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines. Significant coverage is likely to exist for Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics Significant coverage is likely to exist for Sports at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics Significant coverage is likely to exist for Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women'sFor details on suggested content for the above article types see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style. === Individual seasons === Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. If the article is not for a top level professional team (such as for a college team) weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage): A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable. For programs considered elite in a sport (for example, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline). In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. === Individual games or series === Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not presumed notable. To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers). Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g., 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, e.g. see 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games). All-star or similar exhibition games, e.g., 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g., The Malice at the Palace, 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page. === Rivalries === Sports rivalries are not presumed notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline. === Arenas, stadia and other athletic venues === As with teams and clubs (see WP:NTEAM), sporting arenas, stadia and other venues do not have presumed notability, and are expected to demonstrate notability through meeting the general notability guideline. Since notability is not inherited, neither the notability of a sports team nor of competitions played there imply the notability of a venue. The following are some potential places to look for sources to establish sports notability: Chronicling America Library of Congress, historic newspapers from 1836–1922 (free) Google news search (mostly free) LA84 Foundation Digital archive of the LA84 Foundation research library; digitized books, periodicals, and magazines on sports (free) Newspaper archive Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access) NewsLibrary Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access) Newspapers.com Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)" 21 21 38 WP:NOTDUP Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates 21 "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, list articles (including item lists, as well as topical glossary, index, outline, and timeline articles), other lists including embedded lists, and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems. Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Wikipedia categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the ""category camp"" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the ""list camp"" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. A regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be (e.g. List of unusual units of measurement exists as a list, but not as a category Category:Unusual units of measurement). Category workers, list builders and outline builders, and series box designers all endeavor to develop comprehensive networks of links for navigating the encyclopedia. Because of this, increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are being provided. Take ""symphonies"", for example: Categories: Category:Symphonies Lists: List of symphonies with names Navigation Templates: Template:Symphonies by number and name It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect. Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. Below is a comparison of how these techniques group information and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Compared with a list, a category may have both advantages and disadvantages. Example of a category page. Every page in the article namespace should have at least one category. Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article. Article: Michael Jackson Useful category: Category:American pop singers Not useful: Category:Musicians whose first name starts with MA category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is ""no"": Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used, however—categories become less effective the more there are on a given article. An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software—except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:States of the United States and Category:Ohio (a good way to understand this exception is that if an article exists, and then a category is created on the same subject as the article, it should not cause the article to be removed from any of its categories). Exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition. For instance, if Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution was the only subcategory of Category:People of the French Revolution, it would not make sense to remove major figures of the French Revolution solely because of the means of their death. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Especially see Wikipedia:Categorization of people. An exception to the above rules is Category:Wikipedia maintenance, which contains categories intended to be temporary. Every category should be a subcategory of some other category. You can start from the top of the articles category hierarchy at Category:Main topic classifications. If you think a good parent probably exists but you just can't find it, add the {{Uncategorized}} tag. Your category will show up at Special:Uncategorizedcategories. Categories have sort keys like other pages, although they are used in a more flexible fashion. See WP:SORTKEY for technical considerations. For articles without any stable category, the {{Uncategorized}} tag can be used to bring attention to it, either on its own, or in the format {{uncat|March2023}}. There is also an automatically updated list at Special:Uncategorizedpages which displays uncategorized/stubbed articles; however it only updates once every few days, and only lists 1000 articles at a time. So it is always best to explicitly place an {{uncat}} tag, if you are uncertain how an article should be categorized. === Advantages of a category === Auto-linking. Create a link to a category on an article page, and a corresponding link to that article will be visible on the category page. Multi-directional navigation. A category can contain multiple subcategories, and can also be part of several categories. Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Wikipedia categories. Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia. Less susceptible to external linkspam than other types of pages, because only Wikipedia articles can be members of categories. Relatively unobtrusive in that they generally don't distract from the flow of the article. Search can use the incategory parameter to exclude or include all pages in that category. Subcategories are not included, but multiple terms can be added. === Disadvantages of a category === Can't be edited directly to add or remove entries. This must be done at the bottom of each article to be included or excluded from the category. Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments). There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion. Entries are arranged in alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetization). They cannot be organized into sections and subsections on a single page, each with its own descriptive introduction. Can be difficult to maintain: A category with hundreds of items cannot be moved except by editing hundreds of articles (though a bot can help) Tracking changes to a category is difficult because a category's edit history does not show when entries were added or removed from the category. So there is no easy way to tell when an article is removed from a category—it simply disappears with no indication that it was ever there in the first place. Wikipedia's watchlist feature does enable a user to watch a category for category membership changes. Does not support other forms of tracking, such as adding red links. (Red links are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles.) However stubs can be added to categories. Alternative names for the same item can be included only by including redirects in the category. It is not obvious to new users that categories exist, how to add items to them, how to link new categories into existing schemes, nor how to deal with point of view (POV) concerns. Categories are not shown in mobile view. Display of items in a category is limited to 200 on a page. To see the full contents of a category with more members than this, multiple pages need to be viewed. Compared with a category, a list may have both advantages and disadvantages. Example of a list: List of dog breeds === Advantages of a list === Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia. Often more comprehensive because each is maintained from a centralized location (at the page itself). See the top end of the list hierarchy at Lists of topics, Lists of basic topics, List of overviews, and List of glossaries. Can be formatted in many different ways, to improve the presentation of the contents of the list. For example, several levels of a hierarchy may be included in a list, or the list may have multiple columns, each of which can be a basis for the user to sort the list. Can be built and maintained by editing a single page, whereas filling a category requires the editing of multiple pages. Can be embellished with annotations (further details). For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can include with each entry when each championship was won, whom the champions defeated, who their coach was, etc. Included in searches of Wikipedia. Being in the main namespace, lists are included by default in Wikipedia searches. Their content is also searched by Google and other search engines. Can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles. Can include unlinked items For example, List of compositions by Franz Schubert, or, if appropriate, red links. See WP:Write the article first. List items can be manually sorted using a variety of methods. An article can appear several times or in different ways in the same list. List items can be linked to specific sections of articles. Can include invisible links to discussion pages, so that clicking on ""related changes"" will include those (Format: [[Talk:Omphalology| ]]); the list itself can also be included by linking it to itself, e.g. by linking the bold-faced phrase in the lead: '''This is a [[list of compositions by Franz Schubert]]'''... Can be more easily edited by newbies who are less familiar with Wiki markup language. Images can be interspersed throughout a list. Templates (such as navigation boxes) can be included as portions of a list. An embedded list, one incorporated into an article on a topic, can include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgment call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article—if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway. === Disadvantages of a list === No auto-linking. Every article links to its categories in a consistent way, but lists may be more difficult to discover because not every article listed links to it, and each may choose to link to it in a different way. Attempting to enforce crosslinks from articles in the category is error-prone, makes editing the list taxing, and counteracts the ease-of-editing benefits lists otherwise enjoy. Less comprehensive hierarchy. The category system has an extensive and detailed hierarchy to facilitate browsing by increasing specialization, while lists of lists are relatively rare and are not deeply nested. Complex automated processing. Lists are more difficult to process automatically using bots, because they may contain prose that contains links to items that are not in the list itself, and it is necessary to parse the page wikitext to extract listed items instead of using a specialized API as categories do. No automatic sorting. Editors have to manually determine where an entry belongs, and add it there. Often editors will simply add new items to the bottom of the list, reducing the list's effectiveness. This disadvantage can be overcome by placing the list in a sortable table. Can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. For example, a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. Navigation templates are generally presented in one of two formats: Horizontal, placed at the bottom of articles and also called navboxes Vertical, often found at the top-right corner of articles and called sidebarsWiki markup documentation for navigation templates at different levels of specificity includes Template:Navbox/doc, Template:Sidebar/doc, and, at the top or bottom of the template, Template:Navbar/doc. Each link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general, text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. However, specific navbox guidelines for color of text and background other than the defaults are available. Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines: All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate. Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article, or override the ""image="" field to illustrate something from the article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers. (See Phabricator ticket T124168 for progress on the mobile issue.) Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a ""sidebar"" or ""part of a series"" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate. Note that the placement of sidebars in an article lead is discouraged by MOS:LEAD (though they may be permitted on a case-by-case basis). The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links. For example, see Template:General physics which has articles grouped into related sub-topics. Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders). Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performers' articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For similar reasons, filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion). === Advantages === Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles. Faster to navigate than a category. Gives immediate information to equivalent elements For presenting a series of articles in a chronological order, a template is often most appropriate. Example: Template:Princess Royal (there are two Marys and two Annes in that list, which makes the chronological way of presenting these princesses an asset to a merely alphabetically ordered presentation of these same names). For very long chronological series, it is preferable to use succession boxes, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article. They provide an organized resource for readers who went through an article in some broad topic to find other articles on the same broad topic, rather than making those readers ""go fish"" for articles wiki-linked in the text or in the ""See also"" section. Mitigates large ""See also"" sections, potentially duplicated and out-of-sync among related articles === Disadvantages === Not shown to readers using the mobile web site. Does not provide a consistent look and navigation system between different topics—there is no single format across all navigation templates. If simple, can often be replaced with a category. It also can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large. Can become ugly or seem pointless, e.g. by unsightly coloring schemes, size, number of them on the same page, etc. For this reason article series boxes need to be self-evident, while they can't contain much text for definitions or explanations. Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship. Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion if they appear to push a POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more templates might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point. On the other hand, may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important when this would not be controversial Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related Includes the full list of links in every article, even though often many of the links are not useful in some of the articles Due to size, the use of multiple nav templates may take up too much space on one article, which could lead to a POV-tainted choice as to which to include. This can be minimised by setting all or most templates on a page to autocollapse, hiding most of their content until activated. Templates are not included in search results by default, which makes it hard for readers and editors to find them. They implicitly assume that readers who went through an article in some broad topic will want to read other articles on the same broad topic, rather than articles wiki-linked in the text or in the ""See also"" section.Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a ""sidebar"" or ""part of a series"" template) have some specific issues and should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers: The large chunk of highly visible screen space might be better used for images or essential information. They might be perceived as fencing off a subject as the ""territory"" of a particular scholarly area. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (a navbox, located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate. === Examples === Example templates include Template:Spain topics (medium-sized horizontal template), Template:Philosophy topics (large horizontal template), Template:Philosophy sidebar (""Part of a series on ..."" vertical template), Template:Policy list (a small vertical template), and Renault#External links (several horizontal templates at the bottom of an article).Some unusual templates include Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives (a vertical template), Template:Noticeboard links (a horizontal template sometimes positioned at the top), and Template:Harry Potter (an example of organizing voluminous, diverse material into a readable template). Wikipedia:PetScan, tool for searching article categories Wikipedia:Portal, navigational pages that introduce a topic area Category:Wikipedia essays about navigation" 22 22 40 WP:F4 Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion 22 "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates, but only administrators may actually delete. Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion). A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors. If a page needs to be removed from Wikipedia for privacy reasons (e.g. non-public personal information, a child disclosing their age, possible libel), request oversight instead. For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1 or U1.Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. Besides speedy deletion, there are the following methods of deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (AfD, CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD, TfD), the normal method of carrying out deletion. Wikipedia:Proposed deletions, for nominating articles and files for uncontroversial deletion. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, for articles on living persons without sources. Abbreviations (G12, A3...) are often used to refer to these criteria, and are given in each section. For example, ""CSD G12"" refers to criterion 12 under general (copyright infringement) and ""CSD U1"" refers to criterion 1 under user (user request). These abbreviations can be confusing to new editors or anyone else unfamiliar with this page; in many situations a plain-English explanation of why a specific page was or should be deleted is preferable. Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media files for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators to the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (but see #Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner below). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as Db-X with Db standing for 'delete because'. A list of the Db-X templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates. If a page falls under more than one of the criteria, instead of adding multiple tags it is possible to add a single {{Db-multiple}} tag to cover them all. For example, if an article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate significance of its subject (A7) then the tag {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}} can be used to indicate both of these concerns. The article can then be speedily deleted if an administrator assesses it and decides that either or both of the criteria apply. There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed before). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G5, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7). Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria. === Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner === Some pages either cannot or should not be tagged for speedy deletion in the normal manner: Pages that you cannot edit (e.g., due to protection), or JSON pages: place the template on the corresponding Talk page instead, along with an explanation of which page to delete. Template: pages: place the template within a noinclude tag, like this: {{Db-x}} Module: pages (except for /doc pages): place the template with Module:Module wikitext, like this: require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{Db-x}}') CSS (including sanitized CSS) or JavaScript pages: place the template in a comment, like this: /* {{Db-x}} */ === Pages that have survived deletion discussions === When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions: G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the XfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the XfD discussion. G6, technical deletions, only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed G8, pages dependent on nonexistent pages G9, office actions G12, unambiguous copyright violations G13, stale drafts, if 6 months have passed since the deletion discussion and any subsequent human edits F8, images on Commons, if the image did not exist on Commons at the time of the FfD F9, unambiguous copyright infringement U1, user requests deletion within their own userspaceThese criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. However, newly discovered copyright violations should be tagged for G12 if the violation existed in all previous revisions of the article. G5 may be also used at discretion, subject to meeting the criterion outlined above. === General === These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. Read the specifics for each criterion to see where and how they apply. ==== G1. Patent nonsense ==== This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism or hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. Nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace. {{Db-g1}}, {{Db-nonsense}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as nonsense pages ==== G2. Test pages ==== This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates. {{Db-g2}}, {{Db-test}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages ==== G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes ==== This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax. {{Db-g3}}, {{Db-vandalism}} – for vandalism {{Db-hoax}} – for hoaxes Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as vandalism, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as hoaxes ==== G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion ==== This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as ""soft delete"") or speedy deletion. {{Db-g4}}, {{Db-repost}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion ==== G5. Creations by banned or blocked users ==== This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and does not include contributions legitimately about some other topic. When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.{{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users ==== G6. Technical deletions ==== This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including: Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect or page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it. Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.{{Db-g6|rationale=reason}} – If none of the special tags below applies, this tag should be used with a reason specified in the |rationale= parameter. {{Db-copypaste|page to be moved}} – for cut-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move. {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move. {{Db-moved}} – for pages that were holding up a page move, until they were moved out of the way by a page mover. {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move as a result of an Articles for creation (AFC) review, typically for articles in draft space. {{Db-xfd|fullvotepage=link to closed deletion discussion}} – for pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted. {{Db-error}} – for pages obviously created in error. Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion ==== G7. Author requests deletion ==== If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. {{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user (same category as U1) ==== G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page ==== Examples include: Talk pages with no corresponding subject page Subpages with no parent page File pages without a corresponding file Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted Unused editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templatesThis criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: Deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere User talk pages Talk page archives (except article talk page archives where the corresponding article and main talk page have been deleted and the page is not otherwise useful to Wikipedia – check for page-moves and merges before using G8 on article-talk-page-archives; the parent article might still exist under a different name) Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move or retargeting (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets User subpages Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons Pages that should be moved to a different locationExceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}. {{Db-g8}} – for cases not covered by any of the special tags below {{Db-imagepage}} – for file description pages with no corresponding file {{Db-redirnone}} – for pages that redirect to nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion {{Db-subpage}} – for subpages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion {{Db-talk}} – for talk pages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion {{Db-templatecat}} – for categories populated by a deleted or retargeted template Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as broken redirects ==== G9. Office actions ==== In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation. ==== G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose ==== Examples of ""attack pages"" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Other pages violating the Biographies of living persons policy might be eligible for deletion under the conditions stipulated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead. Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL. {{Db-g10}}, {{Db-attack}}, {{Db-attackorg}}, {{Db-personal attack}} {{Db-negublp}} – for articles about living persons that are unsourced, entirely negative in tone, and have no neutral version to revert to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages ==== G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion ==== This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, ""promotion"" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}} {{Db-spamuser}} – for userpages used only for publicity and promotion, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam ==== G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement ==== This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the ""Files"" section here, which has more specific instructions. {{Db-g12|url=source URL}}, {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}}Note: If other criteria apply in addition to G12, the template {{Db-multiple}} should be used instead, so we do not waste time seeking copyright permission after deleting the page.{{Db-multiple|g12|url=source URL|other criteria}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations (same category as F9) ==== G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions ==== This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in: Draft namespace, Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six-month clock, but removing a CSD template does. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. {{Db-g13}}, {{Db-afc}}, {{db-blankdraft}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions ==== G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages ==== This applies to the following disambiguation pages: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in ""(disambiguation)"" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. A redirect that ends in ""(disambiguation)"" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page. G14 also applies to pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). {{Db-g14}}, {{Db-disambig}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages === Articles === These criteria apply only to pages in the article (main) namespace. They do not apply to redirects. For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed. ==== A1. No context ==== This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: ""He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."" It applies only to very short articles. Note that context is different from content, treated in A3. This excludes coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created. {{Db-a1}}, {{Db-nocontext}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as lacking context ==== A2. Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project ==== This applies to articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project. If the article is not the same as an article on another project, use the template {{Not English}} instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation. {{Db-a2}}, {{Db-foreign}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as existing on foreign Wikimedia projects ==== A3. No content ==== This applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags or ""See also"" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content, or no content at all. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. This criterion excludes poor writing, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created. {{Db-a3}}, {{Db-nocontent}}, {{Db-contact}} {{Db-empty}} – context-specific version: calls {{Db-c1}} for categories, and {{Db-a3}} everywhere else. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty articles ==== A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) ==== This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. {{Db-a7}} {{Db-person}} – for people {{Db-band}} – for bands {{Db-club}} – for clubs, societies and groups {{Db-inc}} – for commercial and non-commercial organizations {{Db-web}} – for websites {{Db-animal}} – for individual animals {{Db-event}} – for events Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (same as A9) ==== A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings) ==== This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. {{Db-a9}}, {{Db-album}}, {{Db-song}}, {{Db-discog}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (same as A7) ==== A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic ==== This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia article, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. {{Db-a10|article=Existing article title}}, {{Db-same|article=Existing article title}}The title chosen for the vast majority of duplicate articles will be a plausible misspelling of, or alternative name for, the existing article, and a redirect should be created instead of deletion. This criterion should, accordingly, only be used rarely, and only for pages where the title could be speedily deleted as a redirect. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as duplicate articles ==== A11. Obviously invented ==== This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3). {{Db-a11}}, {{Db-invented}}, {{Db-madeup}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as obviously invented === Redirects === These criteria apply to redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace, with exclusions listed for specific criteria. For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed. ==== R2. Cross-namespace redirects ==== This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces, and to broken redirects that would qualify for this criterion if they were fixed (e.g., redirects to articles that have been draftified). See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and MOS:LINKSTYLE.{{Db-r2}}, {{Db-rediruser}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects ==== R3. Implausible typos ==== This applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created. It also does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, including redirects created by merges, or to redirects ending with ""(disambiguation)"" that point to a disambiguation page. {{Db-r3}}, {{Db-redirtypo}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as implausible redirects ==== R4. File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages ==== This applies to redirects in the ""File:"" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons). {{Db-r4}}, {{Db-redircom}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as file redirects shadowing Wikimedia Commons files ==== Other issues with redirects ==== For redirects that end in ""(disambiguation)"", see G14. For redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedily deleted. In some cases it may be possible to make a useful redirect by changing the target instead of deleting it. Redirects that do not work because of software limitations, such as redirects to special pages or to pages on other wikis, may be converted to soft redirects if they have a non-trivial history or other valid uses. For reversal of redirects, use {{Db-move}}, a special case of {{Db-g6}}. === Files === Note: These criteria formerly began with I (e.g. I1, I6, I9) but have since been replaced with F, without the actual criteria being changed. This was because the file namespace was formerly known as the image namespace. For any images and other media that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed. ==== F1. Redundant ==== This applies to unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format. This excludes images in the Wikimedia Commons; for these, see criterion F8. {{Db-f1|replacement file name.ext}}, {{Db-redundantfile|replacement file name.ext}}, {{isd|replacement file name.ext}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redundant files ==== F2. Corrupt, missing or empty file ==== This applies to files that are corrupt, missing, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes file description pages for Commons files that do not include information that is specific to English Wikipedia (like {{FeaturedPicture}}). {{Db-f2}}, {{Db-nofile}}, {{Db-fpcfail}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as missing files ==== F3. Improper license ==== This criterion is used to flag media licensed as ""for non-commercial use only"" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), ""no derivative use"", ""for Wikipedia use only"" or ""used with permission"". These may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses, may be deleted. {{Db-f3}}, {{Db-noncom}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with unacceptable licenses ==== F4. Lack of licensing information ==== This applies to media files lacking the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status after being identified as such for seven days. Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting under this criterion. {{subst:nsd}} – no source {{subst:nld}} – no license {{subst:nsdnld}} – neither source nor license Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status ==== F5. Orphaned non-free use images ==== This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. These may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. This includes previous revisions of the image. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. {{Db-f5}} – for immediate F5 deletions {{subst:Orfud}} – for files {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free use files ==== F6. Missing non-free use rationale ==== This applies to non-free files claiming fair use but without a use rationale. These may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days. The boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria do not constitute a rationale. This criterion does not apply to situations where a use rationale is provided but is disputed. {{subst:Nrd}} ==== F7. Invalid fair-use claim ==== {{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfairuse}} – for immediate F7 deletions {{subst:Rnfu}} – replaceable with free images {{subst:Dnfu}} – disputed non-free use rationales Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with clearly invalid fair-use claims ==== F8. Images available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons ==== Provided the following conditions are met: The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution. The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons. To avoid deletion at Commons, please ensure the Commons page description has all of the following: Name and date of death of the creator of the artistic work represented by the file, or else clear evidence that a free license was given. If anonymous, ensure the page description provides evidence that establishes the anonymous status. Country where the artistic work represented by the file was situated, or where it was first published. Date when the artistic work represented by the file was created or first published, depending on the copyright law of the origin country. All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such. The image is not marked as {{Do not move to Commons}} or as {{Keep local}}. All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages (the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended). If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion. If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, all local references to the image must be updated to point to the title used at Commons. The image is not protected. Do not delete protected images, even if there is an identical copy on Commons, unless the image is no longer in use (check what links here). They are usually locally uploaded and protected here since they are used in the interface or in some widely used high-risk template. Deleting the local copy of an image used in the interface does break things. More about high-risk images. {{C-uploaded}} images may be speedily deleted as soon as they are off the Main Page.{{Db-f8}}, {{Now Commons}}, {{Now Commons|File:name of file on Commons.ext}} Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons ==== F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement ==== This applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{Db-filecopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. {{Db-f9|url=URL of source}}, {{Db-filecopyvio|url=URL of source}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations ==== F11. No evidence of permission ==== If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, television images, album covers, logos that are not simple enough to be public domain, etc.) should be speedily deleted per reason F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement), unless fair-use can be claimed. Files tagged with {{Permission pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criterion. (Please note that the backlog for messages sent to the permissions-en queue is currently 0 days. You may wish to wait at least this amount of time before tagging VRT pending images for deletion.) Images tagged {{Permission received}} whose permissions have not been confirmed after 30 days may be deleted immediately under this criterion, without waiting an additional seven days, provided a check of the ticket is performed by a VRT agent to confirm that no further interaction is ongoing. {{subst:Npd}} Category:Wikipedia files missing permission === Categories === For any category pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed. ==== C1. Unpopulated categories ==== This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. cleanup categories, or Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Possibly empty category}} (or, for administrative categories, {{Wikipedia category}}) at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted. {{Db-c1}}, {{db-catempty}}. Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, and after seven days Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories ==== C2. Speedy renaming and merging ==== Assorted sub-criteria that are used only at WP:CFDS; please see that page for details and instructions. === User pages === These criteria apply only to pages in the User: and User talk: namespaces. For any user pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed. ==== U1. User request ==== Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. This also includes editnotices for user pages. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. Pages which have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace. Note: The template does not display on certain pages (such as .css and .js pages), but its categorization will work. {{Db-u1}}, {{Db-userreq}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user ==== U2. Nonexistent user ==== This applies to user pages, user subpages, and user talk pages of users that do not exist (check Special:ListUsers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and redirects created due to a user being renamed. Before placing one of the following templates or deleting a page under this criterion, consider whether moving the page to another location, such as a sub-page of the user page of the primary contributor, is preferable to deletion. {{Db-u2}}, {{Db-nouser}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user ==== U5. A non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host ==== Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. It applies regardless of the age of the page in question. Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criterion: Read Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content and Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user pages. Consider blanking pages with a significant history unrelated to the content that is being deleted. For draft articles that are on a user's main page and which do not otherwise qualify for speedy deletion, consider moving it to a sub-page. {{Db-u5}}, {{Db-notwebhost}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion: Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or essays. Wikipedia is not: ""a dictionary"", ""an indiscriminate collection of information"", ""a crystal ball"", ""a how-to list""; or essays like Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition,...; are not valid reasons for speedy deletion. Less-obvious hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Note that ""blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation"" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. Original research. It is not always easy to tell whether an article consists of material that violates the policy against novel theories or interpretations or is simply unsourced. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant. Failure to assert importance but not an A7, A9 or A11 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7, A9 or A11 under those criteria. Nor does it apply for neologisms that do not meet A11 because new specialized terms should have a wider hearing. Author deletion requests made in bad faith. Author deletion requests made in bad faith, out of frustration, after others have contributed substantially (because the work of others is involved) or in an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contributions are not granted. However, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace. Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply. Copies that are not copyright violations. If content appears both here and somewhere else (possibly in modified form), consider the possibility that Wikipedia's is the original version and the other site copied from Wikipedia's version. Alternatively, the same author may have written both versions, or the original may be free content. PNG / GIF files replaced by JPEG images. JPEG encoding discards information that may be important later. Do not delete the original PNG / GIF files. Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain. User and user talk pages of IP addresses. Although users are encouraged to create Wikipedia accounts, unregistered users are still allowed to edit Wikipedia, and are identified by their IP addresses. If an unregistered user has a static IP address, it may have a user page and/or user talk page associated with it, and even for non-static IP addresses, the history can contain important discussions or information that may be of interest. An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. It may be reconsidered after translation whether the article merits deletion, retention or improvement by means of a suitable tag. However, if it already exists on another Wikimedia project, it might be speedily deletable under criterion A2. Subject request. Sometimes somebody claiming to be the subject of a biographical article requests deletion of the article, or even blanks the article. Article subjects do not have an automatic right to have their articles deleted. Nor does such a criterion apply to namespaces other than article space: for example, pages in the Wikipedia namespace devoted to a discussion about a particular editor. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs Orphaned pages or redirects. A page cannot be deleted just because no other pages link to it. This includes redirects – even if 'What links here' returns nothing, a redirect may be a likely search phrase, or have links to it from outside Wikipedia. Redirects that are poorly targeted. A redirect should not be deleted just because its target is incorrect or confusing. Instead, change the redirect to a better target. If you're not sure where it should be targeted, open a discussion at Redirects for discussion. Drafts covering the same topic as an existing mainspace article. These are not valid deletions under A10 (due to not being articles) nor G6. They can be replaced with a redirect to the mainspace article if necessary. Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified. Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, or there was actually a cut-and-paste move involved. Also: The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page. The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page. The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it on good reason. What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be re-created, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.If speedy deletion is inappropriate for a page: Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Doing so will automatically remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Consider notifying the nominator, using {{speedy-decline}} or {{uw-csd}}. (If you're using CSD Helper, it will usually notify the nominator for you; it will normally use its own notification template.)When deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, so that it will be recorded into the deletion log. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but must not be done for attack content or copyrighted text. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion. Twinkle or CSDHelper can be used to process nominations more quickly and smoothly. When processing a nomination: Twinkle can delete the page. Twinkle can notify the page creator if the page is deleted. CSDH can delete the page, convert the nomination into a PROD nomination, or decline the nomination. CSDH can notify the nominator if the nomination is converted or declined. In the past, criteria beginning with the following letters were used: ""P"" for portals ""T"" for templates and modules ""X"" for temporary criteria to assist in large scale cleanups of problematic pages that would otherwise overwhelm the normal deletion processes.All criteria in these groups have been obsoleted; as such, these groups are not currently in use. Some criteria in the active groups were also used in the past but are no longer valid. They are kept here for historical reference and to preserve numbering. Two of the repealed criteria did not have consensus before being enacted, and two were meant to be temporary. The remainder were merged into broader criteria or deprecated entirely. A4. Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title A5. Transwikied articles A6. Attack articles A8. Blatant copyright infringement articles R1. Redirects to non-existent pages F7a. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag F10. Useless non-media files C3. Categories solely populated from a template T1. Divisive and inflammatory templates T2. Misrepresentation of policy T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances T4. Subpages of non-existent pages U3. Non-free galleries U4. Old IP address talk pages that meet specific criteria P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article P2. Underpopulated portal X1. Redirects created by Neelix X2. Pages created by the content translation tool" 23 23 43 WP:MERGEINIT Wikipedia:Merging 23 "A merger, or merge, is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page. Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. When performing a merger, one should remember to reconcile talk pages, and to attribute copied content, as required by Wikipedia's license. At minimum, this means adding words ""Merged content to/from [[page]]"" to edit summaries. See How to merge below for details. There are several good reasons to merge pages: Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. If a duplicate article was recently created, it may also be a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD A10 criteria. Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be WP:REDUNDANT. Remember, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, ""flammable"" and ""non-flammable"" can both be explained in an article on flammability. Topics with the same name that are normally covered in a single article for example Greenland deals with both the country and island (which have similar boundaries) thus a Greenland (island) can be merged with the ""Greenland"" country article, see Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate. Short text: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a ""reasonable"" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who themselves are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there because the notability of parents and children of celebrities is WP:NOTINHERITED). Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a ""List of characters in "" article (and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Merging should be avoided if: The resulting article would be too long or ""clunky"", The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short. If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it. See how to merge below. Bold merges may be reverted, even though they are labor-intensive to complete, but this edit process and civil discussion produces better articles. Articles that are young or short, such as stubs differing only in title and wording, should be merged immediately. Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first, especially those on controversial topics. To start a discussion, perform the following steps. If the merger is difficult to perform or seems potentially controversial, you should request assistance and feedback at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Do not use the discussion procedure described here to propose: Category mergers: Category mergers should be requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which uses the separate {{cfm}} template. Template mergers: Template mergers should be requested at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, which uses the separate {{tfm}} template. === Step 1: Create a discussion === This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. Exceptions: If the destination does not exist, do not create its talk page (it could get speedily deleted). If a discussion exists already, do not move it (for example, having a discussion on the source page is acceptable).For example, if suggesting that Foo be merged into Bar, create a proposal in a new section at Talk:Bar. Start a new section at the bottom of that talk page and include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale. A good example is the following section: ==== Notify involved users (optional) ==== You may optionally notify involved users (e.g. contributors to the source and destination pages), who might not be watchlisting them. One way is to simply notify them directly from the merger discussion page: {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Message text. ~~~~Alternatively, go to those users' talk pages and start a new section. Make sure to provide a link to the merger discussion. You may use the following standard templates to leave a standard message: {{subst:Mergenote|Foo|Talk:Bar#Merger proposal}}Please respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the merger discussion. Votestacking, that is, canvassing support by selectively notifying editors who have a predetermined point of view or opinion, is inappropriate. === Step 2: Tag the relevant pages === Do not use ""subst"" on these templates. To propose a merger of two pages, place the following template at the top of each page or section: {{merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}If you know which page should be removed, use {{merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}on the source page, and {{merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}on the destination page. If two pages are proposed to be merged into a third destination page that already exists, use {{merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGE|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}on the source pages, and {{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}on the destination page. If two pages are proposed to be merged at a destination page that does not yet exist (destination does not have a talk page), use {{merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGE|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:SOURCEPAGE#Merger proposal|date=March 2023}}on each source page, choosing one of the source talk pages as the discussion location and ensuring the discuss parameter directs to this talk page on both source pages. Please use the discuss parameter to direct to the same talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place. If the discuss parameter is not specified, the ""Discuss"" links lead to the top of each article's Talk page. In {{merge to}}, {{merge from}}), it always leads to the destination talk page, but it is still preferable to link to a specific section of the talk page. ==== In other namespaces ==== Do not use the above templates to propose a category merger. This should be requested at WP:Categories for discussion, which uses a separate {{cfm}} template. For a merger of pages within ""Wikipedia"" namespace (titles with the ""Wikipedia:"" or ""WP:"" prefix), do not include this prefix in the parameter. When proposing a merger between two different namespaces, these templates won't work because of technical limitations. === Step 3: Discuss the merger === Make sure to follow standard talk page guidelines, which includes civility and staying focused on the content, not on the involved editors, using threaded discussion formatting, not biting newcomers, and being clear and concise. In many cases, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example formatting: === Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus === During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merger. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merger, may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Closing of merger discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings by involved users are allowed. Admins are not needed. In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. You can post it at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion, at the Requests for Closure noticeboard. To close a merger proposal discussion, the {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates are used in the following manner: == Merger proposal == {{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was… . ~~~~}} The merger proposal… * and discussion… * … {{Discussion bottom}} After closing the merger proposal discussion, remove the {{Merge to}} template from the source page and place the {{Old merge full}} template on the corresponding talk page in the following manner: Remove the {{Merge from}} template from the target page if the consensus is ""do not merge"" or ""no consensus"". You may also apply {{being merged}} to the article that will be merged and redirected and put the page on the proposed mergers holding cell, where other editors may help performing the merger. Merges can be easily reversed if a consensus is formed against it shortly after it was performed. If there is a consensus against the merger, or if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags and, if necessary, close any discussion. === Step 5: Perform the merger === See § How to merge below. The main reason that the merger backlog includes thousands of articles is because the people who support the merger neglect to undertake this final step. Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merger, is permitted to perform mergers in accordance with consensus. Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator. === Merger as a result of a deletion discussion === In Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion), editors may suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion be merged to an appropriate article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article: {{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}} Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page: {{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}} This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above. See also Wikipedia:Merge what? for an essay encouraging not to just vote merge in AfD discussions. Copy all or some of the content from the source page(s) and paste the content in an appropriate location at the destination page. Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists. Publish the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by copyright): Merged content from [[source page]] to here. See [[Talk:merger discussion section]]. Ideally, do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text (to simplify attribution). Redirect the source page whose content was just merged by replacing everything with the following: #REDIRECT [[destination page]] {{R from merge}} Or if the content was merged to a single section, the following: #REDIRECT [[destination page#section]] {{R from merge}} {{R to section}} Publish the page, leaving the following edit summary (also required by copyright): Merged content to [[destination page#section]]. See [[Talk:merger discussion section]]. Reconcile talk page tags. If the source page has a talk page: Move all {{merged-from}} and {{copied}} templates to the destination page's talk page, if there are any. Reconcile {{WikiProject ....}} templates: copy them from the source page to the destination and remove duplicates (look out for alternative templates; e.g. {{WikiProject Software|Computing=yes}} is the same as {{WikiProject Computing|Software=yes}}). Once copied, change the source article WikiProject templates so that they contain |class=redirect (even for WikiProjects that do not yet support a redirect class); this does not have to be done if {{WikiProject banner shell}} is being used, since that template will automatically choose the class. Optionally: Tag the destination page's talk page with {{merged-from|source page name|date}}, and the source page's talk page with {{merged-to|destination page name|date}}. Place these tags at the top of the talk pages. As an alternative, experienced users can add {{copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_oldid=|to_diff=|date=}} to the top of both talk pages. Optionally: Fix any double redirects found at Special:WhatLinksHere. A bot automatically fixes this problem but it may take a day or two. Check for non-free images (or other files). Examples: a book cover, a poster, a logo, etc. The description page of such an image will have a red copyright icon and a non-free use rationale (a summary box with Non-free use rationale in the title, or a Fair use section) – the article title mentioned in such a rationale should be updated. This is required under the non-free content criteria. Remove the relevant {{Merge from}} template from the destination article, if it still exists.Note: Most merged articles are not good candidates for merging of page histories because they have been edited in parallel and the collation of their edit states would create unhelpful and/or misleading diffs. In most cases, no request for a history-merge should be submitted. (A more detailed explanation is available here.) === Pages to merge === Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge was initiated to clear merger backlog. Current pages tagged for merging can be found at Category:Articles to be merged, which lists pages that have been tagged for merging on a particular month (tagging began in September 2006). === List of merger templates === See here for a table with examples. === Other guides === Wikipedia:Moving a page Wikipedia:Splitting Wikipedia:Section move Wikipedia:Content forking, on duplicated content in acceptable and unnaceptable cases Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, more details on copyright issues Wikipedia:Merge and delete, on deleting the source page instead of redirecting (to be avoided) Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves and Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, in cases when changing page history is needed Wikipedia:Articles for merging, a failed proposal for a different discussion process === Other projects === WikiData Merges" 24 24 47 WP:NHOAX Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes 24 "Do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia. Doing so would damage Wikipedia and your reputation. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an ""encyclopedia anyone can edit"", it has been abused to create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put disinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours of being created. However, some very sophisticated hoaxes, such as articles about made-up historical individuals with detailed biographical information and fake references, have lasted for several years before being detected. These hoax articles hurt the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It has been tried, tested, and confirmed: it is indeed possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia, just as it is possible to insert profanity (it's an uncensored encyclopedia, after all). This is an inevitable consequence of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism, and perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning. Disinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real world consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment, reprints of books, lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). With some articles, like medical topics (COVID-19 for instance), they could even lead to injury or death. Additionally, maintaining and improving hoax articles requires resources that volunteers could be dedicating to useful topics. Although it is important to read Wikipedia critically and to try to improve the reliability of its content, it is best to do this directly, by correcting false information, rather than by ""testing"" the system by creating a hoax article or content to see if Wikipedia will detect the hoax. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. Put simply, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article. Thus, it is futile to try to continue a hoax once it is under scrutiny of Wikipedia editors if the general population does not already believe it external to Wikipedia. Moreover, if a hoaxer has already successfully tricked the public, then they need not create an article themselves; someone else will do it. Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man or the War of the Worlds broadcast. Wikipedia also has encyclopedia articles about notable hoaxes that have formerly existed on Wikipedia (such as Jar'Edo Wens hoax or Henryk Batuta hoax). This is completely different from an article presenting a hoax as factual. For example, this is a hoax: A memorable and crowded meeting of the Geological Society was held in Burlington House, London, on December 18, to hear a paper read ""On the Discovery of a Paleolithic Human Skull and Mandible in a Flint-bearing Gravel overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex),)"" by Charles Dawson, F.S.A., F.G.S., and Arthur Smith Woodward, LL.D... Professor G. Elliot Smith was called on to give an account of his investigation on the cast of the cranial cavity, and he pointed out that, while the general shape and size of the brain was human, the arrangement of the meningeal arteries was typically simian, as was a deep notch in the occipital region; he regarded it as the most ape-like human brain of which we have any knowledge... There can be no doubt that this is a discovery of the greatest importance and will give rise to much discussion. It is the nearest approach we have yet reached to a ""missing link,"" for whatever may be the final verdict as to the systemic position of Pithecanthropus erectus, probably few will deny that Eoanthropus Dawsoni is almost if not quite as much human as simian. The recent discoveries of human remains... are demonstrating that several races of man lived in paleolithic times, and we may confidently look forward to new finds which will throw fresh light upon the evolution of man. While this is the start of an article about a hoax: The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni (""Dawson's dawn-man"", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human. The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery. Like anything else, a hoax must be notable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. If you see an article or image that may be a hoax, mark it with {{hoax}} or {{image hoax}} and propose it for deletion. If it is indeed found to be a hoax, it is appropriate to warn the user with {{uw-hoax}}. Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-hoax}}. Also, completely implausible text may be legitimate descriptions of fictional works that use an inappropriate in-universe style. Use ""What links here"" to check if this is the case, and if so rewrite the article in the out-of-universe perspective, or tag the article with {{in-universe}} or {{fiction}}. This is a list of known historical hoaxes that have been created on Wikipedia. Its purpose is to document hoaxes on Wikipedia, in order to improve our detection and understanding of them. It is considered a hoax if it was a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed to libel or a factual error. A hoax is considered notable if it evaded detection for more than one month or was discussed by reliable sources in the media. This list is incomplete, as it is probable that many hoaxes on Wikipedia remain undiscovered. Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles Wikipedia:Fictitious references Wikipedia:Fringe theories Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast ""An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia"" Wikipedia Signpost 11 February 2013 ""How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit"". The Atlantic, May 15, 2012." 25 25 48 WP:CHEAP Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap 25 "WP:RFD states: ""Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around."" A redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject, and actually save disk space. Because ""deleted"" pages are hidden from public view and not actually erased from the database, deleting the redirect will not save any disk space, and in fact actually consumes space slightly due to writing to the deletion log (although this is very minor). Concerns about the servers' performance are in any event largely irrelevant to the work of editors. However, this does not mean we should pre-emptively create redirects for their own sake. See Wikipedia:Redirect for more. On the other hand, cross-namespace redirects make processing Wikipedia content more complex for bots and scripts. Creating redirects can help preserve the option of splitting an article when desired; candidates for such include articles dealing with a geographical topic with different names at differing periods of history, articles that are set indices, or articles that cover multiple characters in a book (see MOS:REDIR). Creating redirects from existing articles can be valid alternatives to pursuing deletion discussions, saving discussion time where a redirect is a legitimate and likely outcome. Consensus should still be sought via discussion (or the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, for less contentious topics). Wikipedia:Redirect instead Wikipedia:Redirects are costly Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap Wikipedia:Redirect, DAB entry or hatnote needed Meta:Redirectionism" 26 26 49 WP:fringe Wikipedia:Fringe theories 26 "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum for original research. For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views. === Spectrum of fringe theories === Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. In addition, there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation. ==== Pseudoscience ==== Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals that are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Y Pseudoscience (Non-scientific statement claiming to be scientific): String theory proves that running water emits electricity when the quarks are aligned with the stars. N Not pseudoscience (no claim that it's scientific): Santa Claus has magic reindeer that can fly. ==== Questionable science ==== Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists. ==== Alternative theoretical formulations ==== Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream. In other cases, an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of Troy, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory.To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy). === Reliable sources === Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter. Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas. Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources. === Independent sources === The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. === Parity of sources === Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and they should generally be considered unreliable. Examples of unreliable journals include, but are not limited to: the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Homeopathy, and the Journal of Frontier Science (which uses blog comments as its supposed peer review). In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. === Attribution === Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. ==== Quotations ==== While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject. For example, in the article about Bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurately preserved quotation might take the following form: The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, ""Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America—a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."" Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point of view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of Bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point of view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all. ==== In-text attribution ==== The careful use of sources is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed—""Philosopher A. C. Grayling dismisses intelligent design as 'a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy'""—while simple facts—""humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor""—are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions. Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree. A careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone will ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts and vice versa. === Notability === The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as ""News of the Weird"", or during ""slow news days"" (see junk food news and silly season). Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate. ==== Examples ==== Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles: Creation science and Intelligent design—The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However, the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia. Holocaust denial—Claims of Holocaust deniers—that Adolf Hitler had no genocidal intent against the Jews of Europe, that no gas chambers were used for mass murder at camps such as Auschwitz, that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million—are rejected as false by an overwhelming majority of professional historians, although the Holocaust deniers themselves will still occasionally get some public notice and therefore notability. Moon landing conspiracy theories—Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the Moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Wikipedia.Not sufficiently notable for dedicated articles: Theories of Booth's escape—The page on John Wilkes Booth includes descriptions of conspiracy theories contending that Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. However, they are not notable enough for a dedicated article. === Notability versus acceptance === Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. The complicated relationship between the level of acceptance of an idea and its notability is explored below. ==== Reporting on the levels of acceptance ==== Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose ""debunking"" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future. ==== Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance ==== One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources. === Evaluating and describing claims === Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact—e.g. ""An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton."" Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context—e.g. ""There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind."" Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality—e.g. ""Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.""—but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. === Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories === Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then ""What Wikipedia is not"" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are prohibited. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.) For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. === Mentions in other articles === Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack. Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories. Examples Astrology—There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter. Autodynamics—There are no reliable sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics.Note, however, that the mainstream scientific subjects are discussed and linked to in both of the above articles about fringe subjects (the Astrology article discusses astronomy, and Autodynamics discusses special relativity). === Treatment of living persons === Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP#Balance). There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. Wikipedia:Neutrality templates, in particular, {{Fringe theories}} {{POV}}—There is a current dispute about the article's neutrality. {{Unbalanced}} {{Undue-inline}}—Inline citation to tag a source which might have been given more prominence than justifiable. Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, in particular, {{Unreliable fringe source}}—Inline citation to tag a specific sentence that may use a fringe source inappropriately. {{Verify credibility}}—Inline citation for a source that may be unreliable {{Third-party-inline}}—Inline citation to tag a specific sentence that may use a non-independent source inappropriately. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard === Essays === Wikipedia:Academic bias Wikipedia:Be neutral in form Wikipedia:Cherrypicking Wikipedia:Coatrack Wikipedia:Creating controversial content Wikipedia:Fringe theories for dummies Wikipedia:Scientific consensus Wikipedia:Scientific point of view Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat (dealing with fringe advocates) === WikiProjects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism === Arbitration requests === Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question" 27 27 50 WP:CENS Wikipedia:Censorship 27 Wikipedia censorship may refer to: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Censorship (2006 proposal) On Wikimedia Commons: commons:Commons:Project scope and commons:Commons:Sexual content Censorship of Wikipedia by governments Help:Censorship, aimed at readers Wikipedia:Revision deletion Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? Wikipedia:Sexual content Wikipedia:Censorship issue Wikipedia:Offensive material Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, websites that are blacklisted from Wikipedia MediaWiki:Bad image list, images that are blacklisted from Wikipedia WP:INAPPROPRIATE, various types of content that have been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia 28 28 54 WP:COMPOSER Wikipedia:Notability (music) 28 "This page provides a guideline for editors in applying the concept of notability to topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs. Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article on an artist or band that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or articles for deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia. Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion. To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed. See also WP:NBIO for notability guidelines for biography articles in general. Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were ""notable"" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were ""notable"" only because those musicians had been in them.) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. === Individual members, reality television performers === Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible. Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria. All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. === Albums === An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. === Singles === A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Even if otherwise notable, material about a single may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. === Unreleased material === Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. An unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns N' Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004, because it was already receiving a very large volume of reliable source coverage about Axl Rose's complicated stop-start process of making it. This generally applies to more high-profile projects, and an album should not generally have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled ""(Artist)'s Next Album"" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.Notable covers can have a standalone article provided it can be a reasonably-detailed article based on facts independent of the original. Note 1: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content. Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article. A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable. Michael Jackson's 1988 Bad is an example of a notable concert tour. Good online sources for recordings are the MusicBrainz search engine or the AllMusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a search on Google books or Internet Archive items may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar or Internet Archive scholar may work. An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria. Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded, nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves. However, information about such subjects may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about a musician, group, or work that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it: has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article; avoids self-promotion; includes information that can be verified through independent sources.For example, material about individual members of a musical group is normally merged into larger articles about the group. Songs may be described in a discography or one of the many lists of songs. Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages can be created to help readers find such information. NSONG notes" 29 29 57 WP:THEREISNODEADLINE Wikipedia:There is no deadline 29 "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline, though it is not an excuse for complacency. There are various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means. We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. If you need help with something, do not be afraid to ask for help in the teahouse. If you post the article before it is ready, another editor may submit your article for deletion. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn a stub or whatever into a good article. Wikipedia is not a competition either. Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content is a far greater accomplishment. We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article until its lack of significance is unambiguously established. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable. Remember also that consensus can change over time. New people may bring fresh ideas, established users may change their minds when new things come up, and we all may find a better way to do things. Above all, the principle of creating an article which is unfinished was once a consequence of the now historical second rule of Wikipedia, Always leave something undone (though the present procedural policy no longer discusses this). By creating an unfinished article, you encourage other people to contribute; collaboration on articles will earn you far greater respect than solo editing. Whether the addition/removal to the article can be justified or not, it is sometimes better to handle the dispute at the time it occurs. Generally referenced additions can be viewed and evaluated by other users more easily, since it is much easier than tracking the additions / removals from article history, and generally ""let it go"" cases are forgotten after a while, unless an editor bothers to check every single entry in article history. Also discussing cases after a while may consume much more time than early solved conflicts since non-solved conflicts generally turn out as personal conflicts between editors. Moreover, since editors try to edit in their free time where they can do anything else, they may not find such time in the future to edit or discuss these matters to improve Wikipedia. And it is frequent that some users act WP:POV or WP:BIASed (and WP:Systemic bias in the worst cases) because of their political or religious views or they may not have any expertise in the article they edit. From time to time they may have WP:COI, or act like they WP:OWN the article, they may take things personally and may not be WP:POLITE (verbally or worse with their editing style) so, whether or not you assume WP:GOODFAITH, you may not come to an agreement. At those times, you may seek third party review help from uninvolved editors to come to an agreement between both parties. There is a deadline‍—‌or many small deadlines‍—‌we aren't aware of. People die, people move away from editing or reading, Little Johnny's homework is due. Meanwhile, we have articles that have been unreferenced for several years, articles that have been stubs since 2001 and so forth‍—‌and the amount of identified work keeps growing. Without continual improvement and automation the potential of Wikipedia will be only partially fulfilled‍—‌moreover without a sense of urgency these things will not be done in a timely fashion. Just as there is no deadline, there's also no enforced plan for writing Wikipedia. No specific tasks are assigned to specific individuals. While one editor may have a to-do list or a page in their user sandbox ready to start a new article, another editor may beat them to the punch either unknowingly or deliberately. Editors shouldn't get upset when they lose the opportunity to create a new article. No one owns an article. When you miss out on a chance to create a new article, instead of feeling robbed or slighted or considering acts of vengeance, you might look and see if there's any way you can still contribute. Maybe there are grammatical errors or typos you can correct, or you have text you could add. As you are not obliged to edit Wikipedia, deadlines are unnecessary, so there is no deadline to make an edit, create a page, etc. Deadlines usually come when you are obliged to do something. Don't stress out too much about your edits' choice of words. Just quickly preview to detect and fix markup syntax errors and then submit. Should a better wording come to your mind, you can edit it in at any later time, and so can anyone else. There is a deadline Information is being lost in the real world all the time. Wikipedia is an opportunity to ensure that it isn't, before it's too late. The deadline is now People are reading Wikipedia now, and if what's there isn't true, they are being misled by it now. Thus, misleading information must be removed or corrected as soon as possible. Although Wikipedia itself is not working to a deadline, processes and WikiProjects within it often have deadlines – typically about one week. For example: The Did you know project will only consider submissions of articles that have been either created, expanded at least fivefold, or brought to good article status ""within the past seven days"". Requested moves are generally processed after seven days if there is no objection or there appears to be a consensus (although a new request can be filed later). Redirects for discussion usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted. Article deletion discussions have a deadline of seven days which may be extended to 14 or 21 days (in rare cases, discussions can run longer). As such, Article Rescue Squadron always works to a deadline. Deletion discussions of various types should usually be finished after a maximum of 21 days. Requests for adminship will usually remain active for a minimum of seven days. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. Requests for bureaucratship are similar. Featured article nominations don't stay open forever. Nominators must be ready to resolve raised objections on short notice. WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors has regular time limits and deadlines for its month-long backlog elimination drives and week-long blitzes. Accepted requests for copy edit listed on its requests page should be completed in a reasonable time. Articles for creation submissions are deletion-eligible if not edited at least once in a span of six months. Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Wikipedia:Don't panic Wikipedia:Editing policy Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state Wikipedia:Recentism Wikipedia:Rome wasn't built in a day Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow Wikipedia:Too soon Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service" 30 30 60 WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS Wikipedia:Record charts 30 "This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts. It does not provide specifics of formatting tables, which is the subject of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts. === Suitable charts === A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets all of the following characteristics: It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Latin America, are legitimate sources of charts. It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources. It is static, that is, the data in the chart cannot change. This excludes dynamic ""all-time"" charts, such as the ones published by Hung Medien. === Single-vendor/single-network charts === Charts which rank material from a single vendor or network are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles. They should never be placed in discography tables or tables of charts. They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it. ""Special circumstances"" include notable controversies alleging chart manipulation, or cases where eligibility requirements prevented standard charts from recognizing the sales. This would include, for example, the noted resurgence of Michael Jackson related sales at the time of his death, when many chart rules prevented any of his album sales from being credited towards a chart position. Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located. Note, however, that while single-network charts do not satisfy the charting criterion, some network charts may fulfill other NMUSIC criteria instead. For example, CBC Radio 2's Radio 2 Top 20 chart in Canada is not considered a pass of the charting criterion, but does constitute a pass of NMUSIC #11 as proof that the artist has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Do not use this chart to support statements about specific chart positions or weeks-on, do not create or maintain ""List of number-one hits on the Radio 2 Top 20"" articles, and do not include it in discography listings as a record chart — use the chart solely to support statements about airplay on R2. === Dependent (""component"") charts === Charts are frequently related to one another mathematically. For example, the Billboard Hot 100 is derived by weighting positions on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, the Billboard Hot 100 Sales and Digital Songs, and the Billboard Hot 100 Streaming Songs. This means that in the vast majority of cases, any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on the other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article. In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales. This would be unusual enough to potentially warrant mention. Examples of dependent/component/mathematically related charts: Billboard Hot 100 Airplay – related to Billboard Hot 100 Billboard Hot 100 Sales charts – related to Billboard Hot 100 Billboard Hot 100 Streaming Songs – related to Billboard Hot 100 === Certifications === Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database. When such a database is not available, other reliable sources may be used, but they must directly state that the certifying agency has granted the certification. Many popular press articles will contain statements such as ""... has gone gold ..."" or ""... has gone platinum ..."" based on a sales figure, when, in fact, the certifying agency has not yet verified those sales and granted a certification. === Chart trajectories === A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the chart may be mentioned within the article text, but should not be included as routine data for all charts. === Charts with more than 200 positions === In general, chart positions over 200 should not be listed, as this usually represents a minor amount of sales and is considered excessive detail. This applies to any chart, be it single or album, weekly, yearly, decade or all-time. Amazon: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. America's Music Charts: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. ARC Weekly Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Argentina Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Argentina Singles Top 100 from charly1300.com. Per the chart description ...otros factores que cada semana varían y se modifican en el Ranking. Los datos que proporcionamos no son 100% verificables (Other factors that vary from week to week modify the rankings. The data is not 100% verifiable). Argentina Top 100 at argentinatop100.com.ar. Anonymous chart, with no explanation of methodology or source. Singles chart appears to be a one-week old copy of the chart from charly1300.com. Note: a valid Argentine albums chart exists at capif.org.ar and a singles chart at billboard.com.ar. Australia Country Tracks Top 30: This chart has been determined as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology; see Talk:2009 in country music. Note: The Australian Country Albums chart is published by ARIA and therefore acceptable for use. Australia does not seem to have a valid country singles chart. (Australia) hot100au.com: See hot100au.com/about/. This is an iTunes chart. See iTunes listed below. Beatport: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. The Big Top 40 Show Chart primarily based on iTunes data. Brazil Hot 100/Hot100Brasil: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the chart archive in this PDF file is a mirror of Brazil Hot 100. Note: see #WP:GOODCHARTS for a discussion of the Hot 100 Airplay chart from Billboard Brasil which, if properly sourced, is acceptable. Brazilian Singles Chart from allcharts.org is a mirror of Brazil Hot 100's ""Hot 100 Songs and Tracks"". Bulgarian National Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the chart at αCharts.us is a mirror of the Bulgarian National Top 40. Note: A legitimate Bulgarian chart is located at http://www.prophon.org/display.php Canadian Country Albums published by Jam!/Canoe. Chart positions are not archived and therefore impossible to verify. Chile Hot 100: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Chilean Singles Chart from Americatop100.com. This chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Colombia Top 100 from Americatop100.com. This charts was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Creative Disc. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Croatian Airplay Chart. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Croatian Singles Chart at ehot50.blog.hr : blog sourced chart. Croatian Singles Chart at www.soundguardian.com. No apparent notability. Validation of this chart compared to the airplay charts it claims to aggregate does not validate the chart. Cyprus Super Radio Chart This chart is a radio chart and it has not received an official status. Euro 200/APC-stats: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the following charts are known to be mirrors of these charts:Portugal Singles Top 50 at αCharts.us Italian Albums Top 50 at αCharts.us Italian Singles Top 50 at αCharts.usNote: a valid Portuguese albums chart, based on AC Nielsen data, can be found portuguesecharts.com. Note: valid Italian albums and singles charts, can be found at www.fimi.it FDR Charts This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Greek Hot 75,Greek Dance, Greek Hype, Greek Pop, Greek Rock, Greek R&B & Latin, Greek Radio1 DJs: These charts from www.radio1.gr are all single network charts. Hungary Editor's Choice Top 40 at MAHASZ. The Editors' Choice Top 40 should not be used: this is a critic's list, not a reflection of sales or airplay. Indonesian Top 50: see ""Creative Disc"". Infodisc.fr : For singles (and albums before 1985 at http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_Historique.php), site uses various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, fictional chart positions. ISMAIV. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Italian Singles at αCharts.us: see Euro 200/APC-stats. Israeli Singles Chart at www.charts.co.il, http://www.glgltz.co.il/, http://pizmonet.co.il/ or https://90s.co.il/israel-number1. These charts are all single network charts, and incorporate user voting. iTunes: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Latin Areschart: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Latvian Airplay Top, Latvian Singles Chart This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. LCC Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and other Lithuania Charts Company charts: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Lithuanian Airplay Chart: This chart's article were deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Lithuanian Top 40 from music.lt. This chart is based on membership voting, and does not reflect verifiable sales or airplay. Los 40 Principales. Single network chart documenting playlist frequency on the same network. México Top 100 from Americatop100.com. This chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Mu-Mo: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. MYX Hit Chart, MYX Daily Top 10, Pinoy MYX Countdown: These charts were deleted by deletion discussion as non-notable charts with dubious methodology. Odyssey Albums Chart: Single vendor charts should not be used. Philippines Hot 100 prior to June 2017: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion (multiple times) as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. However, from June 2017, charts were provided by Billboard Philippines. In January 2018, the charts were discontinued and are now inactive. Polish National Top 50: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: a valid Polish albums chart can be found at olis.onyx.pl. Portuguese Singles at αCharts.us: see Euro 200/APC-stats. Radio Disney: Charts from countdown shows should not be used as they are not derived from verifiable sales and/or airplay totals. Now defunct. Recochoku: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Record Land: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Rolling Stone Top 200 Albums: Chart allows albums to chart prior to release based solely on song streams and sales. See: discussion. Serbian Pop Top Lista: ""TOP 50 SRBIJA"" chart at poptoplista.com. Rankings are apparently combinations of radio airplay in Serbia with votes of Web site visitors. Spanish Singles Chart on allcharts.org. This is a mirror of Los 40 Principales, which is listed above. Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Tokio Hot 100 Single network airplay chart. Top Latino: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Ukraine: see FDR Charts above. United States Billboard Twitter Real-Time charts: See WP:SINGLENETWORK. United World Chart, Global Top 40 Albums, Media Traffic: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. This chart is also used to compile the data for the winners of the World Music Awards, which as of 2021 have been on a seven-year hiatus. ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks Countdowns (VH1 Top 20 Video Countdown, TeenNick Top 10 and CMT Hot Twenty, among others): Both the CMT and VH1 programs (the VH1 program ended in December 2015) formerly used a mix of network airplay and radio popularity with some minor viewer feedback to compile their lists, but now only depend entirely on viewer text messaging and internet voting to compile their lists and encourage multiple votes, along with a limited pool of videos chosen by viewers to fill the list. TeenNick's countdown was subject to the same issues, along with producer and host input (the host, Nick Cannon, had a full executive role with the network and has used the network to promote his produced acts in the past) to influence how the videos chart; it ended in 2018, leaving CMT Hot Twenty as the only active program among the three. Vietnamese YanTV We10: A music chart which is published by YanTV and based on viewer's choice. Worf Music Awards: Probably non-existent award, mass-added to various artist pages at one point. See deleted by deletion discussion. World Albums Top 40/World Singles Top 40: These listings on acharts.us are mirrors of the United World Chart. Charts Around the World: Reproduces information that can be found on other reliable sources or sources whose origins are unknown. See discussion. americatop100.com – Sourcing for these charts is indeterminate. Charly1300.com – Reproduces some data available from Recommended charts. Other available chart information is of unsystematic or uncertain origin. Chartblue.com – Indeterminate methodology. chartdata.org – Reproduces some data available from Recommended charts. Other available chart information is of unsystematic or uncertain origin. Also applies to their Twitter account. chartmasters.org – Falls under WP:SPS, and there's no indication of where the figures are from. hitparadeitalia.it – Hobbyist web site, uses various sources to recreate, through his own methodology, fictional national charts. kworb.net – Mostly compiles airplay data from Mediabase along with normalized popularity values for tracks in the iTunes Store; in particular, the sales estimates page should not be cited under any circumstance, as the provided figures on the page are merely estimated and are not based on official data. Madonna-charts.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. Mariah-charts.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. mediatraffic.de – Unclear methodology, unknown sourcing. slokylie.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. top40-charts.com – Unclear methodology, unknown sourcing. Tsort.info/music/ – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Exceptions appear to be sourced from single-station airplay or single-vendor sales figures. twitter.com/chartnews – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Sales figures appear to be obtained from a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, including mediatraffic.de; in some cases, provided sales figures do not match those from recommended sources provided concurrently. uk-charts.top-source.info, www.uk-charts.co.uk – Hobbyist web site, indeterminate sourcing and methodology. UKchartsplus.co.uk – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources. www.worldmusicawards.com – Although this is an actual (sometimes) televised awards show (with an admittedly shaky history), the articles found under the ""News"" section of its official website should not be cited, as the text of these articles is copied verbatim from mediatraffic.de, including the dubious sales data. chartsaroundtheworld.com – Reproduces information that can be found on other reliable sources or sources whose origins are unknown. See discussion. The following charts are recommended for use, although some archives of these charts are specifically deprecated. These are charts which are believed to meet all requirements for inclusion, and have reliable, licensed archives of positions which allow for stable and reliable referencing. Many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems. The Romanian Top 100, for example, appears to be a reliable chart, but no stable searchable archive is available. These charts can be included so long as care is taken in providing a reliable source for the information. If only the latest version of a chart is published online, please add it to Wikipedia:Record charts/List. The list is archived to the Wayback Machine at least twice every week. Many countries have a digital songs chart compiled by Nielsen SoundScan International and published in Billboard Magazine in the Hits of the World page. The following charts are acceptable and are deemed as reliable sources for use. However these charts do not have a searchable database or are archived by the website. In order to prevent WP:LINKROT, the source must be manually archived using the Internet Archive or another similar service. === Billboard charts === For a complete list of Billboard charts and general information see Billboard charts. In the United States Billboard publishes songs and albums charts based on data from Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen BDS. This guide is designed to help editors to determine which charts are acceptable for use on Wikipedia in which circumstances. Below is the chart matrix for this purpose. The guide contains the official and current names for the charts as of April 2010, with the exception of the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), also known as either the Mainstream Top 40 or the Pop Songs chart. On Wikipedia, it is located at a page using both names (one as a disambiguator). When listing the chart in chart tables list it exactly as its page is named: Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). Billboard magazine is the provider of US charts; however, its use on Wikipedia when mentioning charts should be limited: i.e., charts should simply be referred to as US followed by the chart name. The only two exceptions to this rule are the Billboard Hot 100 and the Billboard 200, which should include Billboard as it is a part of the actual chart name. Sourcing Billboard chartsAs with all record charts, you should first try to source each chart directly from the Billboard.com website. Ideally, the citation should link to the Billboard page for the song in question, through the artist's discography / chart history page there. Note, however, that the Billboard archives are sometimes incomplete, particularly on older and/or lesser-known artists. Any of the books by Joel Whitburn may also be used to verify chart positions. On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to a Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the corresponding chart [i.e., Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (do not add 50 to a Bubbling Under peak on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs after October 2012)]. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e., the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable. If an artist has had Bubbling Under entries but no songs that entered the Hot 100 proper, or has had multiple Bubbling Under entries, discography tables may use a separate ""Bubbling Under"" column to save on footnotes. Also, when creating singles tables, do not include charts on which the artist has never appeared—a Hot 100 column is not mandatory if the artist never charted on the Hot 100. It is recommended that you use the {{single chart}} template where possible. ==== Song charts ==== ==== Album charts ==== Notes" 31 31 61 :WP:V Wikipedia:Verifiability 31 "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations: all quotations, all material whose verifiability has been challenged, all material that is likely to be challenged, and all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups. === What counts as a reliable source === A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings: The work itself (the article, book: ""That book looks like a useful source for this article."") and works like it (""An obituary can be a useful biographical source"", ""A recent source is better than an old one"") The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: ""What do we know about that source's reputation?"") and people like them (""A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..""). The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: ""That source covers the arts."") and publications like them (""A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts""). The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: ""That source publishes reference works."") and publishers like them (""An academic publisher is a good source of reference works"").All four can affect reliability. Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones Reputable newspapersEditors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test. === Newspaper and magazine blogs === Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. ""Jane Smith wrote ..."" Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below. === Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline === To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority. === Questionable sources === Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process. === Self-published sources === Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. === Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves === Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook. === Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it === Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias. === Access to sources === Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). === Non-English sources === ==== Citing ==== Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.) ==== Quoting ==== If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you. The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline. === Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion === While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. === Tagging a sentence, section, or article === If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles here. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page. Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page. === Exceptional claims require exceptional sources === Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended; Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. === Copyright and plagiarism === Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate. Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright. === Neutrality === Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: ""John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y,"" followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say. === Notability === If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). However, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST). === Original research === The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy. === Guidelines === Reliable sources Identifying reliable sources (medicine) === Information pages === === Resources === === Essays === Wales, Jimmy. ""Insist on sources"", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: ""I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.""—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other." 32 32 63 WP: BEFORE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 32 "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD. This page explains what you should consider before nominating, the steps for nominating, and how to discuss an AfD. It also links to the lists of current debates, and two companion processes to AfD: speedy deletion has a clearly defined set of criteria such as vandalism and patent nonsense, whereas proposed deletion is used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest. If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk. === Current discussions === Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Read how to – Add a new entry Alternatively, if you believe that deletion of an article would be uncontroversial, you may place the code {{subst:prod|insert reason for deletion}} on the article instead. See also Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information, and Category:Proposed deletions, for other currently pending nominations for deletion. 29 March (Wednesday) 28 March (Tuesday) 27 March (Monday) 26 March (Sunday) 25 March (Saturday) 24 March (Friday) 23 March (Thursday) 22 March (Wednesday) === Old discussions (open) === March 21 (Tuesday) (2 open / 56 closed / 58 total discussions; open: 1 2) === Categorized discussions === AfDs sorted by topic & country === Search current and archived AfD discussions by topic === To find discussions containing the word navy, enter: navy To find discussions about articles whose titles contain battleships, enter: intitle:battleships To find discussions with navy anywhere, but battleships only in the article title, enter: navy intitle:battleships Or, browse archived discussions grouped chronologically here A sortable table of current AfDs can be found here === Wikietiquette === Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and ""do not bite the newbies"". This also applies to the other deletion pages. AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press. Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia. Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor. Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote: Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page. Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep, delete, or other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count. Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you. If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed. While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. === How to contribute === AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD. There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in AfD discussions: When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., ""Keep"", ""Delete"", ""Merge"", ""Redirect"", or other view. A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words. Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s). Please do not accompany comments with label templates. Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI. Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.When participating, please consider the following: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using ""sock puppets"" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely. You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line. Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and after the *, as in ""• Delete Keep"". Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus.There are many good ways to advocate keeping, deleting or even redirecting an article. This includes: Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: ""unverifiable"" (violates WP:V), ""original research"" (violates WP:NOR), and ""non-notable"" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say ""does not meet WP:BIO"" to avoid insulting the subject.) Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument ""non-neutral point of view"" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either. If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread. Please do not do this for articles which are likely to be eventually deleted on grounds other than simple incompleteness or poor writing (see WP:SNOW).If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention. Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend ""Disambiguation"", ""Redirect"" or ""Merge"". Do not recommend deletion in such cases.You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar. You agree with the consensus that has already been formed.Please also see Wikipedia:Notability. === Before nominating: checks and alternatives === Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with further related essays at Category:Wikipedia notability. Common outcomes may be checked to see if other articles on a specific topic tend to be kept or deleted after an AfD discussion.B. Carry out these checks Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.) Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating. Check ""What links here"" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Where possible, also please make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources which may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}. For a more complete list see WP:CTT. === How to nominate a single page for deletion === This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers. Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure. To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure. To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps: === How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion === Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations, it is often a good idea to only list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination: A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. A group of hoax articles by the same editor. A group of spam articles by the same editor. A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as ""should Wikipedia include this type of article"". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are ""per nom"", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith. To bundle articles for deletion: === Creating an AfD === This template can be used by autoconfirmed users to nominate an article for deletion: If you do it this way, remember to add {{subst:AFD|subpage name}} at the top of the article, as well as list the nomination at the top of the current AFD log page. Alternatively, you can use Twinkle (TW) to do the same thing, and without having to add the nomination to the current AFD log page, plus a bunch of other things, such as reverting and reporting vandalism and marking articles and templates for speedy deletion. Twinkle can be activated by going to your preferences page, click on the ""Gadgets"" tab, make sure the ""Twinkle"" checkmark under the ""Editing gadgets"" section is selected, and click on ""Save"". For more information, see Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. === After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors === While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, such as notability, verifiability or a specific section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, e.g., Wikipedia is not a directory, and please provide a link to the AfD discussion page itself. Deletion sorting Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent AfD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the complete list of categories. Notifying related WikiProjects WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD.Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the article being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging an article with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts. Notifying substantial contributors to the article While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use the Page History tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Use: {{subst:Afd notice|article name|AfD discussion title}} ~~~~At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, ""relist"" it for another seven days of discussion. (The ""someone"" must not be you, the nominator. However, if you want to see how it's done, refer to the next section.) === Withdrawing a nomination === If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or because you realise the nomination was a mistake. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion. To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying ""Withdrawn by nominator"" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation, and sign it. If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion. A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. For how to perform this, see below, subsection Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI. An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; closures that non-admins may make are detailed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. For how to perform this, see below, subsection Procedure for non-administrator close (other) If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion. A discussion can be closed sooner than seven days if any of certain special conditions applies. Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. === Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) === As mentioned above, the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. This procedure involves performing edits to three pages, as follows: On the deletion discussion page Remove the {{Closing}} tag from the page, if it was placed beforehand. Insert at the top of the page: {{subst:Afd top|'''speedy keep'''. Nomination withdrawn. {{subst:nac}}}} ~~~~ Remove the line containing {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} Insert at the bottom of the page: {{subst:Afd bottom}} Publish the page with an edit summary such as ""Closing AfD, result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn)."" On the article page Find the article page The name of the votepage might not identically match that of the article The prefix ""Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"" should not be part of the ""votepage"" name Remove from the top of the page the text beginning and ending Publish the page with an edit summary such as ""AfD closed as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn)."" On the talk page of the article itself Insert at the top of the page: {{Old AfD multi|page=PageName|date=Date|result='''speedy keep'''}} Publish the page with an edit summary such as ""AfD closed as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn)."" === Procedure for non-administrator close (other) === As mentioned above, an editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; closures that non-admins may make are detailed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. For a result of ""keep"", this procedure differs from the Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) above, only in the reasons to be listed in the templates and the comments to be annotated in the edit summaries. Follow those instructions, replacing references to ""keep (nomination withdrawn)"" with the relevant reason. For any other appropriate result, the procedure is basically the same, with the differences listed in WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday Please DO NOT try to update these pages or start a new one yourself. (Note: These pages are not the deletion log pages referred to in step III of the instructions, above). Category:Proposed deletion (Note that this is under the separate Wikipedia process Wikipedia:Proposed deletion rather than Articles for Deletion.) Category:Articles for deletion templates An editor can use {{Db-u1}} to make a user request for starting the process of deleting certain pages from their userspace. Sortable table of open AfDs Topic-wise sorted list of open AfDs with nominations statements Oracle for Deletion AfD statistics Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives - sources useful for AFD discussions and WP:BEFORE searches Undeletion policy Deletion guidelines for admins Deletion process Alternative outlets Common outcomes of AfD Archived deletion discussions Policy consensus discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Deletion review Non-admin closure Proposed mergers Articles for merging, a failed proposal" 33 33 64 WP:ELREG Wikipedia:External links 33 "Wikipedia articles may include external links, links to web pages outside Wikipedia. External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some high-value external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked). However, the External links section should not become a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the ""References"" or ""Notes"" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an ""External links"" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. Links in the ""External links"" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. In the ""External links"" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website, as if to provide a portal to that website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site. This guideline does not apply to links to non-English Wikipedia articles; these appear in the sidebar by default, and are either sourced from Wikidata or can be added to the page's wikitext after External links. For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved. There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors. === What can normally be linked === Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See § Official links. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. === Links to be considered === The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see ""Professional reviews"" at talk page archive). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a ""Reception"" section. Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered case-by-case. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages or ones that include file formats that will require plug-ins should be annotated as such. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Links to Wikimedia sister projects with relevant material. Links to finding aids. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page (see {{refideas}}). Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See § Sites requiring registration. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details. Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups), Usenet newsgroups or email lists. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers, or customers. Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the ""ISBN"" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time (e.g., Instagram Stories). Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information. External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages. Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered. === Links in lists === External link sections are not prohibited at the end of stand-alone lists or at the end of articles that contain embedded lists. However, the lists themselves should not be composed of external links. These lists are primarily intended to provide direct information and internal navigation, not to be a directory of sites on the web. Lists in Wikipedia articles may take any of multiple forms, including bullet lists (most common), numbered lists, horizontal lists, tables (standard for Wikipedia:Featured lists), etc. The rules about whether to include an external link in a list apply regardless of the method used to format the list. This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation to a reliable source for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria. To determine whether an item should be included in the list at all, refer to the inclusion criteria for the list you are editing. To determine how to format citations to reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. For advice on how to format a bibliography or other list of works (e.g., a list of books or articles written by an author), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Publications (Works, Bibliography) instead of this guideline. In other cases, such as for lists of political candidates and software, a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table: In some cases, these links may serve as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources. In the case of elections or other one-time events, it may be desirable to replace the original links with links to archived copies when the event is over. === Advertising and conflicts of interest === A link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site, as a few readers may click on the link while reading the Wikipedia article. Adding your website to Wikipedia will not help with search engine optimization, because Google and other search engines ignore links on Wikipedia. In line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link. A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please report it on Meta; they can put in a Wikimedia-wide text filter. Administrators will block unauthorized bots on sight. === In biographies of living persons === In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. === Sites requiring registration === Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Facebook and many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazine articles are archived, there may be a fee for accessing them. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see § Official links) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Bibliographic citations should normally cite the most authoritative source for the publication (e.g., a copy of the newspaper article on the original newspaper's website rather than a copy on someone's blog), but may add a link to a free version if one is available and not a copyright violation. === Non-English-language content === Outside of citations, external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables—per the guideline on non-English-language sites. When linking to a site in a non-English language under the exceptions above, label the link with {{In lang}}, available for most languages, using two-letter language codes: for example, {{In lang|es}}, {{In lang|fr}}, etc. Place the language label after the link (e.g., [https://de.wikipedia.org/ German Wikipedia] {{In lang|de}}). Note that this guideline does not apply to references. See Verifiability § Non-English sources for Wikipedia's standards for published reliable sources that are not written in English. === Redirection sites === URL redirection sites are not to be used. Examples of these sites include tinyurl.com, tiny.cc and the .tk top level domain. Most of these sites are listed in the m:Spam blacklist because they are frequently abused by link spammers, which means that it is not possible to save a page that contains such a link. Because URL redirection sites are added to the blacklist whenever abuse occurs, you may create problems for future editors by using them. Adding links to web proxies is prohibited for a similar reason. Instead, one should add a link to the original URL. It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link. For instance, if example.com is an automatic redirect to example.org/example, it is better to link to the exact page, even if the webmaster considers the redirect address to be more official. === Rich media === It is acceptable to link to pages rendered in normal HTML or plain text, but this is not always the case with pages using rich media formats (which may be incompatible with many users' settings and browsers). Check that the content type of the linked page is text/html, text/plain, or application/xhtml+xml (or another XHTML content type) as some pages may instead be rendered solely by platform-dependent plugins. Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media. Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given, as in the following examples: ""Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia"" July 2005 on TED; 20:01 minutes. (HTML5). Berkowitz, Joel, ""Avrom Goldfaden and the Modern Yiddish Theater: The Bard of Old Constantine"" (PDF), Pakn Treger, no. 44, Winter 2004, 10–19.Note that MediaWiki software will provide small icons for several types of outgoing links, such as the PDF example above but text that makes it explicit is still helpful for the reader. If an external link is to a page that automatically plays music or other sounds when visited, please add the template {{plays audio}} as a courtesy, according to the principle of least surprise. ==== Linking to user-submitted video sites ==== While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page. (See § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided.) Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content. Most URL shorteners, including youtu.be, are banned. Use the full domain name (youtube.com) instead. === Avoid undue weight on particular points of view === On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weighted to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. === Linking to Wikidata === Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of an article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) mentioning the Q-number. For further information, see this discussion. Note that the ""Wikidata item"" sidebar item also links to the relevant item when sitelinked. An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject. This exemption does not allow for additional ""official"" links such as those found on fundraising websites. Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article. Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template {{official website}} is optional. No official link exists for many articles. Fansites, including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4. Web sites sometimes get hijacked or hacked. This is often done to serve malware. If an official site is serving malware, its URL should be hidden until the website is cleaned up. This can usually be accomplished by commenting out the website using the procedure at Help:Hidden text along with a note in the comment explaining that the official site is a malware site. The website could also be inserted by an infobox, in which referring to the infobox's documentation can be useful in finding out how to suppress the automatic link. If you suppress a site's URL, please leave a comment explaining why you did so, using the hidden text feature. === Minimize the number of links === Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says. More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation. In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate ""communication strategies"" or other forms of marketing. It is very important to consider whether the link is likely to remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future. For example, it is not useful to link to a webpage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Consider locating and linking to permalink versions of web content, and trying to find resources that have a commitment to keeping content available at the same address. === What can be done with a dead external link === Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. In rare cases, such as the official website for a notable political campaign, it may be better to replace the dead link with a link to an archived copy of the website. Note, however, that the matter is different for references, which link to archived webpages far more often. It may be worth checking to see if there is a working version of the link in an earlier version of the article. Some dead links are caused by vandalism; for example, a vandal may disable links to products competing with the vandal's favored product. Some instances of this type of vandalism are quite subtle, such as replacing ASCII letters in the URL with identical-looking Cyrillic letters. === Hijacked and re-registered sites === URLs can be ""hijacked"" or re-registered for a different purpose after a (domain name) registration expires. Even if the URL seems to remain valid (it still ""works""), if it no longer points to the desired information, then it needs to be handled as a dead link. These directions show how to create a link in the classic wikitext editor. If you are using the VisualEditor editing environment, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide § Editing links for directions.External links are enclosed in single square brackets (rather than double brackets as with internal links), with the optional link text separated from the URL by a space (not a ""|"" as with internal links). Example of link with no text (code and output): Example of link containing text: All text following a space is taken as the text to use for the link. Embedding wikilinks into the link text is incorrect; instead choose the appropriate words to link. If there are no meaningful words that can be used for the link, a link with no text is preferred to using self-referential link text, such as ""click here"" or ""this link"". These types of self-references should be avoided. === Specifying protocols === http: or https: should be explicitly specified as appropriate for the target site (preferring https:, where available). The linking style [//www...] without protocol is obsolete and should not be used in external links. === External links section === The External links section is one of the optional standard appendices and footers, which appear in a defined order at the bottom of the article. The heading should be ""External links"" (plural) even when only a single link is listed. The standard format is to place the links in a bulleted list under the heading. If you include an official website, place it at the top of the list. For example: Thus, most external links should present details different from citations. For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. === Templates for external links === Some templates exist for linking to Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Wikimedia Commons. {{Commons}} is an example of a graphical template that is commonly used to link to Wikimedia Commons. All such templates have inline versions (e.g., {{Commons-inline}}), or you may choose to link to them exactly like you would link to any other website. See Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § When to link for further information. Templates may be used for other commonly linked websites. These templates sometimes permit quick correction of many links if the target website is reorganized, and some of them are popular for use in infoboxes. Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites, even if these websites are also wikis. All templates except those for WMF ""sister"" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting. See typical examples at {{EMedicine}} and {{Allmusic}}. {{srlink}} will create either a wiklink or external link, depending on whether it is on a mirror of Wikipedia. {{plain link}} will remove the arrow icon that is automatically placed on URLs. === References and citation === Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not ""external links"" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and comply with the criteria for links to be avoided. === Linking to databases === When linking to large database-driven sites like the Internet Movie Database, try to use an external link template. If the URL format of the database ever changes, it is sometimes possible to quickly fix all links by rewriting the template. Inappropriate and duplicative links may be deleted by any editor; if the reason for the deletion is not obvious, please explain on the article's talk page. Templates may help organize a link maintenance project. The {{external links}} template is for providing notice that the article may contain inappropriate links or the list of links may have grown to an inappropriate length. {{Advert}} also warns of suspected non-compliant links. Inline templates may be useful for flagging individual links that you want to further discuss on the article's talk page: {{Copyvio link}}: to mark links suspected of violating copyrights {{Off-topic-inline}}: to mark links that seem off-topic or irrelevant {{Dead link}}: to mark links that do not appear to be workingIf a page attracts many links or inappropriate links, a note in the external links section such as {{subst:no more links}} may discourage the addition of links. If a new or unregistered user persists in adding an inappropriate link to one or more pages, please consider leaving a message for User:XLinkBot. This bot will automatically revert listed sites if added by non-autoconfirmed users, but permit other editors to add them. For malware or serious spamming, please read Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to recommend site-wide blacklisting. Two maintenance categories list all tagged articles that need attention to remove spam and non-compliant links. They are: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup Category:Wikipedia spam cleanupIn April 2014, each of these categories listed about 4,000 articles that had been tagged for assistance with external links and spam. Any editor can address these concerns by applying the advice on this page. When an article complies with the relevant standards, then any editor may remove the tags. Special:Linksearch is a tool to search for URLs in external links. For example, one might search for all Wikipedia pages linking to yahoo.com at Special:Linksearch/*.yahoo.com. This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard. Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. === Syntax === Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Video links Wikipedia:Writing better articles Category:External link file type templates Help:Wiki markup § External links Help:URL Metawikimedia:External links === Maintenance coordination === Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites – websites editors frequently inquire about Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard – a page to get help with questions about specific articles or websites Wikipedia:Link rot Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup WikiProject External links – dedicated to cleaning up overly long lists of external links and having articles conform to Wikipedia's external links guidelines WikiProject Spam – voluntary spam-fighting brigade === Other === WP:CS:EMBED ""Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article"" Wikipedia:Further reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout gives order of presentation of optional standard appendix and footer sections" 34 34 65 WP:DEL Wikipedia:Deletion policy 34 "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how articles, media, and other pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, many pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below. Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse (""undelete"") any deletion. All such actions (other than viewing) are recorded in the deletion log, and deletion statistics are recorded at Wikipedia:Deletion statistics. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page): Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia === Editing and discussion === If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. === Tagging === A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags however are not intended as permanent solutions; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems. Tags are listed here. Some of the more common ones include: {{Cleanup}} for poor writing {{Expert needed}} for articles needing expert attention {{Not English}} for articles written in a foreign language {{POV}} for bias {{Stub}} for a short article {{More citations needed}} for lack of verifiability {{Merge}} for a small article that could be merged into a larger onePages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves. Be mindful when adding tags to biographies of living persons. Certain tags are known to produce VRT complaints from the article's subject—for instance {{notability}}, because it may be interpreted as Wikipedia passing judgement on the person. Nominating the article for deletion so that consensus may be more quickly established is an alternative. === Merging === Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand. Note that an outcome of ""merge and delete"" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems. === Redirection === A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. === Incubation === Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace (""draftified"") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process. If drafts are not edited for a period of six months, they are eligible for deletion under criteria for speedy deletion G13. In comparison to user space drafts, the draft namespace makes these proto-articles easier to find and work on collaboratively. Moving to user space is still preferred for templates that seem to serve a single editor's needs, or essays that only reflect a particular editor's viewpoint. Drafts in user space are not subject to G13 deletion unless submitted to AfC. Incubation must not be used as a ""backdoor to deletion"". Because abandoned drafts are deleted after six months, moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles (typically as part of new page review) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. === Other projects === Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. They may be copied there using transwiki functionality before considering their merger or deletion. If an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created under the same name, it may be turned into a soft redirect to a more appropriate sister project's article. Please note that Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia, and so is not an alternative to deletion. === Archiving === Deletion should not be used for archiving a page. There are four basic processes for deletion and two to review and overturn the outcome of these processes and other deletions. === Copyright violations === For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot host content that is in violation of copyright. Where to find them: Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Files for discussion How to do this: See Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For other pages, remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with {{subst:copyvio}}. For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=...}} after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history. If you disagree: Try to contact the authors of the text or image and see if they are willing to release their work (1) under an acceptable license (for text, this is CC BY-SA and GFDL co-licensed, CC BY-SA alone, or CC BY-SA-compatible), or (2) into the public domain. Permission to use a work ""on Wikipedia only"" or ""for non-commercial use only"" isn't enough, as it is incompatible with our license. Renominations: Recreations of copyrighted content are speedily deleted, as below. It is disruptive to persist in recreating such content. === Speedy deletion === Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it must not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) may be deleted through speedy deletion. Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for speedy deletion can be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. How to do this: Administrators can delete such pages on sight. Other editors can request speedy deletion by editing the relevant page to add a speedy deletion template to the top of the page. If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If a page you created is tagged for speedy deletion, you may either improve the page or explain your reasoning on the relevant talk page. The page may still be deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If a page has been speedily deleted and there is disagreement over whether or not it should have been, this is discussed at deletion review, described below. Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted. === Proposed deletion === An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. This process only applies to pages in the main namespace (article namespace) and the file namespace. Redirects are not eligible for proposed deletion (for information on deleting redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect § When should we delete a redirect?). Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for proposed deletion can be found in Category:Proposed deletion, as well as in an automatically generated summary table. How to do this: Edit the page to add the following text to the top: {{subst:prod|reason}}, writing your reasoning in the ""reason"" field. If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases, the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page. It is also desirable to add {{old prod}} at the top of the article's talk page (or beneath WikiProject banners). Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below. ==== Proposed deletion of biographies of living people ==== The proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies requires all biographies of living persons to have at least one source in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). Once the article is tagged in this manner, the {{prod blp}} tag may not be removed until at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect any other deletion process. === Deletion discussion === Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions, the results of which may be reviewed after the fact at deletion review (see below). This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinions on what should be done with the page. These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. A nomination that gets little response after the discussion period has ended can be relisted if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus. It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome; such meatpuppet comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user ""has made few or no other edits"". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected. It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution. Where to find them: There are separate processes for articles, categories, files, redirects, templates, and everything else. How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page. If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page. For more information on this process, read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. === Page deletion === The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to delete. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. In certain circumstances, poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs). === Deletion of biographies and BLPs === Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, then the closing editor may generally treat the nomination as a PROD. === Deletion of drafts === If an article isn't ready for the main namespace, it can be moved to the draft namespace, and if it sits there without being worked on for six months, it will be eligible for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Deletion of old drafts. === Deletion review === If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you may be able to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If a page was obviously deleted ""out of process"" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care. If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available. The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count, but by consensus. The review normally lasts for seven days, sometimes longer if the outcome is unclear. Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate. Where to find them: Wikipedia:Deletion review How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the page. If you disagree: Go to the review page and explain why you disagree. Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly. ==== Undeletion ==== In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of content deleted without discussion, and the userfication of content that is unfit for restoration. Requests for undeletion should be used to appeal most instances of proposed deletion and some speedy deletions. However, appeals of the outcomes of deletion discussions and other deletion matters requiring community review should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Be aware that pages restored to articlespace may immediately be subject to a deletion discussion. Where to find them: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the page. If you disagree: Take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review Renominations: Unlike deletion discussions, there is no suggested waiting period between requests, although requests that have been declined should not be re-submitted unless circumstances such as undeletion norms or the motivation for undeletion have changed. Issues that are on the wrong process (e.g. templates on the article-deletion page) are simply moved to the proper one. A page on deletion review should not be listed on a deletion discussion page until the review closes, and a page on a deletion discussion page should not be listed on deletion review until the discussion closes. Deletion discussion trumps proposed deletion, so for a page listed on both, deletion discussion takes precedence. Pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted regardless of other circumstances. If a page on a deletion debate is speedied, the debate is closed. If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence. In practice, this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted. Pages that violate copyright can be deleted regardless of circumstances or earlier discussion. === Access to deleted pages === Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted, a form of enhanced deletion which, unlike normal deletion, expunges information from any form of usual access even by administrators. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. === Courtesy blanking of talkpage or deletion debates === From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary. This generally is not done except under rare circumstances, such as where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. To avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus being indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For deletion discussions, the entire debate can be replaced with the {{xfd-privacy}} template. When either courtesy blanking or xfd-blanking is used, the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration. On occasion, pages in the project namespace, such as requests for adminship and requests for arbitration, will be blanked as a courtesy, for reasons similar to those outlined above. How to do this: Remove all text from the subpage and then add {{subst:Courtesy blanked}}; for deletion discussions, use {{subst:xfd-privacy|article|result}} with the correct parameters. === Revision deletion === It is possible to delete some parts of a page's history, while leaving the current revision of the page intact, so that readers are unaware of the partial deletion (unless they attempt to visit a deleted old page revision). Administrators have access to the Revision Deletion tool, which makes it possible for them to remove selected old revisions of a page (and/or edit summaries or user names). The Revision Deletion policy strictly covers the circumstances in which this is permitted. Revision Deletion replaces the previous method of selective undeletion, which involved deleting the entire page and then selectively undeleting/restoring revisions. Selective undeletion still has a few valid uses that Revision Deletion cannot cover (such as complex history merges). However, due to its relative lack of transparency and poor efficiency, selective undeletion is no longer used to remove revisions from page histories." 35 35 66 WP:DOIT Wikipedia:Be bold 35 "Be bold can best be explained in three words: ""Go for it."" The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. How many times have you read something and thought—Why doesn't this page have correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout? Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a ""mute spectator""; be bold and drop your opinion there! Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Francis Bacon, an early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, once said: ""Great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."" Instead of getting upset, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold while communicating on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more. On some of the less-prominent articles on Wikipedia that have a lower editing rate, your bold edit might not be responded to immediately. Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough. Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. But some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice. Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page. Being bold is not an excuse to, even temporarily, violate the policy on material about living persons. Often it is easier to see that something is not right rather than to know exactly what would be right. We do not require anyone to be bold; after all, commenting that something is incorrect can be the first step to getting it fixed. It is true, though, that problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold and do it yourself. Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. Such pages are identified by a namespace prefix. For example, this page, Wikipedia:Be bold, has the ""Wikipedia:"" prefix; if it were called simply Be bold (with no prefix) it would be an article. Problems may arise for a variety of reasons in different contexts in non-article namespaces. These problems should be taken into account in deciding whether to be bold, and how bold to be. === Wikipedia namespace === Wikipedia does not ""enshrine"" old practices: bold changes to its policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to adapt and improve the encyclopedia. In this case, ""bold"" refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation. The admonition ""be careful"" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed. Discussing changes to other Wikipedia-space pages on the talk page is also a good idea. If nothing else, it will provide an explanation of the changes for later editors. Most such pages are collections of arguments placed in Wikipedia space for later reference, so the same arguments don't need to be made over and over again. === Template namespace === One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far reaching consequences because one change can affect lots of pages at once. Moreover, some templates are part of a wide-ranging, uniform system of templates across Wikipedia, e.g. infoboxes and stubs. Remember, all source code is easily broken by untested changes (but always quite fixable). Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialed in comparison with the existing version. === Category namespace === Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages. Consider the guidelines on categorization and overcategorization, and if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion, also mentioning them on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. === File namespace === Be bold in adding information to the description of an existing image. However, new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Doing otherwise risks having the old image confused with the new one. Therefore, you must always be careful. === User namespace === It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page or comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless). Fixing vandalism is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. Specific users will let you know if they find your changes inappropriate or if you have given incorrect information. === Portal namespace === Regarding changes to graphical layout? See the next section. Note that the color scheme used for portals is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, most portals related to countries use the colors of the nation's flag. It is a good idea to propose design changes on the talk page first. Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution (examples below). It is often best to test changes first (in a sandbox page in your userspace, or a subpage of the page in question), and to discuss the proposed change with other editors before making it live. When many users edit pages for layout, different plans can conflict, and the page may get worse rather than better. This is particularly true of highly visible pages, such as those linked to from the navigation boxes on the left of the screen. These often use intricate formatting to convey their information, and a lot of work has gone into making them as user-friendly as possible. Moreover, some pages form groups whose formatting is intended to be uniform. You should establish consensus before making design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page (which in any case is permanently protected), the Community Portal, the Featured content group of pages, and the group consisting of Portal:Contents and its subpages, as well as Portal:Current events. This does not apply to articles or normal portals. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (essay) Can't break it (essay) Introduction to contributing (tutorial) Edit this proposal (essay) Editing policy (policy) Ignore all rules (policy) Old dogs and new tricks (essay) {{Sofixit}} (template message encouraging bold editing) User:NotMe (humorous essay)" 36 36 69 WP: POINT Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point 36 "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution. Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. do not nominate an article for deletion that you don't really believe ought to be deleted, giving the same rationale. If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others favour keeping it... do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines. do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion. If someone deletes from an article information which they call ""unimportant"" or ""irrelevant"", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject... do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion. do not delete most of the remaining article as ""unimportant"". If you think someone unfairly removed a reference to a self-published source... do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a better source for the information. do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published. If you think someone unfairly removed ""unsourced"" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia... do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious. do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it. If you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia standards... do express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard. do not add even more references to the source, with hopes of provoking opposition to its use. If you think that the Arbitration Committee has conducted inappropriate CheckUsers... do express your concerns on one of the CheckUser policy talk pages or at a relevant Arbcom page. do not suggest another frivolous or inappropriate CheckUser. A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in ""POINTy"" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their ""point"". Merely describing such hypothetical behavior is fine and does not go against this guideline. For example, saying By that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page is okay, but actually doing that just to make a point is not. Past decisions by the Arbitration Committee regarding this guideline Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, to minimize potential motivations for point-illustrating Wikipedia:Disruptive sanctions Wikipedia:Gaming the system Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Wikilawyering Wikipedia:Sarcasm Wikipedia:NCR" 37 37 70 WP:ROTM Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill 37 "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest. Something or someone that is ""run-of-the-mill"" is probably not notable. There are many subjects for which reliable sources independent of the subject exist. There are just so many of these things in the world, which are so commonplace that if an article on each were to be created, there would be so many articles on these alone, possibly more than there are total Wikipedia articles to this day and Wikipedia would be clogged with them, in the sense that it would be harder to structure content and it would make it hard to find notable material. A street map shows every street within a city, down to every cul-de-sac with just four houses. Every city has several detailed street maps that have been published. In one square mile of an urban area, there are likely to be dozens of streets and there can be hundreds of square miles within a city and its suburbs. It is not practical to create an article on every street as the high volume might overwhelm the capacity of editors to maintain them. Almost every city has police and fire departments. These departments can be so busy that they are mentioned almost daily in the local news but again, they are just ordinary police and fire departments doing their jobs. Many people have one or more obituaries published detailing the fact that they died, information regarding their deaths and often information about their families and lives. This information is published in a newspaper, a reliable source. But in a single major city, there will be dozens of obituaries published each day. There must be something unusual, something unique about the subject so that the article does not just read blank is blank (which would essentially be a dictionary entry) and that it does not resemble hundreds of other articles by containing mostly the same words with a few fill-in-the-blanks. Once such notability has been established, the common sources (e.g. a map for a street) can then be used to verify the accuracy of information. A commonplace item is not worthy of inclusion in an article if the source(s) cited in support of it likewise list exhaustively other items of the same genus, as distinct from source(s) describing or listing the item as independently noteworthy. Some subjects in particular are extremely commonplace. This does not mean they are never notable. But it is surely not possible for all of them to be. === Residential === Nearly every house is listed in some directory identifying the company that built it and the people who live in it. This does not make it notable. There is a right to privacy when it comes to writing about a residence. Articles can be created on historic houses that a notable person has lived in or that are notable for another reason. Apartment complexes, housing developments and trailer parks, even though there may be websites about each one and even though they are often displayed on maps, are not notable on this basis. === Commercial === Shopping centers, strip malls, office buildings, business or industrial parks or medical centers may have a lot of information from reliable sources giving them bare mention. In every city and town are single-location businesses (e.g. retail, restaurant, gas station, auto repair shop, motel) and in some places, most businesses fit this description. Yet they may be mentioned in reliable sources. === Sports === It has already been accepted that professional athletes, regardless of their accomplishments in their field, may receive coverage. Local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes, in every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them; inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage. In professional sports, each game will receive deep coverage from the local papers of the team's city and at minimum, a box score from papers elsewhere. Each professional sports league has plenty of teams (some have more than 30) and a sports season has many games (Major League Baseball has 162 per team per season). It is not practical to have an article on every game ever played. Imagine an article on ""July 8 Cardinals vs. Brewers game"" and ""July 9 Cardinals vs. Brewers game"" and ""July 11 Cardinals vs. Cubs game"" and so on. More encyclopedic would be articles like 2009 St. Louis Cardinals season, which describe the highlights of the season. === Political candidates === Every political candidate in every election, anywhere at all, can always show at least a few sources in the local media, such as an article about them announcing their candidacy, articles about the all-candidates debates, one or more ""my positions on the issues"" interviews and a results table that verifies their final vote total on election day. This does not mean that every political candidate should have their own standalone Wikipedia article based on such routine and run-of-the-mill coverage; rather, a candidate meets the notability criteria for having a Wikipedia article only if one or both of the following applies: The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is A credible case can be made why the person's candidacy should be seen as considerably more noteworthy than everyone else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance Some articles not to create based on common sources only are: A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers A local club supporting a hobby or interest, or a local organization promoting some cause Regular-season games in a professional sport (A post-season series should be in an article about the series rather than in articles about individual games) The local festival or other scheduled event that occurs annually A bank that has been mentioned in the news each of the 5 times it has been robbed in its 30-year existence The side street where once every few years, a news-reported crime has occurred An ordinary political rally, candidacy for office, candidate announcement, or press conference A lawyer who provides legal commentary for a local television or radio station First, make sure the article is on a run-of-the-mill subject: Does the written text seem to imply there is something unusual about the subject or something that may be encyclopedic? Just because something belongs to a category that might often be run-of-the-mill doesn't mean that the example is. Examine the reference, sources and external links provided. Do they meet WP:RS guidelines? Do they come from international, national or local sources? Is the topic one that is normally accepted by Wikipedia's guidelines?If, after this review, you feel the article is, indeed, run-of-the-mill, you may take action. Consider if any appropriate tags may be placed on top of the page in lieu of immediate deletion that may encourage others to improve the article. A suggested merge is sometimes an option. Blatant spam, advertising, and self-promotion shall be speedy-deleted, marked with {{db-spam}}. If the item (other than a person, business or organization) is a part of something larger, it may be merged or redirected to that page. If something is truly not notable or is likely not to be considered notable, it may be nominated for deletion. This will give others a chance to discuss if it may be worth deleting the information. You may also start by using the {{prod}} tag to see if the deletion is challenged by someone else. Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique Wikipedia:Inherent notability Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes" 38 38 71 WP:UD Help:Userspace draft 38 "Warning: You are not logged in. Please create an account or log in to proceed. A userspace draft is a draft of an article (or part of an article) associated with a specific user account and stored in the user namespace. Userspace drafts are distinct from drafts located in the Draft namespace. You must create a user account to have your own userspace, and you must be logged in to use it. Explanation: Every registered user on Wikipedia has their own ""userspace"" (or ""userpage"") – for instance, a user named ""Example"" has a userspace called User:Example – and User:Example/Lipsum is a page (actually a subpage) called ""Lipsum"" in Example's userspace. Userspace is part of Wikipedia, and its use is governed by community rules, but it is not part of the encyclopedia. (The encyclopedia part of Wikipedia is called the ""mainspace"" – e.g. Lorem ipsum is a page in mainspace.) Userspace Drafts are typically made on a ""user subpage"" (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum). User-specific drafts may also be located on a subpage in the Draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Example/Username). For a list of all your drafts (and any other subpages you have), click on ""Contributions"" (at the very top right of any Wikipedia page, if you're logged in), then scroll to the bottom and click the ""Subpages"" link. Note: every edit you make to a userspace draft is potentially visible online to anyone, even though it's in your own space. Also, your edits are 'saved' by hitting the same big, blue 'Publish changes' button you see when editing existing Wikipedia articles. Don't be confused by the term 'publish' in this context; it's not the same as actually moving a draft into the main encyclopedia for everyone to find and read. Many people consider only that element as 'publishing', whereas the reality is that everything we do here is published online, whether made in a userspace, a sandbox, a draft article, or in a main article. As a courtesy, when you have a page in your userspace you no longer need, add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the page. It will be deleted shortly. In an RfC regarding the applicability of Wikipedia:Notability to drafts within the userspace and draftspace, it was determined that community consensus amounted to ""notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts"". Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace, can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later moved to the main encyclopedia. Wikipedia:User pages Template:Userspace draft Template:My sandbox" 39 39 72 WP: BLPPROD Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people 39 Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) are eligible for a special proposed deletion process, BLPPROD. To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted. This proposed deletion mechanism is intended to augment, not supersede, other Wikipedia deletion processes or content policies. A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that support any statement made about the person in the article, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the seven-day period. Note: BLP articles may still be nominated for standard PROD if they do not meet BLPPROD criteria, or even if an article has previously been flagged for BLPPROD and declined. Although policy on biographies of living persons covers all types of biographical material, the use of this deletion procedure applies only to articles that are biographies of living people. This deletion procedure does not apply to such content as lists of people or biographical information contained in other articles. If there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure, then it is preferable to use another deletion process (e.g. WP:PROD, WP:AFD or others as applicable). Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, all articles are required to include reliable sources for any material about a living person that is contentious. In addition, all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source per our verifiability policy. The more contentious the material, the higher quality the source must be. All improperly sourced articles about living people may be subject to deletion per the standard deletion processes, but in addition, biographies that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process. To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than the one used for sources added after the correct placement of the tag. If you see a biography about a living person without references, you are strongly encouraged to either source or remove any contentious material and look for reliable sources that support the remainder of the biography's content. Nevertheless, a nomination may also be used to involve the article creator or to ensure that a problematic entry is being attended to more swiftly than by tagging it with {{BLP unsourced}}. If, considering all this, you want to use this deletion process, you should: Before nomination: Make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person. Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE). Consider using another deletion process if you do not believe the article meets notability guidelines, or What Wikipedia is Not. Also, check to see whether the article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, if so, use that instead. Review the biography's history to confirm that it has not been vandalized especially if sources have been removed, and there is no more suitable referenced version to revert to. If the unsourced BLP is wholly negative in tone, do not use this process. Add {{db-negublp}} instead to nominate for speedy deletion. If there are any unsourced negative or contentious statements, remove them.Nomination: Add {{subst:prod blp}} to the top of the biography to nominate it. Provide an edit summary that clearly indicates the biography has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor. Consider adding the biography to your watchlist. Notify the biography's creator or other significant contributors by leaving a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion. This can be done by adding the {{subst:PRODwarningBLP|Name of biography}} tag, or other appropriate text. Using Twinkle to tag the article will automatically inform the biography's creator.If there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure to the article, then it is preferable to use another deletion process. To be canceled, this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp/dated}} until the biography has at least one such source. If a {{prod blp/dated}} has been removed then: if no such source has been provided, the tag may be re-added. When practical, revert to the original expiration date; however, in borderline cases, such as where a source of questionable reliability (rather than an obvious unreliable source) has been added, the biography should be listed instead at Articles for Deletion. if a relevant and reliable source has been provided but you still believe the biography should be deleted, use one of the regular deletion processes.In all cases, consider taking the time to highlight and discuss sourcing policy with interested editors as appropriate. Sometimes redirects and other articles will be edited to change their subject to a BLP of a different person. Such articles can be split as follows and the expanded articles may then be subject to this deletion process. delete example per {{G6}} restore the newer edits about the new subject and move it to Example (occupation) without creating a redirect restore example as it was before it was altered if Example (occupation) is a new unsourced BLP then either source or tag it with {{blpprod}} explain to the author of the new version what has happened and where their article is now. Before deletion based on this process, administrators should check the biography and its history to confirm that: the {{prod blp/dated}} tag has been in place for at least seven days, and there were no supporting sources (regardless of reliability or form) when tagged; no valid sources have been included in the biography or provided on the talk page; there is no suitable previous version to revert to.If you decide to delete the biography, provide an informative deletion reason, such as the standard one provided by the software: 'Expired BLPPROD, concern was: Unsourced BLP'. If you are using an automated script, make sure it leaves an adequate log summary. You may also choose to move the biography to the draft space instead, if appropriate. To ensure independent judgment, a biography should not be deleted by the same person who added the {{subst:prod blp}} tag. The biography may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a reliable source. The undeletion can be requested through an administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Upon restoration, the {{prod blp/dated}} template should not be removed, but needs to be replaced or resubstituted to reset the expiration date. Where the request has not gone through requests for undeletion, the admin carrying out the undeletion is expected to check that a reliable source has been added. If you decide not to delete the biography because {{prod blp/dated}} is no longer applicable—that is, a valid source has been provided, or you add one—or if the process wasn't applicable in the first place, then you need only remove the {{prod blp/dated}}. If the biography has a source, but is still partially unsourced, consider tagging the biography with {{BLP sources}}. This method of proposed deletion is an additional tool to be used in the interests of increasing the quality of BLP sourcing on Wikipedia. Nothing in this policy should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes. Whether the BLP is subject to deletion or not, contentious material which is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed from the biography immediately and without prior discussion, in accordance with the BLP policy. {{prod blp/dated}} tagged biographies remain eligible for speedy deletion nomination in the usual way. When tagging a proposed deletion candidate for speedy deletion, the proposed deletion tag should be left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected. A rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for proposed deletion. The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may be restored if replaced with a speedy deletion tag. Per this section of the BLP policy, badly written BLPs should be stubbified or deleted. Administrators may have to delete pages if the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, there is no obvious way to fix it, and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant.BLP articles that do not meet the BLPPROD criteria may still be nominated for standard PROD. Additionally a prior declined BLPPROD nomination does not block an article from being nominated for standard PROD and vice versa. Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons welcomes editors who might help address the backlog of unsourced BLP articles! Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people in which consensus was found for such a process 40 40 77 WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia:No original research 40 "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase ""original research"" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement ""the capital of France is Paris"" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified. Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research. ""No original research"" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the No original research noticeboard. This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery. The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. === Reliable sources === Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals Books published by university presses University-level textbooks Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses Mainstream newspapersHowever, note that higher standards than this are required for medical claims. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. See self-published sources for exceptions. Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic. === Primary, secondary and tertiary sources === Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles). Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. ""A and B, therefore, C"" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says ""A"" in one context, and ""B"" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of ""therefore C"", then ""therefore C"" cannot be used in any article. Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily such material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to: Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute: This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis: The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. === Original images === Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the ""No original research"" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light. === Translations and transcriptions === Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources. === Routine calculations === Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates. Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a ""routine"" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote. Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies. === Verifiability === Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all challenged or likely to be challenged material and all quotations need a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at WP:Verifiability § Reliable sources. === Neutral point of view === The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. === Guidelines === Citing sources Conflict of interest § Citing yourself No original research examples No original research noticeboard—discussions of specific article content suspected of being OR === Templates === === Supplemental pages === === Essays === === Research help === WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request The Wikipedia Library" 41 41 81 WP:ACADEME Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors 41 "Wikipedia and the world of academe has, sometimes, an uneasy relationship. This is not the old saw that Wikipedia is not a valid work to cite in academic research. That is a given. This is the issue that an editor who is also an academic, a professor with a PhD in their field, may find the climate for editing here a difficult, sometimes a hostile climate, most certainly a strange and unfamiliar one. Wikipedia is not an easy environment for an academic used to publishing original research in academic journals that are subject to rigorous peer review process. Wikipedia is an unfamiliar environment to every new editor. However, to the academic or other expert who encounters it, Wikipedia is a strange, perplexing, often hostile place. In part this is because it is like nothing in mainstream academe. There is no formal peer review, no overt rigour, though some form of rigour happens by consensus over time. There is no ownership of articles, and no reputations for the academic are built on Wikipedia by their publication of papers in high-profile journals, holding a distinguished professorship at a university, or having earned advanced degrees (e.g., a PhD) from top universities. Wikipedia rules like no original research and verifiability also obviously do not apply to academic articles, and academics may not automatically apply them. The issue faced by academics and experts is that it is they who must bend their way of working to suit Wikipedia. Wikipedia will never bend to suit their normal way of working in academia, however strong their usual procedures and traditions, however advanced their knowledge, and however correct their approach is for an academic context. Experienced Wikipedians know this, perhaps instinctively. They understand that the cut and thrust of Wikipedia is a useful fun hobby, and that Wikipedia, while it strives to use reliable sources, is nothing like academic journals. Experienced academics, new to Wikipedia, often expect the same environment that they are used to in their academic careers, including the need to mount a spirited defence of their work. Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic. On Wikipedia, a different environment (for instance, with only one article per topic), these disagreements must be differently conducted. Wikipediocracy, a website that critiques Wikipedia, states the following concerns about how experts are treated on Wikipedia: ""Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish themself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.""Another major reason for why academics and related experts rarely become Wikipedians is that doing so does not contribute to their careers. Publishing a peer-reviewed paper or a book, including chapters in traditional encyclopedias, has tangible benefits for academics, from positive reviews for promotion to financial incentives. Publishing on Wikipedia, however, is not generally recognized by academic institutions as a proper research activity. As such, most experts will focus on traditional ways to publish their research, seeing contributing to Wikipedia as a hobby that takes distinct second place to their work, and that will result in neither career nor financial gains. Academics are used to persuading colleagues to accept and further their work. On Wikipedia, such people are accused of being ""meatpuppets"" (another person acting as a sockpuppet, who assists person A by arguing on behalf of person A on Wikipedia, on talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). The air becomes heated. Wikipedians are, in general, poor at recognising this and hurl an ""alphabet soup"" of instructions and counter-instructions. WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:NOR tend to be the early ones. Imagine being the recipient of this cannonade of acronyms! While a professor may be respected and well-known in their field, they may not pass the Wikipedia Academic Notability Test. Further, even if a professor passes that test, they will have the same authority and importance here as any other Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has the same status: he is just a regular editor. Each Wikipedian, anonymous or logged-in, is as important as the next one, and that is not important at all; that includes Wikipedia's appointed administrators and bureaucrats. Indeed, the symbol for Wikipedia administrators is not a golden trophy or star; it is a mop and bucket, as those editors simply have authority to use ""mops and buckets to clean up messes"" and resolve disputes. Because Wikipedia is here to stay and it needs to become ever better. Part of becoming better is its ability to attract, or at least not repel, well qualified-editors, including subject-matter experts like university professors. Wikipedia needs to stop disenchanting expert editors. Every expert editor who is turned away is another naysayer against Wikipedia and one less editor with expert knowledge in a subject. Wikipedia needs the top scholar specialist as much as the lowly hobbyist generalist, but its editors often do not welcome professors. That is, in part, because Wikipedia editors generally do not have the patience—or perhaps the guidance—to help academics to understand Wikipedia's arcane systems. If you are a generalist editor and you encounter an academic editor or professor, some of the traits that might identify this individual include having an obviously expert level of knowledge of the subject matter, but little knowledge of Wikipedia's requirements. For example: A professor writing the introduction to their article in an academic journal does not need to cite sources for well-established scientific facts, since all of the readers will have studied the field. But if they write the exact same sentence in a Wikipedia article—""ABC particles are attracted to the XYZ particles by the fooian subatomic force""—it will need a citation to a reliable source. A social historian who writes from a very well-defined position (e.g. a queer theory perspective) may be used to writing entire academic articles or even entire books from that viewpoint. However, on Wikipedia, they must accept that this one viewpoint on a historical matter can only be one of a number of viewpoints in a Wikipedia article, to ensure a neutral point of view. A psychology professor who has developed a number of original theories that have gone on to be published in peer-reviewed journals and written about in academic textbooks may want to let the world know about their new theory on childhood development by writing about it in a Wikipedia article. No editor, not even a well-published professor, can add text about an original theory that has not been published already in a reliable, independent source in the outside world. They need to have their theory published first in an independent journal or book, and only then can this information be added to Wikipedia. (And then, ideally, someone other than the professor should add the information about the professor's theory, because the professor-editor themselves would be in conflict of interest to add text about their own work).You should let academic editors know that you respect their expert knowledge of the subject matter and their contribution to the project, while gently and civilly making them aware of the Wikipedia ""alphabet soup"": WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. in everyday language. So how do generalist editors work to solve this? The key is to recognise what is happening. Every individual editor has a responsibility to Wikipedia to try to behave as well as they are able in order to keep Wikipedia's reputation as high as it can be and retain editors, including professors and research experts. Once an editor is recognised as a subject matter expert, and quite possibly a professor, it is important to attempt to build a decent bridge to the academic editor who is unused to the environment here, a bridge built on quiet, confident and friendly help. While Wikipedia has excellent discussions about the problems of the uninformed but relentless editor, and about the problems and benefits of having expert editors it does not discuss in the latter a mechanism for making the expert academic editor part of the family. To some extent, one can use the same techniques to encourage all new editors. However, it may also be helpful to refer a new expert editor to some information resources which are specific to their cultural background. The essay Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, first published in PLoS Comput Biol, was written by academic scientists to help their colleagues in their early encounters with the Wikipedia editing community, and may also be useful to other subject experts. That essay encapsulates these ten rules for professors who want to edit: Register an account Learn the five pillars Be bold, but not reckless Know your audience Do not infringe copyright Cite, cite, cite Avoid shameless self-promotion Share your expertise, but don't argue from authority Write neutrally and with due weight Ask for helpNone of them are arduous, and following them makes an expert's life far simpler. A useful eleventh is: Write from a position of humility and in a spirit of humilityMore extensive guides can be found at Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics and Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts. These are fine for the expert to follow, but what of the editor who encounters an apparent expert making what appear to be edits in breach of policy? How should they behave? After all, edits that breach policy should be reverted or tempered in some manner to remove the policy infraction. It comes down to using common sense. === Check the contributions record === Checking a user's contribution record has to be done with care (see WP:Wikihounding for what type of checking crosses the line). It is not to be checked for contentious matters. It is to be checked to get a sense of context. Judgments based on the contribution record of an editor can influence the path taken with helping the editor. For example, an editor working on a wide-ranging subject catalogue, from sports to politics and geography to beer is likely a hobbyist or generalist editor who needs guidance, not a professor making edits in their field of expertise. A narrow subject catalogue, especially a precise area of focus on a highly technical or complex topic, suggests that the editor is either an expert or a highly qualified amateur. Highly qualified amateurs, who have a great deal of expertise in a subject, yet are not professors or recognized experts in this field, are outside the scope of this essay, but may benefit from some of the guidance in it. When dealing with a professor or academic expert, handle them with respect for their presumed qualifications and sensitivities. === Seek to engage them in conversation === ""Hey, you, you are making bad edits!"" is not the approach most likely to win them over. ""Please could we have a chat about good ways to edit Wikipedia?"" could be a useful start, probably in their own talk page. And the conversation could then link directly to this essay if deemed appropriate, but a better link is to recommend Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, noting that Wikipedia is a very strange place for new editors and can seem strange for those used to academic rigour. === Do not throw the baby out with the bath water === People tend not to edit a heavyweight article on Wikipedia with major content edits unless they have something to add. Academics and experts are used to having their opinions heard. When correct, they gain reputation. The challenge is to separate the 'correct and gain reputation' element from the factual content. Wikipedia wants the factual content. Wikipedia does not want the part where people gain reputation, except as a collegiate editor. Guide their edits to include correct reliably sourced material and show them how to use the citation mechanisms available to them. And guide them to filter out the reputation-enhancing fluff and clutter. They need to understand that reputations of individual editors on Wikipedia are not to be the focus of any article, and that apparently reputation-enhancing material will be removed.The objective is to retain all that is of value to Wikipedia in professors' edits and to show them that their contribution is also valued, that they are valued as Wikipedians, and that they have no academic reputation on Wikipedia, because all editors are equal. That last statement about equality may be challenging for them to understand or accept, especially if they hold a distinguished chair or professorship in a major university. === If necessary, edit their edits === It isn't always necessary, and editors should not leap to the conclusion that experts and academics are unwelcome and that their edits must be ""nuked"" on sight. A counter elitist argument for exclusion is as bad as an elitist one for inclusion. When it is necessary, add the additional effort of making it politely and assertively clear on the article's talk page what has been done, and make a decision about leaving a more detailed and friendly explanation on the editor's talk page. This goes right back to engaging them in conversation. There is nothing wrong with apologising to them. ""I'm sorry. I had to modify your edit to comply with rules you may not be used to. You seem to have great expertise in [this topic] and Wikipedia will be improved with your expertise. To make this work we all need to work together within the Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia."" Note the phrase is a simple apology, ""I'm sorry."" It is not ""I'm sorry, but..."" which is a phrase which causes offence, because it is not an apology. Equally phrases such as ""With all due respect"" should never form part of the conversation. The objective is to build a bridge, not to alienate. Thus an apology is appropriate, and it is given because it is appropriate to apologise for editing the edit of a new editor who does not yet understand Wikipedia's ways === If escalation is required === There are Wikipedia policy-based escalation routes a-plenty. Ideally they are to be avoided. They tend to be useful as sanction-invoking devices, not as educational devices. The first ""port of call"" should be to another experienced editor, someone who is ideally uninvolved in a dispute or article, and who has expertise in engaging new editors and ""difficult"" editors in conversation and winning them round. A useful population of these can be found at the editor retention project, whose member list is there and whose goals are reproduced below: Only use Wikipedia's formal escalation processes when attempts at building bridges and conversations have been exhausted. === Nothing is as urgent as you think === Wikipedia loses nothing when an edit is reverted, even if ten paragraphs of well-cited text are deleted. All is saved for posterity in the ""History"" tab. So any edit, even a disruptive one, even a string of highly disruptive ones, can be rolled back to the last good version as a matter of a couple of mouse clicks. If your perception as an experienced editor is that the editor presumed to be an expert is vandalising an article, promoting their reputation or any or many other ""cardinal sins"" of Wikipedia, there is no value in becoming stressed. Stress begets stress, and your stress will be mirrored by an increased stress level from the editor you view as disruptive. Your calmness is likely to help the academic editor to remain calm. So act peacefully in all your interactions with them and with their edits. === You may not be the best person to handle this === You may be, of course you may, but you must acknowledge that you may not be. Wikipedia as a project with the goal of building a great encyclopedia comes first, not your pride in any perceived ability you have to resolve disputes. Before plunging in, stop and consider who is likely to be the best to work with the expert editor to guide them into the Wikipedia way. Folk from the editor retention project tend to be good at this. At least ask one or more of them for advice. === Be aware of the new (2013) interaction notification system === Naming a user by their user name on an article Talk page or other location on Wikipedia with a wikilink alerts them to the things you are saying about them online. One should never speak ill of any editor, but a new editor under pressure may interpret your wise request for help with guiding their edits to be a ""witch hunt"" against them. The objective is to provide help, not to alienate them. Be wise about your usage of wikilinks to user names. Use them with pleasure and with care. Since User ""X"" will be alerted when you make comments on WP about User X, it may be good to imagine as if the other editor is getting a copy of your comments. Thus instead of writing a subjective assessment-filled comment like ""User X is vandalizing pages and deleting good material, causing great damage to the article"", one could write a more factual comment like ""User X is deleting sections of articles. It may be good to investigate why User X is deleting these sections. Perhaps there is a good rationale for doing so"". Not even by just reading this essay is it ""all done"". The task is to embrace the essay and to embrace the expert, the academic, and to help them enjoy contributing to this strange environment. Show them how this place is as rewarding as it is strange, and guide them in their learning how to work well here. Wikipedia:Expert editors Wikipedia:Expert retention Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS Computational Biology aimed at scientists. Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists Wikipedia:ORCID, on use of ORCID identifiers for academic authors in Wikipedia Essjay controversy (a case of a Wikipedian who made incorrect statements about his doctoral academic credentials)" 42 42 84 WP:REFSPAM Wikipedia:Spam 42 "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be tagged for speedy deletion with the template {{db-spam}}. The same applies to pages in userspace, the draft namespace, or any other namespace. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. On some occasions, the content can be removed temporarily on the basis of a suspected copyright violation, since the text is often copied from another website and posted anonymously. Before trying to get an advertisement masquerading as an article deleted, please check the article's history to see if an acceptable revision exists there. If so, please revert to the latest acceptable version of the article. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives. Spam may also occur by hijacking articles. In this case, information is changed to the subject being promoted, and the article is ""hijacked"", or changed, to promote an entirely different subject. Some articles, especially those pertaining to Internet topics, are prone to aggressive spamming from multiple websites. If articles have spam, and you haven't got the time or ability to remove it, you can tag them with {{Advert}}. This template expands to the following: Another possible tag to use is {{External links}}, which expands to the following: The third useful template is a substituted template {{subst:No more links}}, visible only while the page is being edited. After spam links have been removed from a Wikipedia article, this template can be substituted into the top of the external links section of the frequently spammed article as a pre-emptive measure. A fourth template, used for citation spam, is {{refimprove-spam}}, which looks like this: Finally to advise the Wikipedia community to watch an article for abuse you can add to the talk page (under the project banners and other page headers, but before any discussions) {{Prone to spam}} which looks like this: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. === Citation spam === Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing live or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. === Source soliciting === Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages that explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. Editors with a conflict of interest should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously when soliciting editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. Every article on Wikipedia can be expanded as a matter of course, but the question is in the details on a per-article basis. It is not possible to simply say ""all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source"". There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam, but some guidelines and questions to consider: Is the source commercial? Does the source meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is the suggestion being made anonymously through the use of a template or category? Was the suggestion duplicated across a number of articles at the same time, particularly articles relating to different topics? Has there been any discussion (of a specific and substantive nature) on why the source should be used in each article? === External link spamming with bots === A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. They have a database of a few hundred wikis. Typically they insert external links. Like blog spam, their aim is to improve the search engine rankings of the external sites, not to directly advertise their product. If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please contact a sysop on the Meta-Wiki; they can put in a Wikimedia-wide text filter. Any Meta sysop can edit the Wikimedia-wide spam blacklist to add or remove the patterns that are recognized by the filter, with the changes taking effect immediately. New links can also be added to the list if a new spammer should start making the rounds. Sysops are authorised to block unauthorised bots on sight. Spambots should be treated as vandal bots. Edits by spambots constitute unauthorised defacement of websites, which is against the law in many countries, and may result in complaints to ISPs and (ultimately) prosecution. The link spam problem extends far beyond Wikimedia projects, and is generally worse on smaller wikis where the community struggles to keep it clean. m:Wiki Spam page (now obsolete) has some more general information and advice for users of wikis elsewhere on the Internet, while the MediaWiki Anti-Spam Features page describes features available in MediaWiki (for administrators running this software). === Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another === Many times, users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another. === Affiliate links === Even if they are related to the subject or are an official page for the subject, external links containing affiliate or referral codes are considered spam. If the linked webpage is otherwise appropriate, please remove all referral codes from the URL. === Videos === Adding links to gratis online videos that promote a site or product is not allowed [see exception below]. Often these videos have been uploaded in violation of their copyright, which adds an additional reason for not linking to them. A video might be a spamming video if: It has a banner plastered across the video giving you a website address to go to. It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, ""book available at xyzBooks dot net"" — [see exception below]Exception: Generally, a video is not a spamming video if it refers to the official site associated with the Wikipedia article. For example, if the Wikipedia article is on a movie named ""xyzMovie"" and the official site for the movie is ""xyzMovie.com"" then links or references to ""xyzMovie.com"" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page. Although all other links at that video page should also be legitimate, some judgement is needed. If the posted video just advertises a bunch of products associated with the movie, then it is a spamming video even though it refers to the official site. === Bookspam === Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to ""external links"", ""further reading"" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information. Examples in articles tend to attract spam, as in these sentences: For example, Chevron Corporation has ... Social networking has flourished with websites such as Friendster and MySpace, ... Examples of detergents include Tide, ... The most notable multi-level marketing companies are Amway, ... Many people feel Dr Pepper is the best tasting soft drink ... (this is also weasel wording) Many blogs arose discussing this (see e.g. Some blog); ...Such sentences tend to attract editors to add more examples because it is far easier to add a link to the end of this kind of sentence than to add encyclopedic content. Examples should only be given if they are highly relevant to the article topic, and should always be sourced with independent, reliable sources. Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming—creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or adding external links to a web site over many articles. Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create their own such article. A web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where their site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it. The following guidelines are intended to suggest how not to be a spammer—that is, how to mention a web site, product, business, or other resource without appearing to the Wikipedia community that you are trying to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or memes. If you are here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody has heard of yet, you are in the wrong place. Likewise, if you are here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly to pull up your sagging PageRank) you will probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You are here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see No. 1 above.) The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article is not just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it. Do not make a new article for your own product or web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing their own work, it is because the work is not yet well-known enough to have attracted anyone else's attention, much less independent and reliable sources against which the content can be verified. Articles of this sort are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them. If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant. Do not add an external link to your signature. However, external links to Wikimedia projects are exempt from this rule. For example, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. (Although Interwiki links are preferable to external links for that purpose.) {{subst:uw-spam1}} is a useful ""first warning"" to put on the Talk page of a spammer. For new users, an alternative, {{subst:welcomespam}}, may be used for users who may have added spam or inappropriate external links in good faith. Subsequent offenses can be tagged with {{subst:uw-spam2}}, or more strongly, {{subst:uw-spam3}} (warning of possible block) and {{subst:uw-spam4}} (final warning). If an editor spams numerous articles in a systematic fashion, they may be warned with {{subst:uw-spam4im}} as the only warning that they will receive before they are blocked. The template {{subst:uw-sblock}} indicates that the spammer has been blocked. If you have tagged an article for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}} because it is blatant spam, you may add {{subst:spam-warn}} to the originating editor's talk page to warn them of the impending deletion, and to allow them to possibly edit the article so it is no longer spam. Please remember to substitute these templates using for example {{subst:uw-spam1}} instead of {{uw-spam1}}. Editors who have enabled the Twinkle feature can use the warn tab to insert these templates. Sometimes an article attracts so many improper external links that it ""crosses the spam event horizon"". Links should be removed and editors should be advised of our policy against promotion. Editors who continually add inappropriate links should receive escalating warnings, and if it continues, should be reported to AIV or 3RR, which may result in them being blocked from editing. A spambot is an automated process that will vandalize a wiki by adding spam links to user pages and articles, or by creating a mass of spam pages. Operating spambots on the English Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) is prohibited by the Terms of Use. Template:Advert – add to salvageable articles written like an advertisement Template:Example farm – add when an article has poor or irrelevant examples Template:Prone to spam – add when an article attracts too many spam links in its external links section Template:Spam blanked – add to mark blatant spam articles as having been blanked Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam – to report spammers Wikipedia:Spam blacklist Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertisers Wikipedia:External links – more guidance and policy on which external links should be included and which should not Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment – even more guidance on which links should be included and which should not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) – determining whether an organization is notable enough for inclusion Wikipedia:Spam event horizon Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) – spam content often violates this guideline for formatting trademarks within articles Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/Op-ed – ""Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia,"" includes discussion regarding the legal implications of anonymous promotional editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Dead link spamming – combatting efforts to disguise the addition of spam links as replacements for dead link templatesAlso relevant Wikipedia:Advocacy Wikipedia:Advocacy articles Wikipedia:Activist c2:WikiSpam MeatBall:WikiSpam CommunityWiki:WikiSpam" 43 43 88 WP:STUBDEF Wikipedia:Stub 43 "A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. This page provides a general guide for dealing with stubs: the first section, Basic information, contains information that is recommended for most users; and the second section, Creating stub types, contains more specialized material. Existing stub categories can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs. If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article. While a ""definition"" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The distinction between dictionary and encyclopedia articles is best expressed by the use–mention distinction: A dictionary article is about a word or phrase and will often have several different definitions for it An encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by the title but usually has only one definition (or in some cases, several definitions that are largely the same) but there may be several equivalent words (synonyms) or phrases for it.Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete. With these larger articles, a cleanup template is usually added instead of a stub template. === How big is too big? === Over the years, different editors have followed different rules of thumb to help them decide when an article is likely to be a stub. Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text, which is usually around 300 words. There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgment (the user essay on the Croughton-London rule may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub). Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone; lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. That said, AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words. This threshold was chosen because it is very unlikely that any article containing more than 500 words is correctly classified as stub. === Creating and improving a stub article === A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. Your initial research may be done either through books or reliable websites. You may also contribute knowledge acquired from other sources, but it is useful to conduct some research beforehand to ensure that your facts are accurate and unbiased. Use your own words: directly copying other sources without giving them credit is plagiarism, and may in some cases be a violation of copyright. Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State what a person is famous for, where a place is located and what it is known for, or the basic details of an event and when it happened. Next, try to expand upon this basic definition. Internally link relevant words, so that users unfamiliar with the subject can understand what you have written. Avoid linking words needlessly; instead, consider which words may require further definition for a casual reader to understand the article. Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia. === How to mark an article as a stub === After writing a short article, or finding an unmarked stub, you should insert a stub template. Choose from among the templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, or just use the generic {{stub}}, which others can sort later. Stubs should never be manually added to stub categories—always use a template. Per the Manual of Style, the stub template is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear after all article content. Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it. (One blank line leaves the stub category notice butted up against any preceding navigation template, it takes two blank lines in the edited text to produce one blank line in the displayed text.) As with all templates, stub templates are added by simply placing the name of the template in the text between double pairs of curly brackets (e.g., {{Wikipedia-stub}}). Stub templates are transcluded, not substituted. Stub templates have two parts: a short message noting the stub's topic and encouraging editors to expand it, and a category link, which places the article in a stub category alongside other stubs on the same topic. The naming for stub templates is usually topic-stub; a list of these templates may be found here. You need not learn all the templates—even simply adding {{stub}} helps (see this essay for more information). The more accurately an article is tagged, however, the less work it is for other sorters later, and the more useful it is for editors looking for articles to expand. If a more specific stub template than is currently on an article exists and completely covers the subject of the article, remove the more general template and replace it with the more specific type (for example, an article on Morocco may be stubbed with {{Africa-stub}}. If it is solely about Morocco, remove the template and replace it with {{Morocco-stub}} – don't simply add {{Morocco-stub}} and leave {{Africa-stub}} in place). One specific template can often replace multiple more general types (for example, {{UK-sport-bio-stub}} can replace both {{UK-bio-stub}} and {{sport-bio-stub}}). If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. A limit of three or, if really necessary, four stub templates is advised. Stub-related activities are centralised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (shortcut Wikipedia:WSS). This project should be your main reference for stub information, and is where new stub types should be proposed for discussion prior to creation. === Removing stub status === Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template. No administrator action or formal permission is needed. Stub templates are usually located at the bottom of the page, and usually have a name like {{something-stub}} if you are using the classic wikitext editor rather than VisualEditor. Many articles still marked as stubs have in fact been expanded beyond what is regarded as stub size. If an article is too large to be considered a stub but still needs expansion, the stub template may be removed and appropriate {{expand section}} templates may be added (no article should contain both a stub template and an expand template). When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary. Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable. === Locating stubs === Category:Stub categories the main list of stub categories and of articles contained within them Category:Stubs deprecated, but still receives a few articles periodically Special:ShortpagesThese categories can be used with AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to make bulk changes to stub types, or the sub-program within AWB called DataBase Scanner can be used to find articles by number of characters or words to locate potential stubs needing categorization or other tagging and/or expansion. This stand-alone application requires the operator be approved and the installation of the program on a personal computer (Linux, Mac, or PC). An alternate process using the web-based tool PetScan (no installation required) can also be used to locate articles by minimum or maximum size, the intersection of stub categories along with another category of interest, templates on the page, date of last edit, and namespace. Please propose new stub types at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals so that they may be discussed before creating them. In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category, although ""upmerged"" templates are also occasionally created which feed into more general stub categories. If you identify a group of stub articles that do not fit an existing stub type, or if an existing stub category is growing very large, you can propose the creation of a new stub type which is debated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. === Example === An example of a stub template is {{Website-stub}}, which produces: The stub category, Category:Website stubs, lists all articles containing the {{Website-stub}} template. === Guidelines === Several guidelines are used to decide whether a new stub type is useful. These include the following: Is there a stub type for this topic already? (Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Will the new type be well-defined? (Stub categories are a tool used by editors to expand articles. Good topic definition makes stubs easier to sort accurately.) Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does? Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly created stub type has 100–300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the main stub category used by a WikiProject.) Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) If you are breaking a subtype out of an existing type, will the new creation reduce the size of the parent by a significant amount? (This is not an absolute necessity, but is often a catalyst for the creation of stub categories. Stub categories containing over 800 articles are typically considered to be ""over-sized"", and in need of such sub-types.)If you think you have satisfied these guidelines, it is highly recommended that you propose the new stub type at stub type proposals page. This allows for debate on matters relating to the stub type that may not have occurred to the proposer, and also allows for objections if the split does not satisfy stub guidelines. If there are no objections within five days, you may create the new stub type. === New stub templates === After the creation of a new stub type has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and agreed upon, a template can be created. The name of this should follow the stub type naming conventions, and will usually be decided during the discussion process. All stub templates should link to a stub category. This may be a category specific to the topic of the template, or the template might be ""upmerged"" to one or more less specific categories – for example, a template for Andorran history might link to a stub category for European history and a general Andorran stub category. This is often thought to be desirable when a stub type is proposed in anticipation of future use, but is not currently over the size threshold; or where an existing stub type has a finite number of well-defined subdivisions, with some numerically viable as subtypes, and others not. Adding a small image to the stub template (the ""stub icon"") is generally discouraged because it increases the strain on the Wikipedia servers but may be used, so long as the image must be public domain or have a free license—fair use images must not be used in templates. Stub icons should be small, preferably no more than about 40px in size. The standard code for stub templates is found at: {{asbox}}. This template can be used (without substitution). === New stub categories === The name of the stub category should also have been decided during the proposal process and will also follow the naming guidelines. The text of a stub category should contain a definition of what type of stubs are contained in it and an indication of what template is used to add stubs to it. The {{WPSS-cat}} template should also be placed on the category, to indicate that it has been created after debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. The new stub category should also be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types list. The new stub category should be correctly added into other categories. These should include at least three specific categories: The analogous permanent category (""permcat"") At least one higher level (""parent"") stub category Category:Stub categoriesThus, for example, Category:France stubs, should be in an equivalent permcat (Category:France), parent stub category (Category:Europe stubs), and Category:Stub categories. The creation of stub categories can be partially automated by using {{Stub category}} as follows: {{Stub category|article=[[A]]|newstub=B|category=C}} A: Insert the description of the category here. B: Insert the name of the new stub template here. C: Insert the name of an appropriate parent non-stub category.In the example given above, the formatting would look like this: {{Stub category|article=[[France]]|newstub=France-stub|category=France}} which would produce this: This syntax also automatically adds the new category to Category:Stub categories, though parent stub categories and {{WPSS-cat}} still need to be added manually. It also automatically pipes the stub category with ""Σ"", so that appears at the end of the list of subcategories in non-stub category C. This effectively moves it away from navigation categories to place it alongside other editing- and cleanup-related categories. If you have some doubts or comments regarding any part of the process, do not hesitate to address them or ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. On occasion, an article may have significant problems that create opportunities to remove most of its content. This may be done in response to an article that is heavily biased, either for or against its subject; in response to an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research, self-published, or primary sources; in response to an VRT complaint; or a variety of other reasons. If enough content is removed that all that remains is a stub, a stub template should be added to the article, if it does not already have one. When a new WikiProject commences, one of the first things its creators often do is decide whether or not a specific stub type should be created for it. Often there is no real problem, as WikiProject topics frequently coincide with subjects of specific stub types. On other occasions, there will be no specific stub type, and thus a new type should be proposed. Occasionally, a WikiProject will seek to have a stub category which is too small, or a stub type which runs contrary to the way stubs are normally split, and this can create conflict between that project and WikiProject Stub sorting, or, more importantly, between that one stub type and one or more other stub types. Even where there is an existing stub type, there may be conflict, as often the definition of a topic as used for stub sorting may not be identical to that used by its specific WikiProject. It should be remembered in cases like this that, while a specific WikiProject may be looking for a solution for its concerns, WikiProject Stub sorting is attempting to make a coherent and cohesive system that works for all editors. The system needs to be as compatible as possible with the needs of all WikiProjects, and also with the needs of casual editors, and others who are participants in any WikiProject. Assessment templates are a way around this problem, and more often than not a far more useful tool for WikiProjects. Assessment templates have several distinct advantages over stub types for WikiProjects. The templates are placed on article talk pages, where they are less likely to be seen as controversial (the placing of stub templates on controversial articles has frequently been a source of edit warring). They allow all articles within a topic area to be assessed and catalogued by a related project—not just stub articles. They allow an indication to be made of exactly what work needs to be done on an article. They also allow workgroups that are subgroups of WikiProjects to have their own specific templates that are better suited to their tasks. Wikipedia:Content assessment Wikipedia:Stub Makers List of stub templates (or the easier-to-load list of subpages here) Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles Wikipedia:Writing better articles for help expanding stubs Category:Wikipedia essays about stubs, including: Wikipedia:Make stubs Wikipedia:Permastub Wikipedia:When to use the generic stub tag" 44 44 89 WP:NSCIENTIST Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 44 "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article. School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics. They may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. If not, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. See professor for more information about academic ranks and their meanings. Note that academic ranks are different in different countries.This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline. Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on. Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an ""Average Professor Test"": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose. Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of ""substantial number of publications"" and ""high citation rates"" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure. Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others. For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose. For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects. Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdős number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section). For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source. Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1. 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category). For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source. 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or ""Distinguished Professor"" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source. Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability. 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. For documenting that a person has held such a post (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution or society is a major one), publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source. Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; they may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7. 8. The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. However, their head editor may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Science may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important. Web of Science provides a free index of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. In individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts), and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts, but access to them is also not free and usually requires a university computer account. A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability. In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only. A caution about PubMed: Medline, now usually accessed as part of PubMed, is a well-established broadly based search engine, covering much of biology and all of medicine, published since 1967 and sometimes even earlier. It includes a few journals in medically related clinical subjects, but is not complete in those. Further, not all articles in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals, as it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover. It also exhaustively covers letters to the editor and similar material, not all of which is of any significance. A caution about ""related articles"": In PubMed, and most other databases, ""related articles"" are not articles that necessarily cite the original; they are articles on the same general topic, usually selected by having title words or citations in common. Some may cite the original (and some clearly do not, for they will have been published before the articles in question). They are useful for finding additional papers on a subject, which is the purpose for which they were designed. The only way to count citations using such a listing in, for example, PubMed, is the tedious method of looking at every one of the related articles published after the article in question, finding its ""cited article"" display, and check if it is there. (Some PubMed records do not list cited articles, for a variety of reasons.) Nor will such a listing necessarily include all the citations. – Help for ""Related articles"" feature Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. (Google Scholar is not totally irrelevant in many cases, for it now does include citations to books--it's worth a look). In these fields one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. A report from the association of European computer science departments lists ten bullet points for evaluation of computer science research, two of which emphasize the importance of non-journal publication and one of which specifically cautions against the use of Web of Science. Instead, it recommends Google Scholar or Citeseer for this field." 45 45 90 WP:VAGUE Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch 45 "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. Some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts, e.g. claim in law. What matters is that articles should be well-written and be consistent with the core content policies – Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations). If you do not feel you can improve the problematic wording of an article yourself, a template message can be added to draw the attention of other editors to an article needing a cleanup. === Puffery === Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as ""peacock terms"" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it. Peacock example: Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter. Just the facts: Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called ""master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation"".[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[2]An article suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or, if an editor is unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}. Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. People responsible for ""public spending"" (the neutral term) can be loaded both ways, as ""tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren"" or ""public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good"". === Contentious labels === Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. The prefix pseudo- indicates something false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, e.g. Gamergate (harassment campaign), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.For the term pseudoscience: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views ""should be clearly described as such"". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, if supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science. For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Neologisms and new compounds, below. === Unsupported attributions === Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony such as ""Despite the fact that fishermen catch fish, they don't tend to find any"" and damning with faint praise, like ""It is known that person X is skilled in golf, but is inferior to person Y."" have no place in Wikipedia articles. Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}}, {{By whom}}, or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the problem). === Expressions of doubt === Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as ""scare quotes"", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully. === Editorializing === Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretive viewpoints and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually, which implies something contrary to expectations; make sure this is verifiable and not just assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view on whether an event was fortunate or not. This kind of persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) and the Instructional and presumptuous language guideline (Wikipedia does not break the fourth wall and write at the reader, other than with navigational hatnotes). More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. === Synonyms for said === In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications. Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable. To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability. In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of ""he said ... she said ..."", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that provides tedium to readers. === Euphemisms === Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms. Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage. If a person has a medical condition, say just that, specifying the condition to the extent that is relevant and supported by appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language for more guidance on writing about medical conditions. Norms vary for expressions about disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. See also this essay by editors involved in WikiProject Disability. === Clichés and idioms === Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, two-thirds, or whatever matches the context. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for discussions of icebergs. If something is seen as wasteful excess, do not call it gilding the lily or white elephant; instead, describe the wasteful thing in terms of the actions or events that led to the excess. Instead of writing that someone took the plunge, state their action matter-of-factly. In general, if a literal reading of a phrase makes no sense given the context, the sentence needs rewording. Some idioms are only common in certain parts of the world, and many readers are not native speakers of English; articles should not presume familiarity with particular phrases. Wiktionary has a long list of English idioms, some of which should be avoided. === Relative time references === Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. ""By March 2023 contributions had dropped"" has the same meaning as ""Recently, contributions have dropped"" but the first sentence retains its meaning as time passes. And recently type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: Was it in the last week? Month? Year? The information that ""The current president, Alberto Fernández, took office in 2019"", or ""Alberto Fernández has been president since 2019"", is better rendered ""Alberto Fernández became president in 2019"". Wordings such as ""17 years ago"" or ""Jones is 65 years old"" should be rewritten as ""in 2006"", ""Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident"", or ""Jones was born in 1958."" If a direct quote contains relative time, ensure the date of the quote is clear, such as ""Joe Bloggs in 2007 called it 'one of the best books of the last decade'."" When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way. There are also several templates for alerting readers to time-sensitive wording problems.Expressions like ""former(ly)"", ""in the past"", and ""traditional(ly)"" lump together unspecified periods in the past. ""Traditional"" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources. Instead of ""hamburgers are a traditional American food,"" say ""the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the United States in the 1930s."" Because seasons differ between the northern and southern hemispheres, try to use months, quarters, or other non-seasonal terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Seasons of the year. === Unspecified places or events === As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying ""In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%"", say ""In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which respondents attributed to his new position on foreign policy.[1]"" Instead of saying ""Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches"", say ""Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center.[2]"" Remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and does not assume particular places or times are the ""default"". We emphasize facts and viewpoints to the same degree that they are emphasized by the reliable sources. Terms like this country should not be used. === Survived by === Phrasing such as ""Smith died in 1982, survived by her husband Jack and two sons"" should be avoided; this information can be made more complete and spread out through the article. The ""survived by"" phrasing is a common way to end newspaper obituaries and legal death notices, and is relevant at the time of death or for inheritance purposes. But an encyclopedia article covers the subject's entire life, not just the event of their death, and information about children and spouses might be presented in an infobox or in sections about the subject's personal life. From such information readers can generally infer which family members died after the subject, so this information is not usually worth highlighting explicitly except in unusual situations (for example where children predecease their parents, or where an inheritance was disputed). Even in a stub article, a different arrangement with more details sounds more like an encyclopedia and less like an obituary: ""Smith married Jack in 1957. The couple had two sons, Bill and Ted. She died in 1982."" === Person or office? === It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president of the United States) and an incumbent (such as Joe Biden). A newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction; for a newspaper ""President Biden"" and ""the President"" are one and the same during his tenure. President Biden nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court – No; whoever is US president at the time does. President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice – Yes, as this will always be true. The president nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005 – Yes, as the year makes this clear. The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable for events between Charles III's creation as Prince of Wales in 1958 and his accession to the throne in 2022, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely. In any event, ""Charles, Prince of Wales"" will usually be linked. The guest list included the Prince of Wales or The Duke and Duchess of Kent, while common in UK news sources, is ambiguous without a name. Former President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 – This is incorrect because Nixon was not a former US president at the time; he was still in office. Write President Nixon met with Mao in 1972. The construction then-President Nixon is often superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between periods of Nixon's career, other holders of the office, or between other people also named Nixon. === Neologisms and new compounds === Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources. Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. For instance, adding -ism or -ist to a word may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well-established, that a belief's adherents are particularly dogmatic or ideological (as in abortionism), or that factual statements are actually a matter of doctrine (as in evolutionism). Some words, by their structure, can suggest extended forms that may turn out to be contentious (e.g. lesbian and transgender imply the longer words lesbianism and transgenderism, which are sometimes taken as offensive for seeming to imply a belief system or agenda). For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Contentious labels, above. === Easily confused terms === Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting. For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic generally refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic script and Arabian horse, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is both Arab and Muslim. Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about a term, consult major modern dictionaries. Wikipedia is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is part of its purpose as an encyclopedia. Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source. However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves an article topic. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language – precision matters, and Wikipedia cannot advise Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Subset terms – avoid redundant ones Wikipedia:Article titles – see especially the sections on neutrality and precision List of English idioms on Wiktionary The Elements of Style – Words and Expressions Commonly Misused" 46 46 92 WP:UPE Wikipedia:Conflict of interest 46 "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject. When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. To report COI editing, follow the advice at How to handle conflicts of interest, below. Editors making or discussing changes to this guideline or related guidance shall disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia. === Purpose of Wikipedia === As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. === COI editing === Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously: you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known. They may also decide to delete the article or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organizations concerned. === Paid editing === An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called ""paid advocacy"", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer. The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Additionally, global policy requires that (if applicable) you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is: you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation; you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK).Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. The guide to effective COI edit requests provides guidance in this area. To find an article's talk page, click the ""talk"" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things. If you are an administrator, you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity (except when related to work as a Wikipedian-in-residence, or as someone paid by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate). === Wikimedia Foundation terms of use === The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia. === General COI === If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. There are three venues to do this. 1. If you want to use a template to do this, place {{connected contributor}} at the top of the affected talk page, fill it in as follows, and save: Note that someone else may add this for you. 2. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. 3. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}} template: Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry. === Paid editors === If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page, fill it in as follows, and save: The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company). The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article). If the employer and client are the same entity—that is, if Acme Corporation is paying you to write about Acme Corporation—the client parameter may be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}} for more information. Note that other editors may add this template for you. Paid editing without such a declaration is called undisclosed paid editing (UPE). You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing work via an account on any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts. If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. The use of administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF, is considered a serious misuse and likely to result in sanctions or their removal. === External roles and relationships === While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. === COI is not simply bias === Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. === Why is conflict of interest a problem? === On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas. === Actual, potential and apparent COI === An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business.A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages.An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI. Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible. === Responding to requests === Editors responding to edit requests from COI or paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not mean that it is better. Make sure the proposed paid text complies with WP:WEIGHT. Look for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative. Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor. Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Be cautious about accepting content based on self-published sources such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release. If the paid text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; for example: ""Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."" See WP:COIATTRIBUTE below. === Attribution in edit summaries === If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: ""Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."" This transparency helps editors and readers to determine the extent of COI influence on the article. It also complies with copyright requirements. === Paid editors on talk pages === Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted. Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline. Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors. Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia; otherwise, they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Alternatively, a paid editor might write text for Wikipedia within the scope of their employment (a ""work for hire""), in which case copyright resides with the employer. Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Volunteer Response Team (permissions-enwikimedia.org). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter. If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. See WP:COIATTRIBUTE for how to do this. === US: Federal Trade Commission, state law, and native advertising === All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. The FTC regards advertising as deceptive if it mimics a content format, such as a news report, that appears to come from an independent, impartial source: Marketers and publishers are using innovative methods to create, format, and deliver digital advertising. One form is ""native advertising"", content that bears a similarity to the news, feature articles, product reviews, entertainment, and other material that surrounds it online. ...In digital media, native ads often resemble the design, style, and functionality of the media in which they are disseminated. ... The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher's site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception. —Federal Trade Commission, 2015 To judge whether an ad is deceptive under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the FTC considers ""both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information ... Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ..."". State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content. === European fair-trading law === In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. === UK Advertising Standards Authority === The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been ""agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team"". The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code. === Advertising Standards Canada === The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, administered by Advertising Standards Canada, states: ""No advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals the fact that it is an advertisement."" === Legal and other disputes === The biographies of living persons policy says: ""[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."" Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases. === Campaigning, political === Activities regarded by insiders as simply ""getting the word out"" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. === Writing about yourself, family, friends === You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question. === Citing yourself === Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming. === Cultural sector === Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. See also WP:Expert editors. === Wikipedians in residence, reward board === There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there. Another example of acceptable paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this, transparency and neutrality are key. === Solicitations by paid editors === In any solicitation sent to a prospective client, paid editors should disclose the following information: Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor. Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client. Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Wikipedia. Neither the client nor the paid editor own the article. Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Wikipedia. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.Providing a client with a link to this section is appropriate disclosure if it is done in a neutral and non-deceptive manner. Paid editors must also provide a link to their user page which includes a declaration of their paid editing status.If you received a solicitation from a paid editor that does not include this information, we recommend that you not do business with them. They are not following our policies and guidelines. Some of these solicitations have been linked to fraud. See Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. If you think you've received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to arbcom-enwikimedia.org for investigation. === Law of unintended consequences === Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. === No shared accounts, no company accounts === Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name. The account is yours, not your employer's. === Making uncontroversial edits === Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may: remove spam and unambiguous vandalism, remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy, fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors, repair broken links, remove their own COI edits, and add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK. === Supplying photographs and media files === Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. === Advocacy, noticeboards === If a user's edits lead you to believe that they might have a COI (that is, if they have an ""apparent COI""), and there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. Most advocacy does not involve COI. Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at WP:NPOVN, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN, the reliable-sources noticeboard. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI. === Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard === If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline. If for some reason that is not advisable, or if it fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). COIN is also the place to discuss disclosed COI that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP. Similarly, if you're editing with a disclosed COI, you can ask for advice at COIN. During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s). Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves. Do not post private information; see WP:OUTING, which is policy, and the section below, ""Avoid outing"". If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, ask one or more uninvolved functionaries if they would be willing to examine the private details by email. Functionaries are editors with advanced permissions who have signed the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic information agreement. If they agree, follow the advice in WP:OUTING: ""Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted."" The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations. See WP:FUNC for a list of subscribers to the functionaries' mailing list. Alternatively, the arbitration committee can be contacted by email. If the issue is undisclosed paid editing, there is a dedicated VRT/functionaries email address: paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Contact them before emailing private information and be guided by their advice. === Avoid outing === When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to CheckUser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email. Also see the section ""Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard"" above. === Dealing with single-purpose accounts === Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. === Templates === Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}}. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}} Other templates include: {{uw-coi}} (to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest) {{uw-coi-username}} (another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy) {{COI editnotice}} (this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article) {{UserboxCOI}} (for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest, one such template per article) (chronological)" 47 47 93 WP:MOSQUOTE Wikipedia:Manual of Style 47 "This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles (though provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles). This primary page is supported by further detail pages, which are cross-referenced here and listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide). Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable.New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that ""When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."" If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.For retention of an article's established national variety of English (and potential reasons to change it), see § National varieties of English. === Article titles === A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another. For formatting guidance see the Wikipedia:Article titles § Article title format section, noting the following: Capitalize the initial letter (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise follow sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects), except where title case would be expected were the title to occur in ordinary prose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). To italicize, add {{italic title}} near the top of the article. For mixed situations, use, e.g., {{DISPLAYTITLE:​Interpretations of ''2001: A Space Odyssey''}}, instead. Use of italics should conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Italic type. Do not use articles (a, an, or the) as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Simpsons). Normally use nouns or noun phrases: Early life, not In early life. The final character should not be punctuation unless it is an inseparable part of a name (Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) or an abbreviation (Inverness City F.C.), or when a closing round bracket or quotation mark is required (John Palmer (1814 schooner)). Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear, add a redirect for the same title using apostrophes.Subject both to the above and to Wikipedia:Article titles, the rest of the MoS, particularly § Punctuation, applies also to the title. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, for cases where a Wikipedia article about a published work has a title that coincides with the work's title. === Section organization === An article's content should begin with an introductory lead section – a concise summary of the article – which is never divided into sections (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The remainder of the article is typically divided into sections. Infoboxes, images, and related content in the lead section must be right-aligned. Certain standardized templates and wikicode that are not sections go at the very top of the article, before the content of the lead section, and in the following order: A short description, with the {{Short description}} template A disambiguation hatnote, most of the time with the {{Hatnote}} template (see also Wikipedia:Hatnote § Hatnote templates) No-output templates that indicate the article's established date format and English-language variety, if any (e.g., {{Use DMY dates}}, {{Use Canadian English}}) Banner-type maintenance templates, Dispute and Cleanup templates for article-wide issues that have been flagged (otherwise used at the top of a specific section, after any sectional hatnote such as {{main}}) An infobox, which is optional (except in special cases like {{Taxobox}} and {{Chembox}}, or a variant thereof, at applicable articles); usually also includes the first image An introductory image, when an infobox is not used, or an additional image is desired for the lead section (for unusually long leads, a second image can be placed mid-way through the lead text)If an article has at least four section headings, a navigable table of contents appears automatically, just after the lead. If the topic of a section is covered in more detail in a dedicated article (see Wikipedia:Summary style), insert {{main|Article name}} or {{further|Article name}} immediately under the section heading. As explained in detail in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Standard appendices and footers, several kinds of material (mostly optional) may appear after the main body of the article, in the following order: Books or other works created by the subject of the article, under a section heading ""Works"", ""Publications"", ""Discography"", ""Filmography"", etc. as appropriate (avoid ""Bibliography"", confusable with reference citations) Internal links to related English Wikipedia articles, with section heading ""See also"" Notes and references, with a section heading ""Notes"" or ""References"" (usually the latter), or a separate section for each in this order (see Wikipedia:Citing sources); avoid ""Bibliography"", confusable with the subject's works Relevant books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources; use the section heading ""Further reading""; be highly selective, as Wikipedia is not a bibliographic directory Relevant and appropriate websites that have not been used as sources and do not appear in the earlier appendices, using the heading ""External links"", which may be made a subsection of ""Further reading"" (or such links can be integrated directly into the ""Further reading"" list instead); link templates for sister-project content also usually go at the top of this section when it is present (otherwise in the last section on the page) The following final items never take section headings: Internal links organized into navigational boxes Stub templates, if needed Authority control metadata, if needed, using {{Authority control}} (distinguishes uses of the same name for two subjects, or multiple names for one subject) Categories, which should be the very last material in the article's source codeStand-alone list articles have some additional layout considerations. === Section headings === Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries).For technical reasons, section headings should: Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place. Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Not contain images or icons. Not contain markup. Not contain citations or footnotes. Not misuse description list markup ("";"") to create pseudo-headings. Not contain template transclusions.These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus. As a matter of consistent style, section headings should: Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g., Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life. Not refer to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. Not be numbered or lettered as an outline. Not be phrased as a question, e.g., Languages, not What languages are spoken in Mexico?. Not use color or unusual fonts that might cause accessibility problems. Not wrap headings in markup, which may break their display and cause other accessibility issues.These are broadly accepted community preferences. An invisible comment on the same line must be inside the == == markup: It is more usual practice to put such comments below the heading. Before changing a heading, consider whether you might be breaking existing links to it. If there are many links to the old title, create an anchor with that title to ensure that these still work. Similarly, when linking to a section, leave an invisible comment at the heading of the target section, naming the linking articles, so that if the heading is later altered these can be fixed. Combined example: which will be saved in the article as: The advantage of using {{subst:Anchor}}, or simply inserting the tags directly, is that when edits are made to the section in the future, the anchor will not be included in page history entries as part of the section name. When {{Anchor}} is used directly, that undesirable behavior does occur. Note: if electing to insert the span directly, do not abbreviate it by using a self-closing tag, as in ==Implications==, since in HTML5 that XML-style syntax is valid only for certain tags, such as
. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Avoiding broken section links for further discussion. ==== Heading-like material ==== The above guidance about sentence case, redundancy, images, and questions also applies to headers of tables (and of table columns and rows). However, table headings can incorporate citations and may begin with, or be, numbers. Unlike page headings, table headers do not automatically generate link anchors. Aside from sentence case in glossaries, the heading advice also applies to the term entries in description lists. If using template-structured glossaries, terms will automatically have link anchors, but will not otherwise. Citations for description-list content go in the term or definition element, as needed. National varieties of English (for example, American English or British English) differ in vocabulary (elevator vs. lift ), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar (see § Plurals, below). Articles such as English plurals and Comparison of American and British English provide information about such differences. The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others. An article's date formatting (March 29, 2023 vs. 29 March 2023) is also related to national varieties of English – see MOS:DATEFORMAT and especially MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR. === Consistency within articles === Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently. Exceptions include: Quotations, titles of works (books, films, etc.) should be as given in the source (but see § Typographic conformity, below); Proper names use the subject's own spelling, e.g., joint project of the United States Department of Defense and the Australian Defence Force; International Labour Organization; For articles about chemistry-related topics, the international standard spellings aluminium, sulfur, caesium (and derivative terms) should be used, regardless of the national English variant employed in the article generally. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) § Element names. === Opportunities for commonality === For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English). If a variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking. Terms that differ between varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car .... Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating, as appropriate), except in technical contexts where such substitution would be inappropriate (alternate leaves; alternate law). When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context, e.g., connexion in Methodist connexionalism.For assistance with specific terms, see Comparison of American and British English § Vocabulary, and American and British English spelling differences; most dictionaries also indicate regional terms. === Strong national ties to a topic === An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. For example: For topics with strong ties to Commonwealth of Nations countries and other former British territories, use Commonwealth English orthography, largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing (excepting Canada, which uses a different orthography). === Retaining the existing variety === When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page. An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. {{subst:uw-engvar}} may be placed on an editor's talk page to explain this. Wikipedia article titles and section headings use sentence case, not title case; see Wikipedia:Article titles and § Section headings. For capitalization of list items, see § Bulleted and numbered lists. Other points concerning capitalization are summarized below. Full information can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. === Capitalization of The === Generally, do not capitalize the word the in mid-sentence: throughout the United Kingdom, not throughout The United Kingdom. Conventional exceptions include certain proper names (he visited The Hague) and most titles of creative works (Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings – but be aware that the may not be part of the title itself, e.g., Homer composed the Odyssey). There are special considerations for: band names · institution names · nicknames · titles of works · trademarks. === Titles of works === The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles). The first and last words in an English-language title are always capitalized. Correct: An Eye for an Eye Correct: Worth the Fighting ForCapitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language; generally, retain the style of the original for modern works, and follow the usage in current English-language reliable sources for historical works. When written in the Latin alphabet, many of these items should also be in italics, or enclosed in quotation marks. Correct: Les Liaisons dangereuses Correct: ""Hymnus an den heiligen Geist"" === Titles of people === In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference). Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama). Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices. === Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines === Religions, sects, and churches and their followers (in noun or adjective form) start with a capital letter. Generally, ""the"" is not capitalized before such names (the Unitarians, not The Unitarians). Religious texts are capitalized, but often not italicized (the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran, the Talmud, the Granth Sahib, the Bible). Do not capitalize ""the"" when using it in this way. Some derived adjectives are capitalized by convention, and some are not (biblical, but Quranic); if unsure, check a dictionary. Honorifics for deities, including proper names and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit, the Horned One, Bhagavan). Do not capitalize ""the"" in such cases or when referring to major religious figures or characters from mythology (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin). Common nouns for deities and religious figures are not capitalized (many gods; the god Woden; saints and prophets). Pronouns for figures of veneration or worship are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures (God and his will). Broad categories of mythical or legendary beings start with lower-case letters (elf, fairy, nymph, unicorn, angel), although in works of fantasy, such as the novels of J. R. R. Tolkien and some video games, initial capitals are sometimes used to indicate that the beings form a culture or race in a fictional universe. Capitalize the names or titles of individual creatures (the Minotaur, Pegasus) and of groups whose name and membership are fixed (the Magi, or the Three Wise Men, the Furies). Generalized references are not capitalized (these priests; several wise men; cherub-like). Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but annual flooding and an exodus of refugees). Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines use lower case unless the name derives from a proper name (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper name (republican, a system of political thought; Republican, a political party). Use lower case for doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as opposed to specific events), even if they are capitalized by some religious adherents (virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation). Platonic or transcendent ideals are capitalized in the context of philosophical doctrine (Truth, the Good); used more broadly, they are in lower case (Superman represents American ideals of truth and justice). Use capitals for personifications represented in art (the guidebook mentioned statues of Justice and Liberty). Eponyms are capitalized (Edwardian, De Morgan's laws, Alice in Wonderland syndrome, plaster of Paris, Platonic idealism, Draconian constitution of Athens), except in idiomatic uses disconnected from the original context and usually lower-cased in sources (a platonic relationship; complained of draconian workplace policies). An entire phrase in which an eponym is an adjective is not capitalized except when the phrase is itself a proper name (e.g., the title of a published work: The China Syndrome). === Calendar items === Months, days of the week, and holidays start with a capital letter (June, Monday; the Fourth of July refers only to the US Independence Day – otherwise July 4 or 4 July). Seasons are in lower case (her last summer; the winter solstice; spring fever), except in personifications or in proper names for periods or events (Old Man Winter; competed on the Spring Circuit). === Animals, plants, and other organisms === When using taxonomic (""scientific"") names, capitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below: Berberis darwinii, Erithacus rubecula superbus, Acacia coriacea subsp. sericophylla; no exception is made for proper names forming part of scientific names. Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae). Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized (including the word Group in the name); cultivar names appear within single quotes (Malus domestica 'Red Delicious'), while cultivar groups do not (Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group). English vernacular (""common"") names are given in lower case in article prose (plains zebra, mountain maple, and southwestern red-tailed hawk) and in sentence case at the start of sentences and in other places where the first letter of the first word is capitalized. They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names: Przewalski's horse, California condor, and fair-maid-of-France. This applies to species and subspecies, as in the previous examples, as well as to general names for groups or types of organism: bird of prey, oak, great apes, Bryde's whales, livestock guardian dog, poodle, Van cat, wolfdog. When the common name coincides with a scientific taxon, do not capitalize or italicize, except where addressing the organism taxonomically: A lynx is any of the four medium-sized wild cat species within the genus Lynx. Non-English vernacular names, when relevant to include, are handled like any other foreign-language terms: italicized as such, and capitalized only if the rules of the native language require it. Non-English names that have become English-assimilated are treated as English (ayahuasca, okapi). Standardized breeds should generally retain the capitalization used in the breed standards. Examples: German Shepherd dog, Russian White goat, Berlin Short-faced Tumbler. As with plant cultivars, this applies whether or not the included noun is a proper name, in contrast to how vernacular names of species are written. However, unlike cultivars, breeds are never put in single quotation marks, and their names are never part of a scientific name. A species term appended at the end for disambiguation (""cat"", ""hound"", ""horse"", ""swine"", etc.) should not be capitalized, unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently presented that way in the breed standard(s) (rare cases include Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse). Create redirects from alternative capitalization and spelling forms of article titles, and from alternative names, e.g., Adélie Penguin, Adelie penguin, Adelie Penguin and Pygoscelis adeliae should all redirect to Adélie penguin. === Celestial bodies === The words sun, earth, moon and solar system do not take capitals in general use (The sun was over the mountain top; The tribal people thought of the whole earth as their home). They are capitalized when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ('Unconquered Sun') was the Roman sun god) or when used as the name of a specific body in a scientific or astronomical context (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter). Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations, and galaxies are proper names, and therefore capitalized (The planet Mars is in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux). The first letter of every word in such a name is capitalized (Alpha Centauri and not Alpha centauri; Milky Way, not Milky way). Words such as comet and galaxy should be capitalized when they form part of a proper name, but not when they are used as a generic term (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the comets; The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy). === Compass points === Do not capitalize directions such as north, or their related forms (We took the northern road), except where they are parts of proper names (Great North Road, Great Western Drive, South Pole). Capitalize names of regions if they have attained proper-name status, including informal conventional names (Southern California; the Western Desert), and derived terms for people (e.g., a Southerner as someone from the Southern United States). Do not capitalize descriptive names for regions that have not attained the status of proper names, such as southern Poland. Composite directions may or may not be hyphenated, depending on the variety of English adopted in the article. Southeast Asia and northwest are more common in American English; but South-East Asia and north-west in British English. In cases such as north–south dialogue and east–west orientation, use an en dash; see § En dashes: other uses. === Proper names versus generic terms === Capitalize names of particular institutions (the founding of the University of Delhi; the history of Stanford University) but not generic words for institutions (the high school is near the university). Do not capitalize the at the start of an institution's name, regardless of the institution's preferred style. There are rare exceptions, when a leading The is represented by a T in the organization's acronym: The International Cat Association (TICA). Treat political or geographic units similarly: The city has a population of 55,000; The two towns merged to become the City of Smithville. Do not mimic the style of local newspapers which refer to their municipality as the City or The City; an exception is the City of London, referred to as the City in a context that already makes the subject clear, as distinct from London and Greater London. When in doubt, use the full name for accessibility reasons; users of text-to-speech systems usually cannot hear a difference between city and City. Ligatures should be used in languages in which they are standard (hence Moreau's last words were clin d'œil is preferable to Moreau's last words were clin d'oeil) but not in English (encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, not encyclopædia), except in proper names (Æthelstan not Aethelstan). Abbreviations are shortened forms of words or phrases. In strict analysis, they are distinct from contractions, which use an apostrophe (e.g., won't, see § Contractions), and initialisms. An initialism is formed from some or all of the initial letters of words in a phrase. Below, references to abbreviations should be taken to include acronyms, and the term acronym to apply also to initialisms. === Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence === When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression: Do not use capitals in the full version merely because capitals are used in the abbreviation: an early Local Area Network (LAN). Except in special circumstances, common abbreviations (such as PhD, DNA, USSR) need not be expanded even on first use. === Plural forms === Pluralize acronyms by adding -s or -es: Three CD-ROMs and two BIOSes were released. (Do not use apostrophes to form plurals: Three CD-ROM's and two BIOS's were released.) === Punctuation and spacing === An abbreviation may or may not be terminated with a full point (also called a period or full stop). A consistent style should be maintained within an article. North American usage is typically to end all abbreviations with a period/point (Dr. Smith of 42 Drummond St.) but in common British and Australian usage, no period/point is used if the abbreviation (contraction) ends in the last letter of the unabbreviated form (Dr Smith of 42 Drummond St) unless confusion could result. This is also common practice in scientific writing. Regardless of punctuation, words that are abbreviated to more than one letter are spaced (op. cit. not op.cit. or opcit). There are some exceptions: PhD (see above) for ""Philosophiae Doctor""; BVetMed for ""Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine"". In most situations, Wikipedia uses no such punctuation inside acronyms and initialisms: GDP, not G.D.P. === US and U.S. === While, in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate ""United States"" in any given article, the use or non-use of periods (full stops) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article (thus the US, UK, and USSR, not the U.S., UK, and USSR). In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAID), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting; and do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical or formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes). === Circa === To indicate approximately, the use of {{circa}}, showing as c., is preferred over circa, c., ca., or approx. === Do not use unwarranted abbreviations === Avoid abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal. For example: Do not use approx. for approximate(ly) except in an infobox or table (in which case use {{abbr|approx.|approximately}} at first occurrence: approx.). Do not use the legalism Smith J for Justice Smith. === Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms === Generally avoid devising new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, World Union of Billiards is good as a translation of Union Mondiale de Billard, but neither it nor the reduction WUB is used by the organization or by independent sources; use the original name and its official abbreviation, UMB. If it is necessary to abbreviate in a tight space, such as a column header in a table, use widely recognized abbreviations. For example, for New Zealand gross national product, use NZ and GNP, with a link if the term has not already been written out in the article: NZ GNP. Do not make up initialisms such as NZGNP. === HTML tags and templates for abbreviations === Either or {{abbr}} can be used for abbreviations and acronyms: WHO or {{abbr|WHO|World Health Organization}} will generate WHO; hovering over the rendered text causes a tooltip of the long form to pop up. === Ampersand === In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&): January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). Quotations may be cautiously modified, especially for consistency where different editions are quoted, as modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (just as they replace other disused glyphs, ligatures, and abbreviations). Another frequent permissible but not required use is in short bibliographic references to works by multiple authors, e.g.: ... a series of French and Belgian papers (Lubbers & Scheepers, 2002; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002; Swyngedouw & Giles, 2007; Van Hiel, 2012). === Emphasis === Italics are used for emphasis, rather than boldface or capitals. But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead. Use ... or {{em|...}} for emphasis. This allows user style sheets to handle emphasis in a customized way, and helps reusers and translators. Correct: The meerkat is not actually a cat. Correct: The meerkat is {{em|not}} actually a cat. === Titles === Use italics for the titles of works (such as books, films, television series, named exhibitions, computer games, music albums, and artworks). The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, storylines, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Many of these titles should also be in title case. === Words as words === Use italics when mentioning a word or character (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to one sentence (the term panning is derived from panorama; the most common letter in English is e). When a whole sentence is mentioned, double quotation marks may be used instead, with consistency (The preposition in She sat on the chair is on; or The preposition in ""She sat on the chair"" is ""on""). Quotation marks may also be used for shorter material to avoid confusion, such as when italics are already being heavily used in the page for some other purpose (e.g., many non-English words and phrases). Mentioning (to discuss grammar, wording, punctuation, etc.) is different from quoting (in which something is usually expressed on behalf of a quoted source). Quotation is done with quotation marks, never italics, nor both at once (see § Quotations for details). A closely related use of italics is when introducing or distinguishing terms: The natural numbers are the integers greater than 0. === Foreign words === Italics is indicated for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. However, proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts. The {{lang}} template and its variants support all ISO 639 language codes, correctly identifying the language and automatically italicizing for you. Please use these templates rather than just manually italicizing non-English material. (See WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Other languages for more information.) === Scientific names === Use italics for the scientific names of plants, animals, and all other organisms except viruses at the genus level and below (italicize Panthera leo and Retroviridae, but not Felidae). The hybrid sign is not italicized (Rosa × damascena), nor is the ""connecting term"" required in three-part botanical names (Rosa gallica subsp. officinalis). === Quotations in italics === Do not use italics for quotations. Instead, use quotation marks for short quotations and block quoting for long ones. === Italics within quotations === Use italics within quotations to reproduce emphasis that exists in the source material. If it is not clear that the source already included italics (or some other styling) for emphasis, add the editorial note [emphasis in original] after the quotation. If adding emphasis that was not in the original, add the editorial note [emphasis added] after the quotation. ""Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."" [emphasis added] === Effect on nearby punctuation === Italicize only the elements of the sentence affected by the emphasis. Do not italicize surrounding punctuation. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright). === Original wording === Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, ""Ocyrhoe told him his fate"" might be quoted as ""Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate"". If there is a significant error in the original, follow it with {{sic}} (producing [sic] ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically). Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm and hmm), but do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!), but if the text being quoted itself does so, copy the text verbatim and use {{sic}} to indicate that the text is quoted as shown in the source. In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization (but not archaic glyphs and ligatures, as detailed below). === Point of view === Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional: Acceptable: Siskel and Ebert called the film ""unforgettable"". Unacceptable: The site is considered ""sacred"" by the religion's scriptures.Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred. Permissible: Siskel and Ebert called the film interesting. Unnecessary and may imply doubt: Siskel and Ebert called the film ""interesting"". Should be quoted: Siskel and Ebert called the film ""interesting but heart-wrenching"". === Typographic conformity === A quotation is not a facsimile and, in most cases, it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment, provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud, for example: Normalize dashes and hyphens: see § Dashes. Use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash. Convert apostrophes and quotation marks to Wikipedia's style: These should be straight, not curly or slanted. See § Quotation marks. When quoting a quotation that itself contains a quotation, alternate between using double and single quotes for each quotation. See § For a quotation within a quotation for details. When quoting text from non-English languages, the outer punctuation should follow the Manual of Style for English quote marks. If there are nested quotations, follow the rules for correct punctuation in that language. If there are multiple styles for a language, the one used by the Wikipedia for that language is preferred unless the punctuation itself is under discussion. The cynical response ""L'auteur aurait dû demander: « à quoi sert-il d'écrire ceci ? » mais ne l'a pas fait"" was all he wrote. Remove spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons. Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}}). For titles of books, articles, poems, and so forth, use italics or quotation marks following the guidance for titles. Italics can also be added to mark up non-English terms (with the {{lang}} template), for an organism's scientific name, and to indicate a words-as-words usage. Expand an abbreviation (not already used in the content before the quotation) as a square-bracketed change, or explain it using {{abbr}}. Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English that are unnecessary to the meaning. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and þe→the. (See also § Ampersand.)See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Typographic conformity for special considerations in normalizing the typography of titles of works. However, national varieties should not be changed, as these may involve changes in vocabulary. For example, a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling. (See § Consistency within articles.) Numbers also usually should not be reformatted. Direct quotation should not be used to preserve the formatting preferred by an external publisher (especially when the material would otherwise be unchanged), as this tends to have the effect of ""scare-quoting"": Acceptable: The animal is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Unacceptable: The animal is listed as ""Endangered"" on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Italics can be used to mark a particular usage as a term of art (a case of ""words as words""), especially when it is unfamiliar or should not be reworded by a non-expert: Permissible: The animal is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.When quoting a complete sentence, it is usually recommended to keep the first word capitalized. However, if the quoted passage has been integrated into the surrounding sentence (for example, with an introduction such as ""X said that""), the original capital letter may be lower-cased. LaVesque's report stated: ""The equipment was selected for its low price. This is the primary reason for criticism of the program."" LaVesque's report said that ""the equipment was selected for its low price"". The program was criticized primarily because ""the equipment was selected for its low price"", according to LaVesque.It is not normally necessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: ""The"" → ""[t]he"". The program was criticized primarily because ""[t]he equipment was selected for its low price"", according to LaVesque. === Attribution === The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Attributing and specifying biased statements). When attributing a quotation, avoid characterizing it in a biased manner. === Quotations within quotations === See § For a quotation within a quotation. === Linking === Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. (If quoting hypertext, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate, to avoid ambiguity as to whether the link was made by the original author.) === Block quotations === Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid large, decorative quotation marks; those provided by the {{cquote}} template have been disabled in mainspace). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Use {{blockquote}} and so on only for actual quotations; indentation for other purposes is done differently. It is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line. Alternatively, the {{blockquote}} template provides parameters for attribution and citation which will appear below the quotation. (For use of dashes with attributions, see § Other uses (em dash only).) This below-quotation attribution style is intended for famous quotations and is unusual in articles because it may strike an inappropriate tone. A quotation with no cited source should be flagged with {{quote without source}}, or deleted. Line breaks and indentation inside a {{blockquote}} or
are generally ignored; use or {{poem quote}} for poetry, lyrics, and similar material: This gives: Or quote such material inline, with line breaks indicated by {{nbsp}}/, and paragraph or stanza breaks by {{nbsp}}//. Pull quotes do not belong in Wikipedia articles. These are the news and magazine style of ""pulling"" material already in the article to reuse it in attention-grabbing decorative quotations. This unencyclopedic approach is a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material. === Foreign-language quotations === Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate. When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems), and to use actual and (if at all possible) common English words in the translation. Unless you are certain of your competency to translate something, see Wikipedia:Translation for assistance. === Apostrophes === Use straight apostrophes ('), not curly apostrophes (’). Do not use accent marks or backticks (`) as apostrophes. Templates such as {{'}} and {{'s}} are helpful when an apostrophe (or single quote) appears at the beginning or end of text in italics or bold, because italics and bold are themselves indicated by sequences of single quotes. Example: Dynasty's first season (markup: ''Dynasty''{{'s}} first season). Letters resembling apostrophes, such as the ʻokina ( ʻ – markup: {{okina}}), saltillo ( ꞌ – markup: {{saltillo}}), Hebrew ayin ( ʽ – markup: {{ayin}}) and Arabic hamza ( ʼ – markup:{{hamza}}), should be represented by those templates or by their Unicode values. Templates cannot be used in article titles; if necessary, use the corresponding Unicode character directly. Per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS, also make a redirect from the ASCII form to aid searches. Forms without apostrophe-like characters are sometimes preferred by WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. Hawaii but not Kealiʻi Reichel).See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles § Orthography, spelling and formatting For Wade–Giles romanizations of Mandarin Chinese, use {{wg-apos}}. For languages with ejective consonants, use {{hamza}}. For the Cyrillic soft sign, when indicated at all, use {{softsign}} or {{hamza}}. For usage of the possessive apostrophe, see § Possessives. For further treatment of apostrophe usage (possessive, elision, formation of certain plurals, foreign-language issues) see the article Apostrophe. === Quotation marks === In the material below, the term quotation includes conventional uses of quotation marks such as for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, and so on. Quotation marks are also used in other contexts, such as in cultivar names. ==== Quotation characters ==== Use ""straight"" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’.) Do not use accent marks, backticks (`text´), low-high („ “) or guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks (except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text – see MOS:CONFORM). The symbols ′ and ″ seen in edit window dropdowns are prime and double-prime; these are used to indicate subdivisions of the degree, but not as apostrophes or quote marks. Quotation marks and apostrophes in imported material should be changed if necessary. ==== Double or single ==== Most quotations take double quotation marks (Bob said: ""Jim ate the apple.""). Exceptions: Plant cultivars take single quotation marks (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)). Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes; simple glosses require no comma before the definition (Turkic qazaq 'freebooter' is the root of Cossack; republic comes from Latin res publica, loosely meaning 'public affair'.). The {{Gloss}} template can be used for this; e.g. {{lang|es|casa}} {{gloss|house}} yields: casa 'house'. ==== For a quotation within a quotation ==== Use single quotes: Bob asked: ""Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' before he left?""For deeper nesting, alternate between single and double quotes: He said, ""That book asserts, 'Confucius said ""Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.""'""For quote marks in immediate succession, add a sliver of space by using {{"" '}}, {{' ""}}, or (as in the example just given) {{"" ' ""}}: He announced, ""The answer was 'Yes!'"" Markup: He announced, ""The answer was 'Yes!{{' ""}} He announced, ""The answer was 'Yes!'"" (simply jamming ' and "" together) ==== Article openings ==== In the bolded text typically appearing at the opening of an article: Any quotation marks that are part of the title should be in bold just like the rest of the title (from ""A"" Is for Alibi: ""A"" Is for Alibi is a mystery novel ...). Quotation marks not part of the article title should not be bolded (from the article Jabberwocky: ""Jabberwocky"" is a nonsense poem ...; from Buffalo Bill: William Frederick ""Buffalo Bill"" Cody was an American soldier, bison hunter, and showman ...). ==== Punctuation before quotations ==== If a non-quoted but otherwise identical construction would work grammatically without a comma, using a comma before a quotation embedded within a sentence is optional: The report stated ""There was a 45% reduction in transmission rate."" (Cf. the non-quotation The report stated there was a 45% reduction in transmission rate.) The report stated, ""There was a 45% reduction in transmission rate.""The comma-free approach is often used with partial quotations: The report observed ""a 45% reduction in transmission rate"".Commas are usually used with interrupted quotations (but this construction is rare in encyclopedic writing): ""Life"", Anaïs Nin wrote, ""shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.""A comma is required when it would be present in the same construction if none of the material were a quotation: In Margaret Mead's view, ""we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities"" to enrich our culture.Do not insert a comma if it would confuse or alter the meaning: Caitlyn Jenner expressed concerns about children ""who are coming to terms with being true to who they are"". (Accurate quote of a statement about some children – specifically those children ""who are coming to terms ..."") Caitlyn Jenner expressed concerns about children, ""who are coming to terms with being true to who they are"". (Changes the meaning to imply Jenner was expressing concern about all children, while separately observing that children, in general, ""are coming to terms ..."")It is clearer to use a colon to introduce a quotation if it forms a complete sentence, and this should always be done for multi-sentence quotations: The report stated: ""There was a 45% reduction in transmission rate."" Albert Einstein wrote: ""Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.""No additional punctuation is necessary for an explicit words-as-words scenario: The message was unintelligible except for the fragments ""help soon"" and ""how much longer before"". ==== Names and titles ==== Quotation marks should be used for the following names and titles: For example: The song ""Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"" from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the band the Beatles. Do not use quotation marks or italics for: Many, but not all, of the above items should also be in title case. ==== Punctuation inside or outside ==== Use the ""logical quotation"" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Examples are given below. Correct: Did Darla say, ""Here I am""? (question mark applies to whole sentence) Incorrect: Did Darla say, ""Here I am?"" (incorrect to apply the question mark to the quotation) Correct: Darla said, ""Where am I?"" (question mark applies to quoted material only)If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. Miller wanted, he said, ""to create something timeless"". Miller said: ""I wanted to create something timeless.""If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit the full stop (period) – but other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or exclamation mark, may be retained. Livingston then exclaimed, ""It is done"", and turned to the people. Livingston then exclaimed, ""It is done!"", and turned to the people.If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, use a comma outside the quotation mark instead of a full stop inside it, but retain any other terminal punctuation, such as question marks. ""For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own"", said Kennedy. By asking ""Who are you?"", da Gama prompts Adamastor to tell his story.Do not follow quoted words or fragments with commas inside the quotation marks, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation. Correct: ""I'm happy I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best"", said Turner. Correct: ""I'm happy I can do it one more time,"" said Turner, ""so people can remember me at my best."" Correct: ""I'm"", said Turner, ""happy I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best."" Incorrect: ""I'm happy,"" said Turner, ""I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best."" === Brackets and parentheses === This section applies to both round brackets ( ), often called parentheses, and square brackets [ ]. If a sentence contains a bracketed phrase, place the sentence punctuation outside the brackets (as shown here). However, where one or more sentences are wholly inside brackets, place their punctuation inside the brackets. There should be no space next to the inner side of a bracket. An opening bracket should usually be preceded by a space. This may not be the case if it is preceded by an opening quotation mark, another opening bracket, or a portion of a word: He rose to address the meeting: ""(Ahem) ... Ladies and gentlemen, welcome!"" Only the royal characters in the play ([Prince] Hamlet and his family) habitually speak in blank verse. We journeyed on the Inter[continental]. Most people are right-handed. (Some people are left-handed, but that does not make right-handed people ""better"" than left-handed people.)There should be a space after a closing bracket, except where a punctuation mark follows (though a spaced dash would still be spaced after a closing bracket) and in unusual cases similar to those listed for opening brackets. Avoid adjacent sets of brackets. Either put the parenthetical phrases in one set separated by semicolons, or rewrite: Avoid: Nikifor Grigoriev (c. 1885 – 1919) (also known as Matvii Hryhoriiv) was a Ukrainian insurgent leader. Better: Nikifor Grigoriev (c. 1885 – 1919; also known as Matvii Hryhoriiv) was a Ukrainian insurgent leader. Better: Nikifor Grigoriev (c. 1885 – 1919) was a Ukrainian insurgent leader. He was also known as Matvii Hryhoriiv.Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations, though this should never alter the intended meaning. They serve three main purposes: To clarify: She attended [secondary] school, where this was the intended meaning, but the type of school was unstated in the original sentence. To reduce the size of a quotation: X contains Y, and under certain circumstances, X may contain Z as well may be reduced to X contains Y [and sometimes Z]. When an ellipsis (...) is used to indicate that material is removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed (see § Ellipses). To make the grammar work: Referring to someone's statement ""I hate to do laundry"", one could properly write She ""hate[s] to do laundry"". If a sentence includes subsidiary material enclosed in square or round brackets, it must still carry terminal punctuation after those brackets, regardless of any punctuation within the brackets. However, if the entire sentence is within brackets, the closing punctuation falls within the brackets. (This sentence is an example.) ==== Brackets and linking ==== Square brackets inside of links must be escaped: The markup can also be used: [Doe] or [etc.]. If a URL itself contains square brackets, the wiki-text should use the URL-encoded form https://example.com/foo.php?query=%5Bxxx%5Dyyy, rather than ...query=[xxx]yyy. This will avoid truncation of the link after xxx. === Ellipses === Use an ellipsis (plural ellipses) if material is omitted in the course of a quotation, unless square brackets are used to gloss the quotation (see § Brackets and parentheses, and the points below). Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...); do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) or three dots separated by spaces (. . .) Generally, use a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, and a regular space after it: ""Alpha, Bravo,{{nbsp}}... Zulu"" But where an ellipsis is immediately followed by any of . ? ! : ; , ) ] } or by a closing quotation mark (single or double), use a non-breaking space before the ellipsis, and no space after it: Jones wrote, ""These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully{{nbsp}}..."" ""But what of the other cities? London, Paris{{nbsp}}...?"" (Place terminal punctuation after an ellipsis only if it is textually important, as is often the case with exclamation marks and question marks but rarely with periods.) Or, if the ellipsis immediately follows a quotation mark, use no space before the ellipsis, and a non-breaking space after it: He continued to pursue Smith (""...{{nbsp}}to the ends of the earth"", he had sworn) until his own death.Pause or suspension of speech Three dots are occasionally used to represent a pause in or suspense of speech, in which case the punctuation is retained in its original form: Virginia's startled reply was ""Could he ...? No, I can't believe it!"". When it indicates an incomplete word, no space is used between the word fragment(s) and the ellipsis: The garbled transmission ended with ""We are stranded near San L...o"", interpreted as a reference to either San Leandro or San Lorenzo. With square brackets Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted, for example if the quoted passage itself contains an ellipsis (She retorted: ""How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!""). === Commas === A pair of commas can bracket an appositive (as can brackets or dashes, though with greater interruption of the sentence). For example: Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma: Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis: Modern writing uses fewer commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed. In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. The last element is treated as parenthetical. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. The last element is treated as parenthetical. Place quotation marks by following § Punctuation inside or outside. This is called ""logical quotation"". A comma may be included before a quotation embedded within a sentence (see § Quotation marks). ==== Serial commas ==== A serial comma (sometimes also called an Oxford comma or Harvard comma) is a comma used immediately before a conjunction (and, or, nor) in a list of three or more items. Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent. Serial commas are more helpful the more complex the material, such as a list with multi-word items (especially if one contains its own and) or a series of probably unfamiliar terms. However, there are cases in which either omitting or including the serial comma results in ambiguity: In such cases of ambiguity, clarify one of four ways: Add or remove the serial comma. Use separate sentences, bullet lists, or some other structural change to clarify. Recast the sentence (""friends"" case): To list two people: The author thanked her friends Sinéad O'Connor and Bob Marley. Clearer: The author thanked two friends – Sinéad O'Connor and Bob Marley. To list several people: The author thanked Sinéad O'Connor, Bob Marley and her friends or The author thanked Sinéad O'Connor, Bob Marley, and her friends.But not: The author thanked Bob Marley, Sinéad O'Connor[,] and her friends – introduces ambiguity about her. Recast the sentence (""friend"" case): To list two people: The author thanked Bob Marley and her friend, Sinéad O'Connor. Or be more specific when possible (the commas here set off non-restrictive appositives): The author thanked her childhood friend, Sinéad O'Connor, and her mentor, Bob Marley. To list three people: The author thanked Bob Marley, Sinéad O'Connor, and a friend. Clarity with gender-specific terms such as mother can be tricky; The author thanked her mother, Kim Thayil, and Sinéad O'Connor is unclear because readers may not know Kim Thayil is male and wouldn't be the same person as the mother. Clearer: The author thanked Kim Thayil, Sinéad O'Connor, and her own mother or The author thanked her mother and musicians Kim Thayil and Sinéad O'Connor. === Colons === A colon (:) introduces something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before, or is a list of items that has just been introduced. The items in such a list may be separated by commas, or if they are more complex and perhaps themselves contain commas, the items should be separated by semicolons or arranged in a bulleted list. A colon may also be used to introduce direct speech enclosed within quotation marks (see § Quotation marks). In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise, do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, as for a proper name. Except in technical usage (a 3:1 ratio), no sentence should contain multiple colons, no space should precede a colon, and a space (but never a hyphen or dash) should follow the colon. === Semicolons === A semicolon (;) is sometimes an alternative to a full stop (period), enabling related material to be kept in the same sentence; it marks a more decisive division in a sentence than a comma. If the semicolon separates clauses, normally each clause must be independent (meaning that it could stand on its own as a sentence). In many cases, only a comma or only a semicolon will be correct in a given sentence. Above, ""Though he had been here before"" cannot stand on its own as a sentence, and therefore is not an independent clause. This incorrect use of a comma between two independent clauses is known as a comma splice; however, in certain kinds of cases, a comma may be used where a semicolon would seem to be called for: A sentence may contain several semicolons, especially when the clauses are parallel in construction and meaning; multiple unrelated semicolons are often signs that the sentence should be divided into shorter sentences or otherwise refashioned. Semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion. ==== Semicolon before ""however"" ==== The meaning of a sentence containing a trailing clause that starts with the word however depends on the punctuation preceding that word. A common error is to use the wrong punctuation, thereby changing the meaning to one not intended. When the word however is an adverb meaning ""nevertheless"", it should be preceded by a semicolon and followed by a comma. Example: When the word however is a conjunction meaning ""in whatever manner"", or ""regardless of how"", it may be preceded by a comma but not by a semicolon, and should not be followed by punctuation. Example: In the first case, the clause that starts with ""however"" cannot be swapped with the first clause; in the second case this can be done without change of meaning: If the two clauses cannot be swapped, a semicolon is required. A sentence or clause can also contain the word however in the middle, if it is an adverb meaning ""although"" that could have been placed at the beginning but does not start a new clause in mid-sentence. In this use, the word may be enclosed between commas. Example: === Hyphens === Hyphens (-) indicate conjunction. There are three main uses: In hyphenated personal names (John Lennard-Jones, Omar al-Bashir). To link prefixes with their main terms in certain constructions (quasi-scientific, pseudo-Apollodorus, ultra-nationalistic). A hyphen may be used to distinguish between homographs (re-dress means dress again, but redress means remedy or set right). There is a clear trend to join both elements in all varieties of English (subsection, nonlinear). Hyphenation clarifies when the letters brought into contact are the same (non-negotiable, sub-basement) or are vowels (pre-industrial), or where a word is uncommon (co-proposed, re-target) or may be misread (sub-era, not subera). Some words of these sorts are nevertheless common without the hyphen (e.g., cooperation is more frequently attested than co-operation in contemporary English). To link related terms in compound modifiers:Hyphens can aid ease of reading (that is, they can be ease-of-reading aids) and are particularly useful in long noun phrases: gas-phase reaction dynamics. But never insert a hyphen into a proper name (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine). A hyphen can help to disambiguate (some short-story writers are quite tall; a government-monitoring program is a program that monitors the government, whereas a government monitoring program is a government program that monitors). Compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify: a light-blue handbag, a 34-year-old woman) or substantively (as a noun: she is a 34-year-old) are usually not hyphenated when used predicatively (descriptive phrase separated from the noun: the handbag was light blue, the woman is 34 years old). Where there would otherwise be a loss of clarity, however, a hyphen may be used in the predicative form as well (hand-fed turkeys, the turkeys were hand-fed). Awkward attributive hyphenation can sometimes be avoided with a simple rewording: Hawaiian-native culture → native Hawaiian culture. Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people). Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). In rare cases, a hyphen can improve clarity if a rewritten alternative is awkward, but rewording is usually preferable: The idea was clearly stated enough can be disambiguated as The idea clearly was stated often enough or The idea was stated with enough clarity. A few words ending in -ly function as both adjectives and adverbs (a kindly-looking teacher; a kindly provided facility). Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, because they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective. These need careful treatment: Early flowering plants appeared around 130 million years ago, but Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts; only child actors (no adult actors) but only-child actors (actors without siblings). A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, because well itself is modified) and even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished). In some cases, such as diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes § Notes. Use a hanging hyphen when two compound modifiers are separated (two- and three-digit numbers; a ten-car or -truck convoy; sloping right- or leftward). Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word; when using the unit symbol, separate it from the number with a non-breaking space ( ).Multi-word hyphenated items: It is often possible to avoid multi-word hyphenated modifiers by rewording (a four-CD soundtrack album may be easier to read as a soundtrack album of four CDs). This is particularly important where converted units are involved (the 6-hectare-limit (14.8-acre-limit) rule might be possible as the rule imposing a limit of six hectares (14.8 acres), and the ungainly 4.9-mile (7.9 km) -long tributary as simply 4.9-mile (7.9 km) tributary). For optional hyphenation of compound points of the compass such as southwest/south-west, see § Compass points. Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name: Graeco-Roman and Mediterranean-style, but not Gandhi-Like. In titles of published works, follow the capitalization rule for each part independently (resulting in, e.g., The Out-of-Towners), unless reliable sources consistently do otherwise in a particular case (The History of Middle-earth). Hyphenation rules in other languages may be different. Thus, in French a place name such as Trois-Rivières (""Three Rivers"") is hyphenated, when it would not be in English. Follow reliable sources in such cases. Spacing: A hyphen is never followed or preceded by a space, except when hanging (see above) or when used to display parts of words independently, such as the prefix sub- and the suffix -less. Image filenames and redirects: Image filenames are not part of the encyclopedic content; they are tools. They are most useful if they can be readily typed, so they usually use hyphens instead of dashes. Similarly, article titles with dashes should also have a corresponding redirect from a copy of the title with hyphens: for example, Michelson-Morley experiment redirects to Michelson–Morley experiment. Non-breaking: A non-breaking hyphen ({{nbhyph}}) will not be used as a point of line-wrap. Soft hyphens: Use soft hyphens to mark locations where a word will be broken and hyphenated if necessary at the end of a line of text, usually in very long words or narrow spaces (such as captions, narrow table columns, or text adjacent to a very wide image), for example: {{shy| Penn|syl|va|nia and Mass|a|chu|setts style themselves com|mon|wealths.}}. Use sparingly to avoid making wikitext difficult to read and edit. For more information, see Help:Line-break handling. Encoding: The hyphen is represented by the ASCII/UNICODE HYPHEN-MINUS character, which is entered by the hyphen or minus key on all standard keyboards. Do not use the UNICODE HYPHEN character. Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles. === Dashes === Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). To enter them, click on them in the CharInsert toolbar, or enter them manually as: – or — {{endash}} or {{emdash}}Do not use a double hyphen (--) to stand in for a dash. (See also: Wikipedia:How to make dashes.) Sources use dashes in varying ways. For consistency and clarity, Wikipedia adopts the following principles. ==== In article titles ==== In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span. Similarly, provide category redirects for categories containing dashes. ==== Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes) ==== Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas) or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption, in reporting quoted speech. In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article: An em dash is unspaced (with no space on either side): An en dash is spaced (with a space on each side) when used as sentence punctuation: Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line (markup: {{spaced ndash}} or {{snd}} or  –): But do not insert a non-breaking or other space where the en dash should be unspaced (see § Other uses (en dash only)). Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both. The book summarizes works of some major philosophers in chronological order: Descartes, Locke, Hume – but not his Treatise (deemed too complex for the target audience) – and Kant. Use dashes sparingly. More than two in a single sentence makes the structure unclear; it takes time for the reader to see which dashes, if any, form a pair. The birds – at least the ones Darwin collected – had red and blue feathers. ""We have run aground at – "", was the final, incomplete message received from the ship. Avoid: First – at a marshy site leveled with landfill – came the workshop – then administrative and other buildings. Better: First – at a marshy site leveled with landfill – came the workshop; administrative and other buildings were erected later. ===== In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through ===== For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash: pp. 7–19; 64–75%; Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames, URLs, or templates such as {{Bibleverse}} (which formats verse ranges into URLs), even if a range is embedded in them. Do not mix en dashes with between or from. 450–500 people between 450 and 500 people, not between 450–500 people from 450 to 500 people, not from 450–500 people from 1961 to 1964, not from 1961–1964 between the 1961–1962 and 1967–1968 seasons, ticket sales dropped substantially (or between the 1961–62 and 1967–68 seasons)The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting. July 23, 1790 – December 1, 1791 (not July 23, 1790–December 1, 1791) 14 May – 2 August 2011 (not 14 May–2 August 2011) 1–17 September (and note in this case that the second element of the range is 17 not 17 September); February–October 2009; 1492 – 7 April 1556 Christmas Day – New Year's Eve; Christmas 2001 – Easter 2002; 10:30 pm Tuesday – 1:25 am Wednesday; 6:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. (but 6:00–9:30 p.m.) wavelengths in the range 28 mm – 17 m. pages 5-7 – 5-9If negative values are involved, an unspaced en dash might be confusing: −10 to 10, not −10–10 (though −10 – 10 might work in a table consistently formatted with x–y constructions) ===== In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between ===== Here, the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often, if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning. boyfriend–girlfriend problems; the Paris–Montpellier route; a New York–Los Angeles flight iron–cobalt interactions; the components are parallel and reversible; iron and cobalt retain their identity Wrong: an iron–roof shed; iron modifies roof, so use a hyphen: an iron-roof shed Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter red–green colorblind; red and green are separate independent colors, not mixed Wrong: blue–green algae; a blended, intermediate color, so use a hyphen: blue-green algae a 51–30 win; a 12–0 perfect season; a 22–17 majority vote; but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two; avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote a 50–50 joint venture; a 60–40 split; avoid using a slash (stroke) here, which indicates division the Uganda–Tanzania War; the Roman–Syrian War; the east–west runway; the Lincoln–Douglas debates; a carbon–carbon bond diode–transistor logic; the analog–digital distinction; push–pull output; on–off switch a pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance; Singapore–Sumatra–Java shipping lanes the ballerina's rapid walk–dance transitions; a male–female height ratio of 1.14Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is its capital, and this name distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families Use an en dash between the names of nations or nationalities when referring to an association between them. For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns, with the first used attributively to modify the second. an Italian–Swiss border crossing; but an Italian-Swiss newspaper for Italian-speaking Swiss France–Britain rivalry; French–British rivalry an Indian-American scientist; was especially popular with Indian Americans Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry Wrong: Austria–Hungary; the hyphenated Austria-Hungary was the name of a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existenceA slash or some other alternative may occasionally be better to express a ratio, especially in technical contexts (see § Slashes). the protein–fat ratio; the protein/fat ratio; the protein-to-fat ratio Colons are often used for strictly numeric ratios, to avoid confusion with subtraction and division: a 3:1 ratio; a three-to-one ratio (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Ratios).Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound. the Seifert–van Kampen theorem; the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme (developed by Seeliger and Donker-Voet) Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)Do not use an en dash for hyphenated personal names, even when they are used as adjectives: Lennard-Jones potential with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-JonesDo not use spaces around the en dash in any of the compounds above. ===== Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space or a dash ===== ex–prime minister Thatcher (consider recasting: former prime minister Thatcher) pre–World War II aircraft (consider recasting: aircraft from before World War II) post–September 11 anti-war movement Trans–New Guinea languages Turks and Caicos–based company a Rogers and Hammerstein–esque musical numberThe form of category names follows the corresponding main articles, e.g., Category:Trans–New Guinea languages. However, the principle is not extended when compounding other words in category names, e.g., Category:Tennis-related lists and Category:Table tennis-related lists both use hyphens. ===== To separate parts of an item in a list ===== Spaced en dashes are sometimes used between parts of list items. For example: James Galway – flute; Anne-Sophie Mutter – violin; Maurizio Pollini – piano.or ""The Future"" – 7:21 ""Ain't No Cure for Love"" – 6:17 ""Bird on the Wire"" – 6:14 ==== Other uses (en dash only) ==== The en dash (–) has other roles, beyond its use as a sentence-punctuating dash (see immediately above). It is often analogous to the hyphen (see § Hyphens), which joins components more strongly than the en dash; or to the slash (see § Slashes), which separates alternatives more definitely. Consider the exact meaning when choosing which to use. ==== Other uses (em dash only) ==== An indented em dash may be used before a name or other source when attributing below a block quotation, poem, etc. This dash should not be fully spaced, though it is best for metadata and accessibility reasons to hair-space it from the name. Most of Wikipedia's quotation templates with attribution-related parameters already provide this formatting. For example, {{in5}}—{{hair space}}Charlotte Brontë will produce: — Charlotte Brontë ==== Other dashes ==== Do not use typewriter approximations or other substitutes, such as two hyphens (--), for em or en dashes. For a negative sign or subtraction operator use U+2212 − MINUS SIGN (−), which can also be generated by clicking on the − following the ± in the Insert toolbar beneath the edit window. Do not use U+2212 − inside a tag, as the character gives a syntax error; instead use a normal hyphen U+002D - . === Slashes (strokes) === Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash, stroke or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording. An example: The parent/instructor must be present at all times. Must both be present? (Then write the parent and the instructor.) Must at least one be present? (Then write the parent or the instructor.) Are they the same person? (Use a hyphen: the parent-instructor.) In circumstances involving a distinction or disjunction, the en dash (see above) is usually preferable to the slash: the digital–analog distinction. An unspaced slash may be used: to indicate phonemic pronunciations (rivet is pronounced /ˈrɪvət/); in a fraction (7/8, but see other techniques at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Fractions and ratios); to indicate regular defined yearly periods that do not coincide with calendar years (e.g., the 2009/2010 fiscal year), if that is the convention used in reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Long periods of time for further explanation); to express a ratio, in a form in which a slash is conventionally used (e.g., the price-to-earnings ratio, or P/E ratio for short); in an expression or abbreviation widely used outside Wikipedia (e.g., n/a or N/A for not applicable).A spaced slash may be used: to separate run-on lines in quoted poetry or song (To be or not to be: that is the question: / Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune), or rarely in quoted prose, where careful marking of a paragraph break is textually important; to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable.To avoid awkward linebreaks, code spaced slashes (and fraction slashes) with a non-breaking space on the left and a normal space on the right, as in: My mama told me / You better shop around. For short constructions, both spaces should be non-breaking: x / y. On the other hand, if two long words are connected by an unspaced slash, an {{wbr}} added after the slash will allow a linebreak at that point. Do not use the backslash character ( \ ) in place of a slash. Prefer the division operator ( ÷ ) to slash or fraction slash when representing elementary arithmetic in general text: 10 ÷ 2 = 5. In more advanced mathematical formulas, a vinculum or slash is preferred: x n n ! {\displaystyle \textstyle {\frac {x^{n}}{n!}}} or xn/n! (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Common mathematical symbols and Help:Displaying a formula). ==== And/or ==== Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward. Instead of Most had trauma and/or smoke inhalation, write simply trauma or smoke inhalation (which would normally be interpreted as an inclusive-or to imply or both); or, for emphasis or precision or both, write trauma or smoke inhalation or both. Where more than two possibilities are present, instead of x, y, and/or z write one or more of x, y, and z or some or all of x, y, and z. === Number (pound, hash) sign and numero === Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, pound sign, or octothorpe) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead write number, No. or Nos.; do not use the symbol №. For example: An exception is issue numbers of comic books, which unlike for other periodicals are conventionally given in general text in the form #1, unless a volume is also given, in which case write volume two, number seven or Vol. 2, No. 7. Another exception are periodical publications carrying both, issue and number designations (typically one being a year-relative and the other an absolute value); they should be given in the form 2 #143 in citations, or be spelt out as Iss. 2, No. 143 in text. When using the abbreviations, write {{abbr|Vol.|Volume}}, {{abbr|Iss.|Issue}}, {{abbr|No.|Number}}, or {{abbr|Nos.|Numbers}}, at first occurrence. === Terminal punctuation === Exclamation and question marks have almost no application in encyclopedic writing. For the use of three periods in succession, see § Ellipses. In some contexts, no terminal punctuation is necessary. In such cases, the sentence often does not start with a capital letter. See § Quotations and § Quotation marks. Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period. See § Formatting of captions and § Bulleted and numbered lists. === Spacing === In normal text, never put a space before a comma, semicolon, colon, period/full stop, question mark, or exclamation mark (even in quoted material; see § Typographic conformity). Some editors place two spaces after a period/full stop (see Sentence spacing); these are condensed to one space when the page is rendered, so it does not affect what readers see. === Consecutive punctuation marks === Where a word or phrase that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a second terminal punctuation mark. If a quoted phrase or title ends in a question mark or exclamation mark, it may confuse readers as to the nature of the article sentence containing it, and so is usually better reworded to be mid-sentence. Where such a word or phrase occurs mid-sentence, new terminal punctuation (usually a period) must be added at the end. === Punctuation and footnotes === Ref tags (...) are used to create footnotes (sometimes called endnotes or just notes), as citation footnotes and sometimes explanatory notes. All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Refs are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before (apart from the exceptions below). Adjacent ref tags should have no space between them, nor should there be any between ref tags and inline dispute/cleanup templates. When ref tags are used, a footnote list must be added, and this is usually placed in the References section, near the end of the article in the standard appendices and footers. Example: Flightless birds have a reduced keel,[10] and they also have smaller wing bones than flying birds of similar size.[11][12]Exceptions: Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis. Example: Paris is not the capital city of England – the capital of which is London[10] – but that of France,[11] and it is widely known as a beautiful city.[12] Example: Kim Jong-un (Korean: 김정은;[10] Hanja: 金正恩[11]) is the Supreme Leader of North Korea and the leader of the Workers' Party of Korea.[a] === Punctuation after formulae === A sentence that ends with a formula should have terminal punctuation (period, exclamation mark, or question mark) after the formula. Within a sentence, place other punctuation (such as commas or colons) after the formula just as if the text were not a formula. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics § Punctuation after formulae. For ranges of dates and times, see § En dashes: other uses. Dates should be linked only when they are germane and topical to the subject, as discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Chronological items. === Time of day === Times of day are normally expressed in figures rather than words. Context determines whether the 12- or the 24-hour format is more appropriate. Twelve-hour clock times are written in one of two forms: 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., or 11:15 am and 2:30 pm (wherein the spaces should be non-breaking). Use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am; it may need to be specified whether midnight refers to the start or end of a date. Twenty-four-hour clock times are written in the form 08:15 and 22:55, with no suffix. Midnight written as 00:00 begins the day; 24:00 ends it. === Dates === Full dates are formatted 10 June 1921 or June 10, 1921; or where the year is omitted, use 10 June or June 10. The dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first). For date formats in citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style. Dates in quotations and titles are always left as-is. If a numerical format is required (e.g., for conciseness in lists and tables), use the YYYY-MM-DD format: 2005-04-03. Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-first for the US, except in military usage; day-first for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently). Otherwise, do not change an article from one date format to the other without good reason. === Months === For month and year, write June 1921, with no comma. Abbreviations for months, such as Feb, are used only where space is extremely limited. Such abbreviations should use three letters only, and should not be followed by a period (full point) except at the end of a sentence. === Seasons === Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres. Names of seasons may be used when there is a logical connection to the event they are describing (the autumn harvest) or when referring to a phase of a natural yearly cycle (migration typically starts in mid-spring). Otherwise, neutral wording is usually preferable (He was elected in November 1992, not He was elected in the fall of 1992). Journals and other publications that are issued seasonally (e.g., ""Summer 2005"") should be dated as such in citations (for more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Seasonal publication dates and differing calendar systems). === Years and longer periods === Do not use the year before the digits (1995, not the year 1995), unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear. Decades are written in the format the 1980s, with no apostrophe. Use the two-digit form ('80s) only with an established social or cultural meaning. Avoid forms such as the 1700s that could refer to ten or a hundred years. Years are denoted by AD and BC or, equivalently, CE and BCE. Use only one system within an article, and do not change from one system to the other without good reason. The abbreviations are written without periods, and with a non-breaking space, as in 5 BC. Omit AD or CE unless omitting it would cause ambiguity.More information on all the above topics can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items, including the handling of dates expressed in different calendars, and times corresponding to different time zones. === Current === Terms such as ""current"", ""now"", and ""recent"" should be avoided. What is current today may not be tomorrow; situations change over time. Instead, use date- and time-specific text. To help keep information updated use {{As of}}, which will allow editors to catalog and update dated statements. Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Other numbers are given in numerals or in forms such as 21 million. See MOS:NUM § Numbers as figures or words. In general, use a comma in numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point. Numbers with four digits are at the editor's discretion: 12,345, but either 1,000 or 1000. See MOS:NUM § Grouping of digits. In general, use decimals rather than fractions for measurements, but fractions are sometimes used with imperial and U.S. customary units. Keep articles internally consistent. Scientific notation (e.g., 5.8×107 kg) is preferred in scientific contexts. Markup: {{val|5.8|e=7|u=kg}}. Write out ""million"" and ""billion"" on the first use. After that, unspaced ""M"" can be used for millions and ""bn"" for billions: 70M and 25bn. See MOS:NUM § Numbers as figures or words for similar words. Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent, but not 3 % (with a space) or three %. ""Percent"" is American usage, and ""per cent"" is British usage (see § National varieties of English). In ranges of percentages written with an en dash, write only a single percent sign: 3–14%. Indicate uncertainties as e.g., (1.534±0.35)×1023 m. Markup: {{val|1.534|0.35|e=23|u=m}}. See MOS:NUM § Uncertainty and rounding for other formats. Use the full abbreviation on first use (US$ for the US dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar), unless the currency is already clear from context. For example, the government of the United States always spends money in American dollars, and never in Canadian or Australian dollars. Use only one symbol with ranges, as in $250–300. In articles that are not specific to a country, express amounts of money in United States dollars, euros, or pounds sterling. Do not link the names or symbols of currencies that are commonly known to English-speakers ($, £, €), unless there is a particular reason to do so; do not use potentially ambiguous currency symbols, unless the meaning is clear in the context. In country-specific articles, use the currency of the country. On first occurrence, consider including conversion to US dollars, euros, or pounds sterling, at a rate appropriate to the context. For example, Since 2001 the grant has been 10,000,000 Swedish kronor (€1.0M as of August 2009). Wording such as ""approx."" is not appropriate for simple rounding-off of the converted amount. Generally, use the full name of a currency, and link it on its first appearance if English-speakers are likely to be unfamiliar with it (52 Nepalese rupees); subsequent occurrences can use the currency sign (just 88 Rs). Most currency symbols are placed before the number, and unspaced ($123 not $ 123). The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI. However, Scientific articles may also use specialist units appropriate for the branch of science in question. In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the main unit is generally a U.S. customary unit (22 pounds (10 kg)). In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, although the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kilograms (22 lb)), imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts (7 miles (11 km) by road). Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. See {{convert}}. In a direct quotation, always retain the source's units. Any conversion should follow in square brackets (or, an obscure use of units can be explained in the article text or a footnote). Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred. In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly after spelling out the first use (e.g., Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg), except for unit names that are hardly ever spelled out (°C rather than degrees Celsius). Most unit names are not capitalized (see § National varieties of English for spelling differences). Use ""per"" when writing out a unit, rather than a slash: metre per second, not metre/second. Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name (Energies were originally 2.3 megaelectronvolts (MeV), but were eventually 6 MeV). For ranges, see § En dashes: other uses, and MOS:NUM, at §§ Date ranges, Percentages, Unit names and symbols, and Formatting of monetary values. Unit symbols are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers. Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space. For example, 5 min. The percent sign and units of degrees, minutes, and seconds for angles and coordinates are unspaced. For a negative sign or subtraction operator, use a minus sign (−, Unicode character U+2212 MINUS SIGN). Input by clicking on it in the insert box beneath the edit window or by typing −. For multiplication, use a multiplication sign (U+00D7 × MULTIPLICATION SIGN) or a dot (U+22C5 ⋅ DOT OPERATOR), which are input by clicking on them in the edit toolbox under the edit window or by entering × or ⋅. Care should be taken not to confuse the dot operator (in the ""Math and logic"" section of the edit toolbox) with an interpunct (in the ""Insert"" section of the edit toolbox) or a bullet. The letter x should not be used to indicate multiplication, but it is used (unspaced) as the substitute for ""by"" in terms such as 4x4. Exponentiation is indicated by a superscript, an (typed as ''a''''n''. Do not use programming language notation outside computer program text. In most programming languages, subtraction, multiplication, and exponentiation are represented by the hyphen-minus -, the asterisk *, and either the caret ^ or the double asterisk **; scientific notation is replaced by E notation. Symbols for binary operators and relations are usually spaced on both sides: plus, minus, and plus-or-minus (as binary operators): +, −, ± (as in 5 − 3); multiplication and division: ×, ÷; equals, does not equal, equals approximately: =, ≠, ≈; is less than, is less than or equal to, is greater than, is greater than or equal to: <, ≤, >, ≥. Symbols for unary operators are closed-up to their operand: positive, negative, and positive-or-negative signs: +, −, ± (as in −3); other unary operators, such as the exclamation mark as a factorial sign (as in 5!). Variables are italicized, but digits and punctuation are not; only x and y are italicized in 2(5x + y)2. {{math}} can be used to style formulas to distinguish them from surrounding text. For single variables, {{mvar}} is handy. === Possessives === ==== Singular nouns ==== For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus). ==== Plural nouns ==== For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings). For a plural noun not ending with a pronounced s, add 's (women's careers, people's habits, mice's whiskers; The two Dumas's careers were controversial, but where rewording is an option, this may be better: The career of each Dumas was controversial). ==== Official names ==== Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital or St. Thomas Hospital, even for consistency.) === First-person pronouns === To maintain an objective and impersonal encyclopedic voice, an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, our, or similar forms: We note that some believe that bats are bugs. But some such forms are acceptable in certain figurative uses. For example: In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole: Only portions of De re publica have come down to us. The author's we found in scientific writing (We construct S as follows), though passive voice may be preferable (S is constructed as follows). === Second-person pronouns === Avoid addressing the reader using you or your, which sets an inappropriate tone (see also § Instructional and presumptuous language). Use a noun or a third-person pronoun: instead of When you move past ""Go"", you collect $200, use A player passing ""Go"" collects $200, or When a player passes ""Go"", they collect $200. If a person cannot be specified, or when implying ""anyone"" as a subject, the impersonal pronoun one may be used: a sense that one is being watched. Other constructions may be preferable if the pronoun one seems stilted: a person's sense of being watched. The passive voice may sometimes be used instead: Impurities are removed before bottling. Do not bait links, e.g., ""Click here for more information""; let the browser's normal highlighting invite a click. (""Click here"" also makes no sense to someone reading on paper.) Likewise, ""See: (reference)"" or ""Consider ..."" are milder second-person baits, common in academic writing (pedagogy). This interactive personality is inconsistent with an encyclopedia's passive presentation of objective matter. ""See"" and the like can be used to internally cross-reference other Wikipedia material. Do not italicize words like ""see"". Such a cross reference should be parenthetical, so the article text stands alone if the parenthetical is removed. {{Cross reference}} can be used for this: {{Cross reference|(see [[Chicken]])}}, {{Cross reference|(See [[Dacian language]] for details.)}} It is usually better to rewrite the material to integrate these links contextually rather than use explicit Wikipedia self-references. Do not address the reader with the Socratic method by asking and answering questions. Did Bacon write Shakespeare? Then who wrote Bacon? === Plurals === Use the appropriate plural; allow for cases (such as excursus or hanif) in which a word is now listed in major English dictionaries, and normally takes an s or es plural, not its original plural: two excursuses, not two excursus as in Latin; three hanifs, not three hunafa as in Arabic. Some collective nouns – such as team (and proper names of them), army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party – may refer either to a single entity or to the members that compose it. In British English, such words are sometimes treated as singular, but more often treated as plural, according to context. Exceptionally, names of towns and countries usually take singular verbs (unless they are being used to refer to a team or company by that name, or when discussing actions of that entity's government). For example, in England are playing Germany tonight but the team are a bit worried about their goalkeeper, England refers to a football team; but in England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom, it refers to the country. In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when a sports team is referred to by its short name, plural verbs are commonly used to match e.g., the Heat are playing the Lakers tonight and the team needs a win. See also § National varieties of English including § Opportunities for commonality. === Verb tense === By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Use past tense for articles about periodicals no longer produced, with common-sense exceptions. The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s. Earth: Final Conflict is a Canadian science fiction television series that ran for five seasons between October 6, 1997, and May 20, 2002. The Gordon Riots of 1780 were ... The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool in 1960. Barack Obama is a former president of the United States (not Barack Obama was a president of the United States). Jumbo Comics was an adventure anthology comic book published by Fiction House from 1938 to 1953. A Prairie Home Companion is a radio show that aired live from 1974 to 2016 (not A Prairie Home Companion was a radio show). Flappy Bird is a mobile game developed by Vietnamese video game artist and programmer Dong Nguyen (not Flappy Bird was a mobile game).Tense can be used to distinguish between current and former status of a subject: Dún Aonghasa is the ruin of a prehistoric Irish cliff fort. Its original shape was presumably oval or D-shaped, but parts of the cliff and fort have since collapsed into the sea. (Emphasis added to distinguish the different tense usages; Dún Aonghasa is a structure that was later damaged by an event.) Always use present tense for verbs that describe genres, types and classes, even if the subject of the description (e.g. program, library, device) no longer exists, is discontinued or is unsupported/unmaintained. === Contractions === Avoid contractions, which have little place in formal writing. For example, write do not instead of don't. Use of o'clock is an exception. Contracted titles such as Dr. and St generally should not be used but may apply in some contexts (e.g., quoted material, place names, titles of works). === Gender-neutral language === Use gender-neutral language – avoiding the generic he and generic she, for example – if this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges). References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit. Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms (""it"", ""its"") or feminine forms (""she"", ""her"", ""hers""). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns. === Contested vocabulary === Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality, that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted. See List of commonly misused English words; see also § Identity. === Instructional and presumptuous language === Avoid such phrases as remember that and note that, which address readers directly in an unencyclopedic tone and lean toward instructional. They are a subtle form of Wikipedia self-reference, ""breaking the fourth wall"". Similarly, phrases such as of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, and actually make presumptions about readers' knowledge, may express a viewpoint, and may call into question the reason for including the information in the first place. Do not tell readers that something is interesting, ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Such constructions can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone: Note that this was naturally subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers. becomes This was subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers. Avoid rhetorical questions, especially in headings. Use a heading of Active listening and text such as The term active listening, coined in ..., not What is active listening? For issues in the use of cross-references – e.g., (see also Bulverism) – see #Second-person pronouns. === Subset terms === A subset term identifies a set of members of a larger class. Common subset terms are including, among, and etc. Avoid redundant subset terms (e.g., mis-constructions like Among the most well-known members of the fraternity are included two members of the Onassis family or The elements in stars include hydrogen, helium, etc.). The word including does not introduce a complete list; instead, use consisting of, or composed of. === Identity === When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African. ==== Gender identity ==== Specific guidelines apply to any person whose gender might be questioned, and any living transgender or non-binary person. In summary: Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources. If the person is living and was not notable yet when a former name was in use, that name should not be included in any Wikipedia page, even in quotations, as a privacy matter. Exception: Do not expunge or replace names in source citations (whether as authors or mentioned in work titles). Former names under which a living person was notable should be introduced with ""born"" or ""formerly"" in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Name and gender matters should be explained at first appearance in that article, without overemphasis. In articles on works or other activities of such a person, use their current name by default, and give another name associated with that context in a parenthetical or footnote, only if they were notable under that name. In other articles, do not go into detail about such a person's name or gender except when directly relevant to the context. Avoid confusing constructions by rewriting. Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations as needed to avoid confusion, former names, and mismatching gendered words.For examples and finer points, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity. === Foreign terms === ==== No common usage in English ==== Foreign terms should be used sparingly. Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English (except certain cases in other guidance). Where possible, this is best done with the {{lang}} template using the appropriate ISO language code, e.g., {{lang|es|casa}}. There are alternatives to the {{lang}} template which also provide additional information about a foreign word or phrase, such as a link to the language name; see Category:Wikipedia multilingual support templates. The {{lang}} template and related templates automatically italicize text for Latin-alphabet scripts, so do not add separate italics markup around or within them. Non-Latin-based scripts like Chinese should not be italicized, since it is already obvious the material cannot be English, and some such scripts do not support italicization. ==== Common usage in English ==== Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English – Gestapo, samurai, vice versa – do not require italics. A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear in major general-purpose English-language dictionaries. ==== Spelling and romanization ==== Names not originally written in one of the Latin-script alphabets (written for example in Greek, Cyrillic, or Chinese scripts) must be given a romanized form for use in English. Use a systematically transliterated or otherwise romanized name (Aleksandr Tymoczko, Wang Yanhong); but if there is a more common English form of the name (Tchaikovsky, Chiang Kai-shek), use that form instead. The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English, and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines. Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics. Proper names in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include characters with diacritics, ligatures, and others that are not commonly used in present-day English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters. Examples: The name of the article on Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with the double acute accent, and the alternative spellings Paul Erdos and Paul Erdös redirect to that article. Similarly, the name of the article on the Nordic god Ægir is so spelt, with redirects from the ligature-free form Aegir and the Swedish spelling Ägir. However, the Spanish region named Aragón in Spanish and Aragó in Catalan is given as Aragon, without the accent, as this is the established English name (the non-English names appear, with their diacritics, in its lead section).Such matters are determined on a topic-by-topic basis; a small group of editors cannot ""prohibit"" or ""require"" diacritics across a category of articles.Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. (Relevant policy: Wikipedia:Article titles; see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).) For a foreign name, phrase, or word, adopt the spelling most commonly used in English-language reliable sources, including but not limited to those already cited in the article. For punctuation of compounded forms, see relevant guidelines in § Punctuation. A non-English proper name should generally not be italicized, unless it would be for some other reason; this is most commonly when it is the title of a major published work, as in Les Liaisons dangereuses; or when it is being compared in a words-as-words manner to another name for the same subject, e.g., Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). When the name should not be italicized, language markup can still be used to ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, with the |italic=unset parameter: {{lang|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}. Sometimes usage will be influenced by other guidelines, such as § National varieties of English, which may lead to different choices in different articles. ==== Other non-English concerns ==== For non-English vernacular names of species, see § Animals, plants, and other organisms. For handling of foreign-language quotations, see § Foreign-language quotations. For non-English characters that resemble single quotation marks and apostrophes, see § Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes. For actual non-English quotation characters, see § Quotation characters. For capitalization in foreign-language work titles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Capitalization in foreign-language titles. For interlinear glosses and their particular uses of small-caps (and italics and single quotes), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § All caps and small caps. === Technical language === Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to explain concisely in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with {{main}} tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic and when such prerequisites are not too numerous. Short articles, such as stubs, generally do not have such sections. For italicization and other markup of introduced terms, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Words as words. === Geographical items === Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These names often give rise to conflict, because the same places are called different things by different peoples speaking different languages. Many place names have a historical context that should be preserved, but common sense should prevail. There can be few places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. As proper nouns, all such place names (but not terms for types of places) have major words capitalized. A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context. In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article. This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to provide such a variant too often than too rarely. If more than one historical name is applicable for a given context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, that is: ""historical name (modern name, other historical names)"". This is an English-language encyclopedia, so established English names are preferred if they exist, and spellings in non-English alphabets should always be transcribed into the Roman alphabet. In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses. At the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary: Cologne (German: Köln, IPA: [kœln]) is the ... Mount Fuji (富士山 Fuji-san, IPA: [ɸuʥisaɴ]) is the ...Names in languages with no particular present-day or historical ties to the place in question (English excepted, of course) should not be listed as alternatives. Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. To be clear, you may sometimes need to mention the current name of the area (for example ""in what is now France""), especially if no English name exists for that area in the relevant historical period. === Images === Each image should be inside the level 2 section to which it relates, within the section defined by the most recent ==Heading== delimited by two equal signs, or at the top of the lead section. Do not place images immediately above section headings. Avoid sandwiching text horizontally between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar. It is often preferable to place images of people so they ""look"" toward the text. Do not achieve this by reversing the image. Any galleries should comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy § Image galleries. Consider linking to additional images on Commons instead. Avoid referring to images as being to the left, the right, above or below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images. An image's |alt= text takes the image's place for those who are unable to see the image. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. === Other media files === Other media files include video and audio files. Style recommendations for such files largely follow recommendations for image files (as far as applicable). === Avoid using images to convey text === Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with CSS tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text. For entering textual information as audio, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. === Captions === Photographs and other graphics should have captions, unless they are unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article or when they are ""self-captioning"" images (such as reproductions of album or book covers). In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject. ==== Formatting of captions ==== Captions normally start with a capital letter. Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments which should not end with a period. However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period. The text of captions should not be specially formatted, except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text (e.g., italics for the Latin name of a species). Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text. Captions for technical charts and diagrams may need to be substantially longer than usual; they should fully describe all elements of the image and indicate its significance. Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs. Use proper wiki markup- or template-based list code (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Help:List). Do not leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list unless there is a reason to do so, since this causes the Wiki software to interpret each item as beginning a new list. Indents (such as this) are permitted if the elements are ""child"" items. Use numbers rather than bullets only if: a need to refer to the elements by number may arise; the sequence of the items is critical; or the numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks. Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements, for example when the elements are: complete sentences – each one is formatted with sentence case (its first letter is capitalized) and a final period (full point); sentence fragments – the list is typically introduced by an introductory fragment ending with a colon; titles of works – they retain the original capitalization of the titles; other elements – they are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case. === Wikilinks === Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context: Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in the tallest people on Earth) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. Linking to sections: A hash sign (#) followed by the appropriate heading will lead to a relevant part of a page. For example, [[Apostrophe#Use in non-English names]] links to a particular section of the article Apostrophe. Initial capitalization: Wikipedia's MediaWiki software does not require that wikilinks begin with an upper-case character. Capitalize the first letter only where this is naturally called for, or when specifically referring to the linked article by its name (see also related rule for italics in cross-references): Snakes are often venomous, but lizards only rarely (see Poison). Check links: Ensure the destination is the intended one; many dictionary words lead to disambiguation pages and not to complete or well-chosen articles. === External links === External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, articles can include an External links section at the end, pointing to further information outside Wikipedia as distinct from citing sources. The standard format is a primary heading, ==External links==, followed by a bulleted list of links. Identify the link and briefly indicate its relevance to the article. For example: These will appear as: Where appropriate, use external link templates such as {{Official website}} and {{URL}}. Add external links with discretion; Wikipedia is not a link repository. === Keep markup simple === Other things being equal, keep markup simple. This makes wikitext easier to understand and edit, and the results seen by the reader more predictable. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly. See: KISS principle. In general, wikitext formatting is considered easier to use than HTML and wikitext is preferred if there are equivalents; see Help:HTML in wikitext. Obsolete elements and attributes should be updated or removed. There are many templates that allow HTML markup to be used without putting it in articles directly, such as {{em}} (see MOS:EMPHASIS) and {{strong}} (see MOS:BOLD). An HTML character entity is sometimes better than the equivalent Unicode character, which may be difficult to identify in edit mode; for example, Α is explicit whereas Α (the upper-case form of Greek α) may be misidentified as the Latin A. === Formatting issues === Modifications in font size, blank space, and color (see § Color coding) are an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should be reserved for special cases only. Typically, the use of custom font styles will: reduce consistency, since the text will no longer look uniform; reduce usability, since it might be impossible for people with custom style sheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin or inconvenience people with color blindness (see below); and cause disputes, since other editors may disagree aesthetically with the choice of style.Specify font sizes relatively (for example with font-size: 85%) rather than absolutely (like font-size: 8pt). The resulting font size of any text should not drop below 85% of the page's default font size. ==== Color coding ==== Do not use color alone to mark differences in text: they may be invisible to people with color blindness and useless in black-and-white printouts or displays. Choose colors such as maroon and teal that are distinguishable by readers with the most common form of colorblindness, and additionally mark the differences with change of font or some other means (maroon and alternative font face, teal). Avoid low contrast between text and background colors. See also color coding. Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than glaring. ==== Indentation ==== Do not abuse block quotation markup to indent non-quotations. Various templates are available for indentation, including {{block indent}} and (for inline use) {{in5}}. Avoid : (description list markup) for simple visual indentation in articles (common as it may be on talk pages). It causes accessibility problems and outputs invalid HTML. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Indentation for alternatives. === Controlling line breaks === It is sometimes desirable to force a text segment to appear entirely on a single line‍—‌that is, to prevent a line break (line wrap) from occurring anywhere within it. A non-breaking space (or hard space) will never be used as a line-break point. Markup: for 19 kg, code 19 kg or 19{{nbsp}}kg. Or use {{nowrap}}, {{nobreak}}, or {{nobr}} (all equivalent). Markup: for 5° 24′ N code {{nobr|5° 24′ N}}.It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. For example: Whether a non-breaking space is appropriate depends on context: whereas it is appropriate to use 12{{nbsp}}MB in prose, it may be counterproductive in a table (where an unattractive break may be acceptable to conserve precious horizontal space) and unnecessary in a short parameter value in an infobox (where a break would never occur anyway). A line break may occur at a thin space ( , or {{thinsp}}), which is sometimes used to correct too-close placement of adjacent characters. To prevent this, consider using {{nobr}}. Insert non-breaking and thin spaces as named character reference (  or  ), or as templates that generate these ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}}), and never by entering them directly into the edit window from the keyboard – they are visually indistinguishable from regular spaces, and later editors will be unable to see what they are. Inside wikilinks, a construction such as [[World War II]] works but [[World War{{nbsp}}II]] doesn't. === Scrolling lists and collapsible content === Scrolling lists, and collapsible templates that toggle text display between hide and show, can interfere with readers' ability to access our content. Such mechanisms should not be used to conceal ""spoiler"" information. Templates should not normally be used to store article text at all, as it interferes with editors' ability to find and edit it. When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the greater than 60% of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site, which has a limited set of features and does not support collapsing (any collapsible templates will either be automatically uncollapsed or hidden entirely). Mobile ability to access the content in question is easy to test with the ""Mobile view"" link at the bottom of each page.Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions. When hiding content is desired, it must be done using the collapsible parameter of relevant templates, or manually-added CSS classes collapsed, mw-collapsed, and autocollapse (see Help:Collapsing). Other methods of hiding content should not be used, as they may render content inaccessible to many users, such as those browsing Wikipedia with JavaScript disabled, browsing the mobile version, or using proxy services such as Google Web Light. Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text (or are purely supplementary, e.g., several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article. === Invisible comments === Editors use ""invisible"" comments – not shown in the rendered page seen by readers of the article, but visible in the source editing mode when an editor opens the article for editing – to communicate with one another. Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article, a section title's being the target of an incoming link, or pointing to a discussion that established a consensus relating to the article. They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing local consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that. Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors. Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing unwanted white space in the rendered page. To leave an invisible comment, enclose the text you intend to be read only by editors between . For example: (there are bots which can do this, see MOS:RENAMESECTION) This notation can be inserted with a single click in wiki markup, just under the edit pane in edit mode. === Pronunciation === Pronunciation in Wikipedia is indicated in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). In most situations, for ease of understanding by the majority of readers and across variants of the language, quite broad IPA transcriptions are best for English pronunciations. See Help:IPA/English and Help:IPA (general) for keys, and {{IPA}} for templates that link to these keys. For English pronunciations, pronunciation respellings may be used in addition to the IPA. Editing policy – explains Wikipedia's general philosophy of editing Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal – we write for a general, not technical, readership as much as we can Manual of Style tutorial – a quick introduction to the style guide for articles Manual of Style quiz – test your Manual of Style knowledge Styletips – a list of advice for editors on writing style and formatting Manual of Style Contents – guidelines for film, novels, biographies, military history, etc. Identifying and using style guides – an essay providing a summary of off-site style guides' influences on MoS and their uses as sources in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing – resisting MOSbloat === Guidance === Annotated article – is a well-constructed sample article, with annotations Article development – lists the ways in which you can help an article grow Basic copyediting – gives helpful advice on copy-editing Better articles – guidance on how to make articles better Perfect article – point-by-point guidance on what makes a great article Avoiding common mistakes – gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them Be bold – suggests a bold attitude toward page updates Citing sources – explains process and standards for citing references Editing – is a short primer on editing pages Style guide – contains links to the style guides of some magazines and newspapers Wiki markup – explains the codes and resources available for editing a page Wikipedia:in versus of – proper use of in and of (or some alternatives, as from and on) === Tools === User:GregU's dashes script – a script that will fix dashes in articles in accordance with MOS:DASH User:Ohconfucius MOSDATE script – a script that will unify dates in articles in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT === Other community standards === List of policies – a comprehensive, descriptive directory of policies List of guidelines – a comprehensive descriptive directory of guidelines Community standards and advice – a quick directory of community norms and related guidance essays Advice pages – about advice pages written by WikiProjects === Guidelines within the Manual of Style === (Links to policy and guidelines on specific questions) ==== Names ==== Proper names: Generally (dedicated MOS page): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names Place names: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names § Place names Diacritical marks in names: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names § Diacritics Peoples and languages that share the same name: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names § Peoples and their languages Names of ships in article titles and in the body of articles: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)Naming and identifying individuals and peoples: Generally: § Identity Specifically (for individuals): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Names Opening paragraph of biographies: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Opening paragraph Names of organizations: Generally (has application beyond the topic guideline in which it is currently located): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Cue sports § Respect for official organization names Names that are also trademarks (dedicated MOS page): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks Names of animal and plant species, etc. (in article titles): Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) === External style guides === Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included here. Those that have most influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style are: The Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press). The CMS Crib Sheet is free online, and summarizes the main provisions. Oxford Guide to Style (Oxford University Press). A compressed edition is available as New Hart's Rules. Available with its companion, the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, in one volume as New Oxford Style Manual Scientific Style and Format (Council of Science Editors) Garner's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press) Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press; primarily British English) The MLA Style Manual (Modern Language Association) The Elements of Style by Strunk & WhiteFor additional reference works, see notable entries at Style guide and Dictionary § Major English dictionaries." 48 48 96 WP:SOURCELIST Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists 48 "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, in appendices such as a ""Publications"" or ""Works"" section, or as a stand-alone article. This guideline explains when and how to use lists appropriately. Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (generally called ""lists"" or ""stand alone lists"") and articles that consist primarily of prose (called ""articles""). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain some lists. === Stand-alone list articles === List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of introductory material in the lead section followed by a list, possibly arranged in sub-sections. The items on these lists might include links to specific articles or other information, and must be supported with references like any article. The titles of stand-alone lists typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject, e.g., List of vegetable oils. They can be organised alphabetically, by subject classification or by topics in a flat or hierarchical structure. The title and bullet style, or vertical style, is common for stand-alone lists. These Wikipedia articles follow the Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists style guideline. === Embedded lists === Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. They are included in the text-proper or appended, and may be in table format. Wikipedia uses several standard appendices, usually in list format, as well as navigational templates. Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. Presenting too much statistical data in list format may contravene policy. ==== ""Children"" (i.e., indentation) ==== It can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in a list are ""children"" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such ""children"" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short. The following example works both with and without the bullets: ==== Lists of works and timelines ==== Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style. Timelines and chronologies can be a useful supplement to prose descriptions of real-world histories. The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose, including principles of due weight and avoiding original research. Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Consider whether prose is more appropriate. Specific advice regarding timelines is given in Wikipedia:Timeline standards. ==== Related topics (navigational lists) ==== ""See also"" lists and ""Related topics"" lists are valuable navigational tools that assist users in finding related Wikipedia articles. When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Typically this will include three types of links: Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article. Higher order (i.e., more general) articles and lists – this might include lists of people, list of countries, etc. For example, list of Indian language poets should link to both list of Indians and list of poets. Lower order (i.e., more specific) articles and lists – for example, the Business page navigational list contains links to small business, list of accounting topics, etc.There is some controversy over how many links to articles and links to lists that should be put in any article. Some people separate the ""links to articles"" (put in the ""See also"" section) from the ""links to lists"" (put in the ""Related topics"" section), but this is not necessary unless there are too many links for one section alone. Some feel the optimum number of links to lists that should be included at the end of any given article is zero, one, or two. Others feel that a more comprehensive set of lists would be useful. In general, when deciding what list to include, the same criteria used to decide what articles to include in the See also section should be used. Editors should try to put themselves in the readers' frame of mind and ask ""Where will I likely want to go after reading this article?"". As a general rule, the ""See also"" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. ==== References and external links ==== Reference lists show information sources outside of Wikipedia. The two most common types are: ""Web hyperlinks"" – lists of links to web addresses other than Wikipedia, under the heading ""External links"" ""References"" – lists of academic journal articles or books, under the heading ""References""Wikipedia is not a link collection and articles with only external links are actively discouraged, but it is appropriate to reference more detailed material from the Internet. This is particularly the case when you have used a web site as an important source of information. === Special names of lists === Most lists on Wikipedia are item lists, but not all. Specialized types of lists include: Outlines – a Wikipedia outline is a hierarchically arranged list of topics belonging to a given subject. Outlines are one of the two types of general topics list on Wikipedia, the other being indices. Indices – an index on Wikipedia is an alphabetical list of articles on a given subject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes. Timelines – a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. Order of battle – a representation of armed force components that shows the hierarchical organization and command structure. Lists of works include bibliographies and discographies. Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles; discographies are a listing of all recordings on which a musician or singer features, or may be compiled based on genre or record label Glossaries – a glossary is a list of terms in a specific subject area, with definitions included. Set index articles – document a set of items that share the same (or a similar) name. They are different from disambiguation pages in that they are full-fledged articles meant to document multiple subjects, while disambiguation pages are for navigation purposes only. Not all set index articles are lists. Dynamic lists – a dynamic list is any list that may never be fully complete (since it will only include notable examples from a given category), or may require constant updates to remain current. Lists have three main purposes: === Information === The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. === Navigation === Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles. Users without a specific research goal in mind might also find the articles listed in articles' see also sections useful. Lists are also provided in portals to assist in navigating their subjects, and lists are often placed in articles via the use of series boxes and other navigation templates. Users with a specific research goal, described in one or two words, are likely to find Wikipedia's search box useful. === Development === Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space. === Lists and categories === Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two formats work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows keeping a history of its contents; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page. For a stand-alone list, the list's title is the page name. For an embedded list, the list's title is usually a section title (for instance, Latin Empire#Latin Emperors of Constantinople, 1204–1261), but it can be shorter. The list title should not be misleading and should normally not include abbreviations. Additionally, an overly precise list title can be less useful and can make the list difficult to find; the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like complete and notable are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete or whether it is limited to widely-known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles). Note that the word ""famous"" is considered an unnecessary ""peacock"" embellishment and should not be used. Lists may be sorted alphabetically (e.g. for people: by surname, given name, initials), chronologically (by date, usually oldest first), or occasionally by other criteria. To suggest that a list in an article or section should be sorted, use {{Unsorted list}}. === Use prose where understood easily === Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text that appears in its ordinary form, without metrical structure or line breaks. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. {{prose}} can be used to indicate a list which may be better-written as prose. Many stub articles can be improved by converting unnecessary lists into encyclopedic prose. See also: WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. === Use good markup === Use proper markup: Employ careful wiki markup- or template-based list code (see Help:List for many pointers). Especially do not leave blank lines between items in a list, since this causes the MediaWiki software to misinterpret each item as beginning a new list. (There are HTML techniques to insert linebreaks or additional paragraphs into a list item.) Avoid misuse of list markup in articles for visual styling of non-list material. ==== Images and lists ==== To float pictures to the right of the list, one should put the image markup before the first item in most cases, see the example ""A"". Inserting the image markup as a separate line within the list (as in example ""B"") once again will split it into two half-lists. Should the length of the list items or the topical relevance of said image discourage display at the top corner, consider placing it after the asterisk of the first list-item it illustrates (as in example ""C"") to avoid breaking continuity of the unordered list (
    ) element. Note: When floating images to the left of a list, use the {{flowlist}} template to prevent disrupting the indentation of the bullet-points. === Use an unordered list by default === Use a bulleted (unordered) list by default, especially for long lists. Use a numbered (ordered) list only if there is a need to refer to items by number, the sequence of items is important, or the numbering exists in the real world (e.g., tracks on an album). === Format list items consistently === List items should be formatted consistently in a list. Unless there is a good reason to use different list types in the same page, consistency throughout an article is also desirable. Use sentence case by default for list items, whether they are complete sentences or not. Sentence case is used for around 99% of lists on Wikipedia. Title case (as used for book titles) is not used for list entries. Lowercase is best reserved for: lists introduced by a sentence fragment, with a short list of items, also fragments, continuing the extended sentence; glossary entries, where it is important to convey whether something is usually capitalized or not; lists of items with non-English names (that have not been assimilated into English), from a language in which their capitalization would be incorrect.Use the same grammatical form for all items in a list – avoid mixing sentences and sentence fragments as items. When the items are complete sentences, each one is formatted with sentence case (i.e., the initial letter is capitalized) and a final full stop (period). When the items are sentence fragments, the list is usually preceded by introductory material and a colon. Items may be given with initial lowercase or in sentence case. No final punctuation is used in most cases. Semicolons may be used when the list is short, items are lowercase, and the entire list forms a complete sentence (typically with its introductory phrase and possibly with a closing phrase after the list to complete the sentence). Many cases of this are better rewritten as paragraphs unless it is contextually important to ""listify"" the items for clarity (e.g., because they correspond to sections in the rest of the article below the list).A list item should not end with a full stop unless it consists of a complete sentence or is the end of a list that forms one. When elements contain (or are) titles of works or other proper names, these retain their original capitalization, regardless how the rest of the list is formatted. A list title in a section heading provides a direct edit point, if one enables section editing. It also enables the automatic table of contents to detect the list. It is not required, however, and should not be used for a list that is not the focus of a section, or for lists in an article that uses a lot of short lists and which is better arranged by more topical headings that group related lists. === Introductory material === Lists should have introductory material; for stand-alone lists, this should be the lead section. This introductory material should make clear the scope of the list. It should also provide explanation for non-obvious characteristics of the list, such as the list's structure. Stand-alone lists may place non-obvious characteristics in a separate introductory section (e.g. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Listing Bach's compositions). Lists and their supporting material must comply with standard Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and should not create content forks. Exercise caution when self-referencing Wikipedia, to ensure any self-reference is acceptable. For example, WP:Notability is often a criteria used for WP:Stand-alone lists, but many other self-references create problems. To include a self-reference, format it with Template:Self-reference link. Some information, such as ""Notable people"" or ""Alumni"", which may be read for context or scanned for content, may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list, or as prose, depending on size. If the list is long, is unable to be summarised, but is not appropriate for splitting out, then a section lead, with a descriptive, bulleted list may be more appropriate than a long prose section. === Organization === Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers). When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit. If a list of Australians in international prisons contains the headings Argentina and Cambodia (organization by country), it would be inappropriate for an editor to add the heading Drug trafficking (organization by offense). If a list entry logically belongs in two or more categories (e.g., an Australian in an Argentine prison for drug trafficking), this suggests that the list categorization might be flawed, and should be re-examined. Lists should never contain ""Unsorted"" or ""Miscellaneous"" headings, as all items worthy of inclusion in the list can be sorted by some criteria, although it is entirely possible that the formatting of the list would need to be revamped to include all appropriate items. Not-yet-sorted items may be included on the list's talk page while their categorization is determined. === List size === Keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy. Some material may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing using the summary style method. An embedded list may need to be split off entirely into a list article, leaving a {{See}} template which produces: In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence, compare: === Adding individual items to a list === Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Content should be sourced where it appears with inline citations if the content contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked. It is important to be bold in adding or editing items on a list, but also to balance boldness with being thoughtful, a balance which all content policies are aimed at helping editors achieve. Edits of uncertain quality can be first discussed on the talk page for feedback from other editors. Besides being useful for such feedback, a talk page discussion is also a good review process for reaching consensus before adding an item that is difficult or contentious, especially those items for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed. Note that, as with other policies and processes mentioned in this section, this process can be used for any type of difficult or contentious encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Reaching consensus on the talk page before editing the list itself not only saves time in the long run, but also helps make sure that each item on the list is well referenced and that the list as a whole represents a neutral point of view. Content should be sourced where it appears, and provide inline citations if it contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, readers of the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation beyond what the source actually says. Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list (although you can suggest it on the talk page), and add that source in a reference next to the item. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that competing views be described without endorsing any in particular. Editors should simply present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight through coverage balanced according to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published reliable sources. When adding to a stand-alone list with links to other articles, follow the established format when adding your item, and then see if you can link that item to an article focusing on that item's topic. If so, then consider if the list's format allows room for all the details of competing views in the list item or if those details should only be covered in the linked, main article on the topic. Either way, make sure to add them to the main article if they are not already there. === Categories === You can add one or more suitable subcategories of Category:Lists at the bottom of the page containing a list that may be of independent encyclopedic interest. If there is a redirect for the list (e.g., from ""List of Presidents of Elbonia"" to ""President of Elbonia#List of Elbonian Presidents"") put list categories on the ""List""-named redirect instead. Use a sort key to sort alphabetically by topic. There are several ways of presenting lists on Wikipedia. === Bulleted lists === This is the most common list type on Wikipedia. Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, for which numeric ordering is not appropriate, or lists that are extremely brief, where discerning the items at a glance is not an issue. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs. Simple bulleted lists are created by starting a line with * and adding the text of a list item, one item per * line. List items should be formatted consistently. Summary: Prefer sentence case. Prefer using full sentences, and avoid mixing sentences and fragments as items in the same list. No terminal punctuation is used with sentence fragments. Do not put blank lines between list items.For details, see § Bulleted and numbered lists, above. HTML formatting can be used to create rich lists, including items with internal paragraph breaks. Using images with lists requires some care. For infoboxes, a bulleted list can be converted to unbulleted or horizontal style with simple templates, to suppress both the large bullets and the indentation. Do not double-space the lines of the list by leaving blank lines after them. Doing this breaks the list into multiple lists, defeating the purpose of using list markup. This adversely affects accessibility (screen readers will tell the visually impaired user there are multiple lists), and interferes with machine-parseability of the content for reuse. Moreover, in certain Web browsers, the extra white-space between one block of list output and the next can have a visually jarring effect. Blank lines between items of a numbered list will not only cause the same broken-list problems as in bulleted lists, but will also restart the numbering at ""1"". This cannot be fixed without complex markup (defeating ease-of-editing expectations), so double-spacing should always be avoided in numbered lists. Doing this actually produces three lists with one item each! Notice the rendered HTML in which there are as many
      tags as
    • tags. === Unbulleted lists === For lists of up to 30 items (may increase later) without bullets, use a {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} template. Typical uses are in infobox fields, and to replace pseudo-lists of lines separated with
      . The templates emit the correct HTML markup, and hide the bullets with CSS (see Template:Plainlist § Technical details). A benefit of {{Plainlist}} is that it can be wrapped around an already-existing bullet list. A feature of {{Unbulleted list}} is that, for a short list, it can be put on a single line: {{Unbulleted list|Example 1|Example 2|Example 3}}. === Numbered lists === Use a numbered (ordered) list only if any of the following apply: There is a need to refer to the elements by number. The sequence of the items is critical. The numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks on an album.Use a # symbol at the start of a line to generate a numbered list item (excepted as detailed in this section, this works the same as * for bulleted lists, above). List items should be formatted consistently. Summary: Prefer sentence case. Prefer using full sentences, and avoid mixing sentences and fragments as items in the same list. No terminal punctuation is used with sentence fragments. Do not put blank lines between list items.For details, see § Bulleted and numbered lists, above. Example: Blank lines between items of an ordered list will not only cause the same broken-list problems as in bulleted lists, but will also restart the numbering at ""1"". This cannot be fixed without complex markup (defeating ease-of-editing expectations), so double-spacing should always be avoided in numbered lists. HTML formatting can be used to create rich lists, including items with internal paragraph breaks; some basics are illustrated below. Using images with lists also requires some care. ==== Other cases ==== Experienced editors can use raw HTML to achieve more complex results, such as ordered lists using indexes other than numbers, and ordered lists not starting from 1. Valid values for the list type are: 1 (default, numbers) a (lowercase latin letters) A (uppercase latin letters) i (lowercase roman numerals) I (uppercase roman numerals)The start value can be negative, but only if the list uses numbers as indexes. Otherwise, bizarre results are achieved. === Description (definition, association) lists === A description list contains groups of ""... terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data."" On Wikipedia, the most common use of a description list is for a glossary, where it is preferable to other styles. Wikipedia has special markup for description lists: The source can also be laid out with the descriptive value on the next line after the term, like so: This still keeps the names and values within a single description list, and the alternation of typically short names and longer values makes the separate components easy to spot while editing. The resulting layout and HTML are identical to that generated by the single-line syntax. Either wikitext markup is functionality-limited and easily broken. A major weakness of both variants of wikitext markup is that they are easily broken by later editors attempting to create multi-line values. These issues are most-prominent in lengthy description lists. As such, there are templates for producing description lists such as glossaries, in ways that provide for richer, more complex content, including multiple paragraphs, block quotations, sub-lists, etc. (For full details on the problems with colon-delimited list markup, see WP:Manual of Style/Glossaries/DD bug test cases.). The basic format of a template-structured description list is: Use either wikitext or templates as above for description lists instead of other, made-up formats, as other formats may be unexpected for reader and editor alike, hamper reusability of Wikipedia content, make automated processing more difficult, and introduce usability and accessibility problems. (Other formats may take less vertical space, but will be more difficult for the reader to scan.) That said, a list of items whose descriptions contain more than one paragraph may present better as sections in a stand-alone list article, while tables are better-suited to associating content than description lists, especially when there are multiple values for each item. As with unordered (bulleted) and ordered (numbered) lists, items in description lists should not have blank lines between them, as it causes each entry to be its own bogus ""list"" in the output, obviating the point of putting the entries in list markup to begin with. When wiki markup colons are used just for visual indentation, they too are rendered in HTML as description lists, but without ;-delimited terms to which the :-indented material applies, nor with the list start and end tags, which produces broken markup (see WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Indentation for details). More accessible indentation templates can be used, e.g., {{in5}} or one of its variants for one line, and {{block indent}} for more than one line (even if misuse of description list markup on talk pages is too ingrained to change at this point). Many of the considerations at WP:Manual of Style#Section headings also apply to description list terms; even though description list terms are not headings, they act like headings in some ways. In at least one regard however, they are not: description list term wikitext (;) should not be used to subdivide large sections. Use a subheading instead (e.g., === Subheading ===). === Tables === Tables are a way of presenting links, data, or information in rows and columns. They are a complex form of list and are useful especially when more than 2 pieces of information are of interest to each list item. Tables require a more-complex notation, and should be scrutinized for their accessibility. Consideration may be given to collapsing tables which consolidate information covered in the prose. Tables might be used for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results. They might also be used for presenting equivalent words in two or more languages, for awards by type and year, and complex discographies. === Horizontal lists === In situations such as infoboxes, horizontal lists may be useful. Examples: Note the capitalization of only the first word in this list (""Entry 1 ...""), regardless of coding style. Words that are normally capitalized, like proper names, would of course still be capitalized. A benefit of {{Flatlist}} is that it can be wrapped around an already-existing bullet list. A feature of {{Hlist}} is that, for a short list, it can be put on a single line. === Timelines === For lists of dated events, or timelines, use one instance of {{Timeline-event}} per event, thus: * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1904|11|18|df=y}}|event=A thing happened}} * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1905}}|event=Not much happened}} * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1906|01|21}}|event=Something else happened}} to render as: 18 November 1904 (1904-11-18): A thing happened 1905 (1905): Not much happened January 21, 1906 (1906-01-21): Something else happened(note optional df=y (date first) parameter – date formatting should be consistent within individual articles). Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Chronological ordering. === Line breaks === This ""pseudo-list"" method is deprecated, as it does not meet Web standards and can cause accessibility problems. Instead, use one of more formatted list styles defined above. Directly before an incomplete list, insert {{incomplete list}}, which will transclude the following onto the page: Several topic-specific variations of this template are also available within Category:Incomplete list maintenance templates. Only one of {{incomplete list}} or its variations should be added, unless the topic is significantly related to more than one of the subcategories. Do not add both {{incomplete list}} AND a variation to any list. These are lists of arguments for and against a particular contention or position. They include lists of Advantages and disadvantages of a technology or proposal (such as Wi-Fi) and lists of Criticisms and defenses of a political position or other view, such as libertarianism or evolution. Pro and con lists can encapsulate or bracket neutrality problems in an article by creating separate spaces in which different points of view can be expressed. An alternative method is to thread different points of view into running prose. Either method needs careful judgment as to whether and how it should be used. In particular, pro and con lists can fragment the presentation of facts, create a binary structure where a more nuanced treatment of the spectrum of facts is preferable, encourage oversimplification, and require readers to jump back and forth between the two sides of the list. Help:Line-break handling – covers among other things how to properly handle the line wrapping in horizontal link lists Help:Sorting – tables on Wikipedia can be made sortable with class=""sortable"", this page explains how Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts – information page summarizing the key points in this guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages – disambiguation pages are lists of homographs—a word or a group of words that share the same written form but have different meanings—with their own page rules and layouts Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists – guideline page on content and style guidelines and naming conventions Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup § Lists – cleanup tags for lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists – project's goal is to collaboratively develop Wikipedia's list articles and embedded lists" 49 49 98 WP:TRANSLITERATE Wikipedia:Article titles 49 "A Wikipedia article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content, and the basis for the article's page name and URL. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or, if the article topic has no name, it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles. This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page does not detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move. For information on page move procedures, see Wikipedia:Moving a page, and Wikipedia:Requested moves. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.) Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (For more details, see § Use commonly recognizable names, below.) When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation. In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's ""official"" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) Bono (not: Paul Hewson) Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius)Places Germany (not: Deutschland) Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster)Scientific and technical topics Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) Polio (not: poliomyelitis) Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic)Product names and fictional characters Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) King K. Rool (not: King ""Krusha"" K. Rool) Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino)Other topics Cello (not: Violoncello) FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word ""Wikipedia"". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. === Name changes === Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources (""reliable sources"") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in ""Use commonly recognizable names"". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles. Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. === Non-neutral but common names === When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use. Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obviousArticle titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing ""Octomom"" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point 2, above. Typing ""Antennagate"" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points 1 and 2, above. Typing ""Great Leap Forward"" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle, as is typing ""9-11 hijackers"", which redirects to the more aptly named Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. === Non-judgmental descriptive titles === In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim ""made with little or no proof"" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as ""allegations"".) However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because ""Boston Massacre"" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title ""Political impact of the Boston Massacre"" would also be acceptable.) Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. === Precision === Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. For instance: Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities. Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over ""Energy (physics)"", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the concision and recognizability criteria). Leeds North West is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) specify the addition of the qualifier in Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) with a redirect from Leeds North West. M-185 is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) specify adding the qualifier M-185 (Michigan highway) with a redirect from M-185. === Disambiguation === It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article ""Queen (rock band)"", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term ""Queen"". This may lead to some acceptable inconsistency; for instance, the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey. As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia: If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies. If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in: ==== Natural disambiguation ==== Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names. Example: The word ""French"" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, French language and French people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, hand fan is preferable to fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we chose Elevator as the title of the article on the lifting device. ==== Comma-separated disambiguation ==== With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire (see Geographic names). Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales uses a substantive title as part of the usual Names of royals and nobles conventions, not as a disambiguating term). However, titles such as Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over alternatives such as ""Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton"" and ""Waterloo, Battle of"", in which a comma is used to change the natural ordering of the words. ==== Parenthetical disambiguation ==== Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Example: The word ""mercury"" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names, so instead we use parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), and Mercury (mythology). ==== Descriptive title ==== Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. Examples: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife (see WP:NCP#Descriptive titles) ==== Combinations of the above ==== These are exceptional, in most cases to be avoided as per WP:CONCISE. Example: ""comma-separated"" + ""parenthetical"": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) (see Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves)Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages. === When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic === Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. Iron maiden vs. Iron Maiden, or Friendly fire vs. the meanings of Friendly Fire listed at Friendly Fire. The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered: Renaming ""Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem"" to ""Passio (Pärt)"" for the ambiguity of the first expression with Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem.Plural forms may in certain instances also be used to naturally distinguish articles; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) § Primary topic for details. === Concision === The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. For example: The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, was formerly State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island was the most concise title to fully identify the subject. The full name of Fiona Apple's 1999 album is 90 words and 444 characters long, but it is abbreviated in sources (and in its Wikipedia title) to When the Pawn... (see also WP:SUBTITLES).Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). === Consistent titling === We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City. Spelling that differs between different varieties of English. Orange (colour) and Lime (color) peaceably coexist, as do motorcycle tyre and snow tire.The English Wikipedia is also under no obligation to use consistent titles with other language versions of Wikipedia. On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état or coup d'état). The English-language names of some topics may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English, Australian English, etc.). === Foreign names and anglicization === The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively). If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see ""Multiple local names"" and ""Use modern names"" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow. Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be romanized. Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of romanization conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization. Wikipedia generally uses the character æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature æsc. For Latin- or Greek-derived words (e.g. Paean, Amoeba, Estrogen), use e, ae, or oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article. In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. === National varieties of English === If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense). Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and used in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names. By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the ""u"", Orange (colour)'s title does not. All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization). Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity. The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles: === Use sentence case === Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. When this is done, the title is simple to link to in other articles: Northwestern University offers more graduate work than a typical liberal arts college. Note that the capitalization of the initial letter is ignored in links. For initial lowercase letters, as in eBay, see the technical restrictions page. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Proper names. === Use singular form === Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (plurals). === Avoid ambiguous abbreviations === Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser). It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title. Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation (e.g. Conservative Party (UK), Georgia (U.S. state)). For more details, see WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles. === Avoid definite and indefinite articles === Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). === Use nouns === Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or ""Try to Remember"". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming. === Do not enclose titles in quotes === Article titles that are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks (e.g. To be, or not to be is the article title, whereas ""To be, or not to be"" is a redirect to that article). An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the TV episode Marge Simpson in: ""Screaming Yellow Honkers""  or the album ""Heroes"" (David Bowie album)). === Do not create subsidiary articles === Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like ""Azerbaijan/Transport"" or ""Azerbaijan (transport)"", use Transport in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-article namespaces; see WP:Subpages.) === Follow reliable sources for names of persons === When deciding whether to use middle names, or initials, follow the guidelines at WP:Middle names, which means using the form most commonly used by reliable sources (e.g. John F. Kennedy, J. P. Morgan, F. Scott Fitzgerald), with few if any exceptions. See also the Concision section above. === Special characters === There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles, due to how MediaWiki stores and matches the titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _ There are restrictions on titles containing colons, periods, and some other characters, which may be addressed through Template:Correct title. Technically, all other Unicode characters can be used in page titles. However, some characters should still be avoided or require special treatment: Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omits diacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.) However, avoid combining diacritical marks, which are difficult to type and interfere with adjacent characters. Quotation marks (avoid them): Double (""..."") and single quotation marks ('...'), as well as variations such as typographic (curly) quotation marks (“...”), ""low-high"" quotation marks („...“), guillemets («...»), and angled quotation marks or backticks (`...´) should be avoided in titles. Exceptions can be made when they are part of the proper title (e.g. ""A"" Is for Alibi) or required by orthography (e.g. ""Weird Al"" Yankovic, Fargesia 'Rufa').Similarly, various apostrophe(-like) variants (’ ʻ ʾ ʿ ᾿ ῾ ‘ ’ c), should generally not be used in page titles. A common exception is the simple apostrophe character (', same glyph as the single quotation mark) itself (e.g. Anthony d'Offay), which should, however, be used sparingly (e.g. Quran instead of Qur'an and Bismarck (apple) instead of Malus domestica 'Bismarck'). If, exceptionally, other variants are used, a redirect with the apostrophe variant should be created (e.g. 'Elisiva Fusipala Tauki'onetuku redirects to ʻElisiva Fusipala Taukiʻonetuku). See also WP:Manual of Style (punctuation) and MOS:APOSTROPHE.Symbols (avoid them): Symbols such as ""♥"", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles. This includes non-Latin punctuation such as the characters in Unicode's CJK Symbols and Punctuation block. Characters not supported on all browsers (avoid them): If there is a reasonable alternative, avoid characters that are so uncommon as Unicode characters that not all browser and operating system combinations will render them. For example, the article Fleur-de-lis carries that title rather than the symbol ⚜ itself, which many readers would see as just a rectangular box. Fractions: See MOS:FRAC. Templates and LaTeX-style markup cannot be used in article titles. === Italics and other formatting === Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, storylines, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Many of these titles should also be in title case. Italic formatting cannot be part of the actual (stored) title of a page; adding single quotes to a page title will cause those quotes to become part of the URL, rather than affecting its appearance. A title or part of it is made to appear in italics with the use of the DISPLAYTITLE magic word or the {{Italic title}} template. In addition, certain templates, including Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox film, and Template:Infobox album, by default italicize the titles of the pages they appear on; see those template pages for documentation. See WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Italics and formatting on the technical restrictions page for further details. Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics). Quotation marks (such as around song titles) would not require special techniques for display, but are nevertheless avoided in titles; see § Article title format above. === Standard English and trademarks === Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay. For these, see WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Lowercase first letter. Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts ""big-endian"" and ""little-endian"". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using ""and"", as in Promotion and relegation, Hellmann's and Best Foods, Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal and Pioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9. (The individual terms – such as Pioneer 6 – should redirect to the combined page, or be linked there via a disambiguation page or hatnote if they have other meanings.) It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects. Titles containing ""and"" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of ""and"" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not ""Islam and terrorism""; however, ""Media coupling of Islam and terrorism"" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of ""and"" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources. Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made.Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is ""right"" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad. Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names. Proposals for new naming conventions and guidelines should be advertised on this page's talk page, at requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages. If a strong consensus has formed, the proposal is adopted and is added to the naming conventions category. New naming conventions for specific categories of articles often arise from WikiProjects. For a manually updated list of current and former proposals, see Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Article titles Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Format of the first sentence Wikipedia:Category names, a list of guidelines concerning naming conventions for categories Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription MediaWiki:TitleBlacklist extension, a tool to block the creation of pages with disallowed titles (and their derivatives/variants) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), software limitations on the names of Wikipedia pages (articles, categories, templates, etc.) Wikipedia:In versus of, proper use of in and of (or some alternatives, as from and on) Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Headlines, on the unreliability of news headlines for sourcing Google Book Ngram Viewer, a graphic plotter of case-sensitive frequency of multi-term usage in books over time, through 2019" 50 50 101 :WP:NPRODUCT Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 50 "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline. For example, bands are covered by WP:MUSIC. Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people). Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them). === No inherent notability === No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see ""If it's not notable"", below). ""Notability"" is not synonymous with ""fame"" or ""importance."" No matter how ""important"" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small ""garage"" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING. === No inherited notability === An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not ""inherit"" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not ""inherit"" notability from its member. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not ""inherit"" notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not ""inherit"" notability from being owned by the corporation. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. ==== How to apply the criteria ==== Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Be completely independent of the article subject. Meet the standard for being a reliable source. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability. The analysis of the above example can be summarized in the following table: ==== Significant coverage ==== The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. ===== Numerical facts ===== Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent. ===== Significant coverage of the company itself ===== Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). ===== Examples of trivial coverage ===== Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: simple listings or compilations, such as: of telephone numbers, addresses, directions, event times, shopping hours, of office locations, branches, franchises, or subsidiaries, of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders (see above for #No inherited notability), of product or service offerings, of product instruction manuals, specifications, or certifications, of patents, copyrights, clinical trials, or lawsuits, of event schedules or results (such as theater performance schedule, score table of a sporting event, listing of award recipients), of statistical data, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices, of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance, of the participation in industry events, such as trade fairs or panel discussions, of the shareholders' meetings or other corporate events, of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, brief or passing mentions, such as: of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products, of sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work, in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, as an example of a type of company or product being discussed (e.g. ""In response to the protests, various companies, such as Acme Inc, have pledged to address working conditions in their factories"") inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in ""best of"", ""top 100"", ""fastest growing"" or similar lists, inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel, other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.The examples above are not meant to be exhaustive. See #Product reviews for a full discussion on what reviews of restaurants, events, and products qualify as significant coverage. ===== Examples of substantial coverage ===== Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger, A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization, A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products, An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization, A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product, An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies). ===== Audience ===== The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. ===== Illegal conduct ===== It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. ==== Independent sources ==== A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose. Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. If contested, consensus on the use of sources can be sought at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. ===== Examples of dependent coverage ===== Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability: press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism), advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, including pieces like ""case studies"" or ""success stories"" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc. any paid or sponsored articles, posts, and other publications, including pieces by non-staff ""contributors"" to Forbes, Huffington Post, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com, TechCrunch, Medium.com, and other publications that accept public contributions and that do not provide meaningful editorial oversight of the submitted content, self-published materials, including vanity press, patents, whether pending or granted, any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people (for example, self-submitted biographies to Who's Who). ==== Multiple sources ==== A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. ""Source"" on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be ""multiple"". A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or ""story"". A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). Similarly, a series of books by the same author is one source. The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. ""the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them"") do not count towards the notability requirement. The word ""multiple"" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area. ==== Reliable sources ==== Reliable sources, generally, are third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Self-published sources, although they may be reliable for verification purposes, are generally not accepted as evidence of notability. For a full discussion on what is and what is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ==== Secondary sources ==== A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily significant, reliable or independent sources. A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, proxy statements, memoirs or interviews by executives, public announcements of corporate actions (press releases), court filings, patent applications, government audit or inspection reports, customer testimonials or complaints, product instruction manuals or specifications. ==== Product reviews ==== Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel. Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement: Be significant: Brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience). For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage. Be independent: Many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. Sponsored reviews include reviews where the reviewed product is provided free of charge to the author. Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent. In particular, a strong indication of a sponsored or other relationship is a review that is excessively positive or negative. Therefore, editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity. Further, reviews that simply regurgitate someone else's opinion are also not independent sources unless enough original work was put in to produce a meta review (e.g. review aggregators). If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability. Once notability is established, non-independent reviews may be used to verify some non-controversial facts in the article (e.g. number of employees, number of tables in a restaurant, product models). Be reliable: The reviews must be published in reliable sources that provide editorial oversight and strive to maintain objectivity. Self-published reviews (e.g. most blogs) do not qualify. === Advertising and promotion === Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order: Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV Erase remaining advertising content from the article Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead. === Cryptocurrencies === When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered ""independent"" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources. The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements these alternate criteria, the primary criteria for organizations, or the general notability guidelineand the article complies with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially with regards to avoiding indiscriminate inclusion of information. === Non-commercial organizations === Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.Additional considerations are: Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead. Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization's longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. Caveat – Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international. Example: a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, worldwide, is not ""international in scale"" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live. ==== Local units of larger organizations ==== As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, without reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered non-notable on its own. Splitting should occur as a top-down process. See {{splitsection}}. Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. See Wikipedia:Merging. Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization. If an embedded list becomes too large for the parent article, consideration may be given to splitting out as a stand-alone list only if there are reliable sources dealing with the list as a topic, as with Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities supporting List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. If an embedded list is too large, but is not notable enough for a stand-alone list, then consider trimming. === Schools === All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) === Religious organizations === Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. However, it is possible that both the building and the institution are notable independently from each other – in which case, a combined article about the institution and the building is an option. === Commercial organizations === Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING. ==== Publicly traded corporations ==== There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion. ==== Chains and franchises ==== Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, a local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual location will have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable, such as the Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina); however, a series of articles on every single Wal-Mart in China would not be informative. An exception can be made if a major event occurred at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name that describes the event, not the location (see San Ysidro McDonald's massacre for an example). === Products and services === A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy. For product lines that are produced and/or marketed by the same company, avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (e.g., PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion. The relationship between a continuous line of products should be discussed within a single article. If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge it into an article with a broader scope (for example, an article about the type of product) or follow one of the deletion processes. === Transport infrastructure === This guideline does not apply to transport infrastructure such as railway lines and stations, airports, and toll roads, even when the company running the installation has that task as its single purpose. Other notability guidelines such as General notability guidelines and Notability (geographic features) continue to apply. Although an organization that fails to meet the criteria of this guideline should not have a separate article, information about the organization may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia provided that certain conditions are met. Content about the organization can be added into relevant articles if it: has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article; avoids self-promotion; and only includes information that can be verified through independent sources.For organizations local to a city, town, or county, content conforming to the above criteria may be added to articles for that locale. For example, a business that is significant to the history or economy of a small town might be described in the History or Economy section of the small town. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) Wikipedia:Autobiography (for companies that are creating articles about themselves) Wikipedia:FAQ/Business WP:LISTCOMPANY, style guideline for lists of companies WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, on notability of business peopleEssays: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase Wikipedia:Places of local interest Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, on the non-notability of run-of-the-mill organizations and routine media coverage Wikipedia:Businesses with a single location, and what to be aware of when creating an article on one Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique, on the notability provided by professional and reliable critical reviews WP:MILUNIT, WikiProject Military History essay on notability of units and formations WP:B2B, on notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses" 51 51 103 WP:NJOURNAL Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) 51 "This essay provides guidance reflecting consensus about the notability of academic journals, conference proceedings, monographic series, and other scholarly serial publications (including grey literature) devoted to reporting the results of scholarly research. For the sake of simplicity, all such publications will be referred as 'journals' in this essay, unless otherwise noted. Non-scholarly publications, such as trade magazines and professional society newsletters are instead covered by WP:NMAG. A notable journal thus refers to a publication being known for its publishing of scholarly research in the spirit of WP:GNG. These criteria are independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NBIO, WP:NORG, etc. Journals found to be notable under these criteria are likely to be reliable sources, but are not necessarily so. Journals could be known for being historically influential in an area of research now considered obsolete, or even in influential in a pseudo-scientific field. It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guidance but still meet WP:GNG for other reasons. Note that this page provides guidance, not rules; exceptions may well exist. Most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal. However, this does not exempt the journal from meeting notability requirements. === No inherent notability === Notable means ""worthy of being noted"" or ""attracting notice"". While the notability of a journal is often correlated to the quality or importance of its scholarship, they are not synonymous. High quality research can be published in low-circulation journals, just as poor research may be published in widely read journals. Major journals are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller journals also can be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field. Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economics, history, literature, science, or education. Even if editors personally believe a journal is ""important"" or ""inherently notable"", journals are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that a journal exists is by itself not enough to support notability. Hundreds if not thousand of publications can exist in each field, many of them short-lived, while others amount to nothing more than predatory open access publishing scams. A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective bibliographic databases and selective indexing and abstracting services, or by being the subject of significant commentary in independent scholarly publications, news media, books, theses, and other sources. === No inherited notability === In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this essay, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No journal is exempt from this requirement. If the journal has received no or very little notice from independent sources or from the academic community, then it is not notable even though other journals in its field are commonly notable. Likewise a journal published by a notable organization does not necessarily mean that the journal is itself notable. Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability. Several databases, like the Directory of Open Access Journals, aim for being comprehensive, and will index almost everything they can, regardless of impact or significance. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases. These general rules-of-thumb do not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such lists can apply. If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. If a journal meets none of these criteria, it may still qualify for a stand-alone article, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which the material is verifiable through third-party sources. However, see the remarks section below before applying this guidance. Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: ""If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.""). For the routine, uncontroversial details of a journal, official institutional and professional sources are accepted. General remarks G.a) Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories will often not meet any of C1, C2 or C3. However, they may still be notable under the Wikipedia:GNG, WP:NFRINGE, or other guidelines. G.b) Journals dedicated to legitimate scholarship will often meet at least one of C1, C2, or C3. However, simply being reliable doesn't necessarily imply being notable. The criterion is impact, not reliability.Criterion 1 (C1) 1.a) Journal size is not a consideration here. Simply having published a large number of academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy C1. The reverse is also true, a journal having published only a few articles is not necessarily disqualified by this. 1.b) The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability. 1.c) For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies. Analogously, having a CiteScore or SJR indicator serves as proof the journal has been indexed by Scopus.Criterion 2 (C2) 2.a) C2 may be satisfied, for example, if the journal is frequently quoted in conventional media (e.g. The New York Times) as an expert source in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media or blogs, is not unexpected for academic journals and so falls short of this mark. 2.b) The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as general services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, or field-specific services like Astrophysics Data System, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and PubMed. The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language, and thus the threshold for constitute ""frequently cited"" varies by field. A journal's h-index is a useful metric, although can be hard to reliably obtain for the above reason, and again needs to be compared against what constitute high h-index in the journal's field. 2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat, but other sources can be found on the book sources page, at the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank. Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject.Criterion 3 (C3) 3.a) Journal age is not a consideration here. While there is a correlation between age and notability, simply having published academic works for a long period of time is not considered sufficient to satisfy C3. The reverse is also true, a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by this. 3.b) C3 may be satisfied for both current and defunct journals. Journals that have been the focus of historical analysis can be covered under this criterion. An example of a journal that would qualify by C3 alone would be Social Text, for the historical role it played in the Sokal affair. 3.c) It should be noted that journals that pass C3 will almost always pass WP:GNG directly. === Dealing with non-notable journals === Many journals are non-notable by themselves, but are published by notable organizations. While a journal may not be worthy of having its own article, it can be helpful to include some information about the journal in the publisher's article. For instance the Nepali Mathematical Sciences Report is one of the publications of the Nepal Mathematical Society, and while the society is notable on its own, this journal is not. But since the journal is an important part of the society's activity, the article on the society should mention the journal. Consensus may also be that while a certain journal is notable on its own, it is best to cover the material in another article (for example, on the publisher's article). This is a matter of editorial judgment, and the essay takes no stance on whether it is best for a journal to have its own article, or if it is best to cover the journal as a section of another article. === Journal series === Some journals are published in sections (for example, the Trends series of journals). Although such sections may be listed individually in some databases, it can be preferable to cover them together in one single article (for example, Nuclear Physics A & B) simply because there is not a lot to say about individual sections. On the other hand, some such sections become very prominent in their own way, and can be covered in a separate article (for example, the Journal of Physics series). Supplement series are also best covered in their associated journal's article, hence why The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series is covered The Astrophysical Journal. If no criteria can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, then there are two deletion procedures to be considered: For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7 especially), but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, place {{subst:PROD|concern=REASON TO DELETE}} at the top of the article. This allows the article to be deleted after 7 days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, or PROD). For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process (or AfD), where its merits will be discussed for 7 days.When nominating an article for deletion (via either the PROD or AfD processes), please place {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} at the top of its talk page, as well as any other relevant Wikiproject templates (e.g. {{WikiProject Economics}} for an economics journal). This will notify WikiProject Academic Journals via WP:AALERTS that the article is being considered for deletion. If using the AfD process, you can also tag the deletion discussion with {{subst:delsort|Academic journals|~~~~}}, which will list the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals. Wikipedia:Scholarly journal Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide Web of Science master list Scopus title list" 52 52 104 WP:DB WP:DB 52 "WP:DB may refer to: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion templates starting by ""db"" (like {{Db}}, stands for ""delete because"") Wikipedia:Dashboard Wikipedia:Database (disambiguation) Wikipedia:Disambiguation Wikipedia:Drawing board Wikipedia:Database reportsWikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases Wikipedia:WikiProject Database analysis Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirits also known as WikiProject Distilled Beverages" 53 53 106 WP:LISTPEOPLE Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists 53 "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as ""list of"", ""timeline of"", or similar. In the interests of centralization of advice, this guideline page includes content guidelines, listed first; style guidelines particular to stand-alone lists, at § Style; and naming conventions, at § Titles. === Content policies === Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. === General formats of list articles === There are a number of formats, both generalized and specialized, that are currently used on Wikipedia, for list articles. Alphabetized lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0–9) and Index of economics articles, as well as simple alphabetized lists without letter subheadings. Annotated lists, such as List of business theorists, and List of bicycle manufacturing companies. Chronological lists, such as Deaths in 2007 and List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize for Fiction. (Lists whose titles begin with ""timeline of"" are always chronological.) Sortable lists, which are formatted as tables, such as List of social networking services. Subheading-structured lists (i.e., categorized or hierarchical lists), such as List of cat breeds, Lists of mathematics topics and Lists of philosophers. ==== Specialized list articles ==== Outlines, from the general (Outline of mathematics) to the somewhat specific (Outline of algebraic structures), are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are indexed at Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. A type of tree structure, they are hierarchies of subjects organized as a structured list including headings, subheadings, and list items (usually bulleted, and preferably annotated). For more information, see outline (list), and WikiProject Outlines. Indices, alphabetized lists of articles on a given subject, are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Indices. Examples include Index of psychology articles and Index of Syria-related articles. For more information, see index (publishing), and WikiProject Indexes. Timelines, using a standardized layout to present a chronological summary of a topic; examples include Timeline of architectural styles and Graphical timeline of the Big Bang. There is a special MediaWiki timeline syntax, but most Wikipedia timeline list articles do not presently use this recently introduced feature. For more information, see timeline. Order of battle – a representation of armed force components that shows the hierarchical organization and command structure. Lists of works include bibliographies and discographies. Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles; discographies are a listing of all recordings on which a musician or singer features, or may be compiled based on genre or record label Glossaries, using one of several glossary formatting styles, are usually alphabetized lists of terms with annotations defining them in an encyclopedic way; examples include Glossary of philosophy and Glossary of pinball terms. The format can also be used for some other purposes. Non-encyclopedic glossary material may be migrated to Wiktionary (see § Lists of words for more information). For more information, see glossary, and WikiProject Glossaries. Set index articles – document a set of items that share the same (or a similar) name. They are different from disambiguation pages in that they are full-fledged articles meant to document multiple subjects, while disambiguation pages are for navigation purposes only. Not all set index articles are lists. === Appropriate topics for lists === The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and scope of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or ""List of lists"" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The ""list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana"" will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list. A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out. Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by dint of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the ""list of shades of colors of apple sauce"", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. ==== Lists of people ==== Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness.In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses. For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who verifiably attended the school. (Wikipedia editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater.) On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable. Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation. For further information, see Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people, in particular the category/list policy for living persons. There is an editnotice available for lists of people: {{Editnotice for lists of people}}. Please document the list selection criteria on the talk page of the list. Note that the guidance in this section is particularly applicable to people but applies to lists in general, not only lists of people. ==== Lists of subtaxa ==== Wikipedia articles on organisms, such as plants and animals (whether extant or extinct), can sometimes be dominated by long lists of subtaxa. When the article has not developed beyond stub quality, there is little added value to split-off a list of taxa, nor is there much value to split-off a list if the number of taxa is relatively short, such as below 30 items. Although 30 items in a vertical row can already extend beyond what is visible on the screen without scrolling, the visual impact of an included list can be reduced by creating several columns. Another method to create the overview of the taxa involved is by including one or several cladograms, provided phylogenetic sources are available. If the number of taxa is too large and would upset the balance of an article, it is best to create a new list that is linked to the main article. The elements of such a list should consist of all accepted taxa on the closest lower level (see the figure on the right hand side) and all elements in the list should be linked to articles on those subtaxa, whether these exist (blue links) or not (red links). The links should be checked by following them to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or synonyms, particularly when dealing with lists of genera. ==== Lists of companies and organizations ==== A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. ==== Lists of lists ==== Wikipedia has many articles that are primarily or entirely lists of other lists (see List of lists of lists). On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a ""lists of lists"" should be active (blue, not red). Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories. Put lists that have actual content in one of the subcategories under Category:Lists, and also include it in Category:Lists of lists. (See § Titles for naming conventions.) See also Wikipedia:Lists of lists for an informal essay on content, purpose, naming etc. of lists of lists. ==== Lists of words ==== Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia. A Featured example is Glossary of Texas A&M University terms. Stand-alone glossaries are categorized at Category:Wikipedia glossaries, as well as topically in article categories. Shorter ones are often better handled as embedded lists, though a redirect from a title like Glossary of X can be created to the section, and the redirect added to that category. Such embedded glossaries may split later into in stand-alone glossaries. (See WP:Summary style for information on when to split sections into child articles.) There are multiple ways of formatting glossaries. See § Titles for naming conventions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions (""dicdefs""), may be better suited to Wiktionary. Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries. Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace. Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. === Selection criteria === Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any of the following are true: If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance? Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. ==== Common selection criteria ==== Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate lists; prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion; and keeps individual lists to a size that is manageable for readers. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a ""parent"" article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.) Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.""Creation guide"" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles, for the purpose of keeping track of which articles still need to be written—don't belong in the main namespace. Write these in your userspace, or in a Wikiproject's space, or list the missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles. === Citing sources === Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation. This section presents some particular style and layout considerations specifically for stand-alone lists, in addition to the general WP:Manual of Style/Lists, which pertains to all lists on Wikipedia. === Lead === A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself. === Chronological ordering === Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2023, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, as is the case with Deaths in 2003. === Categories, lists and navigation templates === As useful as lists are, certain lists may get out of date quickly; for these types of subjects, a category may be a more appropriate method of organization. See Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for more information on the appropriate times to use lists versus categories. ==== Taxonomic links ==== For many genera there may be a considerable number of species. For the smaller genera a taxobox may suffice but for the more speciose including genera such as Anopheles it is probably better to move these into their own page. The bulk of the page will be taken up by the list. Such lists do qualify as encyclopedic: for many of these genera there are specialized monographs to assist in the identification of these species. === Bulleted and numbered lists === Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs. Use proper wikimarkup- or template-based list code (see WP:Manual of Style/Lists and Help:List). Do not leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list unless there is a reason to do so, since this causes the Wiki software to interpret each item as beginning a new list. Use numbers rather than bullets only if: a need to refer to the elements by number may arise; the sequence of the items is critical; or the numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks. Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements. When the elements are complete sentences, each one is formatted with sentence case (i.e., the initial letter is capitalized) and a final period. When the elements are sentence fragments, the list is typically introduced by a lead fragment ending with a colon. When these elements are titles of works, they retain the original capitalization of the titles. Other elements are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case. Each element should end with a semicolon, with a period instead for the last element. Alternatively (especially when the elements are short), no final punctuation is used at all. A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example List of Xs). If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in layout table form, the name or title List of Xs is still preferable to Table of Xs or Comparison of Xs (though the latter may be appropriate for articles that are actual tables of data comparing numerous features, e.g. Comparison of Linux distributions). A list of lists of X could be at either Lists of X or at List of X: e.g., Lists of books, List of sovereign states; the plural form is more prevalent. The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs. People: People by nationality are either List of Finns or Lists of French people, preferring List of ___ people. United States folk are a special case: List of United States people redirects to Lists of Americans which contains, amongst other things, lists by US state. (Special treatment is necessary because American is ambiguous.) Note, however, that lists of people organized by individual city should be at List of people from [city], rather than List of [city] people. In all relevant lists, people is far preferred to alternatives such as persons or individuals. Language: Poets and authors listed by language are at, for example List of German-language poets (see List of poets for the list-of-lists of them). Fiction and real life: List of fictional dogs is a list of fictional creatures, whereas List of individual dogs is a list with real-life examples. Note that the lead section of each list explains what criterion or criteria that list's entries meet.Set index articles do not need to be titled with list of unless there is also another article or a disambiguation page using that title. For example, Dodge Charger is a list of cars named Dodge Charger, but does not need to be titled List of cars named Dodge Charger. However, since Signal Mountain is a disambiguation page, the related set index article is at List of peaks named Signal Mountain. Three other special lists types have their own naming patterns. Glossaries are usually titled Glossary of X or Glossary of X terms, though if they contain substantial non-list prose about the nature or history of terminology relating to the topic, as well as a glossary list, a title such as X terminology may be more appropriate. Timelines are named in the form Timeline of X or Graphical timeline of X. Outlines are named Outline of X or Outline of Xs. A very useful Wikipedia feature is to use the ""Related changes"" link when on a list page. This will show you all the changes made to the links contained in the list. If the page has a link to itself, this feature will also show you the changes made to the list itself. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates Wikipedia:Featured lists Wikipedia:Handling trivia Wikipedia:Listcruft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists Wikipedia:Set index articles Wikipedia:Timeline standards Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists Help:List Help:Table Portal:Contents/Outlines" 54 54 107 WP:PORTAL Wikipedia:Portal 54 "Portals serve as enhanced ""main pages"" for specific broad subjects. Portals are meant primarily for readers, while encouraging them to become editors of Wikipedia by providing links to project spaces. Portals are created for encyclopedic topics only and not for article maintenance categories. To see if a subject you are reading has a portal, check the bottom of the page (in the article's See also section) for a link to a corresponding portal. Such links may look like this: Biography portalor this (see the box to the far right, below the ""Wikipedia data structure"" table): Or, in the search box, type ""Portal:"" followed by the subject, like this: Portal:Biography. Wikipedia:Contents/Portals is the main listing of portals, arranged by subject. Note that there is a delay between a portal's creation and its addition to the listing. Category:All portals is a comprehensive listing, including all old and new portals, and even portals under construction. Portals are largely inter-accessible, with users able to navigate from one portal to another. Universal features, such as the portals browsebar (which links to top-level portals), and the portals template (which links to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals), allow for convenient browsing. Moreover, portals are also categorised according to hierarchy. Portals, in most instances, also link to their Related portals (those lateral to them) and their Subportals (those that descend from them). Portals for top-level subjects are also linked from the Main Page. You can also use the Special:Search box below to locate Portals and sub-pages. === What is a portal? === Portals are pages intended to serve as ""Main Pages"" for specific topics or areas. They are analogous to Wikipedia's Main Page, the subject of which is knowledge (the broadest subject of all). Portals narrow down the scope a bit to a more specific subject, and they vary in format and approach. Like the Main Page, which itself is not an article per se, portals are supplemental to the encyclopedia, and provide various alternate approaches to exploring a subject. Innovation is desired and encouraged. Each portal is named for the subject it covers. We have a portal called ""Geography"", for example. To set them apart from articles, portals have their own namespace, and so the title of each portal is always preceded by ""Portal:"". So, the one on geography is called Portal:Geography. It may help to look at a couple definitions for the word ""portal"" from Wiktionary: An entrance, entry point, or means of entry. For example: The local library, a portal of knowledge. A website or page that acts as an entrance to other websites or pages on the Internet.While these definitions may also fit Wikipedia's regular articles (like Geography, for example), such articles are constrained primarily to presenting a description of their respective subjects. The essence of regular articles is that they are prose overviews. That makes them less than ideal for navigating their entire subject. When a subject goes beyond the capacity of a single page, that page is called the subject's root article (its title is the name of the broader subject). But, Wikipedia's coverage of subjects goes way beyond what is on a root article's page. For example, there are over 40,000 articles on mathematics. While the article mathematics summarizes the general subject in descriptive terms, it becomes obvious that there can be other approaches to navigating Wikipedia's overall coverage of this and other subjects. That's where Wikipedia's various navigation systems come in, including portals. Portal:Mathematics, for instance, provides a selection of reading samples and links to delve into Wikipedia's coverage of mathematics further. A good synonym for a portal is ""doorway to knowledge"". === Purposes of portals === Each portal on Wikipedia acts as an alternative entrance to a subject. Portals supplement the encyclopedia. They support their subjects in various ways, including but not limited to: Providing a variety of sample content of subtopics (""topic tasters""), from within each portal's subject, that the reader may find interesting. Kind of like a magazine. Like what Wikipedia's Main Page does in general. Aiding navigation. Portals are one of Wikipedia's navigation subsystems, designed to help users find their way around the vast amount of knowledge on Wikipedia to material within a particular subject. So, in addition to sample content, a portal may also present in various ways, links, and lists of links. Providing bridges between reading and editing, and between the encyclopedia proper and the Wikipedia community, via links to pages in project space (and the other namespaces) that are relevant to the portal's subject. A portal may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike a WikiProject, however, it is meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution. Note that portals are created for encyclopedic topics only and not for article maintenance categories. === Features of portals === Most portals have some combination of the following features. ==== Selected content ==== Portals typically include one or more selected content sections that display one or more images or article excerpts, such as: Selected featured article Selected featured picture Selected general article Selected general articles Selected image Selected images Selected biography Selected biographies Selected team Selected teams Etc.Excerpts in portals of the new design are selectively transcluded so that they do not go stale. Unlike copy/pasted excerpts, they always match their source (which, however, is not usually written with the use on portal pages in mind), and do not fork. See Portal:Canada for an example that uses {{Transclude random excerpt}} and {{Transclude lead excerpt}}. The slideshow components are powered by templates/modules that present excerpts or images from designated sources in a slideshow interface (the slideshow gizmo itself was developed elsewhere in the community). For an example of a single-page portal with multiple excerpt slideshows using {{Transclude files as random slideshow}}, see Selected images in Portal:England. ==== In the news ==== Many automated portals include a conditional In the news section, which only shows up if there are items to display. It is powered by a search of the content of the current events portal, a major department in its own right, including its events by month subpages. To improve the results, change the parameters of the search (you can edit or add search parameters). Manually maintained news sections (in which entries are posted by hand) that have fallen out-of-date, can be replaced with a conditional news section. See {{Transclude selected current events}} for more information. That template can also be substituted for more control. Some portals use Wikinews. See User:JJMC89 bot/Wikinews importer for more information. ==== Did you know ==== Many automated portals include a conditional Did you know section, which only shows up if there are items to display. It is powered by a search of the content of Wikipedia:Recent additions and its subpages (the Did you know archives). To improve the results, change the parameters of the search (you can edit or add search parameters). Some portals also contain a manually curated Did you know section that shows only recent topic-related DYKs. ==== Need help? ==== The reference desk is designed to assist editors with improving articles and is not a place for readers to ask random questions. The Need help? section that looks like this should be removed when found: ==== Get involved ==== On most portals, the Get involved section is conditional, showing up only when a corresponding WikiProject exists. It provides a link between the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community, serving as a bridge to draw readers into becoming editors in collaboration with other editors. ==== Subcategories ==== The Subcategories section presents a Special:CategoryTree. It is expandable/collapsible, and is configured to show categories only. ==== Subtopics ==== The Subtopics section displays a navigation template, automatically reformatted to blend into the page's format. If there isn't one available, the editor can change the parameter to one that does exist, or provide links manually. ==== Recognized content ==== Recognized content sections are maintained by User:JL-Bot, which keeps an updated list of relevant featured and good articles there, and featured lists, if any. The bot has been around for years, and is very well tested. This section is conditional, and only shows up if there are entries to display. ==== Associated Wikimedia ==== The Associated Wikimedia section displays the {{Wikimedia for portals}} template and links to sister projects with a search query matching the portal's title. ==== Other ==== A portal developer (you) may be creative and provide features not covered above. Innovation is desired and encouraged. Try to make features that will be low maintenance. === How to get involved === Just as with Wikipedia at large, portals can be edited by anyone. However, it is important to pay due regard to the established work of others. Editors are always welcome to maintain individual portals; if you would like to participate in the upkeep of a particular portal, note your intention on its talk page, list yourself as a maintainer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Specific portal maintainers, then get to work – thank you! A WikiProject on Portals has been founded to coordinate portal activity. Current priorites include developing standards for all portals, further improvement to portal design, and the ongoing maintenance of portals. Other tasks include the integration of portals into the encyclopedia, and their categorization. Immediate attention is needed on portals listed in Category:Portals under construction and Category:Portals needing attention. === How to add portal links to articles === ==== Location ==== The location used to place a portal template in an article is normally the See also section. If there is no See also section, make one. Note: The Manual of Style for medicine-related articles advises against creating See also sections. ==== Formats ==== Inline format for the left side with normal sized text and a coding that is supported by mobile versions of Wikipedia pages: See Template:Portal-inline for a listing of parameters. Inline{{Portal-inline|Canada}} Canada portalInline format for the right side with normal sized text and a coding that is supported by mobile versions of Wikipedia pages: See Template:Portal for more information. {{Portal|border=no|Canada}} BarThe bar format is normally used for multiple portals. Note: this coding is supported by mobile versions of Wikipedia pages. This template does not belong in the ""See also"" section. Per MOS:SECTIONORDER, this template is bottom matter and goes below standard navigation template. {{Portal bar|Canada|Example|border=no}} The box on the right format with small text can incorporate multiple portals. Note: this coding is supported by mobile versions of Wikipedia pages': Box{{Portal|Canada}} {{Portal|Canada|Example}} For portals that don't have an icon assigned to them yet, the default portal puzzle piece will display larger, like this: Example portal === How to make a good portal === Most portals present the following: A selected article and/or picture; Links into the main category for the topic and possibly subcategories (some portals actually appear in the description page for the main category); General information about the subject, or links thereto; Links to other related portals (using templates); Links to related WikiProjects (mainly for editors); {{Sister project links}} can be used to add Wikimedia sister-project links to a portal; Links to specific showcase articles within the scope of the portal topic;You may want to embark on an effort to fill the related categories with appropriate articles if this has not been done already (or add it to the portal's ""to do"" list so visitors can help out). === How to create a portal === Before creating a portal, check to see if the subject is already covered at Portal:Contents/Portals (look for synonyms). There is no single standard design for portals. For further ideas on portal design, browse existing portals. Unlike WikiProjects, portals should not be created for an article maintenance category, but only for encyclopedic topics. Creating an individual portal does not require pre-approval.1 However, when creating multiple portals you must comply with WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATION. === How to categorize a portal === For a simple portal, simply add a specific subcategory of Category:Portals to the bottom of the portal page. For a complex, multi-page portal, a portal category is needed. Portal categories are generally named [[Category:TOPIC portal]] where the portal itself is named [[Portal:TOPIC]]. Portal categories are categorized under Category:Portals subcategories just like portals. Portals with their own categories are only categorized in that category, which in turn is put into the other categories that the portal would have been in. === Portals and the core content policies === Portals are subject to Wikipedia's five pillars and must comply with Wikipedia's core content policies (neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, etc.). ==== References ==== It is common practice not to include references in portals. As on the Main Page, readers should be able to verify the portal content by following a prominent link to a relevant article, and checking the references there. This is called ""follow through"". Content that is unique to a portal may be challenged in the portal, and must then be referenced in the portal, in the usual way, by inline citation using any of the accepted methods. Content that is transcluded from another article does not need to be referenced in the portal as it should already be referenced in the original article. Any challenges to transcluded content must be done in the original article and not in the portal." 55 55 108 :WP:CANVASS Wikipedia:Canvassing 55 "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) Editors known for expertise in the field Editors who have asked to be kept informedThe audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner. Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages. However, it may also include other kinds of solicitation, such as a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages as this can be seen as a form of spamming. The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.Below are brief explanations of the most common types of inappropriate notification: === Spamming and excessive cross-posting === Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of ""spam"" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember that the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. The inclusion of links to discussions, including featured content nominations, in signatures has been found to be disruptive spamming. === Campaigning === Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. === Votestacking === Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a ""no consensus"" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all ""sides"" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances. === Stealth canvassing === Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages. The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning. For other types of actions that are inappropriate in the consensus-building process, see the policy on consensus. Apart from canvassing, these include forum shopping (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), sock puppetry and meat puppetry (bringing fictional or real outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and tendentious editing. Template:Uw-canvass, warning for user talk pages Template:CANVASWARNING, article talk page message, based on canvassing activity soliciting feedback from established accounts Template:Recruiting, article talk page message, based on sockpuppet activity Template:Not a ballot, for use on discussion pages Template:Canvassed, for use in a discussion, to express concern that a specific user was canvassed to the discussion Template:Spa, for use in a discussion, to inform other editors that a given user has made few edits outside of this discussion. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more details on proper use of this template. Template:Rfc notice, to notify users and groups of users of an RfC in a neutral way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors Wikipedia:Cabals Wikipedia:Forum shop Wikipedia:Griefing Wikipedia:Mass message senders Wikipedia:Publicising discussions Wikipedia:Tag team Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject Democracy" 56 56 109 WP:SILLY Wikipedia:Silly Things 56 "It is not a great secret that, over the years, Wikipedia has seen many 'colorful' moments of fun. Also, no great secret is that Wikipedia has seen many forms of vandalism ( it's true, :-) could result in :-( ). Because Wikipedia lets people freely edit sources, occasionally, an edit falls into both categories: it is vandalism, needing to be reverted, but it is also creative, and some Wikipedians find it entertaining. For many years, the bits of vandalism and/or fun that struck people's fancy were kept here on a page called ""Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense"" (BJAODN). In fact, it was one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, having been created on January 26, 2001. Here is the original explanation of the page: We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace. So, here it is! [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sort of give the encyclopedia some lively colour. But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page. ;-)] However, in 2007, consensus (sort of) shifted against keeping most BJAODN on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:Silly Things), and it came to be viewed by many as encouraging vandalism. Things are no longer added to this group of pages on Wikipedia itself (except on rare occasions), but have been moved to another site, and only a few highlights are maintained below. (Please go to an external wiki to add to BJAODN. Thank you very much.) For all those who thought BJAODN was some sort of alien mating call or Swedish swear word, please read the things above. Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense === Best of Jokes === Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN Wikipedia:Even more Best of BJAODN Wikipedia:Yet more Best of BJAODN Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN /Hamsteria, hamsters decide to make their own country. /List of Last Names for your babies, stupid last names for your babies /Template:Uw-delmain1, an almost useless user warning template. /Template:Uw-toofriendly4, similar to delmain. /Template:Uw-pissoff4, same as toofriendly. Category:Wikipedia humor m:Category:Humor, a far-out selection of, like, meta-topics that totally transcend the English Wikipedia, man. The Unofficial WikiZoo Provides a permanent home for the strange fauna of WikiLand. Wikipedia:April Fools – Once a year, some Wikipedians seem to lose their minds Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Helpdesk Emails – Mailing list oddities! Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails – Strange Unblock requests! Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Non Deleted Nonsense would be BJAODN if it had been deleted. Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles (WP:DAFT) – Weird article titles! Wikipedia:Department of Fun Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars – Occasionally, Wikipedians get into edit wars over the most petty things Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Wikipedia:Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush Wikipedia:Talk page highlights – Some of the strangest exchanges that have ever occurred between editors Wikipedia:Unusual articles – ranging from Death erection to The Hands of Che Guevara Wikipedia:Unusual place names – The weirdest place names in the world. Wikipedia:Unusual requests that have been posted to the village pump and other places. Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants – Stephen Colbert trolls Wikipedia! Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Category:(Redacted) – If you want to know the darkest secrets of Wikipedia. Proceed at your own risk. c:Category:Unusual signs / c:Absurd use of road signs c:Category:Cursed images – deleted in 08/2022 c:Category:Commons' weirdest photographs – deleted in 08/2022 Wikinews:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense Wiktionary:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and Wikivoyage:Joke articles" 57 57 110 :WP:L Wikipedia:Lists 57 The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of list-related pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. Help:List (how to create lists) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, including bulleted, unbulleted, numbered, and others Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts (information page summarizing relevant Manual of Style material) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists Wikipedia:Set index articles Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists Wikipedia:Mailing lists 58 58 114 WP:SS Wikipedia:Summary style 58 "Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. Wikipedia articles cannot be of indefinite length as very long articles would cause problems and should be split. A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. This type of organization is made possible because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia: unlike traditional paper encyclopedias, it only takes a click for readers to switch between articles, and there is no need to conserve paper by preventing duplication of content. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article. (An exception to this is when the subtopic is non-notable; see below.) For copyright purposes, the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a parent article should link back to the original (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia). Templates are available to link to subtopics and to tag synchronization problems between a summary section and the article it summarizes. === Article size === Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up. Size guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style keeps the reader from being overwhelmed by too much information up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes ""too long"" varies by situation, but generally 40 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified. Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article, while more important sections will tend to be higher (this is news style applied to sections). Often this is difficult to do for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. However, ordering sections in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article. === Levels of detail === Since Wikipedia, unlike the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is not divided into a Macropædia, Micropaedia, and concise version, we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs: Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section). Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multiparagraph sections). Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles). The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. Breakout methods should anticipate the various levels of detail that typical readers will look for. This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a {{Main|subpage name}} hatnote or similar link to a full article about the subtopic summarized in that section. For example, Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area are two such related featured articles. Thus, by navigational choices, several different types of readers each get the amount of details they want. Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in the parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article, and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link such as ""Main article"", generated by the template {{Main|name of child article}}. Other template links include {{Further}} and {{Broader}}. Avoid link clutter of multuple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. For article pairs with a less hierarchical parent/child relationship, {{See also}} may apply. Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the subtopic page names between double square brackets) in the edit summary. If possible, content should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections (common selection criteria: lists created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles; short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group). However, a split by subtopic is preferable. Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic, although there are rules of thumb that can be applied. In some cases, to improve the understanding of readers, complex subjects may be split into more technical and less technical articles, such as in Evolution and Introduction to evolution. Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle. === Naming conventions === Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable. Unless all subarticles of a summary-style article are fully compliant with the common-names principle, it is a good idea to provide a navigational template to connect the subarticles both among themselves and along with the summary-style parent article. An example of such a navigation template, used on subarticles of the Isaac Newton article, is {{IsaacNewtonSegments}}. === Non-notable topics and relocating material === Article and list topics must be notable, or ""worthy of notice"". Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. Also consider whether a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of creating a new article. Some topics are notable, but do not need their own article; see WP:NOPAGE. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article. Note that notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list because notability guidelines do not apply to article content. === POV forks === In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split that results in either the original article or the spinoff violating NPOV policy), a difference in approach between the summary section and the spinoff article, etc. Note that this doesn't mean that an article treating one point of view is automatically considered a POV fork. A good example is Assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has a split or spinoff to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. However, certain types of content can be difficult to write neutrally in independent articles, such as ""Criticism of..."" articles (see WP:CSECTION essay), and if the subject is controversial it may also increase editors' maintenance burden. Where an article has lots of subtopics with their own articles, remember that the sections of the parent article need to be appropriately balanced. Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. If one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary section left on the main page. Sometimes editors will add details to a parent article without adding those facts to the more detailed child article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the child article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the parent article. If the child article changes considerably without updating the parent article, the summary of the child article in the parent article will need to be rewritten to do it justice. These problems may be tagged with {{Sync}}.Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {{main}} hatnote pointing to the subarticle. High-level or conceptual articles (such as Philosophy) are often composed mostly or entirely of summary sections, other than their own leads. Whether a detail is important enough to include in the lead of the detailed article is a good rule of thumb for whether it is important enough to be placed in the summary. === Using excerpts for article synchronization === Excerpts (a.k.a. selective transclusion) can be used to ensure that the content in the lead of a sub-article is perpetually synchronized with a summary-style section in its parent article. When this method is used, the citation templates for all of the references that cite the sub-article's lead must be included in sub-article's lead section. Otherwise, an undefined reference error message will appear in the parent article since the references in the body of the sub-article are not transcluded with its lead section. In order to transclude the lead of a sub-article into a section of the parent article, replace all of the content in the relevant section of the parent article with the following wikitext markup: {{Excerpt|SUB-ARTICLE_PAGENAME}} === Lead section === The lead section of an article is itself a summary of the article's content. When Wikipedia 1.0 was being discussed, one idea was that the lead section of the web version could be used as the paper version of the article. Summary style and news style can help make a concise introduction that works as a standalone article. === Further reading/external links === Summary style is a good way to give more structure to a long bibliography or list of external links. For example, the World War II summary-style article portrayed above could have a ""Further reading"" or ""External links"" section that treats the history of World War II as a whole, while a subarticle on the Pacific War could have ""External links"" containing works that deal with World War II in the Pacific region. Template:Broader, a template used to create hatnotes to another article that discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article Template:Main, a template used at the start of a summary section to point to the detailed article Template:Excerpt, a template used to transclude the lead section of the detailed article, instead of writing a summary that is essentially a duplicate Template:Major topic editnotice, an editnotice for articles on topics with many subtopic articles and that are at high risk of summary style violations Template:See also, a template used at the top of article sections (excluding the lead) to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other related titles Template:Split section, a cleanup message box suggesting a split Template:Summary in, a template placed on the talk page of the summarized article to make the relationship explicit to editors Template:Summarize, a template to be used when the {{Main}} template is being used without actually providing a summary of the subarticle Template:Subarticle, a template that should be placed on the spinout article's talk page when {{Main}} is used on an article to add a link to a spinout article Template:Sync, a template placed on the subarticle and the summary section when one has changed considerably without the other being changed. This is discussed more at #Synchronization. Wikipedia:Article series Wikipedia:Article size Wikipedia:Broad-concept article Wikipedia:Content forking Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles Wikipedia:Main article fixation (essay) Wikipedia:Merging Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) Wikipedia:Overcategorization Wikipedia:Splitting Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article Special:Longpages" 59 59 115 WP:DENSE Wikipedia:Don't be dense 59 m:Don't be denseThis page is a soft redirect. 60 60 117 WP:COP Wikipedia:Categorization of people 60 "Originally, this guideline was developed in response to some prolonged Wikipedia:Categories for discussion procedures that debated the categorization of people in articles. As has been proven since, this guideline can be helpful for other ""delicate"" categorization issues. This guideline is about categorization of people. It discusses: Categorization of biographical articles This includes all articles in main namespace named after a person or a group of persons, including split-outs of such articles. Similarly, categorization of files containing portraits of people and biographies in Books namespace. The main biographical article of a person is the single main namespace article named after that person. When there are split-outs, the main biography should be a summary style article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Several articles treating the same person). People categories All categories where such biographical articles could be expected to be listed. Normally such categories belong in the Category:People categorization tree. The concepts used in this guideline are explained in Wikipedia:Categorization and subpages, and: Sensitive categories Categories are defined as sensitive when they recur at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion giving way to extensive and convoluted discussions. This includes: Categories relating to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, disability etc. as treated at WP:EGRS Categories restricted by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates, e.g. categories that might suggest a person has a poor reputation and categories that belong in the categorization tree of Category:Criminals Other categories with similar issues, whether or not they are treated explicitly in this and other guidelines and policies e.g. Category:Atheists, Category:Critics of religions, Category:Conspiracy theorists, etc., and related subcategories Cross-section categories where at least one of the categories of the cross-section is sensitive. Failing to handle these categories appropriately can lead to external criticism, e.g. Kevin Morris (2013-05-01), ""Does Wikipedia's sexism problem really prove that the system works?"", Daily Dot. Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics. Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a ""criminal"" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as ""criminal"".Furthermore, Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates Not all categories are comprehensive: For some sensitive categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for sensitive categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Categorize by defining characteristics Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article: E.g., do not add [[Category:Biography]] to an article. Category:Biography (genre) may legitimately contain articles about biographical films or biographical books, but should not contain articles about individual people. The article is a biography; the person is not. Keep people categories separate: categories with a title indicating that the contents are people should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article, though this can also be added in a text note at the top of the category. This is for clarity and ease of use, and to preserve the integrity of trees of people articles. Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. To avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article. But bear in mind the principle ""Wikipedia is not censored"", so if something is offensive but has encyclopedic value it might remain. Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignment can be marked as such). See also Wikipedia:Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding automated operations. Currently, people tend to be categorized by the following broad categories. There is currently no consensus about the order in which these categories should be placed at the bottom of an article. === By association === Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories. === By ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, disability, medical or psychological conditions === The main guideline on these categories and categorizations includes a discussion of cross-section categories. === By the person's name === In certain very notable cases, an individual's name can be used to categorize the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln. However, this should not be done simply to reduce the number of categories displayed in an article. Categories using the name of a person hold articles directly related to that person. Remember this when placing the article in larger categories. If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category. This often results in the article and category being categorized differently. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush. === By nationality and occupation === People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians. The template {{Fooian fooers}} is used to provide navigation on each category page, such as: === By place === People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence. The category page of People from Foo may mention the most commonly used names for residents (""Fooians"", or ""Fooers""), assuming that common usage is verifiable (e.g. by Google). The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual. The residence of parents and relatives is never defining and rarely notable. The place of death is not normally categorized; consider using a list if this relates to a specific place or event. If it is relevant to identify the place of burial (either from the viewpoint of the person or the burial place), then someone buried in a less notable cemetery, or in a place with just a few notable burials, should be recorded in a list within the article about the burial place. However, if the burial place is notable in its own right and has too many other notable people to list, then burials should be categorized. === By heritage === Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage. Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, as with Category:African-American politicians (see WP:OCEGRS). These categories should not be created without a substantial and encyclopedic well sourced head article describing the contents (not just a list). Such categories should be treated as distinguished category (see discussion here), such that included articles should be otherwise integrated into the nationality/occupation category structure outside of the heritage subcategory. Further, Heritage categories (such as descent or diaspora) should not also contain any individual migrant, emigrant, nor immigrant; instead, that person should be diffused to an appropriate subcategory. The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. === By time period === People are usually categorized by time period if their activity in that time period is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For example: a writer who lived from 1850 to 1910 and wrote their only work in 1908 should be categorised under Category:20th-century writers. They did no notable writing in the 19th century, so should not be included in Category:19th-century writers an English soldier born in 1590 and notable for military service in the 1620s should not be categorised in Category:People of the Tudor period, since their WP:DEFINING characteristic relates to years after the Tudor period ended in 1603. === By year === People are categorized by their year of birth and year of death. See Wikipedia:People by year for how to categorize people by their years of birth and death. It is possible to change the default order in which the articles in a Category are displayed on the Category: page. For general instructions and conventions about this, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. Note that there are two techniques for defining a sort order different from the sort order that would result from the page name: Adding {{DEFAULTSORT:category sort key here}} in the article sets the category sort key for all categories without sort keys in that article, before or after it. Per listed category, overriding the DEFAULTSORT, [[Category:Category name here|category sort key here]]The sort key should mirror the article's title as closely as possible, while omitting disambiguating terms. Some exceptions are made, however, to force correct collation. Please note that some named individual animal have titles included in the article name (for example, Sergeant Stubby, a dog with a formal military rank) and are therefore subject to this guideline. === Sort by surname === If the article is titled ""Forename Surname"", the category should be added to the article as [[Category:Type X people|Surname, Forename]] (or: {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Forename}}) so that it will be sorted by surname (surname and family name are used interchangeably in this article). However, there are exceptions depending on customs, where a person lives and when they lived. If the country is not listed, try consulting with Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogue in the bibliography section. It is a resource for how librarians and institutions inside their respective country sort names. However, the sort value may be inappropriate outside their country. Arabic names or Islamic names historically had no family or given names, but a full chain of names. These names should be sorted as they are written out. However, after 1900, Arabic names became similar in structure to those of Western names, and these should be sorted as if they were Western names. Certain areas form exceptions: for example, in Malaysia, Islamic names follow a patronymic pattern, as do a subset in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.Modern names with Abu, Abd, Abdel, Abdul, ben, bin and bint are considered compound names and particles are integral to the name. Osama bin Laden is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}. Mounir Fakhry Abdel Nour is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Abdel Nour, Mounir Fakhry}}. Burmese names have no surnames or patronymic system, therefore they are sorted as they are written. However, if the person's common name includes an honorific, the name should be sorted with the elements succeeding the honorific. U Thant is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Thant, U}}. Chinese names, Korean names, Vietnamese names and Cambodian names are generally written with the family name first: Mao Zedong is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Mao, Zedong}}. Eritrean and Ethiopian (Habesha) names that use a patronymic system are sorted as they are written. Icelandic names are generally patronymic and occasionally matronymic, with a person's last name derived from their father's or mother's given name. For example, Arnaldur Indriðason is the son of Indriði G. Þorsteinsson. Normally a patronymic name is sorted as it is written. However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order, overridden for Icelandic categories, where the sort key is as the name is written. Arnaldur Indriðason is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Indridason, Arnaldur}}, while the Icelandic category of photographers is done, [[Category:Icelandic photographers|Arnaldur Indridason]]. For the listas= parameter in project templates on article talk pages use the DEFAULTSORT value (since it mainly categorises in non-Icelandic categories), e.g., | listas = Indridason, Arnaldur. Indonesian names may be sorted by surname or in the order they are written depending on the Ethnic background of the individual. Javanese names (the most populous ethnic group in Indonesia) do not generally have surnames and may be sorted in the order they are written. Japanese names for people born after 1885 follow Western order. For people born before 1885, names followed the same practice as Chinese names.There are exceptions. Sumo wrestlers, geishas, kabuki actors, and practitioners of traditional crafts and arts may take professional names. These names follow the same practice as Chinese names. Sumo wrestler Toyohibiki Ryūta's sort value is {{DEFAULTSORT:Toyohibiki, Ryuta}}. Malaysian names usually use a patronymic system and are sorted as they are written. There are exceptions; most notably, Malaysian Chinese names are handled as regular Chinese names. Portuguese names (Portugal only) are commonly composed of one or two given names, and two family names. In a compound family name, the first name is the mother's maiden name, with the second name being the father's surname. These names should be sorted on the last element or the father's name. Francisco da Costa Gomes is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Gomes, Francisco da Costa}}. Spanish names are similar to Portuguese names in that they are commonly composed of one or two given names, and two family names. However, in a compound family name, the first name is the father's name, while the second name is the mother's name. The sort value depends on how many names are in the articles title. For Gabriel García Márquez, with two family names and one given name, the sort is {{DEFAULTSORT:Garcia Marquez, Gabriel}}. For José Ignacio García Hamilton, with two family names and two given names, the sort is {{DEFAULTSORT:Garcia Hamilton, Jose Ignacio}}. Be careful, as the article's title may include any combination of given names and family names. Thai names have only contained a family name since 1915 and the name follows the western pattern of ""given name, family name"". However, people in Thailand are known and addressed by their given name. In categories mostly containing articles about Thai people, all names should be sorted with the given name first. For example, Thaksin Shinawatra is sorted [[Category:Thai people|Thaksin Shinawatra]]. That the entries in a category are sorted in this way for this reason should be indicated on the category page, for which the {{Thai people category}} template can be used. Thai names in categories which only contain relatively few such names should, in these categories, be sorted without applying the ""sort by given name before family"" exception, which only applies to categories which dominantly contain Thai names and which are entirely sorted the Thai way. user:cewbot is now maintaining sort keys in Thai-people categories. Most Muslim Turkish names before 1934 had no surname. After 1934, people adopted surnames. === Historical patronymic names === The patronymic system was once common throughout Europe and in some parts of the world. See Patronymic for the list of systems used in each country. Patronymic names should be sorted on their first name. The following is to distinguish how to sort the relevant historical people in some of the more common languages: East Slavic languages (Russian and Ukrainian) with the ending -ovich, -ovych, -yevich, -yich are used to form patronymics for men. For women, the endings are -yevna, -yivna, -ovna, ivna or -ichna. For example, in Russian, a man named Ivan with a father named Nikolay would be known as Ivan Nikolayevich or 'Ivan, son of Nikolay'. Irish names were formed by using Mac for ""son of"", Ó or Ua for ""grandson of"", Ní for ""daughter of the grandson of"", Nic for ""daughter of the son of"" and finally, Uí for ""wife of the grandson of"". The transition to fixed surnames began around 1000 and was completed after 1200. An example would be Ailill mac Dúnlainge, son of Dúnlaing mac Muiredaig. Jewish names were formed by using ben or bar for ""son of"" and bat for ""daughter of"". Permanent surnames started in the Iberian Peninsula around 1000 and spread eastward over the next 700 years. Scandinavian names (Danish, Swedish and Norwegian) were formed by using the ending son, søn, sen to indicate ""son of"", and dóttir, -dotter, datter for ""daughter of"". Denmark outlawed the patronymic system in 1828, Sweden in 1901 and Norway in 1923. However, the countries started to abandon the patronymic system much earlier. The nobility and academics started using surnames in the mid 1500s, the middle class around 1700, with most people having surnames in the 1800s. An example of a patronymic name would be Sverker Karlsson, the son of Karl Sverkersson. See also the section about Icelandic names above. Scottish names began using fixed surnames around the 12th century, though the practice continued in some areas until the 1700s. In the Gaelic language, the word meaning son is mac. The word meaning daughter is nic. Máel Coluim mac Donnchada was the son of Donnchad mac Crínáin and is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Mael Coluim Mac Donnchada}}. Welsh names before the 1536 Act of Union were mostly patronymic, but people had begun to use fixed surnames for over 100 years. The patronymic practice continued after 1536 and is still used today. In the Welsh language, the word meaning son is ap or ab. The word meaning daughter is merch or verch (modern spelling ferch). Rhiryd ap Bleddyn was the son of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn and is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Rhiryd Ap Bleddyn}}. === Nobility === Kings, queens, emperors, emirs, sultans, popes and others known by their official names should be sorted as spelled out. An ordinal number is converted to an Arabic numeral with a leading zero. Louis IX of France's sort value is {{DEFAULTSORT:Louis 09 of France}}. In some cases, you can leave off redundant information in a category, [[Category:French monarchs|Louis 09]]. European princes and princesses are sorted by their given name. Prince Charles is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Charles, Prince of Wales}}. Because of the prevalence of princes with the same name, Arabic or Muslim princes are sorted by their given name, but a second name (usually their father's given name preceding bin or ibn) is added. Prince Talal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, whose father is King Abdul-Aziz, is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Talal Bin Abdul-Aziz}}. British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname, e.g. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is alphabetized under ""Salisbury"", not ""Gascoyne-Cecil"" or ""Cecil"": {{DEFAULTSORT:Salisbury, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of}}. Some peers are almost invariably known by some name other than their peerage (which will not, in such cases, appear in the article title); for example, Frederick North, Lord North (who was 2nd Earl of Guilford) or Anthony Eden (who was 1st Earl of Avon). This should be followed for most categories, sorting them under North,... and Eden,...; but categories directly relating to the peerage should still sort them under it. [[Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain|Guilford]] and [[Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain|Avon]], respectively. Unless necessary for identification, Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady should be omitted from the sort value. === Other exceptions === Eliminate epithets: e.g. ""Saint"" in Saint Alban: [[Category:Saints|Alban]]. Generational suffixes (e.g., ""Jr."" or ""III""), should be placed at the end of the sort key, rather than with the surname: Robert J. Smith II sorts as [[Category:New Jersey politicians|Smith, Robert J. II]], not [[Category:New Jersey politicians|Smith II, Robert J.]]. Only hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops punctuation marks should be kept in sort values. All other punctuation marks should be removed. The only exception is the apostrophe should be removed for names beginning with O'. For example, Eugene O'Neill is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:ONeill, Eugene}}. Clerical titles, academic titles, military titles and honorifics should not be used in sorting. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:King, Martin Luther Jr.}} and without the titles ""Doctor"" or ""Reverend"", for his academic and clerical achievements. Surnames beginning with Mac or Mc are sorted as they are spelled. Douglas MacArthur is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:MacArthur, Douglas}} and Malcolm McDowell is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:McDowell, Malcolm}}. This is also British standard (BS 3700:1988) and ISO 999:1996 standard for preparing indexes. Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies. Examples of particles are af, al, dall, da, de, della, di, do, dos, du, el, la, o, and von. Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality. Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles. For example, Otto von Bismarck is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Bismarck, Otto von}}, Jean de La Fontaine is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:La Fontaine, Jean de}}, and Alberto Di Chiara is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Di Chiara, Alberto}}. American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. However, there are discrepancies between different sources on whether to sort on the prefix or not. In Belgium, Dutch/Flemish and French/Walloon names sort differently by time period. For people in the Southern Netherlands (Belgium) before 1830, surnames are sorted on the body of the surname and not on the prefix(es). For example, Rogier van der Weyden is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Weyden, Rogier van der}} and Gérard de Lairesse {{DEFAULTSORT:Lairesse, Gerard de}}. In contrast, Belgian people since 1830 are sorted on the prefix. For example: Paul van Ostaijen is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Van Ostaijen, Paul}} and Christian de Duve is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:De Duve, Christian}}. In South Africa and Namibia, Dutch/Afrikaans and German surnames are sorted by prefix, e.g. F. W. de Klerk is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:De Klerk, F. W.}}. In modern Arabic or Islamic names, the prefixes al and el, regardless of capitalization, are never part of a family name for indexing. For example, Osama Al-Muwallad is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Muwallad, Osama}} and Ezzat el Kamhawi is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Kamhawi, Ezzat}}. Sometimes the name containing the prefix is not a family name, but a description of where the person is from. In these cases, the sort value is how the entire name is spelled. For Peire de Corbiac, ""de Corbiac"" is a description where Peire is from, the town of Corbiac. So, the name means 'Peire of or from Corbiac' and is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Peire de Corbiac}}. Sometimes a given name is combined with neither a surname nor a peerage title; it is preferable to sort on the first name in these cases. Example: for Augustine of Hippo, use [[Category:Christian philosophers|Augustine of Hippo]] or simply [[Category:Christian philosophers]]. Some people are known primarily by their first name only. When it is not possible to set the first name alone as the article title, as with many articles in Category:Brazilian footballers, you should sort with the first name first to make the article easier to find in the categories. For example, Leonardo Araújo is commonly known as Leonardo, and should be sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Leonardo Araujo}}. is as simple as using it on a page. But we have some community rules about naming and purpose of a category that you should consider. === Before creating a new category === Before creating a new category, please be sure a similar category does not exist. Example: You might want to list someone in Category:Mexicans. Before creating that category, try to find it under a similar name. By starting at Category:People by nationality, you will discover that Mexicans are placed in Category:Mexican people. ==== Consider making a list ==== Consider whether a list or other grouping technique would be more appropriate: for trivia (such as ""dog owners"" etc..., see also general trivia policies) for categories whose members would require frequent notes to explain the reasons for each inclusion. Note: Wikipedians are divided about whether categories should be used for such topics, and might propose such categories for deletion. Nonetheless: always follow your own gut instinct in this matter. Please note that lists would be useful where it is important to see dates, for example, a list of medal winners or a List of Nobel laureates. ==== Consider whether the category might be considered category clutter ==== For example eponymous categories (categories named after a person) should only be created if sufficient directly related articles exist. === Choose an appropriate name for the category === A good category name is generic and neither too long nor too short. Finding a good category name for sensitive people-related topics is not a ""mathematical"" science, but relies on good taste, and more than often on a bit of creativity to find a good solution that satisfies all. === Clearly define the category === It is preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague or non-neutral point of view (NPOV) cases. In many cases, only referencing a Wikipedia article explaining the term is not sufficient as a definition for a category. This is true for almost every sensitive category. If the article you want to use as definition is problematic in itself, consider improving the article. Otherwise, or if that is not sufficient, write a definition of what goes in and what goes out of the category on the category page, with the reference article(s) as background information. Example: ""Atheist"" can be used as an offensive term (people living under a Fatwa are still today often called atheist by their condemnors, irrespective of whether the former consider themselves atheist). Some of the vague (and non-NPOV) edges of an ""Atheists"" category are about the unclear distinction between ""strong"" and ""weak"" atheism (see the atheism article) and about whether only outspoken followers of atheistic beliefs should be named or everyone generally considered to be an ""Atheist"". See Category:Atheists for how the category is currently defined. === Place the new category in another category === See the general rules regarding categorization, and try to position the new category in a suitable place on the tree of ""people"" categories. === Improper categorizations === If a person has an ""incorrect"" categorization, remove the category from the article and replace it (if applicable) with a correct category. If the categorization is ""correct"" and the category is reasonable, but still seems problematic, please discuss the categorization on the talk page of the article in question. If the same concern applies to many members of the category, you can list the category for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion if a merge or rename is required, or at a relevant WikiProject board. === Improperly named categories === If the category name has an obvious typographical error, please list it for speedy renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. === Redundant categories === If the category name has an obvious and unnecessary redundancy with another existing category, please list it for deletion or merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. === Inappropriate categories === If the problem is not about accuracy, but about an ""(in)appropriateness"" for a single article to be in this category, you can remove that categorization from that article, but also consider the following: Check whether you can solve (part of) the problem by making (a) better category definition(s); If still needed, find or create a more appropriate category, for re-categorizing this single article. If it seems clear to you that there are more articles to which this category is applied ""inappropriately"", add the {{SCD}} disclaimer to the bottom of the text or the {{Categorisation of people disputed}} dispute notice to the top of the text of the category description. Allow some time for this notice to take effect—possibly help with some manual recategorization (if you are familiar with the topics of the articles to which this categorization was applied). Remove the ""disclaimer""/""dispute notice"" if the use of this category seems OK again. If you have a proposal for a better name for the category, a wider re-arrangement of the categorization scheme, or if you see a more general contradiction with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding this category, participate in or post new discussions on the discussion page of the category. Consider whether you can invite more potentially interested people to take part in the discussion, for example by leaving messages on their user talk pages (check, for example, the discussion page of the category and history tabs to find out who might be concerned by this category—also try to contact project people if the category is part of one or more Wikipedia projects). If there is no agreement within a week or so, and you are in the middle of a conflict, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what to do next. When reaching the ""voting"" (or ""poll"") step, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the usual platform to proceed with such a vote. Most of the templates that can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Category namespace are about sorting and organising categories. Here are two that can be used for problematic ""people"" categorizations: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto instructions to use the templates for deletion ({{cfd}}), for renaming ({{cfr}}), or for merging ({{cfm}}). Butcher, Judith; Drake, Caroline; Leach, Maureen (2006). Butcher's copy-editing: the Cambridge handbook for editors, copy-editors and proofreaders (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84713-3. Retrieved January 12, 2012. Indexes - A chapter from the Chicago Manual of Style (PDF) (15th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 2003. ISBN 0-226-10406-0. Retrieved January 11, 2012. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), ed. (1996). Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogue (PDF). UBCIM publications ; new series, vol. 16 (4th revised and enlarged ed.). Munich; New Providence; London; Paris: K. G. Saur. ISBN 3-598-11342-0. Retrieved January 10, 2012. Mulvany, Nancy C. (2005). Indexing Books (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55276-4. Retrieved January 17, 2012." 61 61 119 :WP:COPYVIO Wikipedia:Copyright violations 61 "One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is that its text (not media, but that will be discussed shortly) may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Contributors agree to release their original content under both licenses when they submit it, and material from public domain sources or other compatibly licensed sources may also be used in accordance with the copyright policy, provided correct attribution is given. However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such situations should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The situation for images and other media is slightly different, as a wider variety of licenses is accepted. But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content for details of this and Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion for some suggested steps for handling problems with images or other files. Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case. === Other websites copying Wikipedia === If you suspect a copyright violation, but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page {{copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known}}, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. === Contributor is copyright holder === Also, if the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC BY-SA and GFDL without violating copyright, so long as they provide a suitable release to the world under Wikipedia's licenses or a free license that is compatible with them. (Text may, however, still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for another reason.) A copyright holder cannot both retain non-free copyright elsewhere over their content, and license it for one-time use here with their permission, because Wikipedia's licensing scheme requires that its readers and end users be able to reuse the content under the free license notice that is posted at the bottom of every page. The procedures for donation of non-free copyrighted material by its release is described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until the donation process is complete the article should be replaced with {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}. Similarly, if they can verify compatible license through a notice at the external site or can prove that the content is public domain, this is not a copyright violation. A note explaining the situation should be made on the talk page (including, if there is a release, the URL of where the release can be found; permission conveyed through e-mail must be confirmed through the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) and proper attribution given on the article's face. See guidance on attribution for sources under copyleft or released into public domain. === Parts of article violate copyright === If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed with the source URL in the edit summary if possible. Revision deletion should then be requested by placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on the article page or directly contacting an administrator on their talk page. Administrators may at their discretion unilaterally revision delete copyrighted content. A note explaining the removal may also be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. {{subst:Cclean|url=insert URL or description of source here (optional)}} has been created for this. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored. === All of article violates copyright === If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. A revert that only removes infringing material does not violate the three-revert rule. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. In limited circumstances, administrators may delete obvious copyright violations on sight; see the relevant section of the speedy deletion policy. Contributors may list pages that meet these conditions for deletion using the {{db-copyvio}} template. If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, and you believe that there are reasons that the text should be rewritten instead of removed, you should blank the article or the appropriate section with the {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} template, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. This will give interested contributors a week to verify permission for the text or propose a rewrite. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement and no usable rewrite is proposed, it may be deleted by any administrator or reduced to a non-infringing stub. === Addressing contributors === If you can identify the contributor of the content, please notify them of Wikipedia's Wikimedia:Terms of Use and copyright policies. When an article has been tagged for speedy deletion or masked for copyright investigation, the tag will display a template that can be used for this purpose. You can also use the templates posted at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. If a contributor has already been clearly warned of copyright infringement but carried on, you may want to seek advice from an administrator familiar with copyright policies or report it for administrator attention at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. You may also want to open a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project. These blocks are usually indefinite, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose conditions before unblocking, such as helping with cleanup by disclosing the sources they used. ==== Presumptive deletion ==== If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. This is especially the case for contributors who have active copyright investigation cases. If you are a copyright owner or represent a copyright owner, and you believe that Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, we can assist you best via e-mail. You may contact info-en-cwikimedia.org with an informal request; please cite the exact URL (the ""address"" or ""location"" of the page as shown by your web browser, beginning with https://en.wikipedia.org/...), and provide enough information to substantiate your claim of copyright ownership. Be aware that correspondence is answered by a small number of volunteers, and an immediate reply may not be possible. If you prefer to use the process of a formal OCILLA request, you should send it to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent. If you are a copyright owner who would like to license their content for reuse, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. === Policies, guidelines and information pages === Wikipedia:Copy-paste: an information page with a simple explanation of Wikipedia's various copyright policies Wikipedia:Cv101: a simple guide to addressing copyright problems Wikipedia:Copyrights: official copyright policy Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright: FAQ explaining various aspects of copyright policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: policy and guideline on including non-free content Wikipedia:Public domain: guideline on identifying public domain content Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks: information on what to do if another source is misusing Wikipedia's content Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: guideline on copying content from one Wikipedia page to another Wikipedia:Plagiarism: guideline on plagiarism Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion: an overview of various processes for handling problem files Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials: information on how to donate copyrighted materials you own Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission: information on how to request permission from copyright holders === Noticeboards === Wikipedia:Copyright problems: the board for reporting problem articles Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations: the board for requesting investigation of serial infringers Wikipedia:Files for discussion: the board for reviewing usage of non-free files and their copyright status Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard: the board for reviewing the appropriateness of external links Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: the board for asking questions about Wikipedia's media copyright guidelines and policies === Other resources === Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup: a Wikipedia project for copyright cleanup Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters: a list of administrators who have self-identified as being willing to help users with copyright concerns. Signpost dispatch on plagiarism Wikipedia:Plagiarism of Wikipedia and Plagiarism from Wikipedia CopyPatrol – A tool which analyses every new edit for copyright violation and shows an easy comparison view for cross-checking the copyright violation. It is a work-in-progress at the moment. Earwig's Copyvio Detector – searches the web for copyvio on the page using Google and the links present on the page. User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel – user script to fill out Template:Copyvio-revdel with source URL and edits to be revision deleted. === Templates === {{backwardscopy}}: template used on talk page to provide notice of reverse copying {{copyvio}}: replaces the page with a copyright violation banner {{db-copyvio}}: tags a copyright violation page for speedy deletion {{copy-paste}}: adds notice to a page that the contents may be a copyright violation {{copyvioel}}: places a banner that the page may contain external links to copyright violations {{copyvio link}}: inline citation to tag a specific external link which may go to a copyright violation {{Copyright violation}}: inline citation to tag a specific sentence that may contain a copyright violation {{cclean}}: template used on talk page to provide notice of removed copyrighted content {{copyvio-revdel}}: template used on article page to request Revision deletion of portions of an article's history (see template documentation) {{Uw-copyright}}: template used on contributor talk page to alert to removal (not tagged deletion) of copyrighted text {{Uw-copyright-new}}: welcome message with detailed copyright information for inexperienced contributors of copyrighted text {{Uw-copying}}: template used on contributor talk page to alert to process for copying content from one Wikipedia article to another {{dual}}: a template used on an article's face to note the import of text under CC BY-SA and GFDL evidence should be documented at the talk page of the article, unless the license is clear at the source {{CCBYSASource}}: a template used on an article's face to note the import of text under CC BY-SA only evidence should be documented at the talk page of the article, unless the license is clear at the source" 62 62 122 WP:AUTOPROB Wikipedia:Autobiography 62 "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy. Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles. Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point of view. Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls. If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please acknowledge and minimize your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted. It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this. The quote above illustrates a number of fundamental problems with autobiographies: They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positive impressions of themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research to verify it. Wikipedia does not distribute previously-unpublished information; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.In this context, ""autobiography"" means not only something you write yourself, but also something you pay, or instruct, someone to write on your behalf. === Why these problems exist === Even though you honestly believe you are being neutral, that does not mean you are. Unconscious biases exist and are a common cause of problems with autobiographical articles, affecting both neutrality and verifiability. When writing about yourself, you are more likely to include unverifiable information. Even if you believe you can write an autobiography based only on verifiable material without doing original research, you may still not be able to achieve a neutral result. For example, as a recognized authority or prominent figure, you might emphasize objective data, such as the sheer volume of your published material, or the fact that your work has been translated into different languages or performed in other countries. Examples of volume or scope can create a non-neutral tone that is usually recognizable as deliberate self-aggrandizement. Likewise, deep biographical detail, such as details of your religious beliefs, the careers of your non-notable family members, or the mere fact that you have famous friends may not be verifiable or relevant. It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing. Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself. It may help attract attention to your talk page request to include the {{request edit}} template as part of the request. In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) If the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a tertiary source—it should not contain any ""new"" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and most information should exist in checkable third-party sources. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable with reliable sources. If you are a regular Wikipedia editor, you can identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} notice. If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral—to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources. You may wish to make suggestions on the article's talk page or, if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself. If your edit may be misinterpreted, you should explain it on the talk page. Note that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. Your edits are more likely to be accepted if they are neutral and well-sourced to third parties. If others do not agree with the changes you propose, you may pursue dispute resolution. For instance, the Biographies of living persons noticeboard may offer a forum for impartial contributors to help resolve differences. If you feel insufficient attention is being paid to problems with an article about you, try placing a note on the help desk detailing the problems. Legal problems with material in an article about you, please email info-en-q@wikimedia.org promptly with full details. But do not post legal threats on Wikipedia itself (articles, talk pages, noticeboards)—doing so is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules (see WP:No legal threats) and will lead to your being immediately blocked from further editing until you withdraw the threat. If the article about you has no photo, or you can supply a better one, feel free to contribute one under a suitable free content license. (If you did not create the photo yourself e.g. photos from promotional materials, make sure you have the legal authority to release the photo under such a license.) If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged: we want biographies here, not autobiographies. Independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability; it is natural for people to exaggerate in writing about themselves. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If no third party has yet created an article about you, there is the danger that, should the article be vandalised, there will be no interested editors watching and the vandalism may remain uncorrected for long periods. Self-created articles are often nominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. Many editors feel that persons who create autobiographies are exploiting a volunteer project for their own aggrandizement. Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – typically unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then propose one at Articles for Creation instead of creating one directly. Articles for Creation provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time over your own ego. Adding a photo of you to Wikipedia – why you should do it, and how. Adding an audio recording of your voice to Wikipedia – why you should do it, and how. How to report problems in an article about you (also for suggesting updates) Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 (articles about real people that do not assert the importance or significance of their subject can be speedily deleted) Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit Category:Notable Wikipedians Template:Notable Wikipedian Template:Autobiography Template:COI" 63 63 123 :WP:RAS Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions 63 "Request for Admin Sanctions (RAS) is a process to allow the community to consider sanctions against administrators who are claimed to have shown a pattern of misbehavior or abuse in performing administrative duties, with or without the use of admin tools. Administrators accept that they are held to a higher standard of conduct than other editors, and that they may be subject to sanctions differently than non-administrators. The process must be certified by the community and validated by the Arbitration Committee using the methods described herein. The process looks similar to an RfA, but requires certification by four users. Two of these users must be administrators, and all of them must be in good standing and have had a registered user account for a period of no less than one year. The certifying editors should be users who have not been directly affected by a sanction imposed by the admin being brought to RfAS in the prior 6 months. Standards to participate in RfAS discussions are the same as for RfA, including length and format, with certification replacing the nomination sections and other cosmetic changes as the community sees fit. Once initiated, the RfAS must be certified and evidence (including diffs) presented within 48 hours or it may be deleted without prejudice. Once a party has certified an action against an admin, the certifier may not certify another action against the same admin for a period of 12 months, although the party may participate in a later proceeding certified by other editors. === Community participation === Each participant can state their reasons for supporting one of the following options or similar: Affirm (or No Action), Sanction or Desysop. A Bureaucrat may consider any opinion that isn't an Affirm or No action as a call for some type of action, including actions other than the stated option, for the purpose of determining consensus. Participants, the certifying parties and the subject of the RfAS may also ask questions to either the certifying editors or the subject of the RfAS. A discussion area will be available for general discussion of the material. === Modification of process === At any time, the Arbitration Committee or any Bureaucrat may suspend, extend or vacate the entire process for any valid reason and issue a summary dismissal or closing with or without prejudice, at their discretion. In addition, the Arbitration Committee retains subject matter jurisdiction over administrators' behaviour, and may at any time elect to supersede a RfAS with its own procedures (including a summary motion or full arbitration case). Otherwise, the case should be open for discussion for seven days after being certified. If the admin is not available for part of the process, a Bureaucrat should use whatever reasonable actions are needed to insure the process is fair. They should consider all reasonable requests for extension or short term temporary suspension by the admin being brought to the process. The RfAS and talk page should typically be fully protected during temporarily suspended processes, to disallow out of process input. In the event of extraordinary circumstances and unavailability, the community may decide to indefinitely suspend or dismiss a process in a venue such as WP:AN. While the RfAS process is not a vote and there is no numerical ""line in the sand"", the threshold to place sanctions against the administrator is around 50% voting for an option other than Affirm. Discretion is given solely to the Bureaucrat closing the process as to the weight of any vote or comment, including which to discount completely. They may impose other restrictions or sanctions as the situation warrants. The process can only be closed by an uninvolved Bureaucrat regardless of obvious outcome, excepting intervention by the Arbitration Committee. Possible results are within the discretion of the closing Bureaucrat and are limited one or more of the following: No action or Affirm, with or without admonishment or other minor restriction Sanction including topic bans or temporary loss of admin bit up to no more than 6 months Desysop without prejudice to start a new RfA at any time. Every case is deemed to be automatically appealed to ArbCom who has the final say in all desysoping, per existing policy. The closing Bureaucrat will notify ArbCom using a method of their choosing. ArbCom has up to 7 days to either: Endorse and validate the result ""as is"" or with modifications to the sanctions Overturn with prejudice Reverse and Remand for another RfAS, to continue the existing RfAS, or to take the case themselves Continuance for up to 30 days Other acts as they deem necessary.If ArbCom does not act within 7 days, it will be taken as an endorsement of the consensus delivered by the closing Bureaucrat, but they have up to the initial 30 days to overrule themselves for inaction. If no action has been taken by ArbCom for a full 30 days after the RfAS discussion is closed, the bureaucrat's decision can be considered de facto validated. At any time during the RfAS or within 30 days afterward, ArbCom has the option to void the proceedings and take the case up themselves instead, or dismiss outright. Sanctions given should be immediately enacted by the closing Bureacrat and will be considered temporary until validated by ArbCom, unless ArbCom instructs otherwise. The methods and systems for ArbCom to respond, void or validate the process will be decided by ArbCom themselves as an internal process. Once a RfAS has been validated, the community is barred from using only the events that precipitated that RfAS as a basis for future sanctions or RfAS, unless the original RfAS was vacated without prejudice. This does not otherwise prevent those events from being used in further proceedings as evidence of a pattern of abuse." 64 64 125 WP:fork Wikipedia:Forking 64 On Wikipedia, fork or forking may refer to Content forking, the creation of separate articles treating the same subject WP:DISCUSSFORK, holding the same or a similar discussion in multiple places Mirrors and forks, other websites that are mirrors or forks of Wikipedia Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking, frequently asked questions regarding Wikpedia content forking 65 65 132 WP:TLA Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations 65 "Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms are likely to be ambiguous, needing disambiguation. Thus abbreviations should usually be expanded (see Naming conventions (abbreviations)) beforehand. For two- and three-letter combinations, there is generally a list detailing a few or many possible uses. If there is an article that is named that way (e.g. SI, Ur, pH), the page should be used for the article at one of these pages, rather than the page with the abbreviations. Abbreviations pages are a type of disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb. If the case of the abbreviation is important (e.g. for SI Units, symbols for chemical elements), the exact one should be noted. In the sample above: atomic units (au), gold (Au), astronomical unit (AU). See also MB. For two-letter combinations, if there is no article, the page is usually placed at the uppercase version (BA), the lowercase (Ba) redirecting there. Abbreviations with dots usually redirect to the ""undotted"" version, e.g., DC., D.C, D.C., D. C. could redirect to DC. 2-letter Wikipedia:List of two-letter combinations 3-letter see TLA Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from EAA to HZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from IAA to LZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from MAA to PZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from QAA to TZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from UAA to XZZ Wikipedia:TLAs from YAA to ZZZ The following group undisambiguated abbreviations in the Wikipedia namespace. It can be helpful to make sure that the abbreviation links to the abbreviated article title (if such an article exists). List of organizations with .int domain names List of acronyms List of computing and IT abbreviations List of government and military acronyms" 66 66 133 WP:CITEBOMB Wikipedia:Citation overkill 66 "Wikipedia policy requires all content within articles to be verifiable. While adding inline citations is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode. If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability. One cause of ""citation overkill"" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like ""Graphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] of ..."". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. Similar circumstances can also lead to overkill with legitimate sources, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds or against consensus. Another common cause of citation overkill is simply that people want the source they've seen to be included in the article too, so they just tack it onto the end of existing content without making an effort to actually add any new content. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read – unreadable articles do not give our readers any material worth verifying. It is also important for an article to be verifiable. Without citations, we cannot know that the material isn't just made up, unless it is a case of common sense (see WP:BLUE). A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations. Not only does citation overkill impact the readability of an article, it can call the notability of the subject into question by editors. A well-meaning editor may attempt to make a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines appear to be notable through sheer quantity of sources, without actually paying any attention to the quality of the sources. Ironically, this serves as a red flag to experienced editors that the article needs scrutiny and that each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article. It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class (good article status) might add citations to basic facts such as ""...the sky is blue...""[6]. While this might be a good thing in their eyes, the fact that the sky is blue does not usually require a citation. In all cases, editors should use common sense. In particular, remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we do not need citations for the meanings of everyday words and phrases. A common form of citation overkill is adding sources to an article without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people and organizations. Examples of this type of citation overkill include: Citations lacking significant coverage – Citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree.Example: A source which quotes the subject giving a brief soundbite to a reporter in an article about something or someone else.Citations that verify random facts – Citations which don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof.Example: A statement of where the person was born referenced to a source which only verifies that the named town exists.Citations to work that the article's subject produced – A series of citations that Gish gallop their way through a rapid-fire list of content which doesn't help to establish notability.Example: An article about an author sourced to works they have published; an article about an artist sourced to songs that they released.Citations that name drop reliable sources – Citations which are added only to make it seem that 'this topic was covered by X', rather than to actually support any substantive content about the topic.Example: A citation to The New York Times which only verifies that the article topic exists.Some people might try to rest notability on a handful of sources that do not contribute, while other people might try to build the pile of sources up into the dozens or even hundreds instead – so this type of citation overkill may require special attention. Either way, however, the principle is the same: Sources support notability based on what they say about the topic, not just the number of footnotes present. An article with just four or five really good sources is considered better referenced than an article that cites 500 bad ones. Overloading an article with bad citations can backfire if the article is nominated for deletion. Participators may not want to look at all one hundred citations, and they may instead choose to look at just a smaller sample. If they find only unreliable sources or sources that do not discuss the subject in depth, they could recommend deletion. The good sources could be missed. Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention. If you say an elephant is a mammal more than once, provide one only at the first instance. Avoid cluttering text with redundant citations like this: Elephants are large land mammals ... Elephants' teeth are very different from those of most other mammals. Unlike most mammals, which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth, elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives. In addition, as per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This does not apply to lists or tables, nor does it apply when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage. This is correct: In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is ""about the affinity of life"", wherein the characters ""understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival"". Wiater and Bissette see this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependency of the comics industry. Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that ""it's harder to describe it than it is to read it"". He also calls it ""an ecological romance ... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain"", a self-described ""really low concept!"" Equally, he says, ""the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book"", which includes ""maps and a rather long glossary"". Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that ""there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence"".[[Stanley Wiater|Wiater, Stanley]] and [[Stephen R. Bissette|Bissette, Stephen R.]] (eds.) ""Larry Marder Building Bridges"" in ''Comic Book Rebels: Conversations with the Creators of the New Comics'' (Donald I. Fine, Inc. 1993) ISBN 1-55611-355-2 pp. 17–27 This is also correct, but is an example of overkill: In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is ""about the affinity of life"", wherein the characters ""understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival"". Wiater and Bissette see this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependency of the comics industry. Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that ""it's harder to describe it than it is to read it"". He also calls it ""an ecological romance ... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain"", a self-described ""really low concept!"" Equally, he says, ""the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book"", which includes ""maps and a rather long glossary"". Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that ""there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence"".[[Stanley Wiater|Wiater, Stanley]] and [[Stephen R. Bissette|Bissette, Stephen R.]] (ed.s) ""Larry Marder Building Bridges"" in ''Comic Book Rebels: Conversations with the Creators of the New Comics'' (Donald I. Fine, Inc. 1993) ISBN 1-55611-355-2 pp. 17–27 If consecutive sentences are supported by the same reference, and that reference's inline citation is placed at the end of the paragraph as described at WP:CITETYPE, an editor may want to consider using Wikipedia's hidden text syntax to place hidden ref name tags at the end of each sentence. Doing so may benefit others adding material to that paragraph in the future. If that happens, they can uncomment the hidden citations and switch to citing references after every sentence. Having hidden citations could cause confusion however, especially among inexperienced editors, so the approach is strictly optional and should be used cautiously. Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications – such as several different newspapers reprinting the same wire service article, or a newspaper or magazine article getting picked up by a news aggregator – as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact or they may be split up as distinct footnotes for different pieces of content, so watching out for this type of overkill may sometimes require special attention. This type of overkill should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions – when possible, the retained citation should be the originator of the content rather than a reprinter or aggregator, but if this is not possible (e.g. some wire service articles) then retain the most reliable and widely distributed available reprinter (for example, if the same article has been linked to both The New York Times and The Palookaville Herald, then The New York Times should be retained as the citation link.) A similar case is redundant citation of an article that got its information from an article we have already cited. An exception, to many scientific and technical editors, is when we cite a peer-reviewed literature review and also cite some of the original research papers the review covers. This is often felt to provide better utility for academic and university-student users of Wikipedia, and improved verifiability of details, especially in medical topics. Similar concerns about the biographies of living people may sometimes result in ""back-up"" citations to original reportage of statements or allegations that are later repeated by secondary sources that provide an overview. In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to ""outweigh"" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims. This is something like a PoV fork and edit war at once, happening inside the article's very content itself, and is an example of the fallacy of proof by assertion: ""According to scholars in My School of Thought, Claim 1.[1][2][3][4][5] However, experts at The Other Camp suggest that Claim 2.[6][7][8][9][10]"" If this is primarily an inter-editor dispute over a core content policy matter (point of view, source interpretation, or verifiability of a claim), talk page discussion needs to proceed toward resolving the matter and balancing the article. If the dispute seems intractable among the regular editors of the article, try the requests for comments process; the applicable NPOV, NOR or RS noticeboard; or formal dispute resolution. If the matter is the subject of real-world dispute in reliable sources, our readers actually need to know the conflict exists and what its parameters are (unless one of the conflicting views is a fringe viewpoint). Competing assertions with no context are not encyclopedic. Instead, the material should be rewritten to outline the nature of the controversy, ideally beginning with secondary sources that independently describe the conflicting viewpoints or data, with additional, less independent sources cited only where pertinent, for verification of more nuanced claims made about the views or facts as represented by the conflicting sources. Sources that are opinional in nature – op-eds, advocacy materials, and other primary sources – can usually simply be dropped unless necessary to verify quotations that are necessary for reader understanding of the controversy. Contrary views (and approaches to addressing their concerns) include: A cited source usually contains further relevant information than the particular bit(s) it was cited for, and its removal may be thought to ""deprive"" the reader of those additional resources. However, Wikipedia is not a Web index, and our readers know how to use online search engines. In most cases, if a source would be somewhat or entirely redundant to cite for a particular fact, but has important additional information, it is better to use it to add these facts to the article. Or, if the additional material is not quite encyclopedically pertinent to the article but provides useful background information, add it to the ""Further reading"" or ""External links"" section instead of citing it inline in a way that does not actually improve verifiability. An additional citation may allay concerns of some editors that the text constitutes a copyright violation. This is usually a short-term issue, and is often better handled by discussing the evidence on the talk page, if the additional citation does not really increase verifiability (e.g., because the original citation, with which the added one would be redundant, is to a clearly reliable source, and there are no disputes about its accuracy or about the neutrality or nature of its use). As alluded to above, an additional citation may allay concerns as to whether the other citation(s) are sufficient, for WP:RS or other reasons. While this is often a legitimate rationale to add an additional source that some editors might consider not strictly necessary, it is sometimes more practical to replace weak sources with more reliable ones, or to add material outlining the nature of a disagreement between reliable sources. How to approach this is best settled on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page, with an RfC if necessary, especially if the alleged fact, topic, or source is controversial. Adding competing stacks of citations is not how to address WP content disputes or real-world lack of expert consensus. If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less-reputable sources. If all of the citations are to highly reputable sources, another way to trim their number is to make sure that there is a good mix of types of sources. For example, if the six citations include two books, two journal articles, and two encyclopedia articles, the citations could be trimmed down to one citation from each type of source. Comprehensive works on a topic often include many of the same points. Not all such works on a topic need be cited – choose the one or ones that seem to be the best combination of eminent, balanced, and current. In some cases, such as articles related to technology or computing or other fields that are changing very rapidly, it may be desirable to have the sources be as up-to-date as possible. In these cases, a few of the older citations could be removed. For many subjects, some sources are official or otherwise authoritative, while others are only interpretative, summarizing, or opinionated. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred. For example, a company's own website is probably authoritative for an uncontroversial fact like where its headquarters is located, so newspaper articles need not be cited on that point. The World Wide Web Consortium's specifications are, by definition, more authoritative about HTML and CSS standards than third-party Web development tutorials. Try to construct passages so that an entire sentence or more can be cited to a particular source, instead of having sentences that each require multiple sources. Sometimes it may also be possible to salvage sources from a citekill pileup by simply moving them to other places in the article. Sometimes, a source which has been stacked on top of another source may also support other content in the article that is presently unreferenced, or may support additional content that isn't in the article at all yet, and can thus be saved by simply moving it to the other fact or adding new content to the article. === Citation merging === If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote. This can be done by putting, inside the reference, bullet points before each source, as in this example, which produces all of the sources under a single footnote number. Within a simple text citation, semicolons can be used to separate multiple sources. Each of these articles has been corrected. Links here are to previous versions where a citation problem existed. Iris graminea – 275 citations for one section out of 580 in the article, citing 44 unique sources Customs and Excise Department (Hong Kong) – 83 citations for one sentence, part of 139 citations in one paragraph 2004 Madrid train bombings – 17 citations for one sentence Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts – 54 citations to verify one statement (all but one from the same domain) Generation Y – 18 citations for one sentence China–United States trade war – 20 citations for one statement, after the phrase ""advanced technology"" Palestinian Christians – 65 citations in opening paragraph Stewie Griffin – many unnecessary citations White power skinhead – 14 citations for one statement William Evans (Medal of Honor recipient) – 16 citations New York Chiropractic College – 18 citations for notable alumna Ora Golan Carrfour Supportive Housing – 33 citations for one sentence Drifting (motorsport) – 29 citations for one sentence Howard Cosell – 20 citations for one sentence, 3 of which were YouTube. Alvin Duskin – 77 citations for an article not even 70 words in length. William Selig – 22 citations for one sentence. Electrical Transient Analyzer Program - 33 academic citations for lists of features and uses. {{Excessive citations}} {{Excessive citations inline}} WP:Citation underkill – An essay with a contrary viewpoint suggesting to cite every sentence/statement Wikipedia:Wisps' Law Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability Wikipedia:Overlink crisis mw:Extension:HarvardReferences – extension to improve references into Harvard style Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited Category:Citation overkill, for Wikipedia articles that display a case of citation overkill Wikipedia:Must I add a citation? – What should one do on finding a correct but uncited statement in an article." 67 67 134 WP:ADHOMINEM Wikipedia:No personal attacks 67 "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, ""You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?"" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing. Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Threats, including, but not limited to: Threats of legal action Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats) Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together. Contributors often wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says ""Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y"", or ""The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research"", is not a personal attack. However, ""The statement..."" or ""The paragraph inserted..."" is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack because it avoids referring to the other editor in the second person. ""The paragraph inserted here [diff] into the article looks like original research"" is especially advantageous because the diff cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Editors should be civil and adhere to good etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.) === First offenses and isolated incidents === Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding (see Emotions in virtual communication). While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although warning templates may be used for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation may be better received. If possible, try to find a compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack. === Recurring attacks === Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required. === Removal of personal attacks === Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose. Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors (outing), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be removed for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate. === Off-wiki attacks === Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. === External links === Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, privacy violations, or threats of physical violence against any persons who edit Wikipedia, including those who edit for the purpose of attacking another editor, is never acceptable. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. The inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment. The interpretation of this rule is complex. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation. Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration. In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks. === Wikipedia policies and information pages === Attack page Casting aspersions Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes Harassment Libel === Wikipedia essays === Avoid personal remarks WikiBullying Candor Competence is required Do not insult the vandals On privacy, confidentiality and discretion Staying cool when the editing gets hot Gravedancing === Related content === Wikimedia Foundation:Non-discrimination policy" 68 68 135 WP:BLOWITUP Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over 68 "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content. Sometimes, the damage is beyond fixing. While you can edit any page to fix the page content, you can't edit the associations and social history of a page, even if you delete every trace of that page on the wiki. Most often, this is common with perennial policy proposals that have been the subject of so much fighting that even a brilliant, earth-shattering work of genius would face significant opposition just because it's proposal #3941. And no, your version probably isn't a brilliant, earth-shattering work of genius. Your best bet under these circumstances is to let the fight go and let the perennial warriors blow each other up (or at least wear each other out) and try again later, if at all. Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over. This logic may also be applied to sections or parts of an article. With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links. When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it. Deleting severely deficient articles through the WP:AFD process is grounded in established policy. According to WP:DEL-REASON, ""Reasons for deletion include [...] 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia."" Similarly, WP:ATD states that ""If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion."" Thus TNT might be invoked during AfD with caution: deleting articles for the purpose of cleanup can be contentious. The purpose of TNT is cleanup (to ""start over""). Other relevant essays on this topic are WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:Deletion is not cleanup vs. WP:Using deletion as cleanup (opposing views). WP:JUNK WP:BATHWATER Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award WP:FDL WP:TNTTNT WP:Should I fork?" 69 69 138 WP:SRSBSNS Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business 69 It just is. 70 70 141 WP:LAUNDRYLIST Wikipedia:Avoid data-hoarding 70 "This essay describes issues about collecting extensive piles of information about a subject, analogous to hoarders cluttering a room with stacks and stacks of items, filling the room to the ceiling. Likewise, editors must be careful not to crowd, or over-stack, an article with too much data, to the point where all the minute details clutter the page and obscure the overall view of the topic. The solution to an obstructed room, filled by hoarding, is not only to store many items in separate storage areas, but also to throw items away, or delete excessive items. Similarly, some sections of a cluttered page could be moved into spinoff sub-articles, but often, a large amount of detail should be deleted, when it does not help to explain the reasoning, or description of events in the article. For example, in a crime article about a theft from an art gallery, there is no need to itemize every painting or item missing, with size, color and provenance background, even if posted on a crime-events website which repeated details from police reports or an art-gallery press release. Instead, the information should be summarized, by type, counts, artists, and value (etc.), except for specific items noted in many sources, or where details would explain related events, such as how the items were taken or how the items were tracked or recovered. In general, facts within an article should cross-connect to notable aspects of the topic, rather than be presented as a ""laundry list"" of items with little specific impact on the overall topic. For example, in an art theft, an obscure item should be mentioned only if it was crucial to the crime's discovery, tracking, or perhaps capture of some thieves. In sports articles, there has been the problem of recounting the career stats of an athlete's or team's entire history of numerous wins and losses. Those details could be reduced to being a summary of counts, or specifically noting a list as showing only the ""top 20 wins"" or a similar cap on the total myriad of details about the topic. The focus should consider the level of detail appropriate for an encyclopedia, versus contents of a ""record book"" about those sports. An especially difficult problem can occur when navboxes are expanded, with excessive clutter. Navboxes often act as the boxified contents of a category, tacked onto the end of an article. Although many navboxes list similar articles, at a similar level of notability, some other navboxes become cluttered with links to pages which are much different in scope, or notability, and are only remote tangents to the topic of the original article where the navbox has been inserted. Once navboxes link remote tangent topics, then the focus can become a ""slippery slope"" where even navboxes with rare tangents are linked. For example, when creating navboxes which link every other competitor of an event, then some articles have contained dozens of navboxes, one for each major tournament or competition which a person has entered. There are emerging standards to limit the use of navboxes, and infoboxes, to reduce the clutter in an article, or avoid over-simplification of a topic. For example, with film actors, the related navboxes have been pruned to remove filmography lists, so only an entire filmography sub-article should be linked in a navbox, rather than linking all the major films of an actor. It is preferable to list an actor's films in a sortable table, which could be sorted by date, genre, or box-office ticket sales, etc. Listing films in a navbox can over-simplify the ordering and give ""top billing"" to films by alphabetic order, rather than ranking by date or box office, which might be a more important factor for the reader. In general try to limit the number and size of navboxes, in proportion to the size of the articles. A small article should typically have only one navbox, or none at all. Otherwise, the navbox becomes undue weight in the article, as getting more coverage than the main topic of the article." 71 71 144 WP:URS Wikipedia:Reliable sources 71 "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. === Definition of a source === A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. === Definition of published === Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. === Context matters === The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support (See WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation) the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. === Age matters === Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery). With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt. Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing. Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. === Scholarship === Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often. Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. Predatory journals – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see predatory journals). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. For medical content, more guidance is available at WP:MEDRS. Preprints – Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv or bioRxiv, are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS. However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature. === News organizations === News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces. Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies. Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. === Vendor and e-commerce sources === Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to ""Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available. Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems: It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content. === Biased or opinionated sources === Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in ""The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...""; ""According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...""; or ""The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."". === Questionable sources === Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for ""predatory"" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles. ==== Sponsored content ==== Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited. Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter ""S"" added to a page number, or ""Suppl."" in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained. === Self-published sources (online and paper) === Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. ==== User-generated content ==== Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites. Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below. Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. === Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves === Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. === Biographies of living persons === Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. === Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources === Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE). Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. === Medical claims === Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. === Quotations === The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research). === Academic consensus === A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus. === Usage by other sources === How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. === Statements of opinion === Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say ""[Author XYZ] says...."". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. ""Self-published blogs"" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source. The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. === Breaking news === Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats. When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources. The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles). For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs, especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are ""awaiting FDA approval"" or in pre-clinical testing"" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and, even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market. === Headlines === News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles. A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia. A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view. Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting. === Templates === Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including {{notability}} – adds: {{citation needed}} – adds: {{unreliable source?}} – adds: === Policies and guidelines === === Information pages === === Locating reliable sources === === Essays === === Other === How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version) How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version) Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe ""How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet"", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia. How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare" 72 72 145 WP:BLASPHEMY Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy 72 "We already have some rules on how editors should behave here – our code of conduct includes a civility policy, a harassment policy, vandalism policy, and one to prevent personal attacks against editors, specifying ten protected classes. We would like to propose a non-discrimination policy for the English Wikipedia. It would prevent discrimination against additional protected classes and in any instance, more than just editor-to-editor disputes. If there is support, we would propose that the entire Wikipedia community develop this into a policy. There is enormous precedent behind such a policy, with non-discrimination laws in:United States ∙ Canada ∙ United Kingdom ∙ European Union ∙ Full list of national lawsNon-discrimination policy for Wikimedia events, on Meta Non-discrimination policy for Wikimedia technical spaces Non-discrimination policy for Wikimedia New York City events Non-discrimination policy for Wikimedia Foundation employees and contractors Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy for current or prospective users, active from 2006 to 2017 Wikidata has a list of non-discrimination policies at various language Wikipedias. 2009 proposal for a non-discrimination policy largely mirroring WP:NPAThis proposal is co-nominated by User:Ɱ, User:Thsmi002 and User:PointsofNoReturn. Please feel free to add your name here if you wish to co-sponsor this or help in its development and approval process! The intent of the non-discrimination policy is to make English Wikipedia an accessible place where anyone can contribute and a community which anyone is welcome to join. Discrimination negatively affects editor retention. The English Wikipedia community is committed to maintaining open, inclusive, and productive environments. We invite people of all attributes to join and participate in the community, and thus this policy prohibits any discrimination based on identity. This policy also prohibits users from engaging in hate speech: verbal, written, or visual discrimination; harassment; threats; or violence on the basis of any of those factors. This policy prohibits discrimination and hate speech even if the targeted individual or group does not identify as, or is not seen as, part of the protected class they are targeted for. The community supports equal opportunity through this policy, especially regarding user rights requests and reviews, grant applications, and admission to WikiProjects and other associations on the English Wikipedia, as well as informal boards and committees. === Examples === Discriminatory practices affected by this policy include but are not limited to: Discriminatory language (serious, lighthearted, humor, or satire) either from one user to another or generally stated. This includes user pages, any talk pages, pages intended for humor, or any similar spaces. Prejudice, stereotypes, and profiling against members of protected groups. Obstructing changes to articles that aim to improve accessibility for readers (see MOS:ACCESS). Attempts to delete content such as articles, categories, templates, files, data, etc. or an article’s text, images, or other media for discriminatory reasons. Placing unreasonable requirements, conditions, or practices that disadvantage individuals or groups based on their characteristics. Article creation or individual edits to an article that add undue bias or perpetuate stereotypes against protected groups. Granting or reviewing user rights with prejudice against any protected classes the user is or is seen to be a part of. === Posting of personal information === Revealing a user's protected class that is not public on Wikipedia, in the course of discriminatory misconduct or a following discussion about the misconduct, is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Posting another user's personal information is considered harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Posting such information about another user is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that user at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Any edit that ""outs"" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If a user has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Threats to out a user will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited. If you see a user post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information, and anyone else who saw the page, feedback on the accuracy of the material. For the same reason, do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as ""an attempted outing"" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of a user to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. === Consequences for violations === Users who violate this Non-Discrimination Policy are to initially be given warnings, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, community bans, or arbitration. Single incidents of user-to-user personal attacks related to a user's protected class will result in a 24-hour site-wide block. Subsequent misconduct of a similar nature will result in incrementally longer blocks. Incidents of altering content or preventing users from rights, access to groups, and similar offenses, as well as a pattern of discriminatory statements or actions will result in a block with a minimum term of 30 days. Users should feel free to report violations of this policy to an uninvolved administrator, or report at Wikipedia:Discrimination noticeboard." 73 73 150 WP:FIRE Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service 73 Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to the Fire Service, which is the work that firefighters do around the world each day. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices. To indicate interest in reactivating this project, please go to the Talk page and comment. --Penndyl (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Requested moves undated – Murder of Maxwell Confait (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be movedArticles to be split 05 Sep 2022 – 7 World Trade Center (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by YitzhakNat (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 16 Jan 2023 – Draft:2023 La Salle fire (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by BhamBoi (t · c) 26 May 2021 – Draft:International Fire Academy (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by International Fire Academy (t · c) === Structure === Fire Department articles should be structured largely along the following guidelines Infobox - Any article about a specific fire department should use the {{Infobox fire department}} template. History - A brief history of the department. Stations and apparatus - This should be in table format and cited as much as possible. Only active stations should be included. Closed or future stations are not applicable (violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Whenever possible the city or neighborhood of stations should be used rather than just their address Notable incidents - Notable incidents are ones that have their own page on Wikipedia. If no such page exists, the incident doesn't qualify as notable. Popular Culture - Notable depictions of the department in movies and television. === What NOT to include === Do not include the following on a page for a fire department (Remember that Wikipedia is not a stats book nor is it a memorial): A list of fallen firefighters is not notable UNLESS they were killed in an otherwise notable incident, in which case the names of the fallen should be included on the page for the notable incident. For example the members of the FDNY killed in the September 11 attacks. They are not listed on the page for the FDNY but are included in Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. Another example would be the 19 Prescott Fire Department firefighters killed in the Yarnell Hill Fire. List of apparatus specifications. There is no need to detail the make and model of every apparatus in a department's fleet. === Citations === Cite as much information as possible. This way the articles will have more credibility. Extraordinary claims require citations from very reliable sources. If you don't want something you have added to be deleted, cite a reliable source, assuming the source supports your statement. WikiProject Fire Service exists to better coordinate efforts to expand, organize, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to the fire service. This project is a spin off of two great projects which cover related fields: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Protection - discusses areas of fire protection equipment related to fire alarm systems Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management - discusses major disasters which includes many fires and emergency management. === Articles needing infoboxes === Any page that has been tagged with needing an infobox will fall under the Fire Service articles needing infoboxes category. === Articles needing images === Any page that has been tagged with needing an image or a logo will fall under the Fire service articles needing logos or images category. === Departments needing logos === Any page that uses the {{Infobox fire department}} template and does not have an image will be added to Fire departments needing logos category. As long as the image you use is ONLY used in the infobox, you can use this code when you upload the image: ==Summary== {{Non-free use rationale 2 |Description = Logo of the [[FIRE_DEPARTMENT_NAME]]. |Source = URL_IMAGE_OBTAINED_FROM |Article = FIRE_DEPARTMENT_NAME |Purpose = to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. |Replaceability = n.a. |Minimality = Will only appear in the infobox. |Commercial = n.a. }} ==Licensing== {{Non-free logo|image has rationale=yes}} To join this WikiProject, go here! For concerns, questions or comments regarding this project, please contact the following editors: User:Daysleeper47 Categories that may fall within the scope of the Project and have been tagged as such may be found here: Category-Class Fire service articles. Article that may fall within the scope of the Project and have been tagged as such may be found here: WikiProject Fire Service category. 74 74 153 WP:PRODSUM User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary 74 "This is a list of articles tagged according to the WP:PROD policy as of Wed Mar 29 15:59:01 UTC 2023 The time used is that given as argument of the ""dated prod"" template, not the cl_timestamp of the categorylinks table, which is the last time the link between the article and the category changed (this is typically the last time the article entered the category, but could also be the last time the article was renamed). Differences of the order of hours are reported at the end. Time 25:00 is used for articles without a time= parameter The articles this script could not parse are collected in a table at the end of this page. == Parsed == == Failed to parse == == Articles with multiple prod tags == List of films considered ""Oscar bait"" that failed to receive any Academy Award nominations == Date mismatch ==" 75 75 154 WP:CBB Wikipedia:Community bulletin board 75 Welcome to the community bulletin board, which is a page used for announcements from WikiProjects and other groups. Included here are coordinated efforts, events, projects, and other general announcements. 76 76 155 :WP:T :WP:T 76 WP:T is a former shortcut to Wikipedia's tutorial. There are several tutorials: Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), an older version, now preserved for historical reference (target of the shortcut prior to September 2020) Help:Introduction, the newer, up-to-date tutorial Wikipedia:The Wikipedia AdventureWP:T could also be taken to stand for: Wikipedia:Teahouse, a place to ask a question or get help editing Wikipedia:Tips, a collection of tips for editing Wikipedia:Tools, a list Wikipedia:Templates – templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Wikipedia:Task Center Wikipedia:Requested moves/T, a shortcut All pages with titles beginning with Wikipedia:T 77 77 158 WP:WAP Help:Mobile access 77 "It is possible to access and edit Wikipedia on multiple types of devices, such as desktop computers, tablets and smartphones through several different methods, including options for older devices, modern apps for various platforms and options to view content while offline. This is intended for those who want to read and edit on the go. The official mobile version of English Wikipedia is located at https://en.m.wikipedia.org, with the official desktop version of English Wikipedia located at en.wikipedia.org. A toggle switch between mobile and desktop view is available at the bottom of every page. Official applications can be found at: Mobile version of Help:Mobile access Desktop version of Help:Mobile access The mobile version of Wikipedia is located at https://en.m.wikipedia.org. Users of supported mobile devices are automatically redirected to the official mobile version of Wikipedia (this can be overridden by clicking the desktop-view button at the bottom of the page, after which the device will no longer be automatically redirected to the mobile site). Supported: iOS, Android, Opera Mini.TabletsTablets are served a slightly modified version of the mobile site, which makes use of the larger screen size to, e.g., show a table of contents and display all article sections open by default. === Interface options === This mobile version is available for all languages of Wikipedia. It is actively developed, supported and translated. It supports editing; visit any article and you'll see a pencil icon on every section. Anyone, including those who are not logged in, can use the mobile editor. You can also check your watchlist on mobile, add/remove articles from it, and more. If you don't want to use the mobile version, you can find options at the bottom of every page to switch to the desktop version. === Older phones === ==== Legacy browsers ==== Legacy mobile browsers that were fairly advanced during their time, such as NetFront (2.3), should be able to browse the Wikipedia Mobile version without too much effort. Depending on a phone's capabilities, it may be advisable to turn images and JavaScript off. ==== Opera Mini ==== Older featurephones' native browsers commonly have limited functionality and are outdated. If your phone is Java ME-capable, you might consider installing Opera Mini, a Java ME-based Internet browser for mobile phones. Some phones have Opera Mini built-in, and may only require setting the browser up for use. Opera Mini works by sending a request to Opera's servers, which return a compressed and stripped-down page to the phone. Depending on version, Opera Mini is often more functional and up-to-date than the native browser supplied with the phone. Opera Mini has a built-in Wikipedia search facility. Opera Mini website — Various versions are on offer to match the capabilities of a particular phone. === Android === The Android app allows editing articles directly from the app. It has limited capability to show categories and talk pages. It is also available on F-Droid. An Android app for Wikimedia Commons is also community maintained on GitHub. There is an Android app for Wiktionary, although it is no longer supported and has not been updated since August 2013. === iOS === The iOS app also provides a read and write version of Wikipedia, similar to the mobile web version. It allows users to share an article via Facebook and other social websites. It also allows users to find geotagged articles near their current location. It does not allow users to see categories, nor to see the normal desktop version. === KaiOS === The official Wikipedia for KaiOS app provides a read-only version of Wikipedia. KaiOS is a web-based mobile operating system for modern smart feature phones. It is a successor of the discontinued Firefox OS and popular in many regions.Get it on KaiStore === iOS apps === Many iOS apps exist for browsing Wikipedia. Besides the mobile version of the site, the only app capable of editing Wikipedia is the official one. === Android apps === See all ""Wikipedia"" apps in the Google Play store EveryWiki for Android Kiwix Offline viewer The desktop version of English Wikipedia is located at en.wikipedia.org If a browser is installed for general use, it can be used to access the general Wikipedia site, also for editing, depending on limitations of the browser. A toggle switch between mobile and desktop view is available at the bottom of every page. user style and preferences can be adapted to customize and optimize user interfaces for mobile devices. For example, navigation popups may or may not be convenient on mobile devices. === Metro-style === Metro-style apps provides a read-only version of Wikipedia, similar to the mobile web version. The app when used in Windows RT is incapable of showing moving pictures. Index of Windows 10 apps Media can be controlled with the keyboard. F toggles fullscreen, m toggles mute and both k and space toggle between playing and pausing the media. The following mobile browsers can play video and audio files on Wikipedia: Browsers not listed here are not supported at all. === Audio === A computer-generated audio (speech synthesis) version of all Wikipedia articles is provided by the Pediaphon service. It is usable on- and off-line with common MP3 players, PDAs, and with every phone via voice call. Pediaphon can be used as a location-based service. Pediaphon Amazon Kindles have access to Wikipedia content via the Kindle software's built-in web browser. All content is shown in black-and-white (all colored images and graphs are converted); this is a limitation of the Kindle's display hardware. Animation support is also poor, and some rendering bugs exist, such as a tendency for random portions of reference lists to become invisible. The Wiki-as-Ebook project provides massive encyclopaedias for E-Book-readers created from a large set of Wikipedia articles (commercial; 2013). Colored images are converted to grayscale. Offline access to English Wikipedia can be done in many ways. The OpenZIM format uses the free Kiwix software available in the Microsoft Store, on Google Play and Apple's iOS App Store to view Wikipedia offline. A series of ""customized apps"" have also been released, of which Medical Wikipedia and PhET simulations are the two largest. OrThe Version 1.0 Editorial Team works on publishing sets of Wikipedia articles in print, CD, DVD, or some combination thereof. In 2008, SOS Children published a Wikipedia CD Selection for schools, which may be viewed at schools-wikipedia.org, and is available for free download via the charity's website. OrTry one of the other external applications listed below which allow you to download a copy of Wikipedia's database and then view, search, and browse it offline. XOWA: (instructions) aarddict: (instructions) BzReader (for Windows): (instructions) WikiTaxi (for Windows): (instructions)Raw data dumpEnglish Wikipedia dumps in SQL and XML: dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/ and the Internet Archive. The database can be downloaded here, but you will need to set up a web server, PHP, MySQL and our wiki software, MediaWiki, to make use of it. OrDownload here the data dump using a BitTorrent client. The mobile version is based on the MobileFrontend extension of the MediaWiki software, and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation's Reading Web team. Learn more about: The projects we are currently working on Advanced mobile contributions Our software component responsibilities The mobile web interfaceSupport: Email, Twitter, Mobile-l mailing list, IRC: #wikimedia-mobile connect Report a new bug or view the list of known bugs Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices (essay) User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing (User essay) Wikipedia:Spoken articles Help:Printing Help:Import Help:Downloading pages Help:Cascading Style Sheets Wikipedia:Open proxies Wikipedia:Dyslexic readers Help:Multilingual support for Android Help:Options to hide an image Template:If mobile – template that differentiates content based on whether the viewer is using a mobile device" 78 78 161 WP:UKRAINE Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine 78 === Active participants === To join WikiProject Ukraine, edit this section and insert the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest into the following list of participants in alphabetical order. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. === Participant identification === WikiProject Ukraine participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject Ukraine participants. For other Ukraine user templates see Category:Ukraine user templates. Please add new requests here, to the top of the list.Please include your signature so that the request will have the date included. Avangard Sports Complex in Kiev, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Draft:Yosypivka, Zolochiv Raion, Lviv Oblast Marleeashton (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Kopychyntsi urban hromada --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Dubovichi --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Ivan Karpenko-Karyi Vziel (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Salina mine — approximately 3600 Ukrainians were murdered, filling the 100+ meter mine to the brim with bodies —Morfal (sup) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Order No. 0078/42 for the deportation of the Ukrainians —Morfal (sup) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Zahid operation —Morfal (sup) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Malynovyj Klyn (or, Crimson Ukraine?) —Morfal (sup) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Color Music Children's Choir DTM (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Володи́мир Іва́нович Пасивенко-Artist- Need help with proper Romanization of his name.(talk) andreas karalis (?-1961) former kiev conservatory director, argentinian immigrant from ukrainian and greek origins, piano teacher to Lalo Schifrin.--Franco Libertini Karalis (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Avenue (special operation), or Wagnergate https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2021/11/17/inside-wagnergate-ukraines-brazen-sting-operation-to-snare-russian-mercenaries/ Polish–Ukrainian War - Comments [1]on the issue of civilian casualties would be appreciated. Faustian (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Malorossiya (State) - Russian separatists just declared a new state, country in Ukraine [2] Luki1223 (talk) Second Kiev Artillery College - got a category for alumni but not the college Le Deluge (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Information war during the Russian-Ukrainian War - need to write an article similar to Information war during the Russo-Georgian War about the current Russian information war against Ukraine beginning with the Euromaidan, through the takeover of Crimea and continuing today with the conflict in Donbas.--Sanya3 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Intercession Convent, Kievuk, ru --Off-shell (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Shkvarky.uk, ru, cs See also Čvarci for the Balkan variety. The Pork rind article describes it shortly. --Off-shell (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Artemovsk Wineryru, uk, Company website in Artemivsk. One of the largest European manufacturers of sparkling wines. --Off-shell (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) uk:Церква святого Євстахія (Облазниця) — Can someone translate from Ukrainian? Шиманський Василь (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Vladyslav Troitskyi, DAKh Center for Contemporary Art and DakhaBrakha. All have UA articles and extensive media-coverage. Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Basil Hnylosyrovuk — Ukrainian teacher, writer, educator.--Шиманський Василь (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Mlynky Cave (uk:Печера «Млинки») - one of the largest horizontal cave in earth. --DixonD (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Grand Canyon (Crimea) Aka the Grand Canyon of Crimea, there is already an article in Russian and Ukrainian only. --213.5.25.27 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Ukraine parliament crisis, 2006 (moved from main requests Apr 1, 2012) Early Slav expansion Metropolitan Oleksiy (Hromadsky) Political reform in Ukraine (2004) {{WikiProject Ukraine}} — links to this article, from articles' talk pages. Placed at the top of talk page. Please see template documentation for parameter usage. {{PD-UA-exempt}} — image tag for PD-Ukraine-Exempt images {{PD-Ukraine}} — image tag for PD-Ukraine images, published before January 1, 1952 {{Iw-ref|uk|uk article name|date of translation}} — template to use when an article is a translation of an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia {{ZN-2}} — template to use when citing an article from the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia newspaper ==== Stubs ==== {{Ukraine-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukraine; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-geo-stub}} — stub notice for articles about the Ukrainian geography; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-hist-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian history; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-bio-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian people; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-politician-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian politicians; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-footy-bio-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian football players; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-athletics-bio-stub}} — stub notice for articles about people connected with the sport of athletics (track and field) in Ukraine; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-figure-skater-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian figure skaters; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-company-stub}} — stub notice for articles about Ukrainian companies or corporations; placed at the bottom of article pages. {{Ukraine-struct-stub}} - stub notice for articles about Ukrainian buildings and structures; placed at the bottom of article pages.Note: Please do not create further stub templates or categories without proposing them at WP:WSS/P first.See also: Category:Ukraine stub templates See also: Category:Ukraine templates Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2023 Brovary helicopter crash to be moved to Brovary helicopter crash. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC) To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject. 79 79 162 WP:BLPSTYLE Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 79 "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons (""BLPs"") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. === Tone === BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. === Balance === Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. === Attack pages === Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. === Challenged or likely to be challenged === Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. === Avoid misuse of primary sources === Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. === Self-published sources === ==== Avoid self-published sources ==== Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. ""Self-published blogs"" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. See § Images below for our policy on self-published images. ==== Using the subject as a self-published source ==== There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. === Avoid gossip and feedback loops === Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. === Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced === Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. See § Role of administrators, below. === Further reading, External links, and See also === External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the ""Further reading"" or ""External links"" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the ""Further reading"" or ""External links"" sections of that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the external links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. ""See also"" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research. === Avoid victimization === When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. === Public figures === In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe."" Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of ""messy"" and stick to the facts: ""John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."" Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. === People who are relatively unknown === Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. === Privacy of personal information and using primary sources === With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider ""most likely"", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight. A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of ""today is my 50th birthday"" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. === Subjects notable only for one event === Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. === People accused of crime === A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information. === Privacy of names === Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. === Non-article space === Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. === Usernames === Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living persons should be immediately blocked and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind of non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about living persons, regardless of the legitimacy of the information and whether or not the information is correct. Requests for removing such usernames from logs should be reported to the Oversight team for evaluation. === Images === Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited. Images of living persons that have been created by Wikipedians or others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy. === Categories, lists, and navigation templates === Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.) These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities. === Deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons === ==== Recently dead or probably dead ==== Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 28 March 1908 []) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even without confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy. ==== Legal persons and groups ==== This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. === Importance of maintenance === Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required. === Templates === {{BLP}} alerting readers to this policy may be added to the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that focus on living persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for articles containing material on the deceased that also contains material about living persons. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} template is present, you can add |living=yes to the template parameters. If a {{WikiProject banner shell}} template is also present, add |blp=yes to it. For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all. {{BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the talk page of BLP articles that are being discussed on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. For editors violating this policy, the following can be used to warn them on their talk pages: {{uw-biog1}} {{uw-biog2}} {{uw-biog3}} {{uw-biog4}} {{uw-biog4im}} {{uw-bioblock}} for when a block is issuedThe template {{BLP removal}} can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced. === Dealing with edits by the subject of the article === Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005: === Dealing with articles about yourself === Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} on your user talk page. You may also post an explanation of your concern on the biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced. If you are an article subject and you find the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the page history. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective. === Legal issues === Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as VRT). Please e-mail info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself. As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article. === How to contact the Wikimedia Foundation === If you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See Contact us for details. === Wikimedia Foundation resolution === On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect. === Page protection, blocks === Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases, they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See § Templates for appropriate templates to use when warning or blocking for BLP violations. === Contentious topic === ""All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles"" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. === Deletion of BLPs === ==== Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking ==== Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation. ==== Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects ==== Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: ""Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."" In addition, it says: ""Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."" ==== Restoring deleted content ==== To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In the case of an administrator deleting a complete article, wherever possible such disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. ==== Proposed deletion of biographies of living people ==== All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere. Wikimedia Foundation Resolution: Biographies of living people (2009), Media about living people (2013)" 80 80 164 WP:NB Wikipedia:Notability (books) 80 "This guideline provides some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article. A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article. This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline. Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion. Verifiable reliable sources that substantiate that claim must actually exist. ""Notability"" is not a reflection of a book's merit. A book may be brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article about that book. Though the concept of a ""book"" is widely defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs; music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books and librettos; instruction manuals; and exam prep books. Specific guidelines may be developed. Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy. The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (e-books) as well as to traditional books. An e-book that does not meet the criteria of this guideline is nevertheless notable if it meets the criteria of the notability guideline for web-specific content. An e-book that meets the criteria of this guideline does not need to meet the criteria of that guideline in order to be notable. A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books. === Other considerations === ==== Threshold standards ==== A book should have, at a minimum, an ISBN (for books published after 1975 in a country where ISBNs are normally used), and should be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library (if that country has such a national library). For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; in the United Kingdom at the British Library; in Australia at the National Library of Australia; in Canada by Library and Archives Canada; in France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France; in Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; in Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries. However, these criteria are exclusionary rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear. A book included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet the threshold standards. ==== Articles that are plot summaries ==== Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criterion 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ==== Self-publication ==== Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability. Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1. Many vanity press books are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, may be found through a Google Books search, and may be sold at large online book retailers. None of these things is evidence of notability. ==== Books by Wikipedians ==== That a Wikipedia article on a book has been created by the author of that book or by any other interested party such as an editor or member of the editorial staff of that book has no bearing on whether or not that book is notable, though it does mean the person creating or editing that article has a conflict of interest and is expected to abide by the relevant Wikipedia guideline with regard to conflict-of-interest editing and the mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information. Failure to properly disclose a COI may result in the blocking of a user's account, though it is not necessarily a basis for nominating the associated article for deletion. ==== Online bookstores ==== A book's listing at online bookstores Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com, is not an indication of notability because the websites include large numbers of vanity press publications. A listing at any other online bookstore that includes large numbers of vanity press publications should be treated in the same way. ==== Not-yet-published books ==== Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication. ==== Non-contemporary books ==== The vast majority of books whose Wikipedia articles are nominated for deletion, and whose notability could reasonably be called into question, are contemporary. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria specified above, intended primarily for contemporary books, may be unsuitable because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age. ==== Academic and technical books ==== Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. Articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol clearly warrants a side article on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. When a book has been split too finely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the book's article is appropriate. In some situations—for example, if a given book itself does not appear to be notable, but the author is notable—it may be more appropriate to feature material about the book in the author's article rather than creating a separate article for that book. It may sometimes be appropriate to merge an article on a book into an article that is a bibliography or list of books. This might, for example, facilitate the inclusion of material on anonymous works that, because those works are anonymous, cannot be merged into their authors' articles. If, in such a case, the book cannot be merged only because the notable author's article, or the bibliography or list of books, does not currently exist, consider writing the author's article, or the bibliography or list, yourself or request that it be written. Clicking on any linked ISBN number on Wikipedia takes you to Special:Booksources where preformatted links for the specific book are provided, allowing access to multiple library catalogues, bookseller databases and other book resources. This might be an issue as different formats of a book (i.e. ebook, audiobook, printed book) will have different ISBNs, and they will often not be sequential, especially for older books that were originally published before ebooks or audiobooks existed. The British Library's online catalogue The Library of Congress online catalog: a searchable database useful in identifying publisher, edition, etc. The Literary Encyclopedia: 3,300 profiles of authors, works and literary and historical topics and references of 18,000 works. Norton Anthology of World Literature: useful in the exploration of world literature. Questia Online Library, allows full-text search, and paid subscription reading access to 64,000+ books and 1,000,000+ journal, magazine, and newspaper articles in their collection. Their strength is full text of recent academic books by major publishers such as Oxford University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Greenwood Press, along with thousands of older academic books that are available only in larger university libraries. WorldCat: search for a book in library catalogues. Contains 1.8 billion items in 18,000 libraries worldwide. Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:WikiProject Books Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels" 81 81 167 WP:1Q Wikipedia:The one question 81 On Wikipedia, a great deal of virtual ink is spent debating if various policies, guidelines, and essays apply to specific situations or not, or debating secondary questions about whether or not they have sufficient consensus to apply. When you find yourself in that situation, take a step back, ignore all rules, and ask yourself the one question: Does it make Wikipedia better or not?Answer that question first, then pick whatever policy, guideline, essay, or argument supports the answer. Don't flip the order. If you look at a policy page first, then decide that something is good/bad because that's the conclusion of the policy, you forgot to ask yourself the one question. And you could very well end up supporting an outcome which does not make Wikipedia better. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Fifth pillar of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Because I can 82 82 169 WP:lists WP:lists 82 The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of list-related pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. Help:List (how to create lists) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, including bulleted, unbulleted, numbered, and others Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts (information page summarizing relevant Manual of Style material) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists Wikipedia:Set index articles Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists Wikipedia:Mailing lists 83 83 170 WP:WITHDRAWN Wikipedia:Deletion process 83 "The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep articles, media, and other pages. Normally, a deletion discussion must be held to form a consensus to delete a page. In general, administrators are responsible for closing these discussions, though non-administrators in good standing may close them under specific conditions. However, editors may propose the deletion of a page if they believe that it would be an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. In some circumstances, a page may be speedily deleted if it meets strict criteria set by consensus. Note: Office actions and declarations from the Wikimedia Foundation Board or the system administrators, particularly concerning copyright, legal issues, or server load, take priority over community consensus. The speedy deletion process applies to pages which meet at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), which specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version and to determine whether there was a cut-and-paste move involved, and search for other information which may impact the need or reason for deletion: The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page. The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page. The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it. WhatLinksHere may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be recreated, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.If speedy deletion is inappropriate for a page: Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Doing so will automatically remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Consider notifying the nominator, using {{speedy-decline}} or {{uw-csd}}. (If you're using CSD Helper, it will usually notify the nominator for you; it will normally use its own notification template.)When deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, so that it will be recorded into the deletion log. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but must not be done for attack content or copyrighted text. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion. If they wish, administrators are free to use the CSD Helper user script to help them process editors' CSD nominations. It makes the process smoother and quicker. The proposed deletion (PROD) process applies to articles and files that do not meet the stringent criteria for speedy deletion, but for which it is believed that deletion would be uncontroversial. In this process, an editor places a tag on the article or the file, and any editor can remove the tag to save the page. If the tag remains after seven days, the page can be deleted. For instructions on handling articles and files that have been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deletion. A stronger version of the proposed deletion criteria (BLPPROD) applies to articles about biographies of living people with no sources. Their deletion can only be contested by adding a source. The deletion discussion processes apply to pages which are formally nominated for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue. Although the steps for closing deletion discussions vary from one deletion discussion venue to another, a few general principles apply at all venues. === Deletion venues === Deletion venues (or deletion forums) are the six places to propose a page not eligible for speedy deletion be deleted: === Consensus === Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.) === Concerns about conduct or views === Inappropriate canvassing and suspected meatpuppetry: Evaluate whether it has influenced the outcome of the discussion in a way that compromised the standard consensus-building process. If appropriate, remind participants that deletion discussions are not a vote, and link to a suitable information page. Remember to assume good faith in your tone – the participants may well intend to help by doing what they think is right. Sock-puppetry: If blatant, individual comments may be tagged (this is likely to be seen as lacking good faith or offensive if the case is not clear). If unsure, report as usual for suspected sock-puppetry, and indicate your concern and reason in the debate for the closer and future participants, but in a way that addresses the debate rather than attacking the user. Conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g., an inappropriate supermajority view without an appropriate basis): Remember that you have quite a few options. These include commenting yourself, rather than closing, or extending the period of discussion, noting this is done due to concerns and to allow other editors to comment. Also remember that nobody is obligated to close a discussion, nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended. === Deletion requested by subject === Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy and BLP policy (request for deletion). Closers should review these policies to confirm the criteria are met, and then use their discretion. === Common outcomes === A deletion discussion may end with one of a number of distinct outcomes, with certain outcomes being more common at certain deletion discussion venues. When considering closing a discussion, be aware that: Other (non-standard) decisions, and ""combinations"", may sometimes be appropriate at the closer's discretion. For example, ""Merge and delete"" or ""Rename and merge"". The closer should aim in any case, to decide based upon consensus, and policy and community norms. It can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear – this is especially true in heated and high public profile cases, or where many views will be given little weight (or a few views given substantial weight), or where the basis of the close may be misunderstood or reviewed by others. There is never an obligation to close – in some cases (see ""concerns"") it may be preferable to comment oneself, instead, even if the ""due date"" for closing has been reached, and leave the close to another user. === Nomination errors and issues === In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require correcting, moving elsewhere, or a null outcome (""procedural close""), due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself: A deletion discussion that is poorly formatted should not be closed for this reason alone, in order to avoid biting new users. Instead, fix it. === Early closure === In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe. Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the entirety of the seven-day period. If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times. If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to: relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions'); closing as ""no consensus"" with ""no prejudice against speedy renomination"" (NPASR); closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal; soft deleting the article. Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely problematic articles with an appropriate redirection target may be blanked and redirected by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option. Discussions are usually closed after seven days (168 hours). If there is a lack of comments, or the action to take is unclear, the discussion may be relisted for an additional seven days. Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions, but experienced users in good standing may relist pages. === Relisting discussions === The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted. However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. Discussions where there is minimal participation should be evaluated by the closing administrator as an expired PROD before deciding whether it is appropriate to relist. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a ""no consensus"" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. However, if adding comments within {{relist}}, please keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia administration template, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome. When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts and gadgets such as XFDcloser automate the process. === Non-administrators closing discussions === In general, administrators are responsible for closing deletion discussions, but non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions, with the following provisions: Like all discussions, deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not fairly experienced, or are unfamiliar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, do not close such discussions. Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages. Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan. Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily). Exception: closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep, when all other viewpoints were for keep as well. Non-admins should indicate their non-admin status with the {{nac}} (""non-admin close"") template, which should always be substituted e.g.{{subst:Afd top}} '''Keep''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale. Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer. === Transwiki === If consensus indicates a transwiki should take place, but you do not want to complete the transwiki process immediately: Add a new entry to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki. Add the appropriate tag to the article: {{Copy to Wikisource}} {{Copy to Wikiquote}} {{Copy to Wikibooks}} {{Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook}} {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} To search for any mention of an existing fullpagename of interest in ""all discussion types"" listed above, go to the page of interest, and preview this line in any of its wikitext: {{ #lst: WP: Deletion process | search links }} These three search links will then appear in this box (but in warning coloration): From that preview, activate a search. From search results, modify the query, return to the preview, or not. Preview is safe. Return and search all three. === Pages with many revisions === The deletion of pages with long histories may impact server performance. As a precaution, therefore, deletions of pages with more than 5,000 revisions require the special ""bigdelete"" user right, which administrators do not have. Such deletions can be requested of stewards at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. WP:Relist bias" 84 84 171 WP:DUEWEIGHT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 84 "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are ""Verifiability"" and ""No original research"". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that ""genocide is an evil action"" but may state that ""genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."" Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that ""According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis"" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. === Naming === In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names ""Boston Massacre"", ""Teapot Dome scandal"", and ""Jack the Ripper"" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, ""Derry/Londonderry"", ""Aluminium/Aluminum"", or ""Flat Earth (Round Earth)"" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate. Some article titles are descriptive rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled ""Criticisms of X"" might be better renamed ""Societal views on X""). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. === Article structure === The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear ""true"" and ""undisputed"", whereas other, segregated material is deemed ""controversial"", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. === Due and undue weight === Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ""see also"" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well. Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See ""No original research"" and ""Verifiability"". === Balance === Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. ==== Balancing aspects ==== An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. ==== Giving ""equal validity"" can create a false balance ==== See: False balance While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. === Selecting sources === In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. ==== Bias in sources ==== A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. === Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations === Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art. === Words to watch === There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in ""Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich"", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, ""Jim said he paid for the sandwich"". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources). === Attributing and specifying biased statements === Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, ""John Doe is the best baseball player"" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: ""John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."" Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: ""John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006."" People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this. Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, ""Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player."" Which people? How many? (""Most people think"" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.) === Point-of-view forks === A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. === Making necessary assumptions === When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate. Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these. === Fringe theories and pseudoscience === Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience. === Religion === In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as WP:secondary and WP:tertiary sources. Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: ""Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."" Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, please review the links below. === Being neutral === ""There's no such thing as objectivity"" Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously? Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? A simple formulation—what does it mean? A former section of this policy called ""A simple formulation"" said, ""Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves."" What does this mean? === Balancing different views === Writing for the opponent I'm not convinced by what you say about ""writing for the opponent"". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie to represent the view I disagree with? Morally offensive views What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them? === Editor disputes === Dealing with biased contributors I agree with the nonbias policy, but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do? Avoiding constant disputes How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? === Other objections === Anglo-American focus The English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Not answered here I have some other objection—where should I complain? ""Neutral Point Of View"" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled ""Non-bias policy"", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's ""rules to consider"". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Wikipedia was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001. Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as ""non-negotiable"", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008 No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was established in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental. === Policies and guidelines === Conflict of interest Fringe theories Words to watch No original research Verifiability === Noticeboards === NPOV noticeboard === Information pages === === Essays === === Articles === === Templates === General NPOV templates: {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems {{POV section}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed {{POV lead}}—message when the article's introduction is questionable {{POV statement}}—message when only one sentence is questionable {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned {{Political POV}}—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned {{Fact or opinion}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g., ""Jimmy Wales says"") {{Attribution needed}}—when in-text attribution should be added Undue-weight templates: {{Undue weight}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole {{Undue weight section}}—same as above but to tag a section only {{Undue weight inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only" 85 85 172 WP:IPNA Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 85 "We are Wikipedians who have formed a project to improve, maintain, and organize the information in articles related to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. We hope this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. This page and its subpages contain our suggestions and discussions. If you would like to help, please introduce yourself on our talk page and add your name as a participant! Or, jump in and expand a stub article with reliable sources. Feel free to ask for help ... WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America descended from the WikiProject Ethnic groups. It covers all information on Indigenous peoples of the Americas available at Wikipedia, with the purpose of providing a unified coordination of all articles, stubs, categories and lists on the topic and closely related subjects. The aim of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is: to organize our content, to improve our content when possible to detect missing and incomplete articles and either create them or enhance them, and to provide a coordinated effort in this direction. This project aims to encompass all historic, ethnic, and cultural aspects of the many groups collectively described as Indigenous peoples of North America, including Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Kalaallit of Greenland, Native Americans in the United States, and indigenous peoples of Mexico (parts of Mexico within the Mesoamerican culture areas are often excluded from North America). === A special note for our First Nations, American Indian, Native American, and Indigenous contributors === === Redlinked entries in List of Native American politicians === === Lists of missing articles === Concise Encyclopedia of the American Indian Encyclopedia of Native American Biography Encyclopedia of American Indian Wars, 1492-1890 As of 29 March 2023, there are 13,275 articles within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, of which 29 are featured. This makes up 0.2% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.28% of featured articles and lists. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 33,800 pages in the project. === Our articles by category === Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories. Standardize articles about different tribes, personalities, and (when possible) historical events and cultural aspects. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project. Create, expand and cleanup related articles. List of all subpages of this pageIf possible, the natural place to be used as the discussion forum is the project's talk page. Whenever needed, discussion can be moved to a more appropriate place regarding a particular matter. === Essays and Guidelines === Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities - what category does that bio belong in? What to do with the person claiming a ""WP:CHEROKEEPRINCESS"" grandmother? === Manual of Style and Policy on Wikipedia === MOS:CITIZEN, MOS:NATIONALITY and MOS:ETHNICITY are direct links to the Context section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, which includes this under Nationality Examples:Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.For example: Wilma Pearl Mankiller (Cherokee: ᎠᏥᎳᏍᎩ ᎠᏍᎦᏯᏗᎯ, romanized: Atsilasgi Asgayadihi; November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American (Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. WP:TRIBE is the shortcut to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and also covers many of issues addressed above. === Style Guides === Style Guides on Indigenous terminology and other issues. Like ""Native American"", ""Indigenous"" is capitalized when referring to people. From the Associated PressAP changes writing style to capitalize ″b″ in Black. By The Associated Press, June 19, 2020. ""The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.""From APA styleAPA Style - Racial and Ethnic Identity. Section 5.7 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition, September 2019. Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. ... capitalize terms such as “Native American,” “Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize “Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations”).From The Chicago Manual of StyleCapitalization: 'We would capitalize “Indigenous” in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase “indigenous” would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species.'From the Native American Journalists AssociationReporter's Indigenous Terminology Guide ""So you need an Indigenous Expert... Start here"" NAJA AP Style Guide More reporting guides, on water protectors arrested at actions, etc.Some example of WP:RS publications and media outlets that capitalize ""Indigenous"" when referring to Indigenous people (not a complete list, by any means) The New York Times [14] Chicago Tribune [15] Los Angeles Times [16] The Christian Science Monitor [17] Forbes [18] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): [19] The Guardian [20] === External links === Tribal newspapers, TV, journals, contacts - even if not necessarily WP:RS, if there might be useful info, resources or links therein, add it here. === Reference books === Phillip M. White (October 2004). Bibliography of Native American bibliographies. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31941-9. Fagan, Brian M. (2000). Ancient North America: The archaeology of a continent (3rd ed.). New York: Thames and Hudson. Landar, Herbert. (1973). The tribes and languages of North America: A checklist. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics: Linguistics in North America (Vol. 10, pp. 1253-1441). The Hague: Mouton. Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978-present). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 1-20). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. (Vols. 1-3, 16, 18-20 not yet published). Poser, Bill. (2006). The Names of the First Nations Languages of British Columbia. Sonneborn, Liz (2007). A to Z of American Indian Women. A to Z of women (Rev. ed.). New York: Facts On File. ISBN 9780816066940. === Arts and Artists === Everett, Deborah (2008). Encyclopedia of Native American Artists. Artists of the American mosaic, ISSN 1939-1218. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313337628. Reno, Dawn E. (1995). Contemporary Native American Artists. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Alliance Publishing. ISBN 0964150964. Roger Matuz, ed. (1998). St. James Guide to Native North American Artists. Detroit: St. James Press. ISBN 1558622217. Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles Google book tool - Converts bare long Google book url's into short {{cite book}} format. When WikiProject Ethnic groups began in January 2004, this topic was badly lacking in quantity and quality. There were no uniform criteria regarding ethnic matters to be included in Wikipedia. Today, the situation is very different. As of 2013, Wikipedia contains exhaustive quanitites of information on many ethnic matters, and more resources and information are added daily. Organizing and coordinating this large volume of ethnic information remains a challenging task, and has resulted in the creation of new WikiProjects focused on specific ethnic groups. As a great deal of work has been already done both within and outside WikiProject Ethnic groups, the task ahead looks less daunting than that it did in 2004, but no less important and immense for that reason. WikiProject Ethnic groups WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe Wikipedia:WikiProject Native languages of California Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia WikiProject Mesoamerica Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages" 86 86 174 WP:VSCT Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement 86 Vanispamcruftisement (; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau neologism comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: vanity (i.e., conflict of interest), spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by User:Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief résumé of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.These faults all exhibit poor neutrality and any one of them inherently violates Wikipedia's policy on bias. Criteria for Speedy Deletion Conflicts of interest Autobiography Inclusion guidelines for biographies for bands and musicians for companies for web content Guidelines on external linking Wikipedia:Complete bollocks Wikipedia:Cruftcruft Wikipedia:Grief Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create Wikipedia:Listcruft Wikipedia:Spam event horizon Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé User:Durova/The dark side Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell User:Jamyskis/Wiki-Hell 87 87 176 WP: W Help:Watchlist 87 "A watchlist is a page which allows any logged-in user to maintain a list of ""watched"" pages and to generate a list of recent changes made to those pages (and their associated talk pages). In this way you can keep track of, and react to, what's happening to pages you have created or are otherwise interested in. By default, pages are kept permanently on a user's watchlist until such time as they choose to 'unwatch' them. However, various options also exist for temporarily watching pages, from periods between one week and six months. Watching a page means that the recent changes made to it will show up on your watchlist (Special:Watchlist), as well as changes to its associated talk page. Actions affecting watched pages (page moves, page creations and deletions, protection) also appear in the watchlist. For example, if you watch a page that does not yet have a talk page, you will see on your watchlist when someone creates that talk page. If a page you have watched is moved to a new title, the new title will be automatically added to your watchlist. Even if the page is later moved back (and even if the page at the new title is deleted), the new title will remain in your watchlist along with the old one. If you notice mysterious nonexistent pages appearing on your list of watched pages, this is the most likely explanation. When you view Recent Changes, Enhanced Recent Changes or Related Changes, entries relating to pages you are watching appear in bold text. This means that it may be beneficial to mark pages as ""watched"" even if you do not intend on viewing the Special:Watchlist page. === Privacy === No user, not even administrators, can tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. However, developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. === Number of watchers === For any particular page, it is possible to discover how many users have it on their watchlist. Under the Tools panel of the left sidebar go to Page information where ""Number of page watchers"" is shown. If the number is less than 30 it is displayed only to administrators for reasons of privacy and security. === Email notification === Watching a page allows you to receive email notification of changes to it. To enable this feature, select ""Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed"" at the bottom of the User Profile tab in Special:Preferences. (Currently, it is not possible to limit email notifications by page – you will receive notification when any page on your watchlist is changed.) === RSS feed === You can also monitor your watchlist via RSS (RSS feed when logged in). You can also monitor your watchlist via RSS when logged out – see Wikipedia:Syndication#Watchlist feed with token. There are four ways to control which pages you have on your watchlist: Tab at top of page: When viewing a page, click the star symbol between the 'View history' tab and the search box at the very top of the page, to respectively add or remove the page from your watchlist. Note that the star symbol is available in the default website design (""skin""); in other skins, the tab says ""watch"" or ""unwatch"". Watching pages that don't exist: You can watch a page even if neither the content page nor the talk page exists, enabling you to be alerted if either the content page or the talk page is created. To do that, go to the page's URL, either by typing the URL directly or following a (broken) link, and then press ""Watch"" (depending on the skin you may have to press Cancel first). Option at bottom of edit box: When editing a page, check or uncheck ""Watch this page"" before saving (above the 'Show preview' button). Edit entire watchlist: Click ""Edit your list of watched pages"" button at the top of the watchlist page to view or alter the list of watched pages directly. The first option takes you to Special:Watchlist/edit, where the watched pages are listed with checkboxes which can be used to remove items. The second takes you to Special:Watchlist/raw, which has a text area with a list of watched pages, one title per line, sorted by namespace number and then alphabetically. You can edit the list directly, copy it to an external editor or replace it with a list created elsewhere. Duplicates are automatically removed on saving. In the list, redlinked (non-existent) pages are still watched, as are their talk pages, and this applies to subpages and their talk pages. When you click watch (star) on, for example, a User Talk: page, the link is canonicalized to User: in the list. Popups gadget: If you have the popups gadget enabled, you can use it to watch or unwatch a linked page without having to view it.If you check ""Add pages I edit to my watchlist"" on the ""Watchlist"" tab of your user preferences, then the ""Watch this page"" checkbox will always be checked by default when you edit pages. Other similar options are ""Add pages I create to my watchlist"", ""Add pages I move to my watchlist"", and (for administrators) ""Add pages I delete to my watchlist"". Twinkle has the option to automatically add articles it's used on to your watchlist (including PROD nominations, XfD nominations and reverts). To change these settings, go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. It should also be noted that: Because no one owns any article, there is no requirement to watch articles you have created or contributed to, so you are not expected to check to see whether the content has been vandalised, challenged (e.g., for lack of sources), discussed on the article's talk page, and so forth. The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page. Talk pages are not listed at Special:Watchlist/edit or Special:Watchlist/raw, but they are automatically watched whenever their corresponding non-talk pages are watched. Additional page titles may sometimes appear on your watchlist as a result of page moves. === Temporarily watching pages === A new watchlist feature (Watchlist Expiry) was introduced in 2020. It enables users to optionally select to watch a page only for a limited period of time. (1 week, 1 month, 3 months or 6 months). This is done by clicking the hollow blue star icon and selecting the preferred time period in the dropdown which then appears. Once the chosen watch period has expired, the page is automatically removed from your watchlist. You can alter the watch period at any time, including switching from temporary to permanent watching, or unwatching completely at any time. Temporarily watched pages are usually represented by a half-filled blue star icon (as opposed to a fully-filled blue star, which represents a permanently watched page). If you simply want to permanently watch a page as usual, you do not need to change any of your current processes. === Clearing the watchlist === To remove all entries in the watchlist click on Clear the watchlist. You will be prompted to confirm your selection. Once confirmed, all entries will be removed from your watchlist. There is no way to reverse this action. You may want to back up your watchlist locally by copying all of the lines from the raw watchlist to a file before clearing. === Limitations === Special pages: It is not possible to watch automatically generated pages, such as Special pages. Category membership: Watching a category page will pick up changes to the text of the category page itself. If ""Hide categorization of pages"" is disabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, or ""page categorization"" is unchecked after ""Hide:"" on the watchlist, then it will also show pages being added or removed from the category. However, it will not report changes to subcategories or member pages contained in the category. Transcluded text: When a watched page contains transcluded text, such as templates, the form of the page may change as a result of changes to the transcluded pages. These changes will not show up on your watchlist unless you are watching the transcluded pages as well. Sections: It is not possible to watch just a part or section of a page. However, for talk pages, it is possible, though not through the watchlist, to subscribe to receive notifications for changes to sections. Other wikis: It is not possible to receive watchlist notices on the English Wikipedia for changes made to pages watchlisted on other Wikipedia languages or Wikimedia wikis. See Wikipedia:Global watchlist for work on this. When you are logged in to Wikipedia, a link, Watchlist, appears at the top of every page. This links to the special page Special:Watchlist, reporting recent changes to your watched pages. It is a list separated by days, ordered backwards according to the time of the edit. Each line of a Watchlist (or Recent Changes page) shows details of each edit: whether minor (m), whether made by a bot (b), if a new page was created (N), if the edit was at an associated Wikidata page (D), the time, a link to the page, a link to the difference (""diff"") made by the edit in question, a link to the page history (""hist""), the editor's user name or IP address, the increase (green) or decrease (red) in the number of bytes, e.g. (+76), (-490) and, if over 500, in bold: (+794), (-2,412), an arrow with a URL link to the specific section that was edited, and the edit summary. Wikipedia:Added or removed characters has more about the green and red numbers. In August 2016 the English Wikipedia got ORES. When enabled at Beta, it displays a red r at edits which were flagged by the ORES system as potentially damaging. When disabled, the legend says r but no edits are marked. Beta features may change. Technically, the watchlist is just a way to filter recent changes to the wiki, and therefore has the same technical limitation of only showing changes made in the last 30 days.Pages that have been changed since you last visited them are shown with a green marker. === Options === There are various options available to control how the list of changes is displayed: Show/hide different types of edit: You may choose to hide or show minor edits, bot edits, one's own edits, edits by anonymous users, edits by logged-in users, page categorization and edits made at a Wikidata page associated with a watched page. Links for this purpose appear at the top of the watchlist page. Initially the default behavior for all of these is ""show"", except for Wikidata. The Wikidata option is omitted if you enable ""Group changes by page"" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. It does not work with this feature. The defaults can be changed using the options available on the ""Watchlist"" tab of your user preferences. If the most recent edit to a page is hidden and ""Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent"" is not enabled in preferences then the page will not appear on the watchlist. An earlier edit is not shown instead. Time period covered: You can choose how many hours or days you want the list of changes to go back, using the links at the top of the watchlist. For the maximum (30 days), select ""all"". For non-standard values, select one of the available links and then edit the value after ""days="" in the URL. The default value, which must be a number of days not greater than 7, is set on the ""Watchlist"" tab of your user preferences. Note that there may be a later cut-off due to the limit on the number of displayed changes, described below. Restrict by namespace: You can restrict the list to changes in a specified namespace, using the ""Namespace"" drop-down box (check ""Invert selection"" to exclude the specified namespace). Enhanced watchlist: You can elect to display only the last edit to each watched page (""Simple watchlist""). This is currently the default, but can produce misleading results (for example, if the last edit to a page was minor, then there is no indication that a previous non-minor edit occurred). To ensure that all changes are displayed, check the ""Expand watchlist..."" option on the ""Watchlist"" tab of your user preferences. Having selected the expanded watchlist, you can choose ""enhanced"" display mode, which groups together all changes made to each page on a given day. Click on the blue arrows to the left of the list to expand or collapse each group. This option applies to both the watchlist and recent changes, and for this reason appears on the ""Recent changes"" tab of user preferences, not the ""Watchlist"" tab. You may choose to set the ""Maximum number of changes to show in expanded watchlist"" (on the ""Watchlist"" tab of user preferences). The maximum possible number of changes to display is currently 1000. If this causes a later time cutoff than you desired, you can see earlier changes by filtering by type or namespace, as described above. It is possible to go beyond the standard options available in the ""Watchlist"" tab of your user preferences (see #Options section above). In particular, you can customize your watchlist using CSS, by editing your skin.css page. See Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists for details. === Hiding pages from a watchlist === It is possible to watch a page without watching its associated talk page; it is also possible to watch only a talk page. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Hide Pages in Watchlist. By default, an account can have only one watchlist. However, it is possible to set up watchlist-like functionality using the ""Related changes"" feature, in a way that effectively enables a user to achieve multiple watchlists. These are visible to anyone. To do this, create a page (normally in your own user space) containing links to the pages you wish to watch. Changes to those pages can then be monitored by going to the user page and clicking ""Related changes"". Note that in this case the talk pages corresponding to ""watched"" pages are not automatically included, and that changes to the user page itself will not be picked up. Related Changes can also be used to monitor changes to pages belonging to a category, including the addition of pages to the category. However, the removal of pages from the category is not detected. Custom tools are available to change the behavior of the watchlist, including User:MusikAnimal/customWatchlists, which allows watchlist entries to be categorized. The template {{delmon}} may be used to generate a watchlist-like page that indicates the status of pages with respect to the various deletion processes. Watchlist notices are messages which are posted at the top of all users' watchlists, for example to publicize changes or discussions which are of importance for the whole editing community. Users are able to dismiss these messages when they have read them. The messages are placed via the message page MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages (editable by administrators only). If you are experiencing a technical issue with your watchlist, such as the watchlist not updating after an edit has been made to one of your watched articles, the issue can be reported on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Change detection and notification Wikipedia:Don't overload your watchlist! Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical) (alphabetical) The Missing Manual: Monitoring changes Watchlist user scripts User:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js – Custom script, provides ability to selectively hide and/or highlight changes in a user's watchlist display User:Evad37/Watchlist-openUnread – Custom script, allows you to open multiple unread diffs of your watchlist at once and thereby to manage large watchlists. mw:Help:Watching pages Watchlist table (MediaWiki technical documentation) Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages (by namespace) (users) WikipediaVision ""Wikipedia editing basics: Watchlists"". YouTube. January 2013." 88 88 178 WP:libel WP:libel 88 The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with referenced information through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Page revisions containing libelous content should also be removed from the page history. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please: Send an E-mail to info-en-q@wikipedia.org with details of the article and situation. === Policies === Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikipedia:No legal threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks === Other related pages === Wikipedia:Contact us Wikipedia does not give legal advice Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing How to avoid libel and defamation (2004)—Information from the BBC for contributors to its defunct community website, Action Network, based on the English law of libel, which differs considerably from U.S. law. Once it's on the Web, whose law applies? Internet policy – Jurisdiction Defamation FAQ at Chilling Effects Clearinghouse 89 89 179 WP:NJSCR Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New Jersey 89 "Hello and welcome to the New Jersey task force of WikiProject U.S. Roads! If you would like to help, please jump in and start adding or editing. The goal of this task force is to cover Interstates, U.S. routes, state routes, county routes, and other notable roads in New Jersey through well-written quality articles. The purpose of this project is to expand and introduce a uniform format to articles dealing with state and county routes in the state of New Jersey. === Content === Articles to be included within the task force: Intrastate U.S. and Interstate routes (i.e. U.S. Route 46, U.S. Route 130, Interstate 195) State detail pages for multi-state routes (i.e. Interstate 95 in New Jersey, U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey) All state routes All 500-series county routes Other county routes are subject to WP:GNG. Otherwise, other county routes should only be covered in a list for that specific county. === Wikipedia articles on New Jersey State and County Routes === State highways in New Jersey County routes in New Jersey All of the task force's articles are assessed using the U.S. Roads WikiProject's quality and importance criteria. User:WP 1.0 bot generates a Statewide assessment statistics table and a Statewide assessment log. In addition, there are County by county statistics which rate assessment by county. === Featured articles === === A-Class articles === === Good articles === === Did you know? articles === === Former good articles === Past selected articles of the task force. List page: State highways in New Jersey Redirect completion list: Completion list === Length === The NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams should be used to find the total length along with mileposts for Interstates, U.S. routes, state routes, and county routes. === History === /History notes New Jersey road articles follow WP:USRD/STDS. === Naming conventions === Articles for state routes are titled New Jersey Route X. Articles for 500-series county routes are titled County Route X (New Jersey). Articles for other county routes are titled County Route X (Whichcounty County, New Jersey). Redirects from alternative names should be made as well. Use this completion list to aid in creating these redirects. === Major intersections/exit list === All New Jersey road articles should have a major intersections or exit list table (depending on the route) following the standards set forth at MOS:RJL, generated using {{jct}}, {{jcttop}}, {{jctint}}, and {{jctbtm}}. Remember to set the state parameter to ""NJ"". Intersections with 500-series county routes can be included in this table on state highways, provided they do not make the list ""too long"". (Either all 500-series routes should be listed, or none.) Intersections with non-500-series routes should only be included on other county routes. They can be included on 500-series routes, but not with state highways (and again, only with 500-series routes if the list does not become too long). For {{jct}}, the following coding should be used: State:{{Jct|state=NJ|NJ|#}} US:{{Jct|state=NJ|US|#}} Interstate:{{Jct|state=NJ|I|#}}. 500-series county routes:{{Jct|state=NJ|CR|#}}. Other county routes:{{Jct|state=NJ|CR|#|county1=whichcounty}}. New Jersey Turnpike:{{Jct|state=NJ|NJTP}}. Garden State Parkway:{{Jct|state=NJ|GSP}}. Atlantic City Expressway:{{Jct|state=NJ|ACE}}. Palisades Interstate Parkway:{{Jct|state=NJ|PIP}}. Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector:{{Jct|state=NJ|ACBC}}. Ocean Drive:{{Jct|state=NJ|OD}}. === Categories === Category:Roads in New JerseyCategory:State highways in New Jersey (subcategory)Please use a three-digit sort key (i.e. 003 for Route 3, 070 for Route 70, 166 for Route 166) when putting articles in this category. Do not use a sort key on pages that are named something else (for ex. Garden State Parkway), but do put them in this category.Category:County routes in New Jersey (subcategory)500-series routes use their route number (which is already 3 digits) for the sortkey (i.e. 571 for County Route 571 (New Jersey)). Other county routes use a 3-digit number (with leading zeroes if necessary) followed by the county name (i.e. 055 Monmouth for County Route 55 (Monmouth County, New Jersey). === Infobox === The New Jersey task force uses {{Infobox_road}} with the state=NJ parameter. For the type= parameter, use type=NJ for state routes, type=US for U.S. highways, type=Interstate for Interstate highways, type=CR for county routes. For non-500 series county routes, the county= parameter should be set to the name of the county. Use {{jct}} to generate the major intersections and termini in the infobox. The browsing order for the infoboxes can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Master List. === Stub templates === {{NewJersey-road-stub}} === For article talk pages === {{WikiProject U.S. Roads|state=NJ}} -- Put this at the top of talk pages for articles in this WikiProject.Use the parameter ""NJSCR-SA"" for {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} on talk pages of current or previous selected articles with the month and year it was selected. === Userbox === Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New Jersey/Userbox For a userbox with a custom route number, use {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New Jersey/Userbox|47}}, where ""47"" can be replaced with the route number of your choice. === Other === {{USRD Announcements}}" 90 90 181 WP:EP Wikipedia:Editing policy 90 "Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time. Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge, and be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. It is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an inline citation when adding content (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for help at the Help desk). Wikipedia respects others' copyright. Although content must be backed by reliable sources, avoid copying or closely paraphrasing a copyrighted source. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words. An exception exists for the often necessary use of short quotations; they must be enclosed in quotations marks, accompanied by an inline reference to the source, and usually attributed to the author. (See the fair use doctrine which allows limited quoting without permission.) Another way you can improve an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced content. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the content to add a source and citation for it. Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. === Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons === Although perfection is not required, extra care should be taken on articles that mention living persons. Contentious material about living or recently deceased persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should either be verified immediately, with one or more reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner without undue weight, or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ""finished"" article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider: Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources Formatting or sourcing on the spot Tagging it as necessary Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself Repairing a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge Fixing errors in wikitext or formattingOtherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the English Wikipedia entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia. === Problems that may justify removal === Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia:No original research discusses the need to remove original research; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and Wikipedia:Undue weight discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (except in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative). Libel, nonsense, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published. Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it. If you think the edit might be controversial, then a better course of action may be to first make a proposal on the talk page. Bold editing does not excuse edits against existing consensus, edits in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability, or edits designed to create a fait accompli, where actions are justified by the fact they have already been carried out. If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting it or contesting it in a talk page discussion, consider your options and respond appropriately. The ""BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"" (BRD) is often used when a contentious edit has been reverted. === Be helpful: explain === Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring. === Be cautious with major changes: discuss === Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion. === But – Wikipedia is not a discussion forum === Whether you decide to edit very boldly or discuss carefully on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is best to concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than debating our personal ideas and beliefs. This is discussed further at Wikipedia:Etiquette. === If you need help === The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes are available if you need help reaching an agreement with other editors. For guidance on how to edit talk pages see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages Help:Archiving a talk page Contributing to Wikipedia: how and where you can help Wikipedia Disruptive editing: how not to edit Wikipedia Edit conflicts: how to deal with an edit conflict There is no deadline: various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means" 91 91 184 WP:NIME Wikipedia:Not in my encyclopedia 91 "Not in my encyclopedia is a sentiment that expresses the holder's good faith belief that a particular topic, type of article, viewpoint, or content does not belong in Wikipedia. One common variant of this is That belongs in Wikia, the belief that since Wikia does or could cover a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't. This motivation can be due to an editor's personal religious or moral convictions, belief that Wikipedia's reputation is harmed by covering the undesirable content, or other sincerely held beliefs. This becomes problematic when the user attempts to use Wikipedia's content processes to enforce his or her views on the rest of Wikipedia. Various attempts to influence Wikipedia to exclude the undesired content are responsible for many of the proposed changes to WP:CSD and other deletion processes, WP:NOT, WP:OUTCOMES, and various notability guidelines. While good-faith proposals to remove content or change inclusion guidelines are not inappropriate, the fervency of belief in the rightness of ""the cause"" may prompt NIME'ers to react hostilely to those who disagree with their belief. Ultimately, Wikipedia has succeeded to date (2011) in large part because people wrote about whatever they cared about, with a generally level notability playing field and a fairly limited set of exclusionary criteria. Whenever any editor seems to be taking the policy-based inclusion of something against their wishes too seriously, that's a good time to focus on the pillars, and remind them that Wikipedia is not made in their image, but in the collective image of the tens of thousands of users who have built it, and that they are not responsible for re-making Wikipedia in their own preferred image. Historically, some have said that Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, reputable reference work. Such works generally have content standards, and some material may be excluded even though it would normally meet inclusion criteria. Wikipedia's standards of inclusion are intentionally looser than those of any comparable reference work, but there's still some material that isn't congruent with our goals, and thus doesn't belong in our encyclopedia." 92 92 186 WP:content fork Wikipedia:Content forking 92 "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate pieces of content (such as Wikipedia articles or inter-wiki objects) all describing the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided, as the goal of a single source of truth is preferable in most circumstances. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genre of an aspect of culture such as a musical style. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. === Redundant content forks === Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article. === Point of view (POV) forks === In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a ""POV fork"" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a ""POV fork"" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as ""POV"" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. For example, if an editor has tried to include in an existing article about aviation a theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but the consensus of editors has rejected the attempt as complete nonsense, that fact does not justify creating an article named ""Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight"" to expound upon the rejected idea. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a ""Criticism of..."" article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using ""criticism"" and instead use neutral terms such as ""perception"" or ""reception""; if the word ""criticism"" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a ""Praise of..."" article was created instead). There are things that occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking. Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not preclude something from also being a content fork. === Project-level forking === There is a difference between article forking within Wikipedia and the legitimate practice of project-level forking. The latter occurs when someone wishes to create their own wiki, according to their own standards and practices, but they want to use Wikipedia's content as a starting place. As long as the new project adheres to their legal obligations under the CC BY-SA or GFDL in exchange for use of this content, as set out at Wikipedia's copyright policy, this is perfectly acceptable. Project-level forks are not bound in any way by Wikipedia's community policies or customs, like the five pillars. Project-level forking is discussed in more detail at Wikipedia:Forking FAQ. === Article spinoffs: ""Summary style"" meta-articles and summary sections === Sometimes editors ""spin off"" part of an existing article to create an article focused on a sub-topic. This is done through the Wikipedia:Splitting process. There are two situations where spinoff articles frequently become necessary: Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem: Death of Michael Jackson was spun off from Michael Jackson. O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case were spun off from O. J. Simpson. Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal was spun off from Jimmy Savile. Multiple television-related media like the characters, the title sequence, and the music were spun off from Game of Thrones. Multiple related tragic events like the timeline, the casualties, and the aftermath were spun off from the September 11 attacks. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections Film The Last of Us (franchise) Physics United States UnchartedIn both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s). Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. When done properly, the resulting articles are not content forks, and both the original and the spinoff article will comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. See Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Splitting, and Wikipedia:Summary style for procedural information. CautionArticle splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident. For this reason, Mel Gibson DUI incident was folded back to this Mel Gibson article section, and Development of Uncharted 4: A Thief's End was folded back as well to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End article section. However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies. === Articles whose subject is a point of view (POV) === Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Criticism of the Bible, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, ""Criticism of"" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. === Related articles === Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences. In such cases, one of the articles will be prefixed by the text ""Introduction to ..."", for example General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) === Temporary subpages === One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed rephrasing or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is – without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version. However, just as ""spinout"" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. New drafts should be written in the ""user:"" or ""talk:"" namespace and not in the main namespace; however, accidents happen and those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it. === List formats === Stand-alone lists can be formatted as tables or without using the table syntax. Tables don't work well on various devices (hand-held screens, omitted when using Wikipedia's PDF export function,... and the ""sortability"" advantage is lost in some cases). For that reason it is often a good idea to retain a structured list (or bullet list, or numbered list, ...) even when a table is provided with basically the same content. However, having two list pages with roughly the same content, one of them presenting the list content in a ""sortable table"" format, and the other not using table syntax for the list content, is only possible when: There is no other way to avoid a WP:PAGESIZE problem There is a true advantage to presenting the list as a sortable table It is worthwhile to put (usually considerable) maintenance efforts in two pages that roughly cover the same topic There is no notability issue for either of the pagesAlso, provide a link to the differently formatted list high up on the page, preferably before the TOC or first section header, so that readers can switch to the other format if that works better for the device with which they are accessing the list. Example (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Lists): List of compositions by Franz Schubert (sortable table format) and List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre (structured list). Template:Duplication Template:Move portions and Template:Move portions from Wikipedia:Content forking/Internal – related advice about forking of Wikipedia-internal content, including discussions and policy pages Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels Wikipedia:Be neutral in form Wikipedia:Criticism (essay on the way criticism can be included in Wikipedia articles) Wikipedia:Splitting Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Integrate Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate m:Content forking and m:Separatism MeatBall:ViewPoint (original proposal) === Tools for automatic detection of content forks === WP:Duplication detector Duplicate content report for en.wikipedia.org Similar page checker to find duplicated content on two Wikipedia pages" 93 93 187 WP:DEADREF Wikipedia:Citing sources 93 "A citation, also called a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information, e.g.: Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. A citation or reference in an article usually has two parts. In the first part, each section of text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source is marked as such with an inline citation. The inline citation will be a superscript footnote number. The second necessary part of the citation or reference is the list of full references, which provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it. This page explains how to place and format both parts of the citation. Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (the principle is reviewed at § Variation in citation methods). While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. See: ""Help:Referencing for beginners"", for a brief introduction on how to put references in Wikipedia articles; and cite templates in Visual Editor, about a graphical way for citation, included in Wikipedia. An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote. In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact. The in-text attribution does not give full details of the source – this is done in a footnote in the normal way. See In-text attribution below. A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations. === Short and full citations === A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles.A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found, but without giving full details of the source. Some Wikipedia articles use it, giving summary information about the source together with a page number. For example, Rawls 1971, p. 1., which renders as Rawls 1971, p. 1.. These are used together with full citations, which are listed in a separate ""References"" section or provided in an earlier footnote.Forms of short citations used include author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style), and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style). As before, the list of footnotes is automatically generated in a ""Notes"" or ""Footnotes"" section, which immediately precedes the ""References"" section containing the full citations to the source. Short citations can be written manually, or by using either the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates or the {{r}} referencing template. (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.) The short citations and full citations may be linked so that the reader can click on the short note to find full information about the source. See the template documentation for details and solutions to common problems. For variations with and without templates, see wikilinks to full references. For a set of realistic examples, see these. This is how short citations look in the edit box: The Sun is pretty big,Miller 2005, p. 23. but the Moon is not so big.Brown 2006, p. 46. The Sun is also quite hot.Miller 2005, p. 34. == Notes == {{reflist}} == References == * Brown, Rebecca (2006). ""Size of the Moon"", ''Scientific American'', 51 (78). * Miller, Edward (2005). ''The Sun''. Academic Press. This is how they look in the article: The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.Notes References Brown, Rebecca (2006). ""Size of the Moon"", Scientific American, 51 (78). Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press. Shortened notes using titles rather than publication dates would look like this in the article: Notes When using manual links it is easy to introduce errors such as duplicate anchors and unused references. The script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors will show many related errors. Duplicate anchors may be found by using the W3C Markup Validation Service. By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and by giving attribution you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas. In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article. Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight. === Multimedia === For an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page. Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article. A citation is not needed for descriptions such as alt text that are verifiable directly from the image itself, or for text that merely identifies a source (e.g., the caption ""Belshazzar's Feast (1635)"" for File:Rembrandt-Belsazar.jpg). === When not to cite === Citations are not used on disambiguation pages (sourcing for the information given there should be done in the target articles). Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE for more information. Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given piece of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it. Inline citations are added using footnotes, long or short. === How to place an inline citation using ref tags === To create a footnote, use the ... syntax at the appropriate place in the article text, for example: Justice is a human invention.Rawls, John. ''A Theory of Justice''. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. It ...which will be displayed as something like: Justice is a human invention.[1] It ...It will also be necessary to generate the list of footnotes (where the citation text is actually displayed); for this, see the previous section. As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. For exceptions, see the WP:Manual of Style § Punctuation and footnotes. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker. Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings. The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. ==== Avoiding clutter ==== Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult to manage and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window: Using list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template {{reflist}}, and then inserting them in the text with a shortened reference tag, for example . Inserting short citations (see below) that then refer to a full list of source textsAs with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so. Note, however, that references defined in the reference list template can no longer be edited with the VisualEditor. ==== Repeated citations ==== For multiple use of the same inline citation or footnote, you can use the named references feature, choosing a name to identify the inline citation, and typing text of the citation. Thereafter, the same named reference may be reused any number of times either before or after the defining use by typing the previous reference name, like this: . The use of the slash before the > means that the tag is self-closing, and the used to close other references must not be used in addition. The text of the name can be almost anything‍—‌apart from being completely numeric. If spaces are used in the text of the name, the text must be placed within double quotes. Placing all named references within double quotes may be helpful to future editors who do not know that rule. To help with page maintenance, it is recommended that the text of the name have a connection to the inline citation or footnote, for example ""author year page"": text of the citation. Use straight quotation marks "" to enclose the reference name. Do not use curly quotation marks “”. Curly marks are treated as another character, not as delimiters. The page will display an error if one style of quotation marks is used when first naming the reference, and the other style is used in a repeated reference, or if a mix of styles is used in the repeated references. ==== Citing multiple pages of the same source ==== When an article cites many different pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, most Wikipedia editors use one of these options: Named references in conjunction with a combined list of page numbers using the |pages= parameter of the {{cite}} templates (most commonly used, but can become confusing for large number of pages) Named references in conjunction with the {{rp}} or {{r}} templates to specify the page Short citationsThe use of ibid., id., or similar abbreviations is discouraged, as they may become broken as new references are added (op. cit. is less problematic in that it should refer explicitly to a citation contained in the article; however, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the terms). If the use of ibid is extensive, tag the article using the {{ibid}} template. === What information to include === Listed below is the information that a typical inline citation or general reference will provide, though other details may be added as necessary. This information is included in order to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found. (If an article uses short citations, then the inline citations will refer to this information in abbreviated form, as described in the relevant sections above.) === Examples === ==== Books ==== Citations for books typically include: name of author(s) title of book volume when appropriate name of publisher place of publication date of publication of the edition chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate edition, if not the first edition ISBN (optional)Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include: name of author(s) title of the chapter name of book's editor name of book and other details as above chapter number or page numbers for the chapter (optional)In some instances, the verso of a book's title page may record, ""Reprinted with corrections XXXX"" or similar, where 'XXXX' is a year. This is a different version of a book in the same way that different editions are different versions. In such a case, record: the year of the particular reprint, the edition immediately prior to this particular reprint (if not the first edition) and a note to say ""Reprint with corrections"". If {{cite}} (or similar) is being used, the notation, ""Reprint with corrections"", can be added immediately following the template. § Dates and reprints of older publications gives an example of appending a similar textual note. ==== Journal articles ==== Citations for journal articles typically include: name of the author(s) year and sometimes month of publication title of the article name of the journal volume number, issue number, and page numbers (article numbers in some electronic journals) DOI and/or other identifiers are optional and can often be used in place of a less stable URL (although URLs may also be listed in a journal citation) ==== Newspaper articles ==== Citations for newspaper articles typically include: byline (author's name), if any title of the article name of the newspaper in italics city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper) date of publication page number(s) are optional and may be substituted with negative number(s) on microfilm reels ==== Web pages ==== Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found name of the author(s) title of the article title or domain name of the website publisher, if known date of publication page number(s) (if applicable) the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown) ==== Sound recordings ==== Citations for sound recordings typically include: name of the composer(s), songwriter(s), script writer(s) or the like name of the performer(s) title of the song or individual track title of the album (if applicable) name of the record label year of release medium (for example: LP, audio cassette, CD, MP3 file) approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriateDo not cite an entire body of work by one performer. Instead, make one citation for each work your text relies on. ==== Film, television, or video recordings ==== Citations for films, TV episodes, or video recordings typically include: name of the director name of the producer, if relevant names of major performers the title of a TV episode title of the film or TV series name of the studio year of release medium (for example: film, videocassette, DVD) approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriate ==== Wikidata ==== Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). Wikidata's statements, however, can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to vandalism and its own sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements that are transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter Wikidata statements not supported by a reference by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. In order to transclude an item from Wikidata, the QID (Q number) of an item in Wikidata needs to be known. QID can by found by searching for an item by the name or DOI in Wikidata. A book, a journal article, a musical recording, sheet music or any other item can be represented by a structured item in Wikidata. The {{Cite Q}} template can be used to cite works whose metadata is held in Wikidata, provided the cited work meets Wikipedia's standards. As of December 2020, {{Cite Q}} does not support ""last, first"" or Vancouver-style author name lists, so it should not be used in articles in which ""last, first"" or Vancouver-style author names are the dominant citation style. ==== Other ==== See also: {{cite album notes}} {{cite comic}} {{comic strip reference}} {{cite conference}} for conference reports or papers {{cite court}} for court cases or legal decisions {{cite act}} for a law or legal act {{cite encyclopedia}} {{cite episode}} for TV or radio series {{cite mailing list}} {{cite map}} {{cite newsgroup}} {{cite patent}} for patents {{cite press release}} {{cite report}} {{cite thesis}} {{cite video game}} === Identifying parts of a source === When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. ==== Books and print articles ==== Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions. If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title. In some works, such as plays and ancient works, there are standard methods of referring to sections, such as ""Act 1, scene 2"" for plays and Bekker numbers for Aristotle's works. Use these methods whenever appropriate. ==== Audio and video sources ==== Specify the time at which the event or other point of interest occurs. Be as precise as possible about the version of the source that you are citing; for example, movies are often released in different editions or ""cuts"". Due to variations between formats and playback equipment, precision may not be accurate in some cases. However, many government agencies do not publish minutes and transcripts but do post video of official meetings online; generally the subcontractors who handle audio-visual are quite precise. === Links and ID numbers === A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source. If you have a URL (web page) link, you can add it to the title part of the citation, so that when you add the citation to Wikipedia the URL becomes hidden and the title becomes clickable. To do this, enclose the URL and the title in square brackets—the URL first, then a space, then the title. For example: For web-only sources with no publication date, the ""Retrieved"" date (or the date you accessed the web page) should be included, in case the web page changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 15 July 2011 or you can use the access-date parameter in the automatic Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 editing window feature. You can also add an ID number to the end of a citation. The ID number might be an ISBN for a book, a DOI (digital object identifier) for an article or some e-books, or any of several ID numbers that are specific to particular article databases, such as a PMID number for articles on PubMed. It may be possible to format these so that they are automatically activated and become clickable when added to Wikipedia, for example by typing ISBN (or PMID) followed by a space and the ID number. If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context. ==== Linking to pages in PDF files ==== Links to long PDF documents can be made more convenient by taking readers to a specific page with the addition of #page=n to the document URL, where n is the page number. For example, using http://www.domain.com/document.pdf#page=5 as the citation URL displays page five of the document in any PDF viewer that supports this feature. If the viewer or browser does not support it, it will display the first page instead. ==== Linking to Google Books pages ==== Google Books sometimes allows numbered book pages to be linked to directly. Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view. Keep in mind that availability varies by location. No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause; see the October 2010 RfC for further information. These can be added in several ways (with and without citation templates): Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18. Or with a template: Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18. Rawls 1971, p. 18. Rawls 1971, p. 18. Rawls 1971, p. 18. Rawls 1971, 18.In edit mode, the URL for p. 18 of A Theory of Justice can be entered like this using the {{Cite book}} template: {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |date=1971 |title=A Theory of Justice |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 |publisher=Harvard University Press |page=18}} or like this, in the first of the above examples, formatted manually: When the page number is a Roman numeral, commonly seen at the beginning of books, the URL looks like this for page xvii (Roman numeral 17) of the same book: https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PR17The &pg=PR17 indicates ""page, Roman, 17"", in contrast to the &pg=PA18, ""page, Arabic, 18"" the URL given earlier. You can also link to a tipped-in page, such as an unnumbered page of images between two regular pages. (If the page contains an image that is protected by copyright, it will be replaced by a tiny notice saying ""copyrighted image"".) The URL for eleventh tipped-in page inserted after page 304 of The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, looks like this: https://books.google.com/books?id=dBs4CO1DsF4C&pg=PA304-IA11The &pg=PA304-IA11 can be interpreted as ""page, Arabic, 304; inserted after: 11"". Note that some templates properly support links only in parameters specifically designed to hold URLs like |url= and |archive-url= and that placing links in other parameters may not link properly or will cause mangled COinS metadata output. However, the |page= and |pages= parameters of all Citation Style 1/Citation Style 2 citation templates, the family of {{sfn}}- and {{harv}}-style templates, as well as {{r}}, {{rp}} and {{ran}} are designed to be safe in this regard as well.Wikipedia DOI and Google Books Citation Maker or Citer may be helpful. Users may also link the quotation on Google Books to individual titles, via a short permalink which ends with their related ISBN, OCLC or LCCN numerical code, e.g.: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521349931, a permalink to the Google book with the ISBN code 0521349931. For further details, you may see How-to explanation on support.google.com. === Say where you read it === ""Say where you read it"" follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones. When citing the source, write the following (this formatting is just an example): John Smith (2009). Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, p. 99, cited in Paul Jones (2010). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen, Oxford University Press, p. 29. Or if you are using short citations: Smith (2009), p. 99, cited in Jones (2010), p. 29. The same principle applies when indicating the source of images and other media files in an article. Note: The advice to ""say where you read it"" does not mean that you have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to Smith's book. If you have read a book or article yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not have to specify how you obtained and read it. So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); or any other method. === Dates and reprints of older publications === Editors should be aware that older sources (especially those in the public domain) are sometimes reprinted with modern publication dates. When this occurs and the citation style being used requires it, cite both the original publication date, as well as the date of the re-publication, e.g.: Darwin, Charles (1964) [1859]. On the Origin of Species (facsimile of 1st ed.). Harvard University Press.This is done automatically in the {{citation}} and {{cite book}} templates when you use the |orig-date= parameter. Alternately, information about the reprint can be appended as a textual note: Boole, George (1854). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. Macmillan. Reprinted with corrections, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1958. === Seasonal publication dates and differing calendar systems === Publication dates, for both older and recent sources, should be written with the goal of helping the reader find the publication and, once found, confirm that the correct publication has been located. For example, if the publication date bears a date in the Julian calendar, it should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar. If the publication date was given as a season or holiday, such as ""Winter"" or ""Christmas"" of a particular year or two-year span, it should not be converted to a month or date, such as July–August or December 25. If a publication provided both seasonal and specific dates, prefer the specific one. === Additional annotation === In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below). A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. If the article itself contains a translation of a quote from such a source (without the original), then the original should be included in the footnote. (See the WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources policy for more information.) This section describes how to add footnotes and also describes how to create a list of full bibliography citations to support shortened footnotes. The first editor to add footnotes to an article must create a dedicated citations' section where they are to appear. Any reasonable name may be chosen. The most frequent choice is ""References"". Other options in diminishing order of popularity are, ""Notes"", ""Footnotes"", or ""Works cited"", although these are more often used to distinguish between multiple end-matter sections or subsections. For an example of headings of a notes section, see the article Tezcatlipoca. === General references === A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular text in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a ""References"" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor. General reference sections are most likely to be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. The disadvantage of general references is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short. They are frequently reworked by later editors into inline citations. The appearance of a general references section is the same as those given above in the sections on short citations and parenthetical references. If both cited and uncited references exist, their distinction can be highlighted with separate section names, e.g., ""References"" and ""General references"". === How to create the list of citations === With some exceptions discussed below, citations appear in a single section containing only the tag or the {{Reflist}} template. For example: == References == {{Reflist}} The footnotes will then automatically be listed under that section heading. Each numbered footnote marker in the text is a clickable link to the corresponding footnote, and each footnote contains a caret that links back to the corresponding point in the text. Scrolling lists, or lists of citations appearing within a scroll box, should never be used. This is because of issues with readability, browser compatibility, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring.If an article contains a list of general references, this is usually placed in a separate section, titled, for example, ""References"". This usually comes immediately after the section(s) listing footnotes, if any. (If the general references section is called ""References"", then the citations section is usually called ""Notes"".) ==== Separating citations from explanatory footnotes ==== If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists using footnotes groups. The explanatory footnotes and the citations are then placed in separate sections, called (for example) ""Notes"" and ""References"" respectively. Another method of separating explanatory footnotes from footnoted references is using {{efn}} for the explanatory footnotes. The advantage of this system is that the content of an explanatory footnote can in this case be referenced with a footnoted citation. When explanatory footnotes and footnoted references are not in separate lists, {{refn}} can be used for explanatory footnotes containing footnoted citations. ==== Duplicate citations ==== Combine precisely duplicated full citations, in keeping with the existing citation style (if any). In this context ""precisely duplicated"" means having the same content, not necessarily identical strings (""The New York Times"" is the same as ""NY Times""; different access-dates are not significant). Do not discourage editors, particularly inexperienced ones, from adding duplicate citations when the use of the source is appropriate, because a duplicate is better than no citation. But any editor should feel free to combine them, and doing so is the best practice on Wikipedia. Citations to different pages or parts of the same source can also be combined (preserving the distinct parts of the citations), as described in the previous section. Any method that is consistent with the existing citation style (if any) may be used, or consensus can be sought to change the existing style. While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook. Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. The YYYY-MM-DD format should in any case be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582. Because it could easily be confused with a range of years, the format YYYY-MM (for example: 2002-06) is not used. For more information on the capitalization of cited works, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § All caps and small caps. === Variation in citation methods === Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. However, since 5 September 2020, inline parenthetical referencing is a deprecated citation style on English-language Wikipedia. If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a ""consistent citation style"" and can be changed freely to insert such data. The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it. ==== Generally considered helpful ==== The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot; replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more verifiable information to the reader, and helps maintain text–source integrity; imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit; fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly; combining duplicate citations (see § Duplicate citations, above). converting parenthetical referencing to an acceptable referencing style. replacing opaque named reference names with conventional ones, such as ""Einstein-1905"" instead of "":27"". ==== To be avoided ==== When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's – except when moving away from deprecated styles, such as parenthetical referencing; adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently; changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. ==== Parenthetical referencing ==== Since September 2020, inline parenthetical referencing has been deprecated on Wikipedia. This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). This does not affect short citations that use tags, which are not inline parenthetical references; see the section on short citations above for that method. As part of the deprecation process in existing articles, discussion of how best to convert inline parenthetical citations into currently accepted formats should be held if there is objection to a particular method. This is no longer in use: As noted above under ""What information to include"", it is helpful to include hyperlinks to source material, when available. Here we note some issues concerning these links. === Avoid embedded links === Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. Wikipedia allowed this in its early years—for example by adding a link after a sentence, like this: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which is rendered as: [1]. This is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags, like this [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html]. Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible. Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: ""Apple Inc. announced their latest product ..."". === Convenience links === A convenience link is a link to a copy of your source on a web page provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere. When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable. For academic sources, the convenience link is typically a reprint provided by an open-access repository, such as the author's university's library or institutional repository. Such green open access links are generally preferable to paywalled or otherwise commercial and unfree sources. Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. === Indicating availability === If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context. === Links to sources === For a source available in hardcopy, microform, and/or online, omit, in most cases, which one you read. While it is useful to cite author, title, edition (1st, 2nd, etc.), and similar information, it generally is not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EBSCOhost, or JSTOR (see the list of academic databases and search engines) or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL. However, you may provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link. If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted (see WP:PAYWALL). === Preventing and repairing dead links === To help prevent dead links, persistent identifiers are available for some sources. Some journal articles have a digital object identifier (DOI); some online newspapers and blogs, and also Wikipedia, have permalinks that are stable. When permanent links aren't available, consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save) or archive.today (https://archive.today) are fairly easy to use (see pre-emptive archiving). Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. If you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content, follow these steps prior to deleting it: Confirm status: First, check the link to confirm that it is dead and not temporarily down. Search the website to see whether it has been rearranged. The online service ""Is it down right now?"" can help to determine if a site is down, and any information known. Check for a changed URL on the same Web site: Pages are frequently moved to different locations on the same site as they become archive content rather than news. The site's error page may have a ""Search"" box; alternatively, in both the Google and DuckDuckGo search engines – among others – the keyterm ""site:"" can be used. For instance: site:en.wikipedia.org ""New Zealand police vehicle markings and livery"". Check for web archives: Many web archiving services exist (for a full list, see: Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia); link to their archive of the URL's content, if available. Examples: Internet Archive has billions of archived web pages. See Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. archive.today See Wikipedia:Using archive.today The UK Government Web Archive (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/) preserves 1500 UK central government websites. The Mementos interface allows you to search multiple archiving services with a single request using the Memento protocol. Unfortunately, the Mementos web page interface removes any parameters which are passed with the URL. If the URL contains a ""?"" it is unlikely to work properly. When entering the URL into the Mementos interface manually, the most common change needed is to change ""?"" to ""%3F"". While making only this change will not be sufficient in all cases, it will work most of the time. The bookmarklet in the table below will properly encode URLs such that searches will work.If multiple archive dates are available, try to use one that is most likely to be the contents of the page seen by the editor who entered the reference on the |access-date=. If that parameter is not specified, a search of the article's revision history can be performed to determine when the link was added to the article. For most citation templates, archive locations are entered using the |archive-url=, |archive-date= and |url-status= parameters. The primary link is switched to the archive link when |url-status=dead. This retains the original link location for reference. If the web page now leads to a completely different website, set |url-status=usurped to hide the original website link in the citation. Note: Some archives currently operate with a delay of ~18 months before a link is made public. As a result, editors should wait ~24 months after the link is first tagged as dead before declaring that no web archive exists. Dead URLs to reliable sources should normally be tagged with {{dead link|date=March 2023}}, so that you can estimate how long the link has been dead. Bookmarklets to check common archive sites for archives of the current page: Archive.org javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href)) archive.today / archive.is javascript:void(window.open('https://archive.today/'+location.href)) Mementos interface javascript:void(window.open('https://www.webarchive.org.uk/mementos/search/'+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'?referrer='+encodeURIComponent(document.referrer)))Remove convenience links: If the material was published on paper (e.g., academic journal, newspaper article, magazine, book), then the dead URL is not necessary. Simply remove the dead URL, leaving the remainder of the reference intact. Find a replacement source: Search the web for quoted text, the article title, and parts of the URL. Consider contacting the website/person that originally published the reference and asking them to republish it. Ask other editors for help finding the reference somewhere else, including the user who added the reference. Find a different source that says essentially the same thing as the reference in question. Remove hopelessly-lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the web page (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with {{citation needed}}. It may be appropriate for you to move the citation to the talk page with an explanation, and notify the editor who added the now-dead link. When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism. === Keeping citations close === Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained. References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes as they appear in the article, and should not be moved if doing so might break the text–source relationship. If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source, adding new material that is not supported by the existing source to the sentence/paragraph, without a source for the new text, is highly misleading if placed to appear that the cited source supports it. When new text is inserted into a paragraph, make sure it is supported by the existing or a new source. For example, when editing text originally reading The sun is pretty big.Notes an edit that does not imply that the new material is supported by the same reference is The sun is pretty big. The sun is also quite hot.Notes Do not add other facts or assertions into a fully cited paragraph or sentence: N The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.Notes Include a source to support the new information. There are several ways to write this, including: Y The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.Notes === Bundling citations === Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote. For example, when there are multiple sources for a given sentence, and each source applies to the entire sentence, the sources can be placed at the end of the sentence, like this.[4][5][6][7] Or they can be bundled into one footnote at the end of the sentence or paragraph, like this.[4]Bundling is also useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text, or if the sources all support the same text. Bundling has several advantages: It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text–source integrity; It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph; It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4] It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point.To concatenate multiple citations for the same content, semicolons (or another character appropriate to the article's style) can be used. Alternatively, use one of the templates listed at the disambiguation page Template:Multiple references. The sun is pretty big, bright and hot.Notes For multiple citations in a single footnote, each in reference to specific statements, there are several layouts available, as illustrated below. Within a given article only a single layout should be used. The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.Notes However, using line breaks to separate list items breaches WP:Accessibility § Nobreaks: ""Do not separate list items with line breaks (
      )."" {{Unbulleted list citebundle}} was made specifically for this purpose; also available is {{unbulleted list}}. In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question. For example: N To reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance.[2] Y John Rawls argues that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance.[2] Y John Rawls argues that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if ""situated behind a veil of ignorance"".[2] When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view: N Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars. Y Humans evolved through natural selection, as first explained in Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery: N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. Y The sun sets in the west each evening. It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal: N In an article published in The Lancet in 2012, researchers announced the discovery of the new tissue type.[3] Y The discovery of the new tissue type was first published by researchers in 2012.[3] Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution: Y By mass, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen and helium.[4] If an article has no references at all, then: If the entire article is ""Patent Nonsense"", tag it for speedy deletion using criterion G1. If the article is a biography of a living person, it can be tagged with {{subst:prod blp}} to propose deletion. If it's a biography of a living person and is an attack page, then it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion G10, which will blank the page. If the article doesn't fit into the above two categories, then consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the article creator. You may also tag the article with the {{unreferenced}} template and consider nominating it for deletion.For individual claims in an article not supported by a reference: If the article is a biography of a living person, then any contentious material must be removed immediately: see Biographies of living persons. If the material lacking reference is seriously inappropriate, it may need to be hidden from general view, in which case request admin assistance. If the material added appears to be false or an expression of opinion, remove it and inform the editor who added the unsourced material. The {{uw-unsourced1}} template may be placed on their talk page. In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} tag against the added text. Citation templates can be used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus – see ""Variation in citation methods"", above. If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values to cause the template to render as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style). === Metadata === Citations may be accompanied by metadata, though it is not mandatory. Most citation templates on Wikipedia use the COinS standard. Metadata such as this allow browser plugins and other automated software to make citation data accessible to the user, for instance by providing links to their library's online copies of the cited works. In articles that format citations manually, metadata may be added manually in a span, according to the COinS specification. === Citation generation tools === the Wikipedia Visual Editor now helps users format, insert and edit sources by simply providing a DOI, URL, ISBN etc. User:Ark25/RefScript, a JavaScript bookmarklet – creates references in one click, works for many newspapers User:V111P/js/WebRef, a script or bookmarklet automating the filling of the {{cite web}} template. You use the script on the page you want to cite. User:Badgettrg, Biomedical citation maker. uses Pubmed ID (PMID) or DOI or PMCID or NCT. Adds links to ACP Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine comments if present. WP:ReFill – adds titles to bare url references and other cleanup Template:Ref info, which can aid evaluating what kind of citation style was used to write the article Based on Citoid: Cite templates in Visual Editor User:Salix alba/Citoid a client for the mw:citoid server which generates Citation Style 1 templates from urls. RefTag: Reftag for DOI Reftag for New York Times Wikipedia DOI and Google Books Citation Maker Hosted on tools.wmflabs.org: Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0, used in the Source Editor Citation bot Yadkard: A web-based tool for generating shortened footnotes and citation using Google Books URLs, DOI or ISBN. Also supports some news websites. Wikipedia template filling – generates Vancouver style citations from PMIDs (PubMed IDs). === Duplicates finders === Finding duplicates by examining reference lists is difficult. There are some tools that can help: AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) will identify and (usually) correct exact duplicates between ... tags. See the documentation. URL Extractor For Web Pages and Text can identify Web citations with the exact same URL but otherwise possibly different. Occasionally references to the same Web page might be followed by different non-significant tracking parameters (?utm ..., #ixzz...), and will not be listed as duplicates. Step 1: enter the URL of the Wikipedia article and click ""Load"", Step 2: tick ""Only Display duplicate URL addresses"" (which unticks ""Remove duplicate addresses"") Optional: Tick the radio button ""Do not show"", tick the box at the beginning of its line, and enter into the box web.archive.org,wikipedia,wikimedia,wikiquote,wikidata Step 3: Click Extract. Then the duplicates will be listed, and must be manually merged. There will often be false positives; web.archive.org URLs, in particular, are a nuisance as they contain the original URLs, which shows as duplicates. The optional part of Step 2 eliminates the archive URLs, but unfortunately the list of duplicates includes the archived pages. The wiki* URLs are less of a problem as they can just be ignored. === Programming tools === Wikicite is a free program that helps editors to create citations for their Wikipedia contributions using citation templates. It is written in Visual Basic .NET, making it suitable only for users with the .NET Framework installed on Windows, or, for other platforms, the Mono alternative framework. Wikicite and its source code is freely available; see the developer's page for further details. User:Richiez has tools to automatically handle citations for a whole article at a time. Converts occurrences of {{pmid XXXX}} or {{isbn XXXX}} to properly formatted footnote or Harvard-style references. Written in Ruby and requires a working installation with basic libraries. pubmed2wikipedia.xsl an XSL stylesheet transforming the XML output of PubMed to Wikipedia refs. === Reference management software === Reference management software can output formatted citations in several styles, including BibTeX, RIS, or Wikipedia citation template styles. Comparison of reference management software – side-by-side comparison of various reference management software Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero – essay on using Zotero to quickly add citations to articles. Zotero (by Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media; license: Affero GPL) is open-source software with local reference database which can be synchronized between several computers over the online database (up to 300 MB without payment). EndNote (by Thomson Reuters; license: proprietary) Mendeley (by Elsevier; license: proprietary) Paperpile (by Paperpile, LLC; license: proprietary) Papers (by Springer; license: proprietary) How to cite Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts – a concise summary of some of the most important guidance on this page Help:Referencing for beginners – a simple practical guide to getting started Help:How to mine a source – how-to guide on getting maximum information from cited material Wikipedia:Verification methods – listing examples of the most common ways that citations are used in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts – essay on why references are important Wikipedia:Citation templates – a full listing of various styles for citing all sorts of materials Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods – showing comparative edit mode representations for different citation methods and techniques Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations – additional considerations for citing sources Wikipedia:Inline citation – more information on inline citations Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes – how-to guide on ""nesting"" footnotes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Further reading – for information about the ""Further reading"" section Wikipedia:External links – for information about the ""External links"" section Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Public-domain sources – guideline covering the inclusion of material in the public domain Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines – guidelines for dealing with scientific and mathematical articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources – project guide on finding resources MediaWiki:Extension:Cite – details of the software which support the parser hooksCitation problems Template:Irrelevant citation – inline template to note source simply is not relevant to the material Template:More citations needed – template to add to article (or section) where citations are insufficient Template:Text-source – template to add to article (or section) where text–source integrity is questioned Wikipedia:Citation needed – explanation of template to tag statements that need a citation Wikipedia:Citation overkill – why too many citations on one fact can be a bad thing Wikipedia:Copyright problems – in case of text that has been copied verbatim inappropriately Wikipedia:Link rot – guide to preventing link rot Wikipedia:More seasoning doesn't mean more flavor – an essay about how less detail doesn't always mean less info Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue – an essay advising: do not cite already obvious information Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue – an essay advising: just because something appears obvious to you does not mean it is obvious to everyone Wikipedia:Video links – an essay discussing the use of citations linking to YouTube and other user-submitted video sites Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup – a group of people devoted to cleaning up citations Wikipedia:Reference database – essay/proposalChanging citation style formats WP:CITEVAR ""Online Style Guide"". New Oxford Style Manual. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2016. ISBN 978-0198767251. The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2017. ISBN 978-0226287058. ""Academic Writing: Citing Sources"". Writers Workshop. University of Illinois. ""Citation Style Guides & Management Tools"". Library Guides. LIU Post. ""Citing: Help & how-to"". Concordia University Library. ""Citation Help"". Subject Guides. University of Iowa. ""Guide to Citation Style Guides"". Journalism Resources. University of Iowa. ""Library: Citing Sources & Citation Generators"". Capital Community College. ""Research and Citation Resources"". Online Writing Lab. Purdue University. ""The Writer's Handbook: Documentation"". Writing Center. University of Wisconsin–Madison. ""ACS Style Guide"". Research Guides. University of Wisconsin–Madison. ""Samples of Formatted References for Authors of Journal Articles"". MEDLINE and PubMed: The Resources Guide. United States National Library of Medicine. 26 April 2018. ""reFill"". Toolforge. WP:ReFill. – tool that expands bare references semi-automatically Wikipedia editing basics: Citing sources (part 1) (YouTube). Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia editing basics: Citing sources (part 2) (YouTube). Wikimedia Foundation." 94 94 188 WP:RAILOUTCOMES Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes 94 "There have been many Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) debates over the years. This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD. For an archive of this page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive. This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view. As guidelines and actual practice change, this page should be updated to reflect current outcomes. Avoid over-reliance on citing these ""common outcomes"" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. This page simply attempts to summarize Wikipedia's common daily practice with respect to deletion debates. If you feel that an outcome common to articles like the one you are discussing does not apply, then give a common-sense or guidelines-based reason why it shouldn't apply. Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as ""Notability is only an optional guideline"" or ""We always keep these articles"". You can use the template {{Outcomes}} to link to this section. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, there is still a lot of debate on notability. === Academics === As a very rough rule of thumb, full professors at research universities are usually notable, assistant professors usually not, and faculty at community colleges usually are not regardless of rank. It is hard to predict the common outcomes for non-teaching researchers, faculty in the middle ranks, people at universities focused more on teaching and less on research, and academics in countries that use other academic ranks than in the United States. In the humanities or social sciences, an academic who does not meet WP:PROF will sometimes still meet WP:AUTHOR, especially if they also write books for a more general audience. === Businesspeople and executives === Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company. === Celebrities === Family members of celebrities are generally merged with the articles about celebrities themselves, unless the family member meets notability requirements themselves. Ashlee Simpson and Jessica Simpson each have their own article; James Fawcett redirects to Farrah Fawcett. === Clergy and religious persons === The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable. People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests. The Chief Rabbis of nation states with large Jewish communities are notable by virtue of their status. Heads of large, Protestant denominations are generally found to be notable by dint of achieving this office, as seen in this deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Graves about a General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene). === Competitors === Winners of contests, games of skill, and other competitions are subjects of some disagreement. Such articles are generally kept as notable only at the national level. For example, winners of well-known national spelling bees (like Scripps or CanSpell) may be kept as notable. The typical winner of a local spelling bee is almost always deleted. Other competitors are often redirected to the main article of the contest or show season. Winning a lottery or other game of chance, even with a large payoff, does not by itself confer notability; articles on lottery winners as such are often deleted. Athletes and other sportspersons are subject to the general notability guideline. Participants in sports at a national level are more likely to have received significant coverage than participants at a local level. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) helps determine whether or not an athlete is likely to meet WP:GNG. There is consensus that footballers who play a minimal amount in a fully-professional league but comprehensively fail the general notability guideline are not notable. === Early settlers and colonists === Early settlers of a place are not presumptively notable or non-notable. Each case must be decided on its own merits. Generally, there has been a longstanding consensus to keep such articles about early colonists, if significant coverage in reliable sources can be demonstrated. === Oldest people === Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people. === Politicians === ==== In general ==== Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. See WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NSUBPOL. Engaging in educational activities such as student councils, youth parliaments, Model United Nations, etc. does not by itself confer any notability. ==== Local politicians ==== In general: Municipal and other local politicians are not presumptively notable just for being in politics, but neither are they presumptively non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just ""Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). This criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. Municipal officers: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable. But precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Local candidates: Losing candidates in municipal elections are not considered presumptively notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated. See also more on candidates below. County legislators: Like municipal politicians, American county-level legislators are not considered presumptively notable. Exceptions for non-local media coverage: Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesperson for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone. ==== Candidates ==== Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article. Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian.) ==== Political figures not elected to public office ==== Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable. Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable. === Monarchs and nobility === There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. As such, kings and queens regnant, as well as nobles who have ruled a territory or served as head of state are presumed to be notable. The notability of their spouses (kings and queens consort), as well as other nobility (dukes, counts, barons, knights, etc.) is decided on a case-by-case basis based on the general notability guideline, although kings and queens consort are generally found to be notable. The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline. === Businesses === Companies are not kept on a basis of how much revenue or how many employees they have. See WP:BIG. Blatant advertising pages have been subject to speedy deletion. Products that have been planned, but not created yet, are generally deleted. See WP:CRYSTAL. However, exceptions have included ""future-tech"" items which already have substantial referencing behind the fundamental concept, such as fusion reactors, and prominent products in development (e.g. the next version of a computer operating system) for which well-sourced product updates are released on a relatively regular basis. Companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable. Generally, companies that are included in major stock indices such as S&P 500 Index or FTSE 100 Index will have sufficient in-depth independent coverage for notability. Local retailers and service merchants (franchises or individually owned) are generally deleted, with exceptions, including businesses with particular historical significance (e.g. the first motel), those centered around a major historical event, or tourist attractions. === Religious organizations === Religions, religious denominations and sects are almost always treated as presumptively notable and kept provided there is reliable source evidence of their existence and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship. Individual parishes, congregations, temples and other places of worship are not generally kept unless they satisfy specific criteria in one or more of our guidelines pertaining to the establishment of encyclopedic notability. See also WP:NCHURCH. === School districts === ""Populated, legally-recognized places"" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). === Schools === The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations. === People === Becoming a professor (in the American sense of the word) may or may not confer notability. Becoming a prominent tenured professor often confers notability on this basis alone, while an academic appointment at the assistant professor level generally does not. The notability standard is Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (WP:PROF). Becoming a schoolteacher or instructor below the level of professor does not confer any presumptive notability. Becoming a student confers no notability. The notability standard for such persons is Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO). Becoming a school principal or superintendent generally does not confer notability, unless a superintendent of a sizable city/ school districts. === Parts of schools and school-related organizations === Classes, classrooms or lessons are almost invariably deleted. Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Separate articles on law schools and medical schools are being kept. The notability of student unions may vary between different countries and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor. See also WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life. Clubs are generally deleted as not notable unless they are syndicated or coordinated on a national/international level. Breaking news events that receive a large spike of media coverage are frequently closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Organized events that do not indicate a credible claim to importance are now being speedy deleted. See WP:CSD#A7. Note that this applies only to organized events, such as street fairs and concerts, and not to unorganized events, such as accidents or disasters. Next year's events generally are not predictable; therefore, articles titled ""2024 in Country"" should be deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 in Canada and similar discussions at AfD.) The general notability guideline is the guideline of import for determining the notability of broadcast media outlets, per a 2021 RfC. Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources. If a station is devoted to the rebroadcast of another service, it should be redirected to that page or to a list of such stations; if not, or if it rebroadcasts multiple services and thus has no adequate target, a redirect to a list of stations in a region may be considered as an alternative to deletion. Proposed stations, unbuilt stations, unlicensed stations, temporary stations, internet stations, and stations which do not independently originate any programming usually lack significant coverage. They are not presumptively notable unless the article meets the GNG. In practice, most—though not all—internet stations are not notable. Most national and regional pay television (cable, satellite, linear streaming) services are likely to be notable. Some, however, may lack sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. Satellite radio channels may be kept if there is significant coverage about the channel itself in reliable sources. If this is not the case, they should be redirected to a list of stations on the parent service. === Television programs === Guidance for all television programs is provided at WP:NTV, though NTV is not a subject-specific notability guideline for television programs. Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept. An exception is if a program was short-lived and/or aired in a market where reliable source coverage is scant. Unaired programs and television pilots not picked up to series are usually deleted. Individual episodes of television series are typically deleted or redirected to appropriate lists of episodes, if available. Characters and other fictional elements from television programs are subject to the usual rules for notability, as outlined at WP:N. Communities, message boards and blogs are generally deleted as not notable. Flash animations are generally deleted as not notable, unless they are extremely well-known. Programming languages are usually kept if widely used (including those that were widely used historically). Programming languages are usually kept, additionally, if they are well-cited in peer-reviewed computer science literature (even if not-particularly-widely used in practice historically/currently). Notability of Internet phenomena is widely disputed. Internet radio stations: see #Media. The regular notability guideline is applied. Cases and decisions whose articles are kept tend to be those who have received sustained, detailed media coverage (see also WP:NCRIME for criminal cases), or those who have become influential as precedent. Decisions by a jurisdiction's highest judicial authority (such as a supreme court) are not considered notable for this reason alone, because even high courts make many routine or unexceptional decisions. Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for deletion just because they have overlapping categories are usually kept. However, this criterion does not mean that it's always necessary or valid to have both a list and a category for any given grouping of topics. Categories that are narrow intersections of multiple facts, or which function poorly without the features a list can provide (such as annotations or direct citations), may sometimes be deleted based on the principles and practices of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, even if the corresponding list may be kept. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization for further information. Lists are likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction. Lists that index articles according to those principles are especially likely to be kept; see WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDIR. Lists that are based on novel or unusual classifications are likely to be deleted unless they can satisfy WP:LISTN by demonstrating notability as a group. Ephemeral listings, such as lists of current personnel in an organisation, are generally deleted, except for the ministries of national parliaments, etc. Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read. Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not. Unless a large amount of information is written on a character or location from books, such articles may be deleted. See WP:N Fan fiction is generally deleted as not notable. Poems and other literary texts themselves are often deleted as they often violate copyright; articles about poems or texts are often kept (if the poems/texts are notable). Bands and musicians are kept as notable if they have been written about non-trivially by multiple reliable sources. Albums are often kept as notable in and of themselves, if the artist is notable. Articles that provide the name of the band and more info than a mere tracklist are kept more often than articles that do not. An article on an album whose artist does not have an article is usually considered a candidate for speedy deletion. Untitled, unreleased albums very rarely pass WP:CRYSTAL, and are often deleted—however, once a title and track listing have been confirmed by the artist or their record label for an upcoming release, an article on the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation if the information is properly referenced to reliable sources. See also WP:HAMMER. Articles on band members are often deleted if listed in an article separate from the band, unless the person is deemed notable for their independent accomplishments Lyrics are usually deleted, as they belong in WikiSource, unless they are copyright violations Articles about songs are generally considered not notable, and deleted or redirected. Songs which have been verifiable Top 40 hits generally tend to survive AFD, although not without dissent. Concert tours are only kept as notable if they are well-referenced by third-party reliable sources to show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Tour articles that only list tour dates and set lists are liable to be deleted, as are articles that are unreferenced or rely only upon fan sites. Brand new genres of music are likely to be deleted. For examples of deletions, see Electrocrunk, Christian post-hardcore, Slow grass, Chelpedo punk, Christian fantasy metal, Trance metal, and Alternative bubblegum pop. This is because, even in a postmodern world, new music genres rarely catch on. The articles may be re-created once they garner critical notice or charted sales. Exceptions are rare; see Alternative metal as a contra-example. Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016. Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, islands, mountain passes, etc., generally survive AfD. Unless a structure is demonstrably historic, especially listed in the National Register of Historic Places or its non-US equivalent (like the Eiffel Tower), or otherwise serves an important or unusual function to a wide population (such as structures with rotating restaurants or publicly accessible observation decks) which is supported by multiple reliable independent sources, stub articles on structures are generally deleted including, for example, articles on utilitarian radio and television masts which are only referenced in the FCC database. Articles on structures have also sometimes been turned into redirects to a relevant list. Asteroids, comets, stars, etc. may not survive AfD unless they are visible to the naked eye or multiple sources have written about them in some detail; see Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). For streets, roads and other transportation infrastructure see #Transportation === Populated places === Populated place outcomes generally follow WP:GEOLAND, which means that they're usually kept if they either have legal recognition or can be shown to meet GNG through significant coverage. Attractions and landmarks often survive AfD. Bars, pubs, cafes, restaurants, and hotels tend not to survive AfD unless multiple independent sources have written about them in non-trivial detail. Legally recognized cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence and legal recognition can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities. Larger neighborhoods are usually kept if they meet GNG. Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments). Larger shopping malls are often found to be notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found. Size however, does not in and of itself confer notability, nor does it abrogate the requirements set forth in GNG. === Rail transport === Train stations are not inherently notable. Subway and railway lines often survive AfD. Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on. === Buses === A dedicated bus rapid transit line, such as Ottawa's Transitway, is also usually kept, but a regular bus line that travels along normal city streets is not usually considered notable. However, some articles about bus lines in major cities have survived AfD—articles that describe the line's history and social impact in depth are more likely to be acceptable. Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common. Bus stops are usually deleted as not notable, with the exception of certain hubs in major cities. === Roads === Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself. In the US, state, U.S., and interstate highways (aka: freeways, turnpikes, expressways and motorways) are usually kept. In Canada, any highway that is part of a province's or territory's official highway system is usually kept. In the UK, motorways are usually kept. 'A' roads are usually kept if all or part of the road is trunk or primary. 'B' roads are usually deleted or merged (see below). Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.). County roads are disputed, but are kept if genuine notability is demonstrated. If the notability claim boils down to ""it's notable because it exists,"" however, then redirection to a single merged list of that county's numbered roads is more common. City streets are contested, but minor streets are generally deleted. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway have varied outcomes. An article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than would one that merely describes the road's physical characteristics. === Ships === Named warships, cruise ships, ocean liners and other large commercial ocean going or deep water vessels are generally treated as presumptively notable. Any named ship which served in the capacity of a navy vessel (i.e., under the direction of a national navy) at any point in history is generally considered notable; personal named pleasure crafts generally are not unless they have been the subject of multiple published independent reliable sources of information. Alternative outlets to recreate deleted articles Deletion review guide Introduction to deletion process" 95 95 189 WP:PASI Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction 95 "Wikipedia contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including fictional worlds and elements therein. When creating these articles, editors should establish the subject's real-world notability by including several reliable, independent secondary sources. This approach will also ensure enough source material is available for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate. If notability is established, the topic will generally be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Once an article about fiction is created, editors should consider: (a) what to write about the subject, and (b) how to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or improve a preexisting one. Although this page is not a policy, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally considered good practice. Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded. To achieve this, editors must use both primary and secondary information. Important aspects of real-world perspective include: Careful differentiation between the work itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact it has had in the real world (see also below) Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics) The presentation of fictional material particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative Mentioning the creator's intention (if references cover such information)Real-world perspective is not an optional criterion for quality, but rather a basic requirement for all articles. See below for a list of exemplary articles that employ a consistent real-world perspective. === The problem with in-universe perspective === An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be. Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: Describing aspects of the work as if they were real. Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense. Presenting backstories of fictional elements as real-world historical accounts. For example, an in-universe perspective would describe the history of Starfleet from the Star Trek franchise in a manner similar to that of the US Air Force, giving extensive detail to topics such as creation, fleet composition, battles, and key events. Instead, descriptions of Starfleet should cover only the most essential details and mention the specific works (TV episodes, films, books, etc.) in which these details were included. Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography, placing undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof. For example, instead of introducing the character as ""Gandalf was a powerful wizard"", write ""Gandalf is characterised as a powerful wizard"", or ""Gandalf is a wizard who appears within the works of J. R. R. Tolkien"". Labeling fictional characters with descriptors such as ""deceased"" or ""formerly"" (see also WP:LABELFICTION). Attempting to reconcile contradictions or bridge gaps in the narrative, rather than simply reporting them as such. Giving undue weight to a fictional topic's appearances in obscure spin-off material. Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them. Using in-jokes and references that require knowledge of work's plot, its fictional elements, or related works. In the plot summary, giving undue weight to a work's most memorable scenes or lines in relation to their importance to the rest of the plot. Elements that have entered popular culture should be covered in a ""Reception"" or ""Legacy"" section. Example: Monty Python and the Holy Grail has jokes and phrases that have entered popular parlance but have little effect on the story's actual progression; however, the murder of the historian in one scene is a sight gag that is actually plot-relevant and should be described briefly. Using infoboxes intended for real-world topics. Referring to the fictional events or dates that occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves. For example, instead of writing ""It is the year 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half the galaxy"", write ""The Currents of Space is set in 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half the galaxy"", or similar. Making connections to real-world people, places, or events that are not clearly established by the work. Editors can include material about historical events and figures when writing about historical fiction (e.g., how the fiction diverges from recorded history), but they should not assume connections for speculative fiction. For example, the 1988 film Akira takes place in Neo-Tokyo on the eve of the 2020 Olympics. By happenstance, the real-world Tokyo hosted the 2020 Summer Olympics; do not conflate or compare the fictional event of the film with the actual event. However, when a prediction has received coverage in reliable sources or entered the popular culture, it may be discussed in a separate section from the plot. For example, the predictions made about the year 2015 in Back to the Future Part II, cited to secondary reliable sources, can be discussed in a designated section. Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order in which they were published. Articles should give precedence to a clear real-world chronology, while the in-universe order of events can be summarized in a prose plot summary. For example, although the story of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is a prequel that represents the beginning of the Star Wars narrative, it should be defined by release order because it was the fourth film released in the series.These restrictions also apply to serious satire such as Gulliver's Travels, Candide, and many stage plays, in which the fictional elements camouflage the political or social criticism within the work. In such cases, it is legitimate to use reliable sources to examine the fictional elements and the design of the storyline when such sources attempt to decipher the author's original intent. Also, exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature in which the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture. Please review the sections on fair use, accuracy and appropriate weight, and templates. This section deals with the incorporation of information in articles about fiction, specifically in regard to primary and secondary sources. === Primary === Primary information is gathered from primary sources about the fictional universe, such as the original work of fiction or an affiliated work (e.g., another episode of the same TV series). Even articles with the strictest adherence to a real-world perspective still source the original work. According to the policy WP:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, ""A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."" Examples of information in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters; performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices; history of fictional locations or organizations; background information on fictional creatures; and the plot itself.Additional details are in the sections on fair use and templates. === Secondary === Secondary information is external to the fictional universe; it is usually taken from secondary sources about the work or the fictional world it describes, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the creation of the work. Publications affiliated with a particular work (such as fan magazines) are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works. However, such publications may be suitable primary or secondary sources in an article about the fan publication itself or other related topics. The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to cover the topic's major facts and details from a real-world perspective – not more and not less. Another rule of thumb is that if the topic is notable, secondary information should be available and possibly already in the article. Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information related to the work, include the: author, creator, or other key figures in the creation process (e.g., the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels); production company and/or publishing house; design and development (at all stages of the work's creation); real-world factors that influenced the work (or an aspect thereof); actors who portrayed a character (and their approach to the depiction); foreign translations; sales figures (for commercial offerings); reception by critics and the public; critical analysis, including discussion of themes, style, motifs, and genre; and influence on later creators and their projects. Generally, there are two possible issues to be considered: the context of the production and the context of the original work. Whenever the original work itself is the subject of the article, all real-world information needs to be set in the context of that original work (e.g., by including a plot summary). When the article concerns, e.g., a documentary about that original work, it is not necessarily important to discuss the content of the original source material. For fictional elements, details of creation and other relevant real-world information are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element within the work. This often involves providing succinct plot summaries, character descriptions, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense (known in this use as the narrative present), as this is how a real person experiences the story (see also WP:FICTENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a ""past"" and a ""future"", but whether something is ""past"" or ""future"" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous ""present"". Plot summaries and similar recaps of fictional elements (like a character's biography) should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference from the characters or setting (see, for example, § Plot summaries of individual works). Although an in-universe style may be more engaging for prose, it may also create bias, introduce original research, and be overly wordy. For example, instead of starting a plot summary with ""It is 2003"", which puts the reader in the frame of reference of the work, start with ""In 2003"", which extracts the reader from that frame. Plot summaries should be written as prose, not as lists or timelines. The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary. For some types of media, associated guidelines may offer advice on plot length; for example, WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot suggests that plot summaries for feature films be between 400 and 700 words. Wikipedia does not hide, avoid, or take effort to mark spoilers in plot summaries or similar material, but spoilers should only be included when an encyclopedic purpose is being served by presenting the complete plot. === Plot summaries of individual works === In articles on individual works, the plot summary is usually described within a section labeled ""Plot"", ""Story"", or ""Synopsis"". This heading implicitly informs the reader that the text within it describes the fiction. For conciseness, it is thus not necessary to explicitly incorporate out-of-universe language, particularly if the work is presented in a linear, direct presentation, such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. It can be presumed that the work, as presented by the plot, involves fictional elements and proceeds in a straightforward manner. However, care should be taken to avoid incorporating elements of an in-universe perspective. For longer, singular works, subheadings based on the natural divisions in the plot (for example, the three Books within A Tale of Two Cities, the acts of a play or musical, or the seasons and episodes of a television series) can be used to provide real-world framing. Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. References should be provided if a plot point is ambiguous (e.g. Gaston's fate in Beauty and the Beast). References also may be required in non-linear works such as video games and interactive films, where key elements of the plot may not be seen by the viewer due to how they interact with the work. For example, some of the core backstory to the video game BioShock is provided by optional audio logs, so Wikipedia's plot summary references these when they are relevant. A singular work itself might necessitate a real-world perspective due to its structure. Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) or In medias res (The Usual Suspects) presentation, or other narrative framing devices such as breaking the fourth wall (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or inclusion of self-referential humor (Monty Python and the Holy Grail), may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer. For example, a summary of Citizen Kane should establish that much of the film is an extended flashback that is bookended by scenes in the film's present; the entire plot summary should still be written in narrative present tense. Summaries written in a real-world perspective do not need to stay true to the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary. A work with two concurrent, interchanging storylines is likely better told by summarizing one storyline in full, followed by the second storyline. If the narrative device is a significant feature of the work, such as with the films Memento and Run Lola Run, then this structure should be explained to the reader. Where there are narrative ambiguities, for example as a result of an unreliable narrator or storytelling technique, the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent. In such cases where a true narrative is not immediately obvious, this can be avoided by the use of out-of-universe language to describe the context of how the events are presented. Interpretation of the plot taken from reliable sources can be included elsewhere in the article to provide additional information. ""Teaser""-style or incomplete plot descriptions (e.g. ending a plot description with ""In the end the family makes a shocking discovery…"") should not be used. === Plot summaries of serial works === Real-world perspective is the preferred style for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as broadly describing a series of novels, describing key events that might have happened in earlier works that impact the present work, or the biography of a fictional character over multiple works. This can often be aided by provided appropriate section headers for each of the works as to delineate the divisions of the series. === Characters and other fictional elements === When characters or other elements from fictional works are notable for their own standalone article, it is acceptable and often necessary to include a narration of that element's role in the events of the work(s) they are a part of. However, such narration must employ out-of-universe style and include real-world descriptors. Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons, fictional settings should not be treated as a real place, and so forth. Since such articles are presented with a mix of elements related to the fictional narrative alongside elements related to conception, development, and reception, editors must be sure these articles clearly define the fictional aspects with out-of-universe language to avoid confusion. Often, using section labels such as ""Fictional description"", ""Fictional biography"", or ""Appearances"" can help to segregate the narrative elements from the real-world elements in the rest of the article. === Summary style approach === When an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section is sometimes developed into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is a normal Wikipedia procedure called summary style. The new article is sometimes called a ""spinoff"" or ""spinout"" of the main article. For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists). Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. The spinout article should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work – just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate. As with other fictional works, the spinout article should be written in an ""out-of-universe"" style, with an appropriate amount real-world information included. As with all Wikipedia articles, the spinout needs to be verifiable, must possess no original research, and must reflect a neutral point of view. === Sourcing and quotations === The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:V. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. === Analysis and interpretation === Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work. For example, we cannot state anything about whether the top remains spinning or topples at the end of Inception. Even small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles. If a vague plot element is later clarified by the work's creator, this can be included in the summary as long as a citation to this clarification is provided. Independent secondary sources that make analysis or interpretation of a work but without any correlation with the creator should be discussed in a separate section outside of the plot summary and not confused with the presented plot summary. In many contemporary works, it may be possible to easily identify real-world locations, stores, brands, vendors, and models of tangible elements within a visual work, such as where the work was filmed based on landmarks, or the make and model of a car or a gun by observation of unique features. Incorporating this into plot summaries may also be considered interpretation and an element of original research. It should be omitted, as typically the work of fiction does not rely on these specifics: the story may take place in an unnamed city, or the hero drives away in a fast car. However, when those elements are essential facets of the narrative plot or sourced analysis of the work itself, then they should be included; this usually means that the work of fiction has specifically identified these, or that secondary sources have made reference to these in relationship to the plot or work itself. For example, Back to the Future specifically alludes to the time machine being built from a DMC DeLorean, and the car has become iconic with the series so its inclusion is appropriate. In many James Bond films, the car Bond drives and other gadgets based on real-world products are part of the film's marketing, and can be identified that way within the plot. On the other hand, while the setting of Seven can be identified as Los Angeles from various landmarks, the film never calls out the name of the city, nor is the city's specific elements essential to the narrative, and thus should be omitted. Generally speaking, a fictional topic that does not meet the notability guidelines should not have its own article on Wikipedia. However, a collection of fictional topics, such as a setting or cast of characters, may be more notable as a whole. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources will be available and will ideally be included on article creation. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view and must give due weight to all aspects of the subject. Editors should also give appropriate weight to all elements of the article (e.g., images and text, as well as infoboxes and succession boxes). The goal is to attain the greatest possible degree of accuracy in covering the topic at hand, which is also the basic rationale behind discouraging disproportionately long plot summaries and in-universe writing. As the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States, Wikipedia articles must conform to United States copyright law. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of the respective fictional universe, or in some entirely different form such as a quizbook or ""encyclopedia galactica"". Information from copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's non-free content policy requires minimal extent of use. Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released in some way, such as under the CC-BY-SA license, or into the public domain. In these cases, the works themselves may be hosted at a Wikimedia project like Wikisource, but the Wikipedia should still cover the work tersely. When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind. Write from a real-world perspective: the principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. Use a balance of primary and secondary sources: both are necessary for a real-world perspective. Avoid original research: unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Reference all information and cite your sources: information needs to be verifiable and derive from and be supported by reliable sources. All sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article. Maintain balanced coverage: all relevant aspects must be given due weight in all elements of the article, including text, images, layout, and even the article title. Avoid lists of fictional events or trivia. Instead, incorporate relevant information into the article as prose, and discard information that is either redundant or unnecessary to understanding that topic. If a fictional topic is not covered in several independent, reliable, secondary sources, then it probably should not have its own article. Put all content in the correct context: readability and comprehensibility are key, and the reader should always be able to differentiate between real world and fictional content. Use copyrighted work sparingly: check with the image use policy before adding images to any article. Ensure the article complies with Wikipedia's fair-use policy. Here are examples of fiction-related articles that follow the real-world perspective. Editors should use these as a guide when writing their own articles. This is a brief selection; for other equally exceptional examples, see the lists of articles that have been rated at Good and Featured status. These articles may have changed in content since their listing. {{In-universe}}If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, preferably rewrite the article or section yourself, or use the {{In-universe}} template to bring the issue to the attention of others. Be sure to leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your objections. The template looks like this: {{Cleanup tense}}One of the most frequently occurring errors associated with an in-universe style of writing is incorrect use of past tense when discussing elements of the plot. Works of fiction are generally considered to ""come alive"" when read. As with all other article issues, preferably fix it yourself, or alternatively you may use the template to supplement and specify the {{In-universe}} template's call for a consistent real-world perspective. {{Primary sources}}If you notice an article featuring only primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject, preferably find and add suitable sources yourself, or use the {{Primarysources}} template to bring the issue to the attention of others. {{No plot}}When the article is missing a plot summary entirely, use the {{No plot}} template. If you feel qualified to write a basic plot summary, consider giving it a shot. Succinctly summarizing a plot and deciding which elements to mention and how to describe and weight them can be a challenge, but it's also a rewarding experience; plot summaries can be entirely based on primary sources and in many cases no complicated cross-reading between various sources is required. {{Hook}}, {{More plot}}When the plot summary is present but insufficient (for example, if it summarizes the conflict but omits the resolution, or consists only of a blurb or ""hook""), use the {{Hook}} or {{More plot}} template. {{Long plot}}, {{All plot}}A plot summary should be succinct and focused on the main plot. What to cut can sometimes be a difficult decision. If you have the time and energy, please consider tightening overly long and overly detailed plot summaries yourself. When the article contains little more than a plot summary, use {{All plot}} to raise the issue. Since this is a crucial issue which may eventually lead to the article's being nominated for deletion, consider improving the article yourself. Many fictional universes have dedicated wikis that may feature more comprehensive coverage of the in-universe aspects of the work, without the need to establish real-world perspective. If a universe is not available in the above link, please try a search engine. Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance. As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided. An infobox for a real-life actor would not contain items such as favorite food and hobbies; these details do not aid the reader in understanding the important characteristics of the subject. In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. For this reason, infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts, since, for example, information important to a description of a real-world company may be tangential to a fictional one. It is important to identify the revenue of Microsoft, whereas the fact that fictional MegaAcmeCorp makes 300 billion GalactiBucks in 2463 is probably unimportant. Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Furthermore, they may invite the creation of non-notable articles that fall under the fictional succession. For articles about works of fiction themselves, the story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to. In-universe temporal designations such as ""current"" or ""previous"" are therefore inappropriate. For character articles (which cannot be bound temporally), it may be acceptable to use customized templates to summarize information from the perspective of the real world, such as connections between articles describing the same fictional world. Such templates should not invite the creation of articles about non-notable subjects. A number of categories exist to sort works of fiction by their major themes and narrative elements which can help readers find related works. For example, works on Harry Potter should be categorized in Fictional characters who use magic. However, editors should be careful to use an excessive number of categories, and should only use the categories that primarily cover the work, where it would be nearly impossible to concisely describe the work or topic of fiction without broadly mentioning the category. While Category:Blood in fiction may readily apply to stories where blood is a major element such as works about vampires, the work should not be categorized into this category just based on the appearance of blood in the work. Overzealous sorting can diffuse the usefulness of these categories, as well as over-categorize certain works. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, see Summary-only descriptions of works Wikipedia:Manual of Style sub-guidelines: Anime/Manga Comics Films Novels Television Article titles for: Books Comics Films TV Video games Wikipedia Essays on: Wikipedia:Fancruft Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary Wikipedia:How to streamline a plot summary Wikipedia:Naming character articles Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works === Related wikiprojects === These are some of the larger wikiprojects that deal with fiction material. They may have additional suggestions, article templates and styles with which you might wish to make yourself familiar. WikiProject Anime and manga WikiProject Books WikiProject Children's literature WikiProject Comics WikiProject Novels WikiProject Films WikiProject Television WikiProject Video gamesThere are also numerous genre-specific and even franchise-specific wikiprojects; see WP:WikiProject Council for listings." 96 97 195 WP:WIKIPUFFERY Wikipedia:Wikipuffery 96 "Wikipuffery is the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims. They may be there to exaggerate the notability of the article subject to avoid deletion of the article. Examples include use of adjectives such as ""famous"", ""notable"", ""best known"", ""award-winning"", ""acclaimed"", or ""influential"", detailed listings of minor biographical details (including complete lists of anything related to the person or topic), and lead paragraphs that proclaim the superiority of the subject. The examples below use puffery: Foo Barkley (born 1970) is a highly-acclaimed, award-winning American filmmaker ... Talia Xshosa (born 1960) is a renowned, critically-acclaimed Nigerian novelist ... Bringers of Death are a legendary, highly influential death metal band from Albany, NY ... In a Wikipedia article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name. A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source, on the other hand, is the appropriate style. Don't tell readers that the subject is great; tell them neutrally what the individual or band did or achieved, and let them make their own decision: Foo Barkley (born 1970) is an American filmmaker. In 2001, he won the Schenectady Film Critics Award for his short film Truth[1] and in 2011 he won the Rockville, Maryland Film Festival's Best Director Award for his feature film Final Odyssey.[2] ... Talia Xshosa (born 1960) is a Nigerian novelist. In 2000, she won the Nigerian Writer's Award for her novel Sensitive.[3] ... Bringers of Death are a death metal band from Albany, NY. According to metal historian Alger Holdens, the band ""... influenced several early 1990s East Coast death metal bands from the US, such as Filth and Exiled.""[4] ... These articles may have lots of footnotes to non-reliable sources (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or to sources that do not specifically mention the subject, and the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in reliable sources in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject. Synthesis of published material to reach a novel conclusion is also a common trait. A Rolling Stone article says that ""young garage bands are reinvigorating the music industry"". Since the article subject is a garage band, the editor then does a novel synthesis: ""Rolling Stone magazine suggests that young garage bands like XYZ are 'reinvigorating the music industry'"". Wikipuffery can occur in an article on any topic. However, some topics are more prone to Wikipuffery than others. Articles about bands, especially non-notable garage bands and college bands, tend to have a lot of Wikipuffery. If the band plays an unpaid warm-up spot at a music festival for a well-known local band which opened for the special guests to the headliners (say, Metallica), the article will deceptively inform the reader that the band ""opened for Metallica."" Articles about individuals who have attained a fleeting celebrity for their involvement in a reality TV show or a highly-publicized brush with the law may also have Wikipuffery, as some editors try to ""plump up"" the article with trivial references to keep the article from being deleted. Wikipuffery can also occur in articles about writers, poets, or other creative individuals. Conversely, but far less regularly, the opposite effect, Anti-""reliable sources""-ism, may occur. This is normally manifested in cases where editors remove relevant and encyclopedic information from an article and/or its main factor of notability. This can sometimes occur in articles about celebrities in which the majority of the information that is added is trivial gossip and innuendo sourced from tabloid websites and POV praise sourced from non-reliable sources such as fan websites. In these types of articles, attempts to add information about the individual from reputable sources may be deleted. For example, in the case of a Hollywood actor who is better known for debauchery and scandal than acting skill, quotations from a reputable source such as a Variety or Time magazine film review that criticizes his acting skills may be deleted. Wikipuffery should be distinguished from the promotional language that results from doing ""cut and pastes"" from advertising or websites written by the subject's publicist (a copyright violation), even though the effect (vague, unsubstantiated positive claims) is similar. Conversely, efforts to do anti-puffery and delete references to reputable sources should be distinguished from situations of conflict of interest, in which an editor with connections to the article topic tries to remove any negative coverage of the article topic—even if it comes from the most reputable sources. Protection against both may be sought in examination of any source material provided; one reference to Encyclopedia Britannica is better than fifty MySpace references. The term wikipuffery may be applied as a disparagement of efforts to retain articles of questioned notability. Good-faith additions, such as using sources which are not strong, should not be confused with edits which add personal opinion or synthesis. Each claim and source should stand on its own merits. While Wikipedia:Articles for deletion may sometimes appear to be a battleground, it is not the venue for unfounded accusations of ""wikipuffery."" General notability guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Wikipedia:Attribution Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability Wikipedia:Marketing buzzspeak Wikipedia:Fictitious references Wikipedia:Words to watch Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Editorializing === Templates === {{Puffery}} – cleanup request tag that adds article to Category:Articles with wikipuffery. Better still, just rewrite the offending sections removing peacock language from the article. {{Citecheck}} – This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Adds article to Category:All articles lacking sources. {{Failed verification}} – in-line note that a source says something other than what is contained in the text. Explain in detail on talk page. {{Request quotation}} – in-line request for a direct quote from the cited source, used where interpretation may be considered inaccurate. Discuss on article Talk page. {{Peacock}} – cleanup request tag that adds article to Category:Articles with peacock terms. Better still, just rewrite the offending sections removing peacock language from the article. {{Advert}}" 97 98 196 WP:YTREF Wikipedia:Video links 97 "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Links should be carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. You may not link to any copyright violation, such as a music video or television show that has been uploaded illegally, on any page or for any purpose. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The {{uw-copyright-link}} template can be used to notify editors of this. If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source. If there is a question to a YouTube video's validity or appropriateness as a reference, alternatives include using the {{cite episode}} or {{cite AV media}} templates, citing the original media without the use of any link. Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors must not link to copyright violations. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors, and the decision to provide such a link may constitute contributory copyright infringement. Editors should not necessarily trust assertions from an uploader that copyrighted material in the video is justifiable under fair use because the claim is frequently false. Many claims are unlikely to apply to or are insufficient for use on Wikipedia. Additionally, it may be difficult to ensure that the video has not been modified from the original. For example, a YouTube verification badge is used to identify an official channel of an established creator, business or organization, but it does not fully guarantee that all its videos comply with copyright and fair use. Links to online videos should indicate that they are videos. The file size associated with links may also be useful. Although it is not common, it has been recommended that links also indicate any specific software (e.g. in the past, Flash video or another proprietary player such as RealPlayer) or web browser required to view the content. Readers using some mobile devices, who have a visual or aural disability, or with poor Internet connections may be unable or unwilling to view video links due to the slower speed or because they require an alternate means of transcription. If available, a closed captioning transcript can also be used to convey what is contained in a video, and is a proper substitute if the reader is guided to the source's proper passage. However, this should always be an official transcript composed by a human (for instance, most network news operations and cable news networks post transcripts of their daily series shortly after broadcast), and not a machine-read transcript, which is subject to major errors, and often lack punctuation. === As references === The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content, so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. Editors should also attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately. There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from the music video site Vevo, where record labels host their artist's music videos and also upload to YouTube, is an example of a primary source that might be used. The originator of the content, not the platform that hosts it, should also be ascertained before using the content as a source; unless it is a support or promotional video posted on an official YouTube channel (for instance, YouTube Rewind), or an original series specifically commissioned by YouTube itself, for example, YouTube does not originate its content, and it should never be sourced as the publisher of the content. For instance, some media organizations incorrectly attribute clips of a sitcom which pre-dated the Internet to YouTube, as they utilized a clip of it from that site for a news story, rather than properly to its original producer or current distributor. This is also known as a video courtesy, stating its rightsholder or originator. For instance, if the Associated Press uploaded the story, they are the content originator, not YouTube. This is commonly seen on programs such as SportsCenter, where the originating broadcaster or rights body for a sports highlight is flagged in the clip (usually suffixing the note 'courtesy of:') to provide them credit for the video. Anyone can create a website or video and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For this reason, self-published media is often not acceptable as a source. Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community sometimes accepts videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee of approval with content being unduly self-serving being just one concern. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Primary sources, such as an episode of an editor's favorite television program, can easily be incorrectly used to create trivia sections. This should be avoided. Such sources should also not be used to create articles that include only the plot of television shows or movies without additional details found in secondary sources. Although concise plot summaries are usually appropriate, failing to provide secondary coverage puts notability into question and does not provide encyclopedic content. Editors can use the {{cite episode}} template to cite specific television programs. The {{cite AV media}} template can be used for movies and other visual media. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a link is not necessary since there is no distinction between using online or offline sources. As much information as possible should be provided to increase the likelihood of the source being accepted as reliable by the community. Including the minutes being referred to in a long video will make the source easier to verify by your fellow editors and the reader. Most relevant details can be found in the credits, any packaging, or through the Internet. When citing books or unusually long journal articles, an editor should specify the page number(s). Similarly, some means of specifying the location of the referenced content from a video, called a timecode, is strongly encouraged. For YouTube videos, one can specify the start location's timecode by appending to the URL: &t=0m12s, described in more detail in various online posts. === In the External links section of an article === Links to user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). For example: Videos often contain less information than alternative websites or the Wikipedia article itself. This concern limits use of many videos according to ELNO#1. Adding links to gratis online videos that promote a site or product may be considered spam. Inclusion of such a link is only acceptable if it refers to the official site associated with the Wikipedia article. Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to YouTube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available. The template {{YouTube}} can be used if appropriate. {{External media}} can be used within the body of an article when media is necessary but not available through free or fair-use rules. Community consensus has determined that the XLinkBot may automatically revert any addition of YouTube videos in the External links section of articles submitted by IPs and brand-new editors. This does not mean that the videos are necessarily in violation of the project's standards, but the intent is to limit the higher rate of problematic videos linked to by non-established editors. {{cite web |last1=Fauci |first1=Anthony |author1-link=Anthony Fauci |title=WATCH: Dr. Anthony Fauci gives opening statement during Senate committee hearing on coronavirus |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPaVbg0g_Gw |website=youtube.com |publisher=[[PBS News Hour]] |language=en |format=video |date=May 12, 2020}}Fauci, Anthony (May 12, 2020). ""WATCH: Dr. Anthony Fauci gives opening statement during Senate committee hearing on coronavirus"" (video). youtube.com. PBS News Hour. WP:ELPEREN, a summary of acceptable and unacceptable uses of websites (including YouTube) as external links that editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Videos, about video on Wikipedia" 98 99 197 WP:MILPOP Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide 98 "The Military history WikiProject's content guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the content and structure of articles within the scope of the project. The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article. They are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss. The recommended structures may be further broken down into subsections if judged appropriate for each article's content. === Wars === The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey: The name of the war (including alternate names). When did it happen? Who fought in it? Why did it happen? What was the outcome? What was its significance, if any?The article can be structured along these lines: The historical background to the conflict, including preceding conflicts, the political situation, military preparedness, and technology. The causes of the conflict. The stated casus belli. For example, the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered a sequence of events that led to World War I. Take care to ensure neutrality, since the stated casus belli is often disputed, whereby reliable sources dispute whether the ""trigger event"" was either truly a trigger or else was just a pretext. In such cases, best practice would include either a footnote or a paragraph in the main body of the article setting out the different perspectives on the stated casus belli, and would avoid stating in wikipedia's neutral voice that the conflict was started by one side or the other, unless reliable sources are in agreement and do not reference such disputes. Separately, also take care to distinguish a casus belli from the underlying causes that allowed the event to trigger a war. A summary of the conflict. When a war is large, it can often be divided into phases, geographic regions (""theaters""), or naval and land campaigns. Don't describe individual battles in detail; refer to a separate article on the battle and just explain the result of the battle and its consequences for the war. How the war came to an end. What treaties were signed, and what were their conditions? What were the consequences of the war? Who did it affect? What happened next? Did the war lead to peace or to further wars? Were countries conquered or liberated? Were there significant advances in tactics or technology? === Battles === The opening paragraph (or lead section in a longer article) should concisely convey: The name of the battle (including alternate names). When did it happen? Where did it happen? Which war or campaign does it belong to? Who were the combatants? What was its outcome or significance?The article can be structured along these lines: Background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously? What was the geography of the battlefield? Prelude. What forces were involved and who were the commanders? How well prepared were they for the battle? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan? Were there any preliminary moves or operations? Battle. A description of the battle. What tactics were used? Which units moved where? Aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?Summaries of battles in other articlesBecause of the key role the discussion of individual battles plays in military historiography, it is often useful to summarize information about a particular battle in an article of broader scope (such as one discussing a war or military leader). In such cases, the bulk of the material should be in the article on the battle itself; the summary in the external article should be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that concisely present the following: Why did the battle take place? Who was attacking and who was defending? Why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it; what was at stake? What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces? Who won, and how decisive a victory was it? Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded, or killed? What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign? Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles? Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle? === Units, branches or formations === The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey: The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s). What is the unit's country or allegiance? What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of? When was it formed? If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated? In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate?The article can be structured along these lines (note: these do not denote headings as such, but general topics that could be included): The unit's history (both service and organisational) including potentially: When and why was it formed? Who formed it? Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war (e.g. what battles did it fight in, or what operations was it committed to, and what role did it undertake in those actions)? Who has commanded it? How many casualties did it incur? Where was/is it based? What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any? What role did/does it fulfill? What was its structure? The unit's traditions. What mascots does it have? What anniversaries does it celebrate? What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit? What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received? === Weapons, vehicles, aircraft and equipment === The article can be structured along these lines: Development and design. A description of the major features, including details of the key features and functions of the weapon, vehicle, aircraft or equipment, including its characteristics or specifications, unit cost, crew, armament and or operating mechanisms, etc. For individual weapons, a list and description of the officially approved accessories issued with the weapon, such as bayonets and any special cleaning kits may be included. History. A history of the weapon, vehicle, aircraft or equipment, including background events leading to the design and the evolution of design, plus service/operational history. Variants and upgrades. A list and description of all variants, upgrades and close descendants, plus production details. Operators. Current and former military operators should be listed. Additionally, some weapons, vehicles, aircraft and equipment may have civilian operators. Where this applies, a general description of its use by non-military, non-government, and other groups may be applicable. See also section. This should list similar items comparable by role, configuration or era. === Bases or fortresses === The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey: The formal name of the base in English, any appropriate foreign names, and any nickname(s). Who owns or operates the fortress or base? What is the purpose of the fortress or base; in other words, why was it built? When was it built? In what notable battles, operations, or wars was the base or fortress involved? If the base or fortress no longer exists, when was it demolished or deactivated and why?The article can be structured along these lines: The base or fort's background. What events led to the need for a new fortress or base? The planning and construction of the fort or base. Who built it? What were its physical features and what problems arose during construction? Consider the surrounding terrain and other potentially hostile conditions, including opposition to its construction. The base or fort's history. After it was built, how did the base serve its builders? What purpose did it serve, and how effective was it in that role? Was it involved in any battles or provide a supporting role to an army or unit? What units were stationed at the base, and who were its commanders? If the base or fort still exists, what is its purpose and condition? Who is in charge of the base? What are the politics surrounding it? If the base or fort no longer exists, what happened to its site? Has it been turned over to commercial use, another military, or converted to park land? === Biographies === The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey: The highest rank achieved (generally though, only for ranks equivalent to Major and above), the person's common name and postnominals in the lead sentence. The basis for the person's notability. See WP:BIO for guidance on this. The war or wars they served in. Optional: Mention of high awards, such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross along with the battle they were earned in.The article can be structured along these lines: Early life before military service. Include details of parents, notable siblings or other relatives, education and prior employment. Service life. Including sections or subsections for each war or distinct period of service, detailing what battles they were involved in and their impact on each battle where relevant, and any wounds and awards received. Post-service life. Including any later non-military employment or activities, retirement and death. Awards and dates of promotions may be incorporated into the body at the appropriate chronological points, but may also be listed in separate subsections for ease of reference. For flying aces only, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to making it collapsible, but per MOS:DONTHIDE this should not be set as the default.It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their wider military and social context. In a military sense, the contribution an individual made to a military campaign should be explained in a neutral way, including the wider context of military operations, not just the individual's combat decisions or actions. The social context should include, but is not limited to, how the individual fitted into the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time. Where high quality reliable sources refer to a person's political or ideological views these should be included. If an individual has been alleged to have been involved in breaches of the law of war, these allegations should also be included, along with the results of any legal action taken against them. See also the specific guidelines for firearms and popular culture.""In popular culture"" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable secondary source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided: Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia) Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)This tends to be a particular problem in articles on military hardware (weapons, vehicles, and so forth); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, is certainly notable. The following text may be inserted as a hidden comment into military history articles: " 99 100 198 WP:independent sources WP:independent sources 99 "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article. It also ensures articles can catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure. In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify: Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.)Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources. This page deals primarily with the second question: identifying and using independent and non-independent sources. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. An interest in this sense may be either positive or negative. An example of a positive interest is writing about yourself, your family, or a product that is made or sold by your company or employer; an example of a negative interest is owning or working for a company that represents a competing product's article. These conflicts of interest make Wikipedia editors suspect that sources from these people will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic. Sources by involved family members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent. Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic. Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the person's own viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure. Articles that don't reference independent sources should be tagged with {{third-party}}, and if no substantive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can be identified, then the article should be nominated for deletion. If the article's content is strictly promotional, it should even be made a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD G11. Wikipedia strives to be of the highest standard possible, and to avoid writing on topics from a biased viewpoint. Wikipedia:Verifiability was created as an expansion of the neutral point of view policy, to allow information to be checked for any form of bias. It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct. Such articles tend to be vanity pieces, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written about without bias; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines. In the case of a Wikipedia article about a website, for example, independent sources would include an article in a newspaper which describes the site, but a reference to the site itself would lack independence (and would instead be considered a primary source). These simple examples need to be interpreted with all the facts and circumstances in mind. For example, a newspaper that depends on advertising revenue might not be truly independent in their coverage of the local businesses that advertise in the paper. As well, a newspaper owned by person X might not be truly independent in its coverage of person X and their business activities. Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A first-party, non-independent source about the president of an environmental lobby group would be a report published by that lobby group's communications branch. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material. This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source, which is one where the material presented is based on some other original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports, and with a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals. Secondary does not mean third-party, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but they are not always third-party sources. Although there is technically a small distinction between a third-party source and an independent one, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines use the terms interchangeably, and most sources that are third-party also happen to be independent. Note that a third party is not necessarily independent. For example, if famous filmmaker Y has a protege who runs a film review website (""Fully Independent Critic.com""), and if filmmaker Y instructs ""Independent Critic"" to praise or attack film Q, then filmmaker Y and Fully Independent Critic.com might not be independent, even though they are not related by ownership, contract or any legal means. Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. Arguably, an independent and reliable source is not always objective enough or knowledgeable to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In severe cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.) If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, or better still debated a topic, then that improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines. Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, ""Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest"" is OK when using material published by the organization, but ""10,000 people showed up to protest"" is not. Similarly, it is undesirable to say ""Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer"" (without attribution) instead of ""Pax-Luv's manufacturer, Umbrella Cor., says Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer"". Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details. === Press releases === A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization (e.g., a spin doctor). Press releases commonly show up in Google News and DuckDuckGo searches and other searches that editors commonly use to locate reliable sources. Usually, but not always, a press release will be identified as such. Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called ""churnalism""). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article. In general, press releases have effusive praise, rather than factual statements. A press release about the Bippledorp 9000 effect pedal by its manufacturer might call it the ""greatest invention in the history of electric guitar""; in contrast, an independent review in Guitar Player magazine may simply make factual statements about its features and call it an ""incremental tweak to existing pedal features"". Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions. === Syndicated stories === There are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source. (See also: Wikipedia:Notability#cite ref-3.) === Conflicts of interest === Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. In some cases, the conflict of interest is easy to see. For example, suppose Foo Petrochemicals Inc. wrote an article about a chemical spill caused by Foo Petrochemicals Inc.. This is not an independent source on the spill, nor on how green, nature-loving and environment-saving Foo is. If the source is written by a public relations firm hired by Foo, it's the same as if it were written by Foo, itself. Foo and the hired PR firm both have a conflict of interest between a) being accurate and b) favouring Foo. However, less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish. Caution must be used in accepting sources as independent. Suppose a non-profit organization named ""Grassroots Reach-out Accountability Sustainability (""GRASS"") writes a press release calling Foo Petrochemicals ""the No. 1 savior of the environment and the planet"". Does GRASS have a conflict of interest? Well, the GRASS.com website says GRASS is 100% independent and community-based. However, closer research may reveal that GRASS was astroturfed by unnamed corporations who gave the organization lots of money to pursue these ""independent"" agendas. U.S. funding laws allow such anonymity. Many other countries have stricter transparency laws. Covert ads are illegal or restricted in many jurisdictions. The peer-review process does not guarantee independence of a source. Journal policies on conflicts of interest vary. Caution is needed on topics with large commercial interests at stake, where controversy may be manufactured, and genuinely controversial topics where there may be a great deal of honest debate and dissent. Much scientific research is funded by companies with an interest in the outcome of the experiments, and such research makes its way into peer-reviewed journals. For example, pharmaceutical companies may fund research on their new medication Pax-Luv. If you are a scientist doing research funded by the manufacturer of Pax-Luv, you may be tempted (or pressured) into downplaying adverse information about the drug. Resistance may cause you to lose your funding. Journals can also have conflicts of interest due to their funding sources. Some profit from paid supplements and some predatory journals have no real peer-review. See conflicts of interest in academic publishing. Independent studies, if available, are preferred. It may be best to include a source with a potential conflict of interest. In this case, it's important to identify the connection between the source and topic: ""A study by X found that Y."" In sectors where conflicts of interests are rampant, it may be preferable to assume that a publication is affected by a conflict of interest unless proven otherwise. Stronger transparency and disclosure practices can provide confidence in a publication. For instance, ICMJE recommendations exists for required disclosures on medical journals, but nearly 90% of the biggest medical journals fail to report potential conflicts of interests of their editors, leading to scarce confidence on the correct handling of conflicts of interests in the contents they publish. Independence alone is not a guarantee that the source is accurate or reliable for a given purpose. Independent sources may be outdated, self-published, mistaken, or not have a reputation for fact-checking. Outdated: A book from 1950 about how asbestos fibre insulation is 100% safe for your house's roof may be published by a source which is completely independent from the asbestos mining and asbestos insulation industries. However, as of 2022, this 1950 book is outdated. Self-published: A book by a self-proclaimed ""International Insulation Expert"", Foo Barkeley, may claim that asbestos fibre insulation is totally safe, and that we should all have fluffy heaps of asbestos fibre in our roofs and walls. Even if Foo Barkeley has paid the vanity press company ""You Pay, We Print It!"" to print 100,000 copies of his treatise praising asbestos, we don't know if Barkeley's views on asbestos are reliable. Mistaken: The world's most elite effect pedal experts, the International Guitar Pedal Institute, may declare in 1989 that the ""Bippledorp 9000 pedal is the first pedal to use a fuzz bass effect""; however, in 2018, new research may show that fuzz bass effects were available in pedal formats in the 1970s. Not good reputation for fact-checking: A tabloid newspaper, the Daily Truth, may declare that a film celebrity, Fingel Stempleton, was kidnapped by space aliens and taken to their home planet for probing/surgery for the entire day of January 1, 2018. DT may make this claim based on an interview with a guest at Stempleton's mansion who witnessed the UFO's arrival in the gated Stempleton mansion/compound. However, a major newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking counters this claim with the release of 60 days of police video surveillance showing Stempleton was locked up for drunk driving from December 1, 2017 to January 30, 2018. (Hmmm, perhaps Stempleton used a Jedi astral travel trick to get out of lockup?) Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability. The core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not requires that it be possible to verify a subject with at least one independent source, or else the subject may not have a separate article in Wikipedia. There is no requirement that every article currently contain citations to such sources, although it is highly desirable. === Indiscriminate sources === Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate sources. For example, a travel guide might attempt to provide a review for every single point of interest, restaurant, or hotel in a given area. A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town, or the everyday activities of local citizens. An enthusiastic local music reviewer may pen a review of every single person who comes on stage in their town with a guitar and a microphone, whether it is an amateur garage band playing for the first time or a major touring group. Sometimes, WP editors think that because a reliable source mentions a certain band, book, film or other topic, this confers notability on the book, film or other topic. Not necessarily. The New York Times may state that Foo Barkeley was onstage at a rock concert (""Foo Barkeley was one of the opening acts who performed on May 1, 2017 at the venue"". This is arguably a ""bare mention""; yes the NYT says that Foo performed, but they don't say whether the concert was good or noteworthy). Indiscriminate but independent sources may be reliable – for example, an online travel guide may provide accurate information for every single hotel and restaurant in a town – but the existence of this information should be considered skeptically when determining due weight and whether each of the mentioned locations qualifies for a separate, standalone article. If a subject, such as a local business, is only mentioned in indiscriminate independent sources, then it does not qualify for a separate article on Wikipedia, but may be mentioned briefly in related articles (e.g., the local business may be mentioned in the article about the town where it is located). === Articles without third-party sources === An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject. Also consider tagging the article with an appropriate template, such as {{Third-party}} or {{unreferenced}}. If no amount of searching will remedy this lack of sources, then it may still be possible to preserve some of the information by merging it into another broad topic. But in order to avoid undue weight, the subject may first need to be summarized appropriately. Consider starting a merge discussion, using the template {{merge}}. Otherwise, if deleting: If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page. Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for at least seven days.Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. They may be copied there using transwiki functionality before considering their merger or deletion. If an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created under the same name, it may be turned into a soft redirect to a more appropriate sister project's article. === Relationship to primary and secondary sources === This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source. A secondary source derives its material from some other, original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports. Secondary sources are contrasted with primary sources. Primary sources are the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography, a politician's speech about their own campaign goals or quoted material from a holy text. Secondary does not mean independent, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but not always. === Relationship to self-published sources === This concept is unrelated to whether a source is self-published. A self-published source is made available to the public (""published"") by or at the direction of the person or entity that created it. Blog posts by consumers about their personal experiences with a product are completely independent, self-published sources. A peer-reviewed article in an reputable academic journal by researchers at a pharmaceutical company about one of their products is a non-independent, non-self-published source. === Biased sources === A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent. In particular, many academic journals are sometimes said to be ""biased"", but the fact that education journals are in favor of education, pharmaceutical journals are in favor of pharmaceutical drugs, journals about specific regions write about the people and places in that region, etc., does not mean that these sources are non-independent, or even biased. What matters for independence is whether they stand to gain from it. For example, a drug company publishing about their own products in a pharmaceutical journal is a non-independent source. The same type of article, written by a government researcher, would be an independent source. === Third-party versus independent === There is technically a small distinction between a third-party source and an independent one. An ""independent"" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A ""third-party"" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. For example, if a lawsuit between two people may result in one person's insurance company paying a claim, then that insurance company is a third party but is not financially independent. However, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines use the terms interchangeably, and most published sources that are third-party also happen to be independent. Except when directly specified otherwise in the policy or guideline, it is sufficient for a source to be either independent or third-party, and it is ideal to rely on sources that are both. === Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources === The necessity of reliable, third-party sources is cemented in several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not states that ""All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources"". Wikipedia's policies on both Verifiability and No original research state that ""If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."" Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that ""Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."" Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources states that ""Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."" Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."" === How to meet the requirement === An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if: Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. However, any information that violates What Wikipedia is not must be removed, regardless of whether or not it is verified in reliable third-party sources. Relevant encyclopedia articles Editorial independence: The ability of a journalist to accurately report news regardless of commercial considerations like pleasing advertisers Independent sources: Whether journalistic sources are repeating each other, or have separately come to the same conclusionsRelated Wikipedia pages Wikipedia:Articles with a single source – multiple sources are always better than {{onesource}}. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest – a Wikipedia behavioral guideline regarding advancing outside interests Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources – a non-independent source is sometimes still reliable. Wikipedia:Party and person – ""Secondary"" does not mean ""independent""; ""third party"" does not mean ""secondary"" (or ""tertiary"").Relevant templates {{Third-party-inline}}, to mark sentences needing an independent or third-party source {{Third-party}}, to tag pages that contain zero independent or third-party sources" 100 101 201 WP:SUMO Wikipedia:WikiProject Sumo 100 "Welcome to WikiProject Sumo. This is a WikiProject set up for the purpose of improving any article related to sumo. If you would like to be a participant, just add yourself below in alphabetical order. Occasionally inactive participants are removed from the list; if this happens to you and you would like to re-add yourself please feel free. Bmesd matt Dane|Geld 12:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) FourTildes (formerly User:Malnova) Hidenotora 10:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC) lkb335 Kaiketsu Kaiouma Kaitetsu Konbinimasuta 12 May 2022 OtharLuin Pawnkingthree 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Phonophobia Popapop2 Rfkatz2005 Tigerboy1966 Chiyomaru0417 Demon Taka XinJeisan Zeieg The Manual of Style for Japan-related articles should be followed for Japanese language text. Following the example of the Nihon Sumo Kyokai and the above style manual: An overuse of Japanese/sumo terms should be avoided: ""wrestler"" is preferred to rikishi, ""top division"" to makuuchi, etc. Japanese/sumo terms can be used in moderation for purposes of clarity and style, if the meaning of the terms has first been made clear. When a Japanese/sumo term is used, every occurrence of the term should be italicized if the word is not in common English use. Per MOS:OTHERLANG, the template {{lang}} should be used for each occurrence, which will automatically italicize the word. For example, makuuchi should be written as {{transl|ja|makuuchi}}. Macrons, such as ō and ū should be used for elongated vowels unless the word (or name) has established usage without the macrons in other English media. (e.g. ""Tokyo"", not ""Tōkyō"") Capitalization of sumo terms, including rank, division, and job titles should be avoided, as in komusubi, makuuchi, and sumo, except where the context calls for title case or where it is used as a personal title, as in ""Yokozuna Asashōryū"". Proper nouns, such as the names of people or organizations, should be capitalized. The scope of this project is all articles relating to Sumo. These articles should be included in the Category:Sumo or one of its subcategories. Asahikuni Masuo Keisuke Itai Daieishō Hayato Ōrora Satoshi Doreen Simmons Enhō Akira Asahishō Kōta Naki Sumo Crying Baby Festival Kitaharima Seiya Shōnanzakura Sōta Hokuseihō Osamu Zabuton Asashoryu's retirement in February 2010 The cancellation of a basho in February 2011 Harumafuji's promotion in September 2012 Taihō's death in January 2013 Kakuryū's promotion in March 2014 Hakuhō breaking the record for most yusho in January 2015 Kitanoumi's death in November 2015 Chiyonofuji's death in August 2016 Kisenosato's promotion in January 2017 Tokitenkū's death in January 2017 Harumafuji's retirement in November 2017 Sakahoko's death in September 2019 Wakanohana Kanji II's death in July 2022 Takanohana Kōji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asashōryū Akinori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) === Former featured articles === === Former good articles === Sumo === Good article candidates === Asashōryū Akinori--00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Passed!Japan Sumo Association, though a bit long I propose we submit the JSA article to GA (?) These articles have all been selected for one or more release versions of wikipedia. Please help ensure that these articles remain of the highest possible quality. No current nominations. Past discussions: Arawaka Masahiro, deleted. Dohyo, kept. Kaishoryu Kuniaki, deleted. Robert Paczków, deleted. Tamakairiki Tsuyoshi, no consensus. Glossary of sumo terms, kept. Musashigawa stable (2013), kept. Ochiai Tetsuya, someone has created an article for Ochiai and, although I think he has a bright future in sumo, he does not yet meet the notoriety requirements for an article === General === Amateur sumo redirected to main sumo article for now Hansoku redirected to Kinjite for now Jungyoone possible source here 2008 LA tour is here More recent article hereOyakata redirected to glossary for now Sumo training The ""Shunjuen Incident"" (1932 strike) - Japanese wiki article is here, article in English here Sumo show [1] Fuji TV Grand Sumo Tournament, in the news like in February 2018; list of winners in ja:日本大相撲トーナメント Sumodo: The Successors of Samurai, see ja:相撲道〜サムライを継ぐ者たち〜, an article in English, and the official website. SANCTUARY: Seiiki, Japanese Netflix series on a delinquent who wants to become a professional wrestler for money and fame, see trailer, IMDB page, and article in ja:サンクチュアリ -聖域- === Heya === === Active Rikishi === Though it once had consensus, the criteria for rikishi to warrant an article is now being disregarded for the most part, so I am deleting any reference to these rules. There seem to be enough contributors, for the time being anyway, that all rikishi articles will be updated without taxing contributors too heavily. If you are planning a rikishi article, please state so specifically on the talk page here, to avoid overlapping work being wasted. This rule was made to prevent having more rikishi articles to update than the limited number of contributors can handle (it's been as low as 2 people in times past, as people often move on). Below is a running list of active rikishi who have been in makuuchi and a rough guide to their success thus far: as of July 2022 basho current means this rikishi is currently ranked in makuuchi Chiyonō, 0 winning tournaments out of 4 Nionoumi, 0 winning tournaments out of 1These active rikishi have not yet reached makuuchi but they meet WP:NSUMO, have a Japanese article and in some cases an image available: Asanowaka Asashiyu Chiyonoumi, exists as a draft Churanoumi exists as a draft Dairaidō Daiseidō Hakuyozan Keitenkai Ōki Rōga Shimazuumi Shonannoumi Takaryū Tamashōhō Tochimaru Tochimusashi Tokihayate FujiseiunNot reached sekitori status but has Japanese article: Amanoshima === Retired Rikishi === Remaining yusho winners, remaining modern era ozeki, various rikishi with high silverware counts and/or makuuchi longevity: Other past rikishi of interest: Takanobori Hirochika DB, sources in English here and here Yanagawa Nobuyuki a rikishi with an article in seven other languages [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] but not in English!These recently retired rikishi meet WP:NSUMO and (mostly) have images: Chiyozakura (made it to juryo in just 8 tournaments, forced to retire because of spinal injury) Daiyubu (sued stablemaster alleging abuse) Dewahayate Dewaōtori Gokushindo Higonojō Hitenryu Hokutokuni (fell off banzuke but returned to juryo) Hoshihikari (thrown out for match-fixing) Hoshikaze (dismissed along with Sokokurai for match-fixing, unsuccessfully appealed, now MMA fighter) Irodori (source) Kaonishiki (last recruit of Takamiyama Daigorō to retire) Kizakiumi (retired early due to chronic neck pain) Kizenryu (holds record for most juryo promotions, uwatenage specialist) Kotomisen Masakaze Masuraumi Nakanokuni Ōiwato source Rikishin (forced to retire at age 21 after knee injury) Ryuko Sakigake Shirononami (thrown out for match-fixing) Shironoryu Sōtairyū Tochihiryu Toyonokuni Tsurugidake (slowest ever ex-collegiate competitor to reach makuuchi) Wakanoshima Wakatenro (thrown out for match-fixing, Source) Yamaguchi, (also known as Daikiho) === General === Glossary of sumo terms Many terms here could be expanded into full articles with enough info Gunbai Japan Sumo Association The article on the German Wikipedia is better than ours Kimarite - Could have details on frequency, which rikishi use them, difficulty etc. Tokoyama interesting info, but too short(for general articles that are more or less completed see here) === Heya === (all the ""completed"" active rikishi that need UPDATES after each basho, are best accessed here) ==== Active rikishi articles without images ==== HiradoumiAs of Jan 22 2023 all makuuchi wrestlers have images besides those listed above ==== Active rikishi articles without ""fighting style"" sections ==== Amuuru Chiyomaru Chiyoōtori Kagamiō Mitakeumi Sadanoumi Shōdai Takanoiwa Tenkaihō Terunofuji Tokushōryū === Retired Rikishi === Arase, no infobox, tourney table Fujizakura, no infobox, tourney table Hamanoshima, no infobox, tourney table Kaidō, no tourney table Koboyama, no infobox, tourney table *Kotogahama, no tourney table Kurama, no infobox, tourney table *Matsunobori, no tourney table *Mitsuneyama, no tourney table Myobudani, no tourney table *Ouchiyama, no tourney table Sōkokurai, needs updated to reflect his retirement and becoming Arashio oyakata Tamatsubaki, no tourney table* Tochihikari, no tourney table Yutakayama, no infobox, tourney tableIn addition to those above, there are also many bios with no ""fighting style"" section,eg Tochinoumi, Kongo. (for a list of retired rikishi with ""completed"" articles, see here) ==== Pre-1958 Yokozuna with Post-1958 style tourney tables ==== Tochinishiki Kiyotaka ==== Retired rikishi without full career tourney tables ==== Akinoumi Setsuo Chiyonoyama Masanobu Maedayama Eigorō Matsunobori Shigeo Mitsuneyama Hokoku Musashiyama Takeshi Tochinishiki Kiyotaka Tsurugamine Akio Yoshibayama Junnosuke ==== Retired rikishi without images ==== There are many, but non-free images can be used for deceased rikishi such as: Arase Nagahide Daikirin Takayoshi Hokutenyu Ryūko Seihō Takanohana Kenshi Takanosato TamanoumiA great many free images of past sumo wrestlers are available at Wikicommons here. Some do not yet have articles on the English Wikipedia (see above). === Venues === Aichi Prefectural Gymnasium Fukuoka International Center Osaka Prefectural Gymnasium Ryōgoku Kokugikan === Addition of jun-yusho to rikishi tournament tables === List of jun-yusho winners sorted by total 21 – 10 jun-yusho: done (15 rikishi) 9 – 7 jun-yusho: done (17 rikishi) 6 – 5 jun-yusho: done (18 rikishi) 4 jun-yusho: done (22 rikishi, 21 with articles) 3 jun-yusho: done (15 rikishi, 14 with articles) 2 jun-yusho: done (42 rikishi, 36 with articles) 1 jun-yusho: done (96 rikishi, 53 with articles) === Article space === {{Goo Sumo}} {{Active makuuchi wrestlers}} ==== Infoboxes ==== {{Infobox sumo wrestler}} ===== Needed ===== {{Infobox heya}} ==== Stats ==== Sumo record box — Makuuchi or below career record for a single rikishi. See the documentation for {{Sumo record box start}} for usage. {{Sumo record box start}} for modern tourney tables 1957 to present {{Sumo record box start 1953-1956}} for 1953-1956 tourney tables with 4 basho a year {{Sumo record box start 1933-1952}} for 1933-1952 tourney tables with 3 basho a year {{Sumo record box start 1926-1932}} for 1926-1932 tourney tables with 4 basho a year {{Sumo record box start 1875-1926}} for 1875-1926 tourney tables with 2 basho a year {{Sumo record box start 1875-1926 thin}} for 1875-1926 tourney tables when the above version is too wide {{Sumo record box start pre-1875}} pre-1875-1926 tourney tables with 2 basho a year {{Sumo record box start Osaka}} for tourney tables from Osaka sumo before the 1927 merger (labelled First, Second tournament) {{Sumo record box end}} for basho 1947 afterwards, when the current sansho and playoff system began to be used {{Sumo record box end 1930-1946}} for basho in this period because of no-playoffs or sansho {{Sumo record box end 1890-1929}} for basho in this period because of no kinboshi, playoffs or sansho {{Sumo record box end pre-1890}} for basho in this period because of nr's and no yokozuna on banzuke {{Sumo record year start}} {{Sumo record year start link}} for years that have a corresponding year in sumo article {{Sumo record year end}} {{Basho}} ===== Needed ===== ==== Misc ==== {{Sumo-bio-stub}} {{Sumo-stub}} ===== Needed ===== {{Sumo navbox}} === Talk space === {{WikiProject Sumo}} === Userboxes === {{User WikiProject Sumo}} === User talk space === {{WP Sumo invite}} === Sumo trophies === I'm beginning a list of past and present sumo trophies here, so if you want to help, to upload trophies pics or to do some research feel free to come and visit :) OtharLuin (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC) === Shunjuen Incident === I began to create an article on the Shunjuen Incident (unprecedented strike of sumo wrestlers in 1932) here so if anyone wants to join, I'd be happy to get some help, there's much to say OtharLuin (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I have mainly finished the article, if some people here want to reread the article, add sources, give comments on the organization of the plan: I am a taker. Since it's an article I think is important, I'll leave it in sandbox format (here) with the biblio I found to give us time to make a good article OtharLuin (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) === Yokozuna Deliberation Council === In the same way as the other articles under review, I think I've done the rounds of sources and info to create a full-fledged article on the YDC (here). Originally it was supposed to be in the article on the JSA but Pawnking suggested it would be better on its own. OtharLuin (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC) === Newspapers === ==== English Language ==== The Japan Times Sumo Has free articles as far back as 2000 The Japan News (by the Yomiri Shimbun) The Asahi Shimbun The Mainichi Japan Today Sports Metropolis Magazine Has features of several rikishi ==== Japanese Language ==== Mainichi Shimbun Sumo Asahi Shimbun Sumo Yomiuri Shimbun Sumo Nikkan Sports === Magazines === Le Monde du Sumo French-language online Sumo magazine with occasional English translations. Sumo Fan Magazine Online magazine with articles on Sumo history, memorabilia, ongoing basho, rikishi and heya profiles, etc. === Websites === Official English website of the Nihon Sumo Kyokai Japanese [9] japanese records encyclopedia (pretty complete) Sumo Reference A comprehensive sumo database Sumo Forum's glossary Sumo site by ""Kintamayama"" Statistics, facts, trivia Szumo.hu Exhaustive collection of data: yusho, sansho, complete banzuke archives since Aki, 1998, Makuuchi banzuke archives since 1757, and more. Sumoforum.net One of the premier sumo forums. These are normally not considered reliable sources, but here we can find lots of information not otherwise available in English, such as day-by-day honbasho results for non-sekitori bouts, lots of images, expert commentary by an amateur sumotori or two and from Japan residents actually present at the basho, translations of Japanese-language heya websites and rikishi blogs, news articles, etc. (It's apparently not uncommon for rikishi to blog these days.) Index of Sumo pages on the web Index of Amateur Sumo pages on the web Index of Sumo BBS pages on the web Sumo Mailing List A long standing, active listserv with several well known sumo experts participating. Fair amount of POV discussion, but links to reliable sources are routinely included, as well. The Oyakata Gallery Historical information on every oyakta. Has a news section on kabu changes from 2000 to the present. === Books === click the isbn to find where the book is near you Adams, Andy; Newton, Clyde (1989). Sumo. London, UK: Hamlyn. ISBN 0600563561. Benjamin, David (2010). Sumo: A Thinking Fan's Guide to Japan's National Sport. North Clarendon, Vermont, USA: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-4-8053-1087-8. Benjamin, David (1992). The Joy of Sumo: A Fan's Notes. Rutland, Vermont, USA & Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Company. ISBN 0-8048-1679-4. Bickford, Lawrence (1994). Sumo And The Woodblock Print Masters. Tokyo, New York: Kodansha International. ISBN 4770017529. Buckingham, Dorothea M. (1997). The Essential Guide to Sumo. Honolulu, USA: Bess Press. ISBN 1880188805. Cuyler, P.L. (1979). Sumo From Rite to Sport. New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 0834801450. Cuyler, P.L.; Doreen Simmons (1989). Sumo From Rite to Sport. New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 0834802031. Gutman, Bill (1995). Sumo Wrestling. Minneapolis, USA: Capstone Pres. ISBN 1-56065-273-X. Hall, Mina (1997). The Big Book of Sumo. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 1880656280. Ito, Katsuharu (the 34th Kimura Shonosuke) (2017). The Perfect Guide To Sumo, in Japanese and English. Translated by Shapiro, David. Kyoto, Japan: Seigensha. ISBN 978-4-86152-632-9. Kenrick, Douglas M. (1969). The Book of Sumo: Sport, Spectacle, and Ritual. New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 083480039X. Newton, Clyde (2000). Dynamic Sumo. New York and Tokyo: Kodansha International. ISBN 4770025084. Patmore, Angela (1991). The Giants of Sumo. London, UK: Macdonald Queen Anne Press. ISBN 0356181200. PHP Institute; Kitade, Seigoro, eds. (1998). Grand Sumo Fully Illustrated. Translated by Iwabuchi, Deborah. Tokyo: Yohan Publications. ISBN 978-4-89684-251-7. Sacket, Joel (1986). Rikishi The Men of Sumo. text by Wes Benson. New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 0834802147. Sargent, John A (1959). Sumo The Sport and The Tradition. Rutland, Vt.: Charles E. Tuttle Company. ISBN 0804810842. Schilling, Mark (1984). Sumo: A Fan's Guide. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Times, Ltd. ISBN 4-7890-0725-1. Shapiro, David (1995). Sumo: A Pocket Guide. Rutland, Vermont, USA & Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Company. ISBN 0-8048-2014-7. Sharnoff, Lora (1993) [1st pub. 1989]. Grand Sumo: The Living Sport and Tradition (2nd ed.). New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 978-0-8348-0283-4. Sports Watching Association (Japan); Kakuma, Tsutomu, eds. (1994). Sumo Watching. Translated by Iwabuchi, Deborah. New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 4896842367. Takamiyama, Daigoro; John Wheeler (1973). Takamiyama The World of Sumo. Tokyo, New York: Kodansha International. ISBN 0870111957. Yamaki, Hideo (2017). Discover Sumo: Stories From Yobidashi Hideo. Translated by Newton, Clyde. Tokyo: Gendai Shokan. ISBN 978-4768457986. Zabel, Thomas (2014). Sumo Skills: Instructional Guide for Competitive Sumo. Mico, TX, USA: Ozumo Academy Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9914086-0-3. Zerling, Andrew (2016). Sumo for Mixed Martial Arts: Winning Clinches, Takedowns, and Tactics. Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, USA: YMAA Publication Center. ISBN 978-1-59439-409-6. === Pics sources === ==== Inside Sport Japan ==== Can be found on every social medias and mostly on their Discord account (Inside Sport Japan#7184). Very helpful bunch, and I quote ""If it’s for Wikipedia we should be able to work out usage no problem. Just have a look through our stuff and let us know if you find images that are useful and which ones you want to use."" Already asked for a few pics, most of them taken by John Gunning. In the process they need to ask the permission of the person who took the pics. ==== Japan Sumo Association ==== They don't answer the mails and only takes phonecall in Japanese (at 03-3623-5111). Listed as the owner of a lot of pics related to 20th and early 21rst century sumo." 101 102 203 WP:UNCIVIL Wikipedia:Civility 101 "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians. Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users who contribute constructively, but politely discourage non-constructive newcomers. === Avoiding incivility === Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes. Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed. Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message. Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are ""superior""; nobody likes a bully. Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over. (See Editing under the influence and No angry mastodons) Take a real-life check. Disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself ""How would I feel if someone said that to me?"" is often not enough; many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: ""How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?"" If you would find that unacceptable, then do not say it. And, if you have already said it, strike it and apologise. Be professional. Just because we are online and unpaid does not mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office are not supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something is worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue centre allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere in this world where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling; the same principle applies here. Avoid name-calling. Someone may very well be an idiot, but telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them. Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to ""grow up"" or include any language along the lines of ""if this were kindergarten"" in your messages. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping. Be careful with edit summaries. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing ""Save"", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation. === Edit summary dos and don'ts === Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them. Here is a list of tips about edit summaries: Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately. Use neutral language. Remain calm. Don't make snide comments. Don't make personal remarks about editors. Don't be aggressive. Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond the same way. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought they were being uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see below) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve. This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor incident, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is in itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. === No personal attacks or harassment === Editors are expected to not personally attack nor harass other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks. It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as (i) the intensity and context of the language/behaviour; (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behaviour has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behaviour of others need to be treated at the same time. The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. ""that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"", ""snipped crap"")2. Other uncivil behaviours (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken. (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings (c) sexual harassment (d) lying (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't sayIn addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong. === Assume good faith === The assume good faith guideline states that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project. The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports. Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one. First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could/should have done better. (If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.) Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. (""That made me feel..."" is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than ""Your post was..."") Ask them to strike through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. In ""emergency"" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrators' ""Incidents"" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the ANI advice first.Threats. Threats of violence or suicide should be reported immediately—see WP:EMERGENCY. Hateful speech, legal threats, and other urgent incidents should be reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page. === Dispute resolution === In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a minor incident – particularly if it turns out that you misinterpreted what they meant – may produce more stress and drama than the incident itself. Consider your own behaviour, and, if you find you have been uncivil, apologize to them instead. In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for dispute resolution if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient: User talk page. If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead. Third opinion. This forum can be used to request outside input from an uninvolved user regarding the problem. Like many dispute resolution processes, it is limited to encyclopedia content disputes. Request for comment. RfC is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change. Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). It is the place where editors involved in a content dispute can have a discussion facilitated by uninvolved volunteers, in an attempt to find compromise and resolution to disputes. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to report and discuss severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by administrators and experienced editors. The last step—only when other avenues have been tried and failed—is the Arbitration Committee. It is the final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. It scrutinises all sides involved in the dispute and creates binding resolutions. But it may accept or decline any matter at its sole discretion. === Removing uncivil comments === Where the uncivil comment is yours, any of these options will help reduce the impact: Where someone is unintentionally offended at your comment, calmly explain what you meant. Strike it out (using HTML strikeout tags), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment. Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil – Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone objected to it. If someone has already reacted, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author. Simply apologize. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologize.In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. A special case is outing, that is, revealing personally identifiable information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name, phone number or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an oversighter should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies whether or not the information is correct, as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. Wikipedia:Outing has full information. ==== Different places, different atmospheres ==== Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional workspaces. They're places to talk about how to improve the article, and to discuss the article (though it's OK for conversations to wander into related areas, or go more into depth than the article does, as that helps with research and gives ideas on improvement). But an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there. Clearly, just like in a real kitchen, it's no more acceptable to stick a knife in someone than it is in the office. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere, but expect users' own talk pages to have a much more informal atmosphere than article talk pages. === Apologising: It's OK to say sorry === Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. There's no loss of face in apologising. We all make mistakes, we all say the odd hurtful thing, we all have bad days and bad moments. If you have a sneaky feeling you owe someone an apology, offer the apology. Apologising does not hurt you. Remember, though, that you cannot demand an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of ""pride"" is destructive. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another. === Blocking for incivility === Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases. Be sure to take into account all the relevant history. Avoid snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action. Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do. Poorly considered civility blocks have at times worsened disputes and increased disruption. Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, or harassment) Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil might be contentious, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI, before any admin action is taken. Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests. Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, reword or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings or blocks.Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventive and not punitive. Meta:Don't be a jerk Wikimedia:Friendly space policy Wikimedia:Non discrimination policy Wikipedia:Society Wikimedia:Terms of Use Reagle, Joseph (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262014-47-2. Sutton, Robert (February 2007). The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't. Business Plus. ISBN 978-0-446-52656-2. Doctorow, Cory (May 14, 2007). ""How to Keep Hostile Jerks from Taking Over Your Online Community"". InformationWeek. TechWeb Business Technology Network. Retrieved June 30, 2019. Carnegie, Dale (1936). How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1-4391-6734-6. ""Characterizing Incivility on Wikipedia"" in the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#July 2019 on YouTube" 102 103 207 WP:ALLOFTHEABOVE Wikipedia:Snowball clause 102 "The snowball clause is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states: ""If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."" The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again. The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks. The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time. An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy. Sometimes the support for a proposal is so overwhelming or so obvious that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing. Such proposals may also be suitable for early closure, with the same care and considerations that apply to a SNOW closure of failing proposals. This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as the lack of snowballs in hell is not an absolute, and is thus useful for learning from experience. If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause. If an issue is ""snowballed"", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely ""likely"" or ""quite likely"", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting ""early pile on"" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however. The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. Closing discussions Deletion policy Ignore all rules Jamaican Bobsled Team clause Not now, an RFA-specific application of the snowball clause Process is important Speedy keep Steamroll minority opinions (a satirical essay lampooning the snowball clause) Meta:Snowball, antithetical Meta policy on Snowball" 103 104 208 WP:DELREV Wikipedia:Deletion review 103 "Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the ""Purpose"" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below. Before listing a review request, please: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion. === Steps to list a new deletion review === === Commenting in a deletion review === Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors: Endorse the original closing decision; or Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation. Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases. === Temporary undeletion === Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored. === Closing reviews === A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of ""no consensus"" as equivalent to a ""relist""; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate. Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.) ==== Speedy closes ==== Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as ""endorse"" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as ""administrative close"". === 29 March 2023 === ==== Category:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi ==== Category:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)Consensus was in favour of keeping the category, not deleting it (by 6 to 4 votes). In any case, it should not have been closed by a non-admin, per the rule about close calls for non-admin closures. Baronnet (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) --> === 28 March 2023 === ==== Tom Westman ==== Tom Westman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)The ""kept"" closure was based on majority votes, assumption that !Keep votes weigh more than others, and assumption that BLP1E arguments were debunked by (supposed) evidence of sustained coverage. However, I still have issues with the closure, and even one of !keep voters cited WP:BADNAC for concerns about it. The !keep votes before the first relisting were very poor quality, according to Sandstein. I discussed this with the closer (diff). The closer found Sportsfan 1234's ""keep"" argument, which occurred before the second relisting, convincing. I still have a few issues with Sportsfan's argument, which I analyzed in AFD, yet another editor who voted !keep praised it. Of course, more !keep votes came in after the second relisting, but the ""kept"" closure still irks me. The closer doubted that any other admin would come to a different conclusion in their close, but... Well, if there's no consensus to delete or redirect, then at least ""no consensus"" would have been for me a more viable conclusion. George Ho (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment. Please see the discussion at User talk:4meter4#Tom Westman and the AFD close language itself for an accurate picture of my opinions in the relation to the close. I did not base the close on a majority vote (although keep was the majority opinion by numbers), but on what I perceived was the strongest argument under policy. I further believe that the close was an accurate reflection of community consensus, and that there was a clear shift away from support of the BLP1E argument after the evidence by sportsfan was presented. While I believe the close to be accurate and fair, I have no objection to a re-opening of this AFD by an admin under a WP:BADNAC rationale. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus or endorse (which are the same result for practical purposes). I disagree with non-admins closing AFD's which were previously relisted as there is some doubt to the outcome. I feel that either keep or no consensus were within the discretion of the closer, though I would have opted for the latter as there were solid, policy-based arguments for both keep and delete/ATD votes. Frank Anchor 19:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - As I said on 4meter4's talk page, I think this DRV could have been avoided, since a reading of the discussion suggested clear controversy and a likely DRV if closed by a non-admin. However, I think the reading of the consensus was correct. Suriname0 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. The delete !votes are quite convincing, and I do not think there is consensus either way. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse There were two basic arguments for deletion: WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The GNG arguments need to make clear why the sources in the article don't meet the GNG. I didn't see anyone do that. BLP1E requires that the person be a low-profile individual. I didn't see a case made for that (though there a keep voter that had a fine argument that WP:LPI doesn't apply). The numbers (10 to 4?) and strength of argument send us into keep IMO. I honestly think I'd have !voted to overturn a NC outcome, something I rarely do. I just don't see any policy/guideline arguments that can justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Endorse The majority of participants made arguments to keep, and a minority of participants made arguments to delete. Of course, the quality of the arguments is more important than the volume of them. Some keep participants pointed to WP:GNG, although they did not tend to cite specific examples. I'll call that acceptable, but not great. Others argued that winning one and taking part in one winning two very notable television-based competitions prove notability. That sounds a bit like WP:ANYBIO but people didn't tend to link to that, so I'll call that an ANYBIO-implied or an WP:IAR type argument, the later being perfectly permissible, we're not a bureaucracy, IAR is a pillar of the project. In summary, the keep !votes were reasonable, but not the best. The delete participants mostly pointed to WP:BLP1E to justify deleting, but that was convincingly refuted by User:Randy_Kryn who argued that criterion 2 of BLP1E was not met (all three need to be met, for BLP1E to apply). Nobody refuted that, although an explanatory essay was rejected, that points made in the essay that were cited by RK were appropriate. I therefore consider the delete !votes to be refuted and weaker than the keep !votes. In the context of the person winning two one and taking part in another television show, arguments that they are notable for ""one event"", are not convincing. Being notable for one theme of events is not synonymous with being notable for one event. CT55555(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) winning two very notable television-based competitions: Westman won just Palau; he didn't win HvV. To what second win were you referring? I've not yet seen him win another season unless I missed something. Maybe you were referring to his HvV appearance? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry. You are correct and I am mistaken. I misread a !keep vote that said he won one and took part in another. I will now strike out the inaccurate parts of my analysis and once I've done that, I'll make an update if it changes my conclusions. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I think what was meant was that by playing the second season six years after winning his first season, a second season in which he survived well into the game after making some interesting moves, was a second notable event which the subject purposely took part in knowing that publicity would follow. CT55555, thank you for your kind words above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I know the AFD discussion was closed, but I have to say something. as I saw forth, all Tom did in Survivor: HvV were using a Hidden Immunity Idol (to have Cirie ousted), confront James over his aggression toward Stephenie (who was also in Palau), making alliance with a few others... until his elimination from the Heroes tribe before James. Being in the Heroes tribe, which earlier often lost to the Villains tribe, didn't help matters either. In summary, I doubt his HvV gameplay, including his ""interesting moves"", surpassed his Palau gameplay and win. IMO I thought Tom was all over the place in HvV and made (almost) no impact to how the season went overall. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, and his HvV gameplay can be mostly already illustrated in the HvV article. George Ho (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Comment without opining on this close itself... should a relisted close--indicating no clear consensus was achieved within the first week--perhaps be a red flag that a NAC should generally be avoided? Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Certainly. —Alalch E. 11:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Yes, unless the relist was due to low activity. Suriname0 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed as delete, and changing keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Subhodhayam ==== Subhodhayam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)Reason: Disagreeing with both the outcome of closing process and timing for closing. Wishing the discussion properly relisted or the outcome changed. Outcome. The closing admin. states that there is consensus on the quality of sources. There is none. Two users (one being the nominator) find the sources lack in-depth analysis (notwithstanding their quality, good or bad). Even if sourcing had been the issue, I participated myself, arguing the page should be kept as important film in the career of an important filmmaker (which the sources, in-depth coverage or not) prove. 3 users seem to agree on that. Also, how can 4 Keep (by 4 different users) versus one redirect (and even assuming the nom. would think (1?) delete is the best, which is not explicit) give a redirect decision? 'No case made not to redirect', says the closing admin. I don't understand by whom. I suppose 4 keep mean 4 no redirect or do we have to state smth like 'Keep (and no redirect)' from now on? That would sound absurd to me. Timing: On March 21 one user insisted : ""AFD discussions last at least one week so this discussion won't be closed for a few more days (if it's not relisted for another week). Have patience and please do not bludgeon this discussion. I think you have made enough comments"" (!) And the page was indeed relisted on March 25. How can it be closed only a day later without any comments at all having been added to the page in the meanwhile? — MY, OH, MY! 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Closer comment: you could have discussed this with me before bringing it here. A numerical count of keeps (or sources) is not helpful as they were frequently repeats, and were not policy based a they were simply listing of links without addressing the quality, which several users rebutted. To clarify, by no reason not redirect I meant that was a valid option in lieu of deletion. So I stand by my close. Note, I'll be offline much of today so may not be able to come back to this until this evening or tomorrow. Star Mississippi 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Hello, and thank you for your clarification. Numerical count of (sources and/or) Keeps is really not the core of my comments, though. Neither is the quality of sources. I'm sorry if there was any other venue better than this one to address the problem. But as you do seem to stand by your close, we certainly would have had to come here anyway. Thank you all the same, and have a good day. — MY, OH, MY! 13:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC) if someone feels this needs a relist, I'd advocate some limits as some of the bludgeoning that was advised against in the AfD is happening here too and that is not conducive to consensus. Star Mississippi 01:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse: The keep side was unable to show that the sources they brought up consist of in-depth coverage. When countered in this way, the keeps were unable to rebut the counterargument, and just kept listing more and more sources, which were obviously not getting better and better, as the total pool of subpar sources was gradually being exhausted. Citing WP:NFIC toward the end was an interesting argument, but no evidence was offered as to how mentioning the film would clutter up the biography page of the director if it was mentioned. Lack of in-depth coverage usually means that not that much can be written about a topic. Consequently, when the closer downweighed the numerically stronger keep side's votes and found a rough consensus to redirect, as emanating from a rough consensus to delete, they applied an okay interpretation of consensus. —Alalch E. 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you. Do you really think moving the whole content of the page will not clutter up the biography of the director and not lead to other users removing content, with tags such as UNDUEWEIGHT etc.? I really don't. Also, what about closing one day after a relist? Was that OK? — MY, OH, MY! 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Weak Endorse: There are two questions that are within the scope of this Deletion Review, and one that is outside its scope. The first procedural question is whether the closer was correct in closing this discussion eight days after the nomination, and one day after a relist. What the closer did was to ignore the relist and close the discussion after eight days. The closer did not state why they ignored the list. For that reason, I think that we should Weakly Endorse the ignoring of the relist. The probable reason to ignore the relist was that it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necssary and unproductive, due to multiple voting and bludgeoning. It would have been better if the closer had explained this, but this can be inferred. The second substantive question is whether the close was a reasonable assessment of consensus. It was. The substantive close can be Endorsed. The question that we do not need to consider is to relitigate any issues about the significance of sources. This is not another round of AFD. So that is a Weak Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Thank you. A) Your assessment ot the consensus seems to bypass the issue mentioned above. Will the redirect (and moving of material) not clutter up the page about the director? B) You say you assume the probable reason for completely ignoring the relisting is that ""it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necessary and unproductive, due to multiple voting"". That is inferring a whole lot. 1) One and only one user (who seemed to have been unaware he did not have to repeat that he had commented the page as Keep) did what you call multiple voting. But as I recall above, he was 'kindly' reminded that he could not and at the same time, that more time would be given. So he more or less stopped commenting but time for other users to express their view was not given. That is plainly not right. 2) I don't understand how you can know for sure from that that further discussion would have been unnecessary, as no consensus at all had been reached. It was and is still necessary. Your imagination can make you think otherwise but that does not prove anything. Anyway, even if the reason that you infer is the one the closing admin had in mind, that does not make it right to close discussion when various options are still on the table. — MY, OH, MY! 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - clearly the consensus was based on policy, rather than the bludgeoning tactics of an editor, who voted multiple times, despite being told not to. And btw, is now creating the article again, despite the AfD.Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === 27 March 2023 === ==== Kyrgyz Khanate ==== Kyrgyz Khanate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)1) Article deleted by User:Liz on the following grounds: ""(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Cianzera) in violation of ban or block, many different sockpuppets have been at work here.)"" [1] User:Liz seems too busy to respond on her Talkpage... I don't blame her, she seems quite active with clean-up tasks. Technically, I believe WP:CSD#G5 does not apply here: AFAIK, the page was created before the user was banned (""To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion."" per WP:CSD#G5), and I for sure, and possibly a few other users, did contribute significantly (images, maps etc...) (""...and articles that have no substantial edits by others"" per WP:CSD#G5).2) In terms of article content, I think the rather rich Kyrgyz Khanate article about the independent Kyrgyz polity in the 16th-17th century (circa 1510-1680) was probably quite legit (some random sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7]), although it was indeed a bit inflated and mainly serviced by a recurring sockpuppet/IP from... Kyrgystan, but I had started to contribute to it recently as part of an overhaul of articles related to the History of Central Asia. It's a bit sad to see a rather important part of Central Asian history vanish, just because of sockpuppet stuff... I suggest that we should reinstate the page, and protect the article from the recurring single-purpose ""newcomer"" that has been active on it, because indeed sockpupettry cannot go on like this. Protecting the article should be enough, and it will allow other users, such as myself, to improve the page. The sockpuppet seems to be rather enthusiastic and well-intentioned [8], but at a loss with Wikipedia rules, so I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Courtesy heads up to @Blaze_Wolf who was also discussing this on Liz's page. Star Mississippi 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm already aware of this since i provided a bit further reasoning as to why I nominated the article for G5 in the first place on पाटलिपुत्र's talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Apologies, I missed that. Star Mississippi 17:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Comment I'll admit that this was a judgment call that took some time to decide and others might disagree with my decision to delete this article. Typically, CSD G5s are much simpler than this one and involve the page creation by one sockpuppet who is the primary or sole contributor to the page but this article was the work of the combined efforts by a number of sockpuppets. This article deletion was not a statement about the value of an article on this subject. It's just that the vast, vast majority of edits to the page were done by a variety of sockpuppets including User:Aykol Manas, User:Shoqan Ualikhan, User:Ardash Moghul, User:Th3Shoudy, User:Lauriswift911 and User:Foggy kub. Admins can look at the deleted contributions and judge how many were done by sockpuppets of User:Cianzera and User:Th3Shoudy (who is a suspected sockpuppet of Cianzera as well). If those examining this deletion review don't believe it met the threshold for a CSD G5 deletion, I accept that but in my judgement, it was almost entirely written by sockpuppets. I also protected the page because it is such a sockpuppet magnet for this sockmaster but that page protection can be lifted or reduced if reviewing editors believe that it is inappropriate. But should you look into the case of Cianzera and their identified sockpuppets, you'll see that concerns go beyond this article to their general behavior on their project, particularly attacking specific ethnicities that they have issues with and I thought it best to discourage all of their activity on this project because they were such disruptive editors. Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Comment as I was the user who applied the G5 to the page I feel I should provide a bit more explanation as I was unable to do so with G5. I don't remember how I came across this article originally, however after the most recent sock contributor to the article was blocked, I attempted to find the revision to revert back to before the sockpuppetry per WP:BANREVERT. However upon going through the edit history I discovered that the article had basically exclusively been edited by socks. So I checked the article creator and sure enough they were also a sock. I brought it up on Discord and was basically told ""If you think a tag is warranted then add it."" (the discussion consisted of a bit more but that was the general idea). So I added the G5 tag to the article so an admin would decide if a G5 was warranted. Due to the extensive socking on the article I feel that this wasn't solely a G5 but also a WP:TNT as there was no good revision to go back to since the article history consisted solely of sock edits (with the occasional non-sock edit in between). I would like to note that I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period is not possible outside of VTRS since the user is globally locked meaning they are unable to log into their account. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse for a start the edit history is astounding: the deleted article was 68kb in size and had 300+ edits in the history, and almost all of it was written by sockpuppets. There were an enormous number of sockpuppets used, and the sockmaster switched between them at random intervals, and once used a sockpuppet to revert an edit made by another sockpuppet. The OP is correct that this isn't technically a valid G5 because the author wasn't blocked or banned when the page was created, the article was created on 6 November 2022 and it doesn't look like the socks were identified until February 2023. However there are several suggestions at the SPI that this user has a track record of hoaxes, and I'm willing to overlook this technicality. The OP made 7 edits to the page, the most significant of which added an image and a 7 word caption. The rest were more minor and involved formatting images, removing an image, adding a Chinese translation and adding a citation, and I don't think they are enough to qualify as significant edits under G5. There were some edits from other non-sock editors, but again they look minor and the very new editors who made them may also be sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse per Hut 8.5. WP:BMB. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - This appears to be a situation where a non-admin should rely on the judgment of admins who can cross the yellow tape to inspect the crime scene. I am distrustful of the work of users who were ""not yet blocked"" and about to be blocked for sockpuppetry, so I would probably endorse if I knew the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Stone Bench Creations ==== Stone Bench Creations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)The article is being redeveloped here, so perhaps I could retrieve the sources if the article is temporarily restored. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Done for source access. Star Mississippi 13:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Question - Was this a request for undeletion, and has it been taken care of? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It was here Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_384#Draft:Stone_Bench_Creations @Robert McClenon. If @Kailash29792 is done with the history, I'm happy to re-delete or history merge it. Star Mississippi 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Hopefully I should be done by today. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for that update @Kailash29792. I am going to sleep and will be offline much of Wednesday. If something needs actioning, feel free not to wait for me. Star Mississippi 02:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === 25 March 2023 === === 24 March 2023 === ==== Faraz Anwar ==== Faraz Anwar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)This non-admin closing AfD needs more inputs from experienced AfD regulars to get a clear consensus as the page references are interviews and primary sources. Additionally, the topic has only few name drops in reliable sources with other bands or songs that have no significance and no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Weak endorse while a relist may have been appropriate due to the low turnout, there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nominator) and the appelant appears to be relitigating the AFD, which is not permitted. Probably not the best time for a WP:NAC, but the result is the correct interpretation of consensus. Frank Anchor 15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Modified based on Hut 8.5's comments. My biggest concern was this being a NAC, however I have always considered endorsement by an administrator to validate questionable NACs. Frank Anchor 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Unsure, but I don't like it - on the one hand there appeared to be a numerical advantage on the !keep side. On the other, a NAC with less (I think) than 7 days of discussion and with little time to examine the offered sources seem unnecessarily rushed. Tough to conclude that the debate had really run its course.JMWt (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Discussion was open for 7 days and 11 minutes and several sources were presented within the first day, so there was ample time to discuss, though nobody (including the nominator) chose to. Frank Anchor 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure how to reply to that without relitigating the AfD JMWt (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Weak endorse. Weak because there was low turn out, and two editors disagreeing with the nominator. I think community support for non admin closures exists in very narrow circumstances, and not in difficult cases, this is borderline. I think giving it another week would be more common and I think preferable. Endorse because nobody refuted the two arguments to keep, both provided sources, and presented a credible arguments, linked to policy, closure has participated in 100+ AFDs and is approximately aligned with consensus in their votes, which isn't a huge amount, but I'd not endorse if it was fewer.CT55555(talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Endorse Um, why are we even suggesting that an AfD open for seven days with no non-keep input is a) not a clear keep, or b) controversial enough that a NAC is not appropriate? Sources were presented and endorsed, not refuted or challenged even by the nom. Not asking for a nom to badger other AfD participants, but when no one else has contested sourcing, there's simply no justification to NOT keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse I don't see any particular problem here: the AfD was open for seven days, it had enough participation for a close, nobody apart from the nominator supported deletion and there wasn't any attempt to rebut the sources presented. The OP should have responded to the Keep comments in the AfD and it generally isn't the closer's job to judge the sources. I guess we could relist it but don't take that as an indication the closer did anything wrong. Hut 8.5 08:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Clearly a good NAC. —Alalch E. 09:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - I just thought I should make a brief comment as the closer. I generally set myself a very high bar on the uncontroversial requirement for my NACs, so I'm sorry if anyone thought this close was controversial. To explain my reasoning, I saw unanimous keep !votes (barring nom), a number of sources presented early in the discussion with a plausible GNG/NEXIST argument made, and no challenges made to the sources presented for the remainder of the discussion. Conesus appeared to favour keep, although I accept that a relist would have also been valid outcome. I should also say that I am now due to be away until Wednesday but I'll support whatever consensus is reached here. WJ94 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - A valid non-admin close, and a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Only correct reading of an unambiguous consensus to keep. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === 23 March 2023 === ==== Bimble's Bucket ==== Bimble's Bucket (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)During the AfD, an IPv6 user claimed to have added new content to the article using newspaper sources. No discussion was carried out about the sources allegedly found by this IP, and therefore the closure as delete was premature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The IP made no claim that the sources established notability for the article, and the consensus (to me) before this comment seemed clearly that there was not notability to be found. There is a difference between verifiability (which the IP's additions may have addressed) and notability (which the IP's comments didn't speak to). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) We will still need an admin to list the sources used by the IP, if you can find the edit(s) they made to the article, in order to review their found sources ourselves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)The sources added by the IP were all to the episode list. While I haven't seen the most of the actual sources cited (they're offline), the references were largely to the TV sections of either the Nottingham Evening Post or the Huddersfield Daily Examiner on the day the episode was broadcast, and I strongly suspect they just confirm that the episode was indeed broadcast on that date and don't provide significant coverage. For example ""Dad's Tomatoes - First broadcast: 11/5/1998"" was referenced to ""Television and radio, Nottingham Evening Post, 11 May 1998 (pg.26)"". The other sources were to a database which lists the collections of the British Film Institute, e.g. [9], which again isn't going to help meet the notability guidelines. I don't see much reason to revisit this. Hut 8.5 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) for me at least this is in the google cache [10] and gi ven the references seem to be tv pages on each and every episode, I doubt it proves much beyond existence. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. The closer correctly found a consensus to delete. No argument to keep was made. Talking about a list of episodes, sourced or unsourced, is too dissimilar from a statement that the topic is notable, in order for it to be understood as an argument to keep that went unaddressed by the preceding participants. —Alalch E. 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - It was valid to close the deletion discussion, and Delete was the only valid conclusion at close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Allow Recreation in draft to expand on the sources added by the unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === 22 March 2023 === ==== Triggernometry (podcast) ==== Triggernometry (podcast) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)Referenced in reliable source for the podcast itself. The podcast has now been referenced in reliable sources, e.g. the podcast review from The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revisionist-history-malcolm-gladwell-podcast-review-malcolm-gladwell-cvcbmmp3g I believe now there is a case for a Wikipedia page for the podcast. Jschanna7 (talk) @Tone: you were the closing admin on this. Would it be alright with you if I move this to draft so that Jschanna7 can work on it, and I'll replace the redirect? I don't think there needs to be a full discussion here for a nearly three-year-old deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it does not seem to be an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Allow Review of Draft, or Recreation subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse unanimous consensus not to keep. Allow recreation, preferably via the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Allow un-redirection with appropriate sourcing improvement expected, with any editor free to re-AfD it if sourcing remains contested. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse and disallow restoration—follow WP:SPLIT. No significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify restoring the redirected page. Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. It is simply too obvious that this should not be a separate page per WP:PAGEDECIDE and no single new source can change that; this was the general mood in the AfD. The content already overlaps with content in the target article. Instead, more content can be merged from history and/or new content about the podcast can be added to the target article, and a split can be proposed if and when that ever seems appropriate (if the passages about the podcast become so long as to be out of proportion to the rest of the article about the podcast creator). I don't favor moving to draft because the process around drafts can't do anything here. —Alalch E. 09:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) It appears to be co-hosted, I'm not clear how having the information at one of the co-host's page is obviously the best outcome if the podcast is notable. And a single source can be enough to move something over the notability bar. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The other host doesn't have an article and is a less prominent individual. The page is already redirected to Kisin and is de facto merged in the sense that content overlaps. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we're not supposed to have article X with sections/passages A, B and C and article Y that is essentially the same as B (same in level of detail), since that is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; this is WP:DEL-REASON#5. This is reflected sufficiently in the AfD, and not just my original reasoning/relitigation. —Alalch E. 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. No one has argued the source isn't significant nor that WP:N isn't now met. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Paragon Cause ==== Paragon Cause (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)I wanted to bring up restoring this page. After reviewing this and notability, I am perplexed why this page has been deleted and continue to be deleted. The notes from Reviewers seem to only highlight the negatives in terms of ref and not the positive. I reviewed original authors notes and agree. I still wonder if this is an example of the lack of female representation in wikipedia and why editors only focus on negatives and not the positives. As for notability, here are points in response to wikipedia's own guidelines 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. The band has appeared in a number of non-trival articles including National Magazine exclaim! Magazine , CBC Music Rogers TV and Salt Water News among many others, 2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). The band released 4 albums and these albums were all produced by The Raveonettes Sune Rose Wagner and songs include performances by liam howe of the Sneaker Pimpsan Eric Avery of Jane's Addiction, all internationally known artists. 3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award The artists have won two ECMA 4.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The artits are on rotation for Stingray Music, CBC Music, Corus Radio have appeared in top 50 National Charts in both the USA and Canada to name a few Previous notes from editors also reference misleading information as well as information that can bias future reviewers such as saying a 'band member' wrote the prior article and thus warn of caution. This creates considerable bias for any other editor reviewing. Its very easy to review many other artists articles who are male fronted bands that have far less notability and are on wikipedia. Examples include Slowcoaster[[11]] are two examples. Jbonapar (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse the two deletion discussions, if this is an appeal of the deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - If the appellant is looking for a bias, I think that the bias is against conflict of interest editing rather than against female musicians. (The appellant is a member of the band). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - The appellant is advised to request advice at the Teahouse before submitting a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - both of the deletion discussions were clear consensus to delete. There is already a draft at Draft:Paragon Cause, please consider contributing to that especially if you can address the notability concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The last deletion was over 3 years ago, the correct course of action would be to read WP:COI and then continue with the draft. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Asian African Association for Plasma Training (closed) ==== === 21 March 2023 === ==== Mateusz Grzesiak ==== Mateusz Grzesiak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)Dear fellow wikipedia users. The following article was delated earlier in October 2022. In comparison to the previously delated article a number of changes were implemented. This includes reliable sources as well as neutral language which cannot be considered as ‘promotional’. In fact the text which was published today does not share any similarities with the previous one. However, after publishing it was tagged for speedy deletion without any possibility to contest this decision. It is also hard to agree that the person fails WP:NPROF as he is in fact one of the most popular psychologists in Poland who has appeared many times in mass media and has published over 27 books. He has also received a well-known and significant award or honor, i.e. he was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by the Polish President. ([12]) Overall, bearing in mind the above-mentioned argumentation, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision for speedy deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix1917 (talk • contribs) You would probably do better to talk to the deleting admin at User talk:Hadal first. I have provided a note there that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)@Phil Bridger and Matrix1917: Thanks for the head's up Phil! Re: Mateusz Grzesiak, I deleted it because from my perspective it did meet the CSD criteria for WP:G4. Same subject, same general claim to notability, same general content. Per the G4 policy, it would have been better to create this 'new' version as a draft for review before publishing it in the main namespace. Now that it's deleted, perhaps this is better handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.I don't claim to have any special knowledge of Polish culture; yet, I will point out that this individual does not appear to have an entry on the Polish Wikipedia and he is not listed, even as an unlinked mention, at pl:Grzesiak. When looking at this instance together with the previous AfD discussion, it is also interesting that the proponents of the article have very few major edits outside of this specific BLP topic.As a constructive suggestion, if you plan to request undeletion, that you bring this to the attention of editors who can offer an informed opinion: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland as a place to start. --Hadal (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Endorse the original close if this is an appeal of the original close, but it does not appear to be an appeal of the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC) No Opinion as to whether the G4 was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - the way G4 is written, it's for pages that are basically identical to the deleted version. This wasn't identical but is similar enough to be an edge case, however one of the edits to the recreated page literally has ""repost"" as an edit summary, revealing the editor's intent. I endorse this as an WP:IAR G4 - we're not a bureaucracy, articles which are obviously unsuitable should be removed, regardless of what the written rules say. An alternative could have been to draftify but I can't fault the deleting admin's choice. As for the earlier deletion discussion, it's clearly a consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn Admin's description of deleted content is very clear that it fails the It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version clause of G4. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC) G4 doesn't require the restored page to be byte-for-byte identical, only substantially similar without having addressed the reason for deletion. The exact wording of the criterion is not intended to be used to end-run a deletion discussion to repost a deleted-by-consensus article with only trivial changes; that would be both wikilawyering and gaming the system. Undeleting an article just to have a new deletion discussion where the same result can be expected is just a waste of everyone's time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Please note that the word 'similar' does not appear in G4; the operative phrase is sufficiently identical. The restored content demonstrates that G4 did not apply, based on this comparison. The wording is different, the claims are different, and different sources are cited for similar claims--e.g. the National Education commission medal. While what you state about ""trivial changes"" is clearly true, it does not appear to be applicable to this case. Regardless of whether the revised article should prove unworthy, a second AfD is in order, and can provide much better opinions on whether an editor is recycling content with trivial changes--disruptive editing--than can a single administrator processing a speedy deletion request. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn speedy. If editors in good faith disagree about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I suppose I can't endorse my own deletion, but I wanted to point out that the article title was salted for a reason. Per the AfD discussion there have been repeated efforts to introduce this BLP at the Polish Wikipedia with similarly negative results. Despite the language of CSD:G4, the actual information in the article and the claim to notability were the same. Given this context, I strongly suggest that any restoration of the article content be done in the Draft namespace. --Hadal (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Administrator note: I have undeleted the version most recently deleted, as well as the last revision of the version deleted at AFD, so that everyone can review and comment on whether or not this was valid as a WP:G4 deletion. Please check the page history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn. Not sufficiently identical. G4 serves to save time by avoiding superfluous consecutive AfDs, but applying G4 to insufficiently identical articles, despite a very high likelihood that a new AfD would have the same outcome (—apart from not being what WP:CSD says—) doesn't reliably produce efficiency because there's a probability that the deletion will be challenged, which then may need to be discussed at DRV, such as in the present case; this is not very expedient. Drafts have nothing to with this because drafting can't make an already provenly non-notable topic notable. What should have been done instead of G4 is AfD, and what should be done now is still AfD. —Alalch E. 11:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Recreation was clearly an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus at the AFD. Doesn't technically meet the letter of G4, but clearly meets the spirit. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks ==== List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)Neutral filing on behalf of @Parzival1780: who raised it at my Talk. See extended discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Why_was_the_list_of_emergency_workers_killed_on_9/11_deleted? While I believe my close was correct, happy to have this discussed and support their query. Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC) --> Still so bad at templates. AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Change to no consensus, a very close call which, in terms of keeping a page, should be enough for a no consensus. Many editors gave good reasoning for keeping the popular page (pointed out to have 12,000 views a month) and in situations like this a no consensus close would be as common as a delete, this one just happened to fall on the delete side by the comments of one or two additional editors giving opinions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse close - a tough call, and I think you could have explained better (""you see where the deletes edge out"" isn't really an explanation - why do they edge out?), but I find myself agreeing with the conclusion. The core arguments to delete were WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a longstanding Wikipedia policy), and that the list constituted a grouping of inherently non-notable individuals. The keep counterargument was that WP:NOTEWORTHY, part of the main guideline on notability, exempts members of lists based on a notable group from being required to meet notability standards individually: since the notability of the group is established, the notability of the members of the list was not a reason for deletion. It can be seen from the last few days of discussion that new comments continued to back up the nominator's rationale despite this keep argument, which suggests that editors did not consider it convincing. There were no new ""keep"" !votes after 19 February (except one that was plainly an appeal to emotion and an argument to avoid), though the discussion was open for another 17 days afterwards and relisted once in that time. This is a rather clear consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn to NC CT55555's takedown of NOTMEMORIAL was never adequately addressed, giving policy-based edge to the Keeps. Keep would have been a reasonable close, but NC is adequate. WP:VAGUEWAVEs must yield to specific rebuttals of what the policy, guideline, or essay, actually says every time. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'm tempted to say overturn, but I'm involved and think this review would be better lead by people less involved. But I do agree with Jclemens that my (I think, I hope) careful explanation of why NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply was not addressed. CT55555(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Note for closer, here's one more comment from Parzival1780 which ended up in the wrong spot. Want their input to be included so flagging. While I'm aware that Article was useful, did not need to be deleted is not a reason for DRV, I encourage new user leniency as the discussion on my Talk indicates. Star Mississippi 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is based on the argument that the list mainly consisted of non-notable people. There isn't actually much in the way of policy/guideline support for this as a basis for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE does give this as a standard, but it isn't exactly mandatory and it's mainly used to keep lists with a broad scope from becoming too big, which isn't a problem here. WP:NLIST is the usual standard to apply for notability of lists, but I don't see anybody on the Delete side citing it. The argument that it should be deleted as unencyclopedic based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL is rather stronger, in my view, but that's very much a judgement call for the participants and I don't see much of a consensus on it. Hut 8.5 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse close, not an easy call to make, but ultimately well and sensitively made. While there were some claims made that WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply but WP:NLIST exceptions should, those claims were reasonably rebutted by some and apparently found unpersuasive by others. The closer did a reasonable job reading policy-based consensus accurately. That's process; getting into substance: 1) reading the surrounding discussion (including on the closer's talkpage prior to this DRV being opened), it's pretty clear it is precisely because many people feel there should be such a list *as a memorial of the individuals* that this is such an emotive discussion; 2) I can't but help think this would be a noncontroversial delete close if it were a (comparably sourced) list of victims of a tragedy, first responders or no, elsewhere in the world. I agree that as a society, America should remember these heroes by name; but that doesn't mean a en.wp list is the way to do it. Martinp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Editing to add: In the event the deletion does not get overturned here, I would expect any admin would be willing to userfy the deleted list to someone, anyone, who would want to move it to be stored elsewhere on the internet, for instance a wiki with different scope than en.wp. I am sensitive to the arguments like those of Randy Kryn and Parzival1780, which I don't think are strong from a deletion discussion/deletion review point of view here, but do reflect that this is material assembled with effort and dedication, important for many people to keep available somewhere. So I am sure the goal is not to unceremoniously nuke it, rather to enable it to be moved somewhere where it is not out of scope/policy. Martinp (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Part of why Parzival found their password, in addition to making communication slightly easier, was that Randy Kryn and I had advised them that your suggestion was a potential route. I would absolutely support this outcome. And while I'm here, @Ivanvector, thanks for feedback on improving closes. Very helpful. Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Endorse Both the delete and a no consensus close would be an acceptable reading of the discussion. The policy arguments were strong in both the keep and the delete statements, but there was a small or solid majority of comments in favor of not keeping the article (including the redirect and merge comments). --Enos733 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Well-reasoned, sensitive closure and NOTMEMORIAL applies. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It isn't the job of DRV to decide whether the close was perfect, or whether the close was what each DRV participant would have done, but whether the close was a valid assessment. I haven't tried to assess how I would close the deletion discussion, and don't want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse - Overturning to ""no consensus"" would mean undeleting the whole list, and this is something that is too risky at the moment. The close was correct, and the !del arguments weigh more than !keep ones to me. If policy is stronger than guideline, then let's not overturn and undelete. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Okay George Ho, I'll bite. Why would it be ""too risky at the moment"" to undelete the whole list? Curious, as I haven't read the article, which is behind the admin wall. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Undeleting the whole list would mean reviewing longstanding policies that are expected to be usually enforced by editors and readers, like NOTMEMORIAL. Trying not to apply that policy is something that I don't want to do. Furthermore, even with reliable sources verifying past existences of such workers, I agree with others about the criteria being broader than it should have been. Moreover, this project isn't the place to use just to attract viewership. Plus, I would fear further content disputes over and over. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)That sounds to me like you're itching to apply the Supreme policies of Wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Editors and closers almost always forget that WP:IAR is policy and think of it as an exotic rarely used back door when, in fact, it's a policy that is above both guidelines and all other policies. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC) You mean ignoring WP:NOTBURO also? I know that NOTMEMORIAL seems too bureaucratic or too preventive to you and not set in stone, but the policy and its spirit are too hard to ignore, especially when the project's integrity is at stake. Same for NOTBURO, which also mentions IAR. I appreciate the editors' efforts to contribute to the deleted list, but.... Still, the close should be followed and set a precedence about such lists. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)WP:NOTBURO tells us ""Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."" The original RfD and this discussion include many editors who say that the page does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL - I personally don't know because I haven't read the page - so that should be a consideration that a solid point-of-view exists that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC) You reminded me of bludgeoning in another AFD discussion. Haven't you thought that you're doing the same thing to me too? Also, what about the ""without considering their principles"" part? Furthermore, you interchangeably used ""RFD"" and ""AFD"". Moreover, I wonder whether you filed a deletion review before, despite your participating in other DRV discussions. You were asking one of admins to reconsider at one's talk page. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC) If you meant mine, I don't see any issue with @Randy Kryn joining this discussion when we were discussing a different article on my Talk and my busted formatting led to Parzival's inquiry landing literally inside our discussion. Star Mississippi 22:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I was referring to the other one, but that's unrelated to this. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Endorse (as original nominator). Keep arguments boiled down to variations on the theme of ""I like it"" and ""it's notable"" (sans sources). Nobody explained how there was encyclopaedic value on a long list of non-notable, poorly sourced names (which is not to slight those people in any way; it's just that knowing the name of every casualty adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the incident). If this were any event besides 9/11, this would be a textbook case of a memorial page and an indiscriminate collection of information. The keep votes either ignored the policy arguments in favour of guidelines (WP:NOT is policy, notability is a guideline) or their arguments focused on the coverage of subject rather than the names; some were just appeals to emotion. I completely get that 9/11 is an emotive subject but Wikipedia should cover emotive subjects dispassionately. I suggested several times that a prose article about emergency service casualties or the emergency response would be appropriate, though I've since learnt that we have not only List of emergency and first responder agencies that responded to the September 11 attacks (which in my opinion fails exactly the same policies as this list) but also Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Perhaps an appropriate redirect would make sure that readers can still find encyclopaedic information, and appropriate external links can direct them to some of the many sites with a more fitting scope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Endorse. While I generally think the keep !votes are correct in the application of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, they did not really rebut the notability and sourcing concerns from the delete side. Since ultimately, even if this is not barred by NOTMEMORIAL, it must still meet group notability guidelines and be reliably sourced, I find the close reasonable. I would propose a WP:CNR to Category:Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks which provides a list of notable individuals. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Hmmmmmmmmmm. If we have a Category:Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, then per WP:CLN, we can have a list. If we can't have a list then shouldn't the category also be CFD'd?—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) See specifically WP:NOTDUP for a discussion of the scenario Patar Knight recommends.—S Marshall T/C 15:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === 20 March 2023 === ==== Artfi ==== Artfi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)Why Artfi was deleted under CSD A7 while the page is about a notable company and has been covered multiple times with proper reliable and independent sourcing Entrepreneur (magazine) - (1), Gulf News - (2), Entrepreneur (magazine) - (3), Forbes India - (4), The Pioneer (India) - (5), NewsBTC - (6), Finance Magnates - (7). As per Wikipedia:Speedy deletion ""A7 is to be used only in situations where there is absolutely no indication of notability. This one makes several claims of notability, including being awarded by one of Dubai's leading news papers Gulf News, renowned contemporary British artist Sacha Jafri collaborated with Artfi. There are various other claims in article. Similarly, G11 does not fit here as well as the article was not promotional in nature. It was carefully written and sourced from reliable sources. As per G11, ""this applies to posts that are overtly promotional and need to be rewritten substantially"" If the post has some promotional elements, please tag it to allow me to fix the issues. I would request you kindly restore the page. Thank you! VirenRaval89 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Strong overturn A7, weak overturn G11 and send to AfD or redraftify. This was definitely not an A7 candidate as the award from a major newspaper is clearly a claim of significance, and the associations with notable people are arguably so. G11 is borderline, but CSDs only apply in ""the most obvious cases"", however there is no chance that the article would be kept at AfD in its current state so I struggle to muster much enthusiasm for undeletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC) It's usual to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the person whose decision you are disputing before making a listing here. Please would the lister explain why they chose not to do so? Stifle (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Deleting admin here: I speedied it as crypto spam. Speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that. I'd suggest draft first, though - I've restored it to Draft:Artfi. In particular, I suggest much more solid RSes and no crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Not sure I'd agree with a general declaration that ""speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that""; copyvio or attack pages certainly wouldn't be. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn both, send to AfD It may suck as an article, but restricting it to draft on the basis of bad speedy deletion (I agree with the above about why neither A7 nor G11 applied) inappropriately makes it a WP:FAIT issue. The right thing to do is move it back to mainspace where any editor may start an AfD. Who knows... better coverage may appear within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn speedy, send to AfD believe that CSD did not apply (based on the content/sourcing in the draft) per User:Thryduulf though I would vote to delete or draftify in an AFD setting. However I would not be the only one to vote in an AFD so I think this should go to a full discussion. Frank Anchor 01:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Overturn Speedy with agreement of the deleting administrator. The appellant has the choice of submitting the draft for review, or of moving the draft to article space, knowing that there will be an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC) As the deleting admin has chosen to restore the content to draft space, I suggest no further action here. The nominator is welcome to move it to mainspace whenever they wish, and anyone will be welcome to nominate it for AFD if they do. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC) === 15 March 2023 ===" 104 105 211 WP:SCL Wikipedia:Notability (schools) 104 This page provides guidance to be used by Wikipedia editors to determine if a school should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. This guidance applies to articles about schools themselves; it is not directly applicable to school districts or other education articles. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates that a school warrants an article, a school article failing to do so is not a criterion for speedy deletion. This guideline can be considered a specialised version of Wikipedia:Notability applied to schools. It reflects the core values of Wikipedia policies, including the following: No original research Reliable sources Verifiability Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informationClaims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a school meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. A school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the school itself. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable by reliable sources. Thus, schools with sufficient sourced material have the necessary notability for an article. In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example. These schools are considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable sporting and scholastic successes. The amount of information from reliable secondary sources customarily available for such schools — based on news coverage of sports and academic awards, relative size, and importance to the community and region — are usually sufficient for verifiability. For elementary/primary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. An exception is made for schools having a specific, notable distinction or status (e.g., the Blue Ribbon Schools Program in the U.S. and Beacon School, Training school, or 'Grade 1' outstanding Office for Standards in Education overall assessment in the UK). These guidelines assume that there is some encyclopedic content. Directory-only entries (name, address, school type, staff member listings, etc.) are not adequate. Subject to the above paragraph, if a school article fails to establish notability, but the school can be confirmed to exist, then the page should be merged and redirected. In the United States and Canada, schools are usually organized by school district. The article about the school district (if one exists), or the municipality (if not), is the normal target. Outside North America the target should be an Education in ... page if one exists or, failing that, the lowest level of locality article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education 105 106 213 :WP:FICT Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) 105 "There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements (such as characters and episodes) on Wikipedia. See other relevant policies and guidelines in order to determine which fiction-related articles are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. In particular, editors should review: The general notability guideline The policy on what Wikipedia is not The manual of style for writing about fictionFor starters, the main work must be notable to begin with. If the work itself is not notable, it may be pointless to discuss the notability of its characters or episodes. Several attempts have been made to establish specialized guidelines to cover the notability of fictional elements within Wikipedia. Until there is a successful proposal to treat fiction in a specialized way, consult other policies and guidelines for guidance on a wide range of topics, including fiction. Existing policies and guidelines have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. A quick rule-of-thumb test on whether the article about a fictional topic is likely to be notable is to see whether it has a section on reception or significance. Note that sometimes relevant information may be contained in the lead. Barring that, a section on development history (creation) can occasionally contain useful content as well. Bear in mind that content in such sections should be referenced to reliable, independent sources. If such sections do not exist, before nominating the article for possible deletion, please adhere to WP:BEFORE and check whether sources to improve the article exists. A possible solution in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE can also take the form of redirecting the article to a list of similar entities or the article about the related, notable work this fictional element appears in. === Notability guidelines === The Wikipedia's general notability guideline is appropriate and sufficient for demonstrating the notability of fictional elements. Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable. There are specialized notability guidelines for works of fiction which can be found in the following guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (books) Wikipedia:Notability (films) Wikipedia:Notability (video games) === What Wikipedia is not === Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about ""real-world"" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than ""in-universe"" details. === Manual of style === Editors interested in writing articles on fictional elements are encouraged to review Writing About Fiction and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Check your fiction to understand the general approach and content of these articles. Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article. Advice for the appropriateness of these list articles can be found at the general notability guideline and at Stand-alone Lists and Topics. Editors should also review guidelines and recommendations made by WikiProjects that deal primarily with works of fiction. These include but not limited to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersA Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard was created in 2009 but it was retired in 2010. User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), the original attempted rewrite from c. 2007-2009 Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, a previous failed proposal from 2007 User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, a previous proposal abandoned in 2008 Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works, a previous failed proposal, in 2011 recategorized as an essay Wikipedia:Fancruft Wikipedia:""In popular culture"" content Wikipedia:Pokémon test" 106 107 214 WP:OWNER Wikipedia:Ownership of content 106 "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by a community of volunteer contributors. Individual contributors, also called editors, are known as Wikipedians. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them. If you find yourself in an edit war with other contributors, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming ""ownership"" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process. Even though editors can never ""own"" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they ""own"" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to those unfamiliar with the article. There are two common types of ownership conflicts between users: those involving one editor and those involving multiple editors. While ownership behavior is often understood to involve the original creator of the article, it can also involve other editors who have conflicting interests in promoting or opposing the subject, hijacking the original article's direction and emphasis, changing the title to reflect such changes, or, if unsuccessful, blanking or deleting the article as a form of revenge. === Single-editor ownership === In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If the behaviour continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership. If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page. You may need to ignore attacks made in response to a query. If ownership persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least you will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the editor. It is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. It may also be wise to allow them to withdraw from the conversation and return when they are ready. === Multiple-editor ownership === The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually consists of a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process. Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship. Stewardship or shepherding of an article or group of related articles may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or in a cause or organization related to it. The editor might also be an expert or otherwise very knowledgeable in the subject matter and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. The editors in question are no less responsible for adhering to core policies like neutrality of viewpoint, verifiability with reliable sources, and civility. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that ""anyone can edit"", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an ""ownership"" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. This is in keeping with the BRD cycle, which stands for bold, revert, discuss. Though not an official policy or guideline, it is a dependable method for dispute resolution. === Featured articles === While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by ownership behavior. While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, replace non-free content by link to it, or removing obvious vandalism or BLP violations. While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility. Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the neutrality policy. If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. === Actions === An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.) An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it ""unnecessary"" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article (see the first two comments in the Statements section just below). An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. === Statements === Although the following statements, seen in isolation from any context or other statements, do not indicate ownership behavior or motivation, they may be part of a pattern that indicates ownership behavior. When they occur along with some form of dogged insistence and relentless pushing, without good policy back up, and often including edit warring, they may be an expression of ownership behavior. ""Are you qualified to edit this article?"" / ""You only have X edits."" (pulling rank) ""I created/wrote the majority of this article."" (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that) ""I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."" ""Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."" ""Please clear this with WikiProject Z first."" ""I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."" (misapplying WP:AINTBROKE) ""Undo peanut-gallery editor."" ""You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously."" ""You're vandalizing my hard work."" Wikipedia:Consensus § Levels of consensus AuthorshipModel – A discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki" 107 108 215 WP:SIGNUP Wikipedia:Why create an account? 107 "Creating an account is quick and completely free. You don't need to be registered to contribute, but registering and using an account on Wikipedia to contribute allows you to: Choose an appropriate username, which will be reserved just for you on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Create your own user page, to collaborate, share information about yourself, or just practice editing and publishing in your own sandbox. Communicate with other editors via your own talk page. You can also opt in to exchanging emails with other users. Get automatic notifications that alert you when someone has {{ping}}ed you, or wikilinked your user ID. Use custom preferences to change the look and behaviour of Wikipedia. Use your unified login to work on Wikimedia's other projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons. Use more advanced editing tools.Once you have had an account for 4 days and made 10 edits, you can: Edit semi-protected pages, which display a grey lock . IP address users and non-confirmed users cannot edit pages of this security level. Start new articles, rename pages, or upload images.And once you have had an account for 30 days, and have made at least 500 edits, you will be allowed to edit extended protected pages, which display a blue lock . === Username and privacy === If you create an account, you can pick a user name provided it is available and unique. Edits you make while logged in will be assigned to that name, not to your IP address. You will have your own permanent user page where you can write a bit about yourself. While Wikipedia is not a homepage provider, you can use this to display a few free pictures, write about your hobbies, etc. Many users use their user page to maintain a list of the articles they are most proud of, or to collect other valuable information from Wikipedia. You will also have a permanent talk page you can use to communicate with other users. You will be notified whenever someone writes a message on your talk page. If you choose to give an e-mail address, other users will be able to contact you by e-mail. This feature is anonymous; the user who emails you will not know your e-mail address. You are actually less identifiable logged in than you are as an unregistered editor, owing to the hiding of your IP address (so long as you avoid disclosing identifiable information on your user page). You might want to consider privacy and the possibility of offline harassment, when deciding what to say on your user page. === Reputation, communication, and more successful edits === Having an account gives you a fixed Wikipedia identity that other users will recognize. While we welcome contributions from unregistered editors, logging in under a user name lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits, and makes it easier for veteran users to assume good faith, communicate and collaborate. Having a good name (or a pseudonym to protect your identity) promotes more responsible editing, and more civil discourse. Sometimes new or unregistered users are prevented from editing pages that are common targets of vandalism (just as this page is protected, and only users with an account can edit it). Also, bots can mistake even good-faith IP address edits for vandalism. For these reasons, edits under a user name tend to be more successful. Having an account is a must for many processes in Wikipedia, such as voting for administrators. As your reputation builds, it is possible to earn privileges such as rollback, sysop/administrator, and others. It is not possible for an unregistered editor to be granted these privileges. Your user name may also receive recognition for good work such as Barnstars, Project Awards, Personal User Awards, or nomination for voted accolades like Editor of the Week. You need a fixed account identity to accumulate these pats on the back; they are not awarded to IP addresses. === User preferences === As a registered user, you can customize the way pages are displayed by altering your preferences. There, in the Appearance tab, you can change the following display settings: Under Skin: various options as to the appearance of the website Under Math: how mathematical formulas are displayed Under Files: how large image thumbnails should beAnd various editing preferences: How your username signature appears on talk pages How pages should be displayed in recent changes and many others === Open research === Wikipedia accounts can gain access to the vital reliable sources via The Wikipedia Library. Shared IP addresses such as school and enterprise networks or proxy servers are frequently blocked for vandalism which, unfortunately, may also affect innocent editors on the same network. However, registered users in good standing can request existing blocks on their IP address be modified to affect only unregistered editors so that they can continue contributing to Wikipedia. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, we suggest you do one of the following: Try again after the block on your IP address expires. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of that page to find the length of the block. If no block appears go to Special:BlockList and copy the IP address which appears at the top of Special:MyPage into the box next to ""IP address for username:"". Request an account by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. If your IP address is globally blocked, request an account by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account and request global IP block exemption.See the Blocking policy for details. To create an account, click on the ""Create an account now"" link and fill out the required fields. This will be logged, and your account will be created. Related Wikipedia information pagesWhy not create an account? – Reasons to edit as an IP. Request an account – How any user may request an account be created for them. Wikipedia:Username policy § Deleting and merging accounts – Why it is not possible to delete user accounts and the alternatives available. Help:Logging in – Help for logging in to an existing account. Advice for parents – Brief introduction to Wikipedia for parents and legal guardians. Contributing to Wikipedia – How and where you can help Wikipedia. Personal security practices – How caution should be used when posting personally identifiable information online. Privacy, confidentiality and discretion – How your rights to privacy may not extend as far as you believe. Special:ListUsers – Search usernames currently in use on Wikipedia, or those in a specified group. meta:No external sign-on – Why we do not allow external sign-on services, such as Google, on Wikipedia." 108 109 222 WP:TERTIARYUSE Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources 108 "Generally speaking, tertiary sources (for Wikipedia purposes, as discussed at Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources) include any compilation of information, without significant new analysis, commentary, or synthesis, from primary and secondary sources, especially when it does not indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn. The distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is important, because Wikipedia's no original research policy states: ""Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."" Thus, such claims cannot be cited to tertiary or primary sources. There are many types of typically tertiary sources: Encyclopedias, dictionaries, encyclopedic dictionaries, and compendia, whether general or topical. These are often, but not always, high-quality and reliable sources (compendia are the least likely to be acceptable). Coffee table books run the gamut from books written by experts and published by internationally renowned museums, to books filled with photographs of a particular place or subject, on down to books whose sole raison d'être is making people laugh. ""Bathroom books"". These are usually low-quality sources and should usually be avoided. School textbooks, especially below the university level in the natural sciences and below the graduate-school level in some other fields. Bibliographies and indexes, concordances, thesauri, databases, almanacs, travel guides, field guides, timelines, and similar works. Quality varies widely. Abstracts of journal articles, legislation, etc., provided by indexing services and specialized search engines (not abstracts written by the article authors themselves). Low-quality sources. May be reliable enough for basics in some cases, depending on reputability of the publisher. The abstract included atop a journal article and written by its own authors is a primary, not tertiary source.Some of the above kinds of tertiary sources are considered forms of secondary literature in some disciplines, but remain tertiary (for most of their content) for Wikipedia's purposes including in those disciplines. Not understanding this is a common error by subject-matter experts new to Wikipedia editing. === Exceptions === The medium is not the message; source evaluation is an evaluation of content, not publication format. Sometimes high-quality, generally tertiary individual sources are also primary or secondary sources for some material. Two examples are etymological research that is the original work of a dictionary's staff (primary); and analytical not just regurgitative material in a topical encyclopedia written by a subject-matter expert (secondary). Material found in university textbooks ranges from secondary to tertiary, even in the same work, but is most often tertiary, especially at lower levels and covering more basic subjects. Textbooks intended for primary and secondary schools are almost always tertiary and, for Wikipedia purposes, reliable only for uncontentious basic material. Children's books of any kind are tertiary at best, often primary, and are usually unreliable sources. Especially beware citations to books about animals; the majority of them are children's books, so check to be sure. In the same class of suspect works are ""adult new reader"" books, and abridged large-print editions, or any other digest version. Some material published in general news and journalism sources (which are usually secondary) is actually tertiary, such as topical overview articles that summarize publicly-available information without adding any investigation or analysis; and sidebars of statistics or other factoids in an otherwise secondary article. (Some is also primary, such as editorials, op-eds, film reviews, advice columns, and highly subjective investigative journalism pieces.) News reporting is often mostly primary (quoting eyewitness statements, or the observations of an eyewitness reporter, rather than based on more in-depth material from experts and notable organizations). News reporting is treated more and more as if primary, regardless of what it contains, the closer it is to the date of the events, and the further in time those events recede. Similarly, not all documentaries aired on quasi-nonfictional TV networks are actually secondary sources; many are tertiary, and simply summarize various views of and facts about a history or science topic, without the result being novel. Some are even primary, for any exaggeratory conclusions they reach on their own. This has become increasingly true as documentary channels produce more fringe entertainment material about aliens, ghosts, ancient alleged mysteries, etc. Systematic reviews in academic journals are secondary sources, especially when they are themselves peer-reviewed, despite aggregating information from multiple previous publications. The less analytic kind of academic review article, the literature review, may be secondary or tertiary depending on its content. A review in the more general sense, of a book, film, etc., may be a primary source representing the aesthetic opinions of a reviewer, a secondary analytical piece (rarely, and most often in academic journals), or a tertiary neutral abstract of the reviewed work's content. Many are a mixture of more than one of these. Certain kinds of sources that are usually tertiary may in some instances be primary, e.g. rules published by a sport's governing body (primary but high-quality source) versus found in a compendium of sports and games (tertiary and low-quality, because likely to be outdated and to be missing details). Any tertiary source can be a primary source, when we are referring explicitly to the content of the source as such. For example, in a comparison of varying dictionary definitions, each dictionary cited is a primary source for the exact wording of the definitions it provides (e.g. if we want to quote them directly), while all of them would be tertiary sources for the meaning and interpretation of the term being defined, in a more usual editorial context. Some usually primary types of how-to and advice material, including user guides and manuals, are tertiary (or even secondary, depending on their content) when written by parties independent of the subject, e.g. the in-depth computer operating system guides found in bookstores (as opposed to the basic one that arrived from the manufacturer in the box with the computer). An abstract prepared by the author[s] of a journal paper is a primary source, like the paper itself. A summary produced by a journal's editors is secondary. A machine-produced digest is not a source at all. Primary source material that is simply reprinted (even with some reformatting or digesting) in an otherwise tertiary or secondary source remains primary. This includes quotations. Reliability of a tertiary source is principally determined by four factors: whether its producers (i.e. writers and/or editors) have subject-matter expertise, whether the underlying original sources of the non-novel material are clear, whether its producers are independent of the subject, and whether the work is generally regarded as reliable by others in the field in question (primarily a matter of authorial and publisher reputability). These factors counterbalance each other. For example, while typical mainstream dictionaries do not cite sources for specific entries, how authoritative they are considered can be gleaned from independent reviews of their content and editorial practices. Many tertiary works only cite sources in a general way, e.g. a bibliography. Beware tertiary works that have no indication of their own sources at all. Another factor to consider with tertiary sources is they are often more error-prone than secondary sources, especially the more comprehensive they are. A database of millions of pieces of biographical data, each often taken from a single original primary source and added by a stressed and bored data-entry operator, is less likely to have gotten a particular individual's birth date correct than a book (secondary source) written about that person, drawing on multiple sources. Tertiary online sources that are written in whole or in part by a general-public editing community are user-generated content, and are not reliable sources. This includes content farms, which have a paid but indiscriminate array of innumerable writers, and little editorial oversight, though many of them go to some lengths to disguise their nature. === Usually acceptable uses === Simple facts: A tertiary source is most often used for reference citations for basic and fairly trivial facts which are not likely to be disputed and which can be verified in other sources. Examples include various vernacular names for a species, the pronunciation of a foreign word, or a baseball player's statistics in a particular year. The WP:Good article nominations and WP:Featured article candidates processes tend to check that all statements in an article are sourced, and tertiary sources frequently are used for many non-controversial details. Simple comparisons: Another common use is comparative, especially involving simple facts and basic concepts. An example is citing multiple dictionaries to show how interpretation of a term may vary. (Comparative use of tertiary sources for more complex or contentious material is ill-advised, as detailed below.) Establishing balance: Tertiary sources are often included as supporting (not principal) evidence in considering the relevant prominence and due weight of conflicting views, to ensure article balance. Better than nothing: Tertiary sources are also commonly used when a secondary source has not yet been found. For example, a field guide about cacti has probably been reasonably well fact-checked, and can be cited as a source for the range of a particular species, if no source focusing on that species (and perhaps with more recent data) has turned up yet. Older but still relevant details: Older tertiary sources can be used to source former, obsolete views or facts that need to be reported on in a Wikipedia article, for completeness, especially when it's difficult to find modern sources that even mention a long-replaced idea, name, person fulfilling a role, or whatever. As detailed below, there is a major difference between using a tertiary source to report obsolete facts as such, and trying to use them to preserve obsolete facts as still verifiable (e.g., you can use 19th-century encyclopedias to illustrate how seriously phrenology was once taken, but such sources cannot be used to try to contradict modern scientific works). === Problematic uses === Analysis and evaluation: A tertiary source cannot be used, as a matter of policy, as a source for ""an analytic or evaluative claim"". This is left deliberately broad, so it is not subject to technicality gaming. Controversial material: Any controversial, alleged fact is essentially unsourced if the only citation it has is to a tertiary source of questionable reliability (on the particular point or generally). As with secondary sources, this can happen for any number of reasons, including source obsolescence, lack of subject-matter expertise, conflict of interest, simple error, or presentation of a fringe idea as comparable to the generally accepted view, among other problems that can arise with a particular source. A tertiary source that is a compendium of factoids by an author with no known expertise, and which indicates nothing about the sources of its own information, is not a reliable source. Anyone could compile a large book of alleged facts, anecdotes, and folklore about any given topic, and probably find a willing publisher, without any fact-checking ever taking place. Note however that not all facts about a controversial subject are themselves controversial; there is no principle that a reliable tertiary source good enough for one article is not good enough for another because of the topic's notoriety, the amount of emotion editors bring to editing it, or the frequency with which our article on it is vandalized. Complex or controversial comparisons: Comparative use of tertiary sources can be fraught with problems relating to undue weight, non-neutral point of view, novel synthesis, and lack of basic accuracy if the things being compared are subject to real-world contention, or are complex in nature. For example, a comparison between Christian, Judaic, and Muslim concepts of God is unlikely to produce encyclopedic results if based in whole or part on tertiary sources, which are likely to present a poorly nuanced view of complex theological questions and details of interpretation. Complex comparative work must actually be done in secondary sources cited by Wikipedia for those comparisons. The WP:AEIS policy does not permit Wikipedians themselves to engage in substantive ""analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"" of facts or sources. Over-inclusive works: Indiscriminate sources must be considered skeptically when determining both notability and due weight. Unfortunately, a large proportion of tertiary sources are indiscriminate. A guidebook that attempts to describe every restaurant in a city cannot reasonably help establish that a particular restaurant is notable. An index of every paper published about a topic in a given year tells us nothing about the critical reception of any given paper. The more inclusive, comprehensive, even ""complete"" that a work aims to be, the less useful it is for determining the notability of any subject it mentions. On the up side, the more comprehensive a work is, the more likely Wikipedia editors are to find reliable details in it about any subject within its purview. Thus, in a selection of tertiary sources for a topic, the source that is most reliable for WP:Verifiability purposes has a tendency to be the least valuable for notability and due weight analysis. The inverse is often not true; an exclusively selective, non-comprehensive source may well be unreliable, too, simply because it was poorly researched and reflects a superficial, popular-opinion approach to its topic, as is often the case with coffee table books. Better sources available: While a good tertiary source can usually be used without incident to source non-controversial facts, such citations can and should be superseded by ones to reliable secondary sources. WP:Identifying reliable sources tell us: ""Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."" It is extremely rare for a tertiary source to be the best such source, for anything, in any context; they're simply often the most readily available and easily digestible (being somewhat predigested). Sometimes a tertiary source can even be replaced with a primary one; for example, a dog breed's actual breed standard (the primary source) is more reliable for the breed's defined characteristics than a tertiary dog breed encyclopedia, though the latter might be very useful for differences and commonalities between varying standards published by different organizations, and may be a good source of additional details, like demographics and breed history. ""Stacking"" tertiary source citations after a sufficient secondary one is not advised; it does not add more verifiability to the claim in the article, but simply adds clutter. Outdated material: An obsolete source cannot be used to ""trump"" newer reliable sources that present updated information, most especially when the older source states or implies a negative that cannot be proven but can be disproven easily by new data. A pertinent example (detailed here) is a prominent dictionary asserting that a specific phrase was first used in publication in a certain year, while later research found older examples, disproving this assertion (with its implicit negative, that there were no earlier cases). Because most tertiary works take a long time to assemble, or (in more dynamic media) are in a constant state of being incrementally updated, it is fairly likely that some particular pieces of information in such a work have already been surpassed by the newer work of others. Some information in tertiary sources may already be obsolete before they even see publication. Sometimes the very conceptual framework behind such a work becomes obsolete, given the passage of enough time, with enough advancement and reorganization in the field to which it pertains. E.g., a decades-old tertiary list of species within a genus, based on outmoded ideas of classification, cannot be used to contradict or seek undue weight against a widely accepted re-classification arrived at through more modern research. On the other hand, a recent high-quality tertiary source with clear and reliable sources may be of more value than an obsolete secondary one, especially in the sciences, where current understanding can be a fast-moving target. WP:No original research (policy) WP:Verifiability (policy) WP:Identifying reliable sources (guideline) WP:Identifying and using independent sources (essay; how to identify when a source may be biased due to a connection to its subject) WP:Identifying and using primary sources (essay) WP:Identifying and using style guides (essay) WP:Dictionaries as sources (essay) WP:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy (essay; a bullet list of sourcing mistakes) WP:Party and person (essay; distinctions between terms like ""tertiary"" and ""third party"") WP:Sources – SWOT analysis (essay; a four-criterion comparison of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources) WP:Tertiary-source fallacy (essay; advancing a tertiary source as if it ends all argument is a mistake) WP:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer (essay: opinions about word usage do not trump reliable sources on language) Template:Tertiary source inline (used outside ...) Template:Tertiary source (used inside ...)" 109 110 223 WP:ARBSAQ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question 109 "Case Opened on 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Case Closed on 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage. Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision. Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tom Reedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Paul Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NinaGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Moonraker2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Poujeaux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Charles Darnay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Warshy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MoreThings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Xover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zweigenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Alexpope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jdkag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) === Statement by LessHeard vanU === The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this. However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the ""anti-Stratfordians""; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article. Examples; Tendentious editing - First four of six talkpage sections, over a few days, started by User:Nina Green, over different ""issues"" with the article construction, 500 talkpage edits in just under 10 days Wikilawyering - Demand by Nina Green for link to policy when requested to stop outdenting. Needling comment by User:Moonraker2, with mild pa Disruptive editing - Note edit summary Personal attacks/harassment - User:Charles Darney making a pa while contesting his outing another editor User:Warshy upon Bishonen and some other admin who have attempted to resolve issues. Attempted outing - Viewable only to persons with Oversight privileges.Attempts to resolve these issues by the editors and uninvolved admins has not been successful, in part because new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw. These new accounts, quoting Wiki policy (""Consensus can change"" is often cited), require existing editors to concentrate upon making the same good faith responses to the usual points, lest there are claims that process is being flouted or that the points are not able to be countered and that consensus should reflect the presented POV. Other attempts to address concerns regarding behaviour and attitudes of various editors have been met with stonewalling, allegations of (admin) bias, and counter claims upon other editors; there is an almost complete absence of any attempt to engage upon or mitigate inappropriate interaction. There is a small (and diminishing) core of dedicated contributors trying to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view within a subject against a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers - there needs to be a proper evaluation by ArbCom and the provision of restrictions which will enable editors to concentrate upon improving the article and deprecate efforts to promote viewpoints. 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Addressing Newyorkbrad's request; The article exhibits WP:BATTLE tendencies, possibly owing to a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, with resultant violations of various policies and guidelines as noted above. Appropriate methods of conduct and dispute resolution need to be affirmed, provisions put in place for continuing violations to be dealt with, and only as a last resort some editors may need to be warned or sanctioned, to ensure a properly encyclopedic editing environment going forward. 11:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Moonraker2 === Looking at the statement by LessHeard vanU, it is not clear exactly what is complained of nor who is considered to be answerable. I think what is at the heart of this is the suggestion of ""a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the ""anti-Stratfordians"" "", but I am not aware of any such a thing and certainly would not be associated with it if it existed. If anyone believes there is such a campaign, then I suggest that further details of how that view was arrived at are needed here at an early stage. Specific comments First bullet point ""Tendentious editing"": this is no more than an assertion, as no detail is provided. Second bullet point, ""Wikilawyering"": this offers two astonishingly weak instances and fails to take account of the contexts. Third bullet point, ""Disruptive editing"": this refers only to a single edit, by an anonymous user, 67.189.124.240, whose contributions show only that one edit. In my view this cannot be relevant here. Fourth bullet point, ""Personal attacks/harassment"": this is highly selective in the ""personal attacks"" referred to. Those made by the users referred to later as a ""core of dedicated contributors"" are also at issue. Fifth bullet point, ""Attempted outing"": I am unable to comment on this, as one or both of the revisions has been deleted. In reply to ""new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw... a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers"", this seems to me to allege serious misconduct by one or more users, but no detail is provided of which accounts are complained of, nor indeed any details of any pov pushing, so more detail is needed to substantiate these sweeping statements. If LessHeard vanU can identify all users and accounts concerned, it will be clear whether there is a case for individual accounts to be referred for investigation. If not, these remarks may need to be withdrawn. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I am copying this material here at the suggestion of X! on my talk page. Bishonen wrote at User:Bishonen/Further RfAR statement (a page she later deleted): I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of ""Oxfordians"" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA. The further exchange went like this: Bishonen, would you kindly control your fantasies? You say ""I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of ""Oxfordians"" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2..."" That clearly imputes to me some undesirable role in a concerted campaign by ""Oxfordians"", and I am not even an Oxfordian myself. It appears to me that you have a completely paranoid perception of anyone who does not share your animosity towards NinaGreen. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)How dare you come here with your name-calling? What the hell are you doing in my statement and my userspace? Aren't you an established editor? Do you really not know any better? Kindly peruse the instructions on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page (they come up in edit mode) and apply them here as well, as this is part of the Case Request. Remove your bloody interference immediately. Bishonen | talk 03:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC).Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Why is it that I am not surprised by your choice of words? I ""dare"" to reply here because I see nowhere else to reply. If you can suggest a better place, I have no objection to using it. You can hardly expect to make such unfounded personal criticisms of me without my having a right of reply. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Nina Green === LessHeard should have opened this with this statement: However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to defame, demean, disparage and discourage all anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article and drive them away so that Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who have both admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article (Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'), can continue to own the article contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:OWN, and prevent any substantive edit being made to the article other than one which Reedy and Nishidani either make themselves or personally sanction. This bias on the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article which are so numerous that it would be impossible to list the literally hundreds of them found on the SAQ Talk page and elsewhere in recent weeks. Not one of these defamatory attacks on anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article has been commented on by any administrator monitoring the SAQ article, although the most minor technical infraction by anti-Stratfordian editors has been instantly jumped on by administrators monitoring the SAQ page. Moreover Nishidani and Tom Reedy's relentless ridiculing of any suggested substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors and their instant reversion of any substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors despite those edits being put up for discussion on the SAQ Talk page either before or immediately after such edits were made has resulted in NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE EDIT BY AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN EDITOR BEING ALLOWED BY TOM REEDY AND NISHIDANI IN THE SAQ ARTICLE DURING THE PAST MONTH, a situation which is clearly untenable and in clear violation of WP:OWN. Wikipedia administrators monitoring the SAQ article have likewise ignored all complaints by anti-Stratfordian editors that the SAQ article has been exclusively 'owned' by Tom Reedy and Nishidani in violation of WP:OWN.Had LessHeard framed the arbitration request in that way, there would have been something to it. Moreover LessHeard should also have mentioned in his framing of the arbitration request that Nishidani has already been banned from numerous Wikipedia pages for personal attacks. Nishidani himself posted this on my Talk page confirming that he is known for his personal attacks on other editors: Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Bishonen === I don't know how Tom Reedy manages to add any content to Shakespeare authorship question in the aggressive barrage from Nina Green and to some extent her helpers Warshy, Moonraker2, Zweigenbaum, and MoreThings on the talkpage. Nina herself is by far the most productive of text, rendering the talkpage intolerably long and repetitious. Here are some examples of her recent edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] Accusation of editing an archive (Tom was attempting to remove an inadvertent outing). No information about how editing this archive is supposed to harm Wikipedia, but Nina believes she has found a ""direct violation of Wikipedia policy"", so she posts, and posts again.[5] [6]Note some repeated mannerisms in the diffs above: References to what Wikipedia policy allows/does not allow. As a user of seven months, Nina is understandably ignorant of policy, but pronounces on it as if she were an expert. At first, I attempted to help her understand policy and the spirit of it, but her combative responses made me feel so much like mr K in The Trial that I have given up this project. I no longer believe she wants to know. Accusations without evidence or example, against Tom and Nishidani of wikilawyering (I wish I hadn't taught her that word; it was inadvertent), bad faith, dishonesty, insults, POV, attempts to push other editors off Wikipedia, and, the new favorite, of being ""defamatory"", as in ""personal attacks on me which are not only personal but which go far beyond that and are defamatory.""[7]. She provides no diffs, and I have upbraided other editors for asking her for them, since she obviously has trouble with diffs. I have attempted to counsel Nina as to why diffs are helpful, and suggested a simple way of producing them, but this effort was ignored.[8] Rhetorical questions about when ""administrators"" are going to do something about Tom's and Nishidani's alleged abuse. Despite the plural form, I guess these administrators are me, since I'm the only admin who'll go near the page. (Excepting always LHvU, but he merely lurks.) Repetition. Ooooow, yes.Nina attempts to learn more about Nishidani's real life identity, and shares her efforts with the talkpage, with strange hints which I do not understand: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14](Here ""Administrators"" are instructed to tell Nishidani to shut up about his qualifications.) The diffs I have offered above are all from the last two days only, unless I've made a mistake somewhere. This has been going on unremittingly for months! I hope Tom is going to post about the sheer mass of text, the frequency with which the page needs archiving now, etc, as I'm not well up on these figures. I have, however, tried in various ways, all equally ineffective, to contain Nina's excesses. I've suggested a voluntary ban to Nina on the amount of posting,[15] something which offended her (understandably, no doubt) and brought Moonraker to the fore as her champion. Nina claimed that ""Tom Reedy has posted at least as many times on the SAQ Talk page as I have, and I would be willing to wager that his total word count exceeds mine"" (I'd win that wager). I have warned her about ""commenting on the editor"", as is her habit, directed her to WP:NPA (but I don't have the impression she clicks on these things) and even mentioned blocking.[16] This last threw her helpers into a state of great indignation, suggesting I needed to ""recuse myself""(?) since my impartiality was ""in doubt"",(Moonraker2) I was playing a baffling ""game"" (MoreThings) and I probably had rabies (Warshy). Here, also, is a post from me, giving an example of Nina's repetitiousness (showing more or less the same (erroneous) post eleven times). Please accept this case. It's impossible to get the community to touch it (see my ANI thread about Zweigenbaum with its minimal and frankly useless input[17]) because the talkpage is so repulsive and life is so short. But you arbs get paid, don't you..? Bishonen | talk 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC). Darn, this statement is already some 660 words long, and I wanted to respond to Newyorkbrad's request. OK, I've put that response in my userspace, here. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC).Breaking news ;-) : I moved all my commentary out here because Moonraker2 had the everloving effrontery to disrupt my statement and userspace. I'm truly sorry the whole is now so long and boring, but, well. A clerk is deleting MR's contribution from my space as we speak—no doubt it will turn up here instead, name-calling and all. And here is my response to Newyorkbrad: Response to Newyorkbrad: I think Nina Green needs to be banned for at least a year, either from Wikipedia or from Shakespeare pages broadly construed; it comes to the same thing, as de Vere's authorship of Shakespeare's plays is her only interest on Wikipedia. She daily violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXHAUST, WP:AGF, and—I'm sorry to have to say this—WP:COMPETENCE as well, thereby wasting the time and energies of Shakespeare scholars and other competent editors. Whether or not she's here to build an encyclopedia, her actual impact is negative. In my efforts to help her become a useful Wikipedia editor I have found her quite unreasonable (as in, impossible to reason with) and in active flight from any learning process about how to contribute appropriately. There is a small selection of my efforts on the RfAR page. Naturally others have tried too, especially the unflappable User:Johnuniq. However, a ban of Nina Green is not IMO the main matter before the committee. It is absolutely necessary to find some way of durably restricting the WP:EXHAUST and WP:FRINGE problems which are now — and usually — rampant on some Shakespeare pages. These pages should be the jewels in Wikipedia's crown, which is impossible if they're produced on a battlefield where every word is contested by aggressive SPAs who live only for seeing their pet authorship theory receive Justice. It took 3 or 4 years to liberate the ""authorship question"" from the cold dead hand of the civil POV-pusher Smatprt, something that the joined forces of the community and LHvU have now finally accomplished (for one year only, though; S will be back): [18] (Warning: huge ANI thread, may cause dehydration or insanity.) After a short, idyllic interlude in November 2010 where Tom Reedy and Nishidani prepared Shakespeare authorship question for FAC, Nina Green appeared and all was soon as before: the lawyering, the delaying tactics, the extended WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the 5 or 10 posts about each tiniest detail, the insistence on answers, the disinterest in them when they came (see Pestering), in sum: the wearing down of good-faith and highly-skilled editors by attrition. The only difference from the era of Smatprt was that the ""civil"" part of ""civil POV-pusher"" was missing this time, as Nina's method for disrupting the page included hassling, harassment, and far-fetched accusations. I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of ""Oxfordians"" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA. Please protect the articles from the fanatics, not only now, but systematically and ongoingly. How? I don't know. I guess this is as good a time as any to throw the new arbs in the deep end and have good old ArbCom Discussion? If this and this are working well, then perhaps..? It should at least be easier to find uninvolved admins for Shakespeare than Climate Change, I imagine. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC). Moonraker2 states above that he is moving his disruption of my statement to this page at my suggestion on his talkpage. Savour the unlikeliness of that statement, if you will... There will be a prize for anybody who can see me making such a suggestion on his Talk. Bishonen | talk 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC). === Statement by MoreThings === Bishonen has informed me that I'm involved in this case. She's also listed me as one of Nina Green's ""helpers"". I've made no edits the article, no edits to the talk page, and two edits to Nina's talk page. For the record, I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare--William Shakespeare of Stratford Upon Avon, the upstart crow. I'd never heard of Nina Green until she started posting on the SAQ page. I'm not unduly exercised by the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Has a prima facie case been established here? Which of the diffs point to ""a possibly coordinated campaign""? Where are these legions of ips and throwaway accounts engaging in it? What have been their contributions? Here is the edit history since smatprt was banned. LHVU apprises us that there is a small, dedicated group valiantly defending NPOV. I think it's incumbent upon on him to name those happy few, and likewise to identify the miserable conspirators. As to the other charges, is there anything among those diffs that you couldn't see on a hundred thousand other talk pages? Any egregious personal attacks? Any clear violations of policy? It should be noted that no article was harmed in the making of this arbcom case. The SAQ article has been relatively stable. No one has violated or gamed 3RR. Everyone is using the talk page. The discussion there has centred on whether it's reasonable to use the term ""fringe"", what constitutes scholarly consensus, and so on. Those kinds of discussion serve to strengthen the cause of NPOV within the project, not to weaken it. That said, things have got out of hand in recent days and something needs to be done. All of the evidence that you've been presented with so far points the finger at one side, and at one editor in particular. If you decide to accept this case, you'll see that in truth it's been the usual Punch and Judy kind of stuff, with each side giving as good as it gets before all parties agree to shake each other warmly by the throat, but none of it really requiring your arbships' attention. The real problem is that discussion about content has now degenerated into discussion about editors. I suggest that some kind of special sanction be implemented which authorises admins to issue escalating blocks for any whiff of ad hominem argument. My own view is that it would be better to cap the block at, say, 4 weeks. If an editor knows that one way to remove an opponent from an article is to incite him to ad hominem argument, then there's a temptation to do precisely that. If all editors know that they're stuck with one another until they eventually roll up their sleeves and reach a compromise, then that's what they'll do. A cap would also help mitigate any idiosyncratic adminning of the sanction. There are many very knowledgeable editors listed in this case. They are the people who should be writing our SAQ article. Removing any or all of them from the project, or from that topic, would be much to the detriment of encyclopedia. MoreThings (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by warshy === I completely agree with everything MoreThings said above. Let me just emphasize that the opening statement of the case made by LessHeard vanU is completely wrong and biased in my view, pointing fingers directly at one side to begin with, which happens to be the minority skeptic view side on this debate, and which happens to be the side that did NOT initiate this official request for arbitration. Let me also emphasize, as I have already declared elsewhere, that there is an open, declared and concerted effort by the majority mainstream side to steamroll this article to FA status no matter what, on the face of any opposition by the minority skeptic view side that may appear on their path. This request here and this arbitration case, as far as I understand it is just another step towards that avowed relentless effort/goal. In fact, this is pretty much a repetition of a very similar case that was also arbitrated by LH vU and which ended with the unfair (in my view) ban of Smatprt. That case was started by the same people that have started this one, and toward the same goal. warshytalk 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Johnuniq === Please accept this case and consider whether it would be appropriate to establish some form of topic probation that would allow administrators to issue warnings or short blocks to any editors who repeatedly violate community norms for article editing or talk page communication, for articles in Category:Shakespearean authorship. The main article (Shakespeare authorship question) is being developed for FA, yet Talk:Shakespeare authorship question is being filled with repeated claims without substantial evidence. Articleinfo shows that there were 1,145 edits to the talk page in the last month, and NinaGreen averages one edit per two hours. The frequent talk page commentary has interfered with development of the article. There have been numerous examples of poor use of the article talk page, resulting in two problems: (1) unreadable sections where it is hard to determine who-said-what-when; (2) essentially the same issue is repeatedly raised, and there is little engagement with previous replies. Both problems are present in the following example. NinaGreen raised some issues regarding a source which involved three substantive questions. After some back-and-forth, Tom Reedy provided a detailed replydiff then tweaked itdiff. The reply included bold text to show NinaGreen's queries, with Tom Reedy's reply underneath. At that point, the talk page section looked like this (with Tom Reedy's reply at the bottom). Within an hour (with no one else contributing to the discussion at that time), NinaGreen made five edits to the section(1 2 3 4 5). At that point, the talk page section looked like this. Problem: the talk page section is now unreadable because there are five interspersed replies, each using {{outdent}}. An example of problem (2) (repeatedly raising the same issue) can be seen by searching for ""WP:OR"" in this section: permalink. See the ""Claims of OR are not correct"" subsection at the bottom where I attempted to summarize the case, and see the responses. The current talk page (permalink) includes 34 instances of the words ""defamation"" or ""defamatory"" (less than 10 of these are used in replies where editors comment on usage of these terms). That is a week after I explaineddiff that ""...it is not advisable to use loaded terms like ""defamatory"", and it is not acceptable to claim that personal abuse has been directed at an editor without any evidence—do not make serious claims like that without at least linking to a discussion that attempts to support the claims..."". Also see this diff where I was more explicit, with a link to perceived legal threats and an explanation that it is a personal attack to make a serious accusation without evidence. Apart from NinaGreen there are two other editors whose procedures are problematic (information upon request). In addition there are some good editors who support NinaGreen's challenges to the article. Those editors should be asked to explain proper procedures at User talk:NinaGreen when a problem is apparent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Tom Reedy === I don’t believe there is a great conspiracy among Oxfordians, but there is an overall public relations push by anti-Stratfordians in general and Oxfordians in particular to have the Shakespeare authorship question reclassified as a minority view instead of a fringe theory, and Wikipedia articles are certainly used to gain visibility and promote the idea. For example, the Oxfordian articles have their own category within the authorship category (which has its own template), with 17 articles, including Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian and Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, which, after a token nod to the mainstream view, goes on to make arguments for Oxford’s authorship, all of them cited to fringe sources. After Smatprt was topic-banned on 23 Nov 2010, I solicited editors to help bring the SAQ article up to FA status. A few editors who had been avoiding the page because of the constant disruption and edit wars began to trickle back in. NinaGreen began editing the page on 16 Dec 2010. I had tried to work with her on the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, which began amicably enough, but problems soon emerged: original research refusal to accept a reliable source unless she agreed with it repetitive insistence on using non-RS sources On 15 Dec 2010 she made more than 20 edits to the SAQ peer review that were so repetitive, lengthy and off-topic that an administrator zipped them up. Her first edits on the SAQ pager were deletions of sources and statements she didn’t agree with. She has made a total of 71 edits to that page, 44 of them the first day. I asked her several times to discuss major edits. It is not true that all her edits have been reverted. She demanded that I recuse myself from editing because 12 years ago I co-authored an essay with David Kathman, that I used synthesis and original research, that I controlled the article, and that I mischaracterised the academic consensus by using a source that described the SAQ as a fringe theory [19]. This conversation is almost surreal and is a good example of how discussions have gone with her and User:Zweigenbaum, who showed up on 17 Dec. No one’s hands are spotless in this matter; I myself have lost my temper and had to apologise and retract some remarks. No such self-awareness has been forthcoming from her. Any remonstrations from editors or admins are taken by her as a personal attack. I believe the nature of the topic is such that the policies of Wikipedia are not sufficient to stop disruption from advocates of the view that someone else wrote Shakespeare’s works. It is not a rational view based on evidence, and therefore it is championed by those whose methodology is directly opposed to the principles behind the policies of Wikipedia. I don’t have space to describe the process that produced the present article, but I think some lessons could be drawn from the experiment to be used in handling other problems caused by the coverage of fringe theories on Wikipedia. What needs to happen now, however, is to find some way that these articles can be brought and kept in line with the core Wikipedia policies. Tom Reedy (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Paul Barlow === I have been editing Shakespeare related pages for a very long time. The authorship-related pages have always been a problem because it is very difficult to engage the editors who are committed to various ""alternative"" theories in consensus building. This is a generalisation of course. Each editor is different. However the current situation is absolutely intolerable. ""Carpet bombing"" seems an appropriate phrase indeed. It is almost impossible for any new editor to make sense of the discussions on the talk page. Contributions by user:Charles Darnay and user:Zweigenbaum are typically long and difficult to follow. Neither editors shows much interest in wikipedia's policies. The latter apparently considers them irrelevant because established scholars have all been wrong [20]. But the main problem for collegial editing is the behaviour of Nina Green. Nina engages in extraordinary acts of synthesis as in this exchange while adopting even more extraordinary interpretations of policy, such as demanding a reliable source that uses the actual word ""fringe"" in order to state that a theory is fringe. Unless the word fringe is used it is ""original research"". WP:fringe makes no such demand. Indeed it would be unworkable if it did. When such a source (published by Oxford University Press, edited by Stanley Wells) is found, she declares it inadmissible on the basis of her personal view about the author. She calls ""original research"" accurate summaries of the conclusions of sources, while creating her own synthesised arguments against what the sources say. This discussion is perhaps the most mesmeric example. It is the unrelenting, attritional, repetitive nature of the argumentation that is the problem here. I don't suggest there is any worked-out strategy, but the effect is simply to drive away all but the most committed editors. The atmosphere becomes poisonous and everyone who is involved has lost their temper at some time when faced with this unrelenting barrage. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC) === Statement by Xover === I have long been convinced—though I've hoped I was wrong—that only ArbCom can cut this particular knot. The immediate cause for this request may be the actions contrary to both letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies and collegiate editing that NinaGreen (aided by her supporters) have exhibited; but the problem is a long-standing one with wider scope than only this article. At least as far back as the FAC for William Shakespeare there have been periodic instances of POV pushers (polite and otherwise), IP editors, and Sockpuppets that to greater or lesser degree attempt to inject mention of the Authorship position everywhere on Shakespeare-related articles (using them as coatracks); shifting balance to gain credibility for the Authorship ""cause""; and some times just plain causing as much disruption as possible (cf. Barryispuzzled and the several SPI cases). Numerous RFCs, AN/I reports, etc. have been entirely unsuccessful in dealing with the problem, partly because no sane editor or administrator will wade into the quagmire, and partly because these new editors exhibit a marked ability to navigate policy documents regardless of their unfamiliarity with even basic editing principles, so that you need to wade through page upon page of editing history to see the pattern. The constant disruption and wikilawyering, and the resulting toxic atmosphere, has driven away—through sheer attrition—several members of the Shakespeare wikiproject; has essentially halted progress on the articles within this scope; and has put an immense strain on the remaining editors' ability to assume good faith (I think most of us now view it as a suicide pact, since failure to exhibit an assumption of good faith, even when obviously confronted with a tendentious editor, will be latched on to as reason to spare the editors in question from sanctions). That being said I do not believe, as has been suggested elsewhere, that the immediate situation involves sockpuppetry (at least not primarily). I do personally believe, for various reasons, that there is off-wiki coordination happening, but I do not believe that there has been sufficient evidence to level that accusation at any one, or any one group, of editors. My belief, based on years of involvement in this topic area on the project, is that the scope of this arbitration and, in particular, its eventual remedies, should extend to all articles either directly related to this particular fringe theory (e.g. articles on the specific theories, and the subjects of those theories such as Oxford, Bacon, etc.), as well as all articles within the scope of the Shakespeare WikiProject; and should extend to the entire history of this stream of tendentious editors and not focus too narrowly on just this article and the editors currently involved. Experience shows that should, hypotethically, a remedy here remove all the problem editors from the article, new tendentious editors would simply appear in short order to continue the disruption to the project. I am not familiar in detail with the oft-cited ""Climate Change"" case, but judging from what few effects of its remedies I've happened across, I suspect it may indeed be an approriate point of reference; and that any remedies in this case may need to involve administrators with wide discretionary powers of sanction (which, I believe, were among the remedies in the mentioned case). The normal dispute resolution process has proven unable to deal with this problem, and the attrition among editors too great to sustain the disruption any longer. Some rather more fundamental change is needed before the last active editors throw in the towel and leave entirely. I'd provide the salient diffs here, but they would quickly run into the hundreds, if not thousands, and several has been provided elsewhere in this case. My immediate suggestion for illustration would be to take a look at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question and its archives for the last three months, and realise that the very impenetrability and sheer length exhibited is the proximate cause for this request for arbitration; and illustrative of the ongoing problem with a stream of champions here to Right a Great Wrong against the ""stonewalling"" by the mainstream scholars and aided by all those pesky biased administrators on Wikipedia. --Xover (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC) (Arbitrator note: This statement will be received and considered. A clerk may move it to the talkpage, but we will still read it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)) === Statement by Jdkag === I am guilty of having a POV, my POV being that Wikipedia should present documented facts that may be relevant to someone interested in researching a topic. The facts of SAQ are presented at many sites on the web, such as http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration, a site to which I have no personal connection. I would highly recommend that the arbitrators not merely look at the confrontational issues involved in editing the SAQ entry but investigate the pro-SAQ references to determine the more fundamental question as to whether SAQ is a valid issue. If it is valid, then the entry needs to be written very differently. As noted on the www.doubtaboutwill.org home page, two universities, one in the U.S., the second in the U.K., have research centers in authorship studies. My own involvement in this case began a year ago when I was introduced to the book ""Sweet Swan of Avon"" by Robin Williams. Based on the book's premise, I added Mary Sidney's name to the Shakespeare Authorship entry, including a few sentences as to why she was a valid candidate and citing the Williams book and additional references that propose her as a candidate. I also added a brief section to the Mary Sidney entry, mentioning that she was an authorship candidate. Both these edits were subsequently removed by Stratfordian POV editors. My suggestion for resolving the issue would be to have two sections under the SAQ entry. One would be for a pro-SAQ editor to write a concise (500 word?) section summarizing the main reasons why the authorship question exists, this section being off-limits to pro-Stratfordian editing. The second section (with the same length limit) would be for the Stratfordian response. A further section should include the list of candidates and relevant references (and pro-SAQ editors should be allowed to include mention of the candidacy within the linked candidate entries, in contrast to my experience with Mary Sidney). === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (11/0/1/1) === Awaiting statements, but tentatively leaning toward acceptance. It is evident that the collaborative environment on this topic is in a bad state. Those commenting on the request who favor acceptance are invited to opine on the potential scope of any case. Those favoring our declining the case should suggest what other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC) The case has been accepted and will be opened today. The drafters will be SirFozzie and me. All evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible, and the target for a proposed decision will be no later than two weeks from today. [Note: The deadlines were later extended a bit, partly due to the temporary unavailability of one of the parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)] Ditto - leaning accept but awaiting responses from other involved parties. Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I was involved with mediating this dispute, so I'll recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept On a quick read through, the conduct issues appear to be sufficiently serious and multiparty that a case seems be the best way to sort it all out. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept, but noting that any decision would focus on conduct, not content. SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept, seems like this isn't something easily sorted. Shell babelfish 16:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept, being clear that Arbcom is not qualified to decide on who wrote the plays. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare authorship doubters - I nominated this article for deletion because it was in my opinion an OR coatrack of people who had at one time or another offered an opinion at a cocktail party, but withdrew the nom when the article was rewritten to Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, which I consider to be a notable topic. I have no particular interest in who wrote the plays, other than to note that a girl from my school (in the early 1970's) once proved by textual analysis that the junior English mistress wrote all the comedies. If persons from any side would prefer I recuse because of this, please just let me know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept. Risker (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Note: I have asked Bishonen to move her response to arbitrator Newyorkbrad's question into her statement proper, despite the fact that it takes the sum of her commentary over the word limit. All participants are reminded of the instructions for response to the statements of others, which requires that you comment only in your own statement section and not elsewhere; threaded discussion is not permitted in either the RFAR statements or in the evidence pages. Any further inappropriately placed discussion will be removed without notice. Repeated violations may result in additional sanctions or restrictions. Risker (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Comment The issue here is not who wrote the plays but whether those debating it are doing so within policy. This is because prolonged disruption usually renders the topic toxic and thwarts the consensus model on which content decisions are made.Disclosure: I was heavily involved in taking Hamlet to featured article and, while the authorship question has largely passed me by and I have no particular views on it, I will recuse if requested to by any of the parties. Roger talk 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept. As everyone is offering recusal rationales, I should point out that I (like many others) was handed a good number of works purported to be written by Shakespeare in high school (which may have coloured my impression of the good bard). –xenotalk 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Accept John Vandenberg (chat) 05:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Accept. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC) === Temporary injunction (none) === (Clerk note) There was no temporary injunction for this case. AGK [•] 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC) = Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available. === Purpose of Wikipedia === 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Conduct and decorum === 2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. Passed 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Editorial process === 3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Neutral point of view === 4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures. Passed 14 to 0 with 1 abstention at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Discussion of minority views === 5) While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated. Passed 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Single-purpose accounts === 6) Editors may choose to focus their contributions to Wikipedia narrowly or broadly. However, editors who focus primarily or exclusively on a narrow subject—sometimes referred to as single-purpose accounts—are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus is on advocacy rather than neutrally presenting information. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Tendentious editing === 7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Talk pages === 8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Casting aspersions === 9) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment, as is repeating accusations that have been shown to be incorrect. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Revealing personal information === 10) Wikipedia editors are permitted to choose whether to edit anonymously, to edit under a username but to disclose their real identity (for example, on their userpage), or to edit under their own real name. Identifying information about an editor who chooses not to disclose his or her identity may not be revealed on-wiki by others. When an editor is unsure whether another editor wishes his or her identity to be known, the safer course is not to refer to it; for example, to refer to that editor by his or her username rather than his or her real name. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Review of community sanctions === 11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Conduct on arbitration pages === 12) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Problematic editing === 13) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia should be directed to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith. Passed 11 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Disruptive influence === 14) It is disruptive for established Wikipedians to countermand good advice to new editors, or otherwise encourage them to continue flouting community norms. Passed 10 to 1 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Locus of dispute === 1) This case addresses allegations of disruptive editing on the Shakespeare authorship question and related articles that discuss whether William Shakespeare or someone else, such as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, authored the plays and other writings attributed to Shakespeare. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Persistent disruption === 2) The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Shakespeare authorship question has 21 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === NinaGreen === 3) NinaGreen (talk · contribs), who has focused virtually all of her editing on the Oxfordian hypothesis (evidence), has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself. (Sample evidence here, here, here.) Passed 15 to 0 at 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC). === Smatprt === 4) Smatprt (talk · contribs), who has focused much although not all of his editing on the Oxfordian hypothesis, was the subject of a community sanctions discussion based on a long history of disruptive editing relating to the authorship issue. On November 3, 2010, a community sanction was adopted, under which Smatprt was ""topic-banned from editing pages relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed"" for a period of one year. Smatprt has appealed to this committee from the topic-ban. However, there is ample support for the community's conclusion that his editing concerning authorship of Shakespeare's work was severely disruptive and warranted a topic-ban from that subject. A somewhat closer question is whether Smatprt could, as he has proposed, edit usefully on aspects of Shakespeare-related articles unrelated to the authorship issue. Passed 14 to 1 at 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC). Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. === Contentious topic designation ===" 110 111 225 WP:TOUR Wikipedia:WikiProject Travel and Tourism 110 WikiProject Travel and Tourism was started on May 17, 2007, to coordinate work for and expand coverage of travel- and tourism-related articles in the English Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles about travel and tourism – for a travel guide wiki, contribute to the sister project Wikivoyage. Anyone who is interested in contributing, please sign up at the participants page, and post any ideas and suggestions on the project's talk page. Also, please feel free to edit this page, adding any articles to the open tasks page, that need serious work or require attention. This WikiProject aims to coordinate and help maintain the development of and improvements to the articles related to travel and tourism. Listed below, you will find tasks and other information related to this WikiProject. Please see the open tasks page to help with strengthening this WikiProject. === Assessment === We follow the scale at WikiProject Travel and Tourism/Assessment. For articles that need to be assessed: === Statistics === === Article alerts === === Recognized content === ==== Featured articles ==== ==== Former featured articles ==== ==== Featured lists ==== ==== Good articles ==== ==== Former good articles ==== ==== Did you know? articles ==== ==== Featured pictures ==== ==== Featured portals ==== ==== Good article nominees ==== ==== In the News articles ==== ==== Main page featured articles ==== ==== Main page featured lists ==== ==== Picture of the day pictures ==== ==== Level 3 vital articles ==== ==== Level 4 vital articles ==== ==== Level 5 vital articles ==== === Requested articles === These are potential articles that project members have requested be created for the Wikipedia. If you know of a notable subject for an article that isn't listed here and want to create the article right away, please do so. Luxury Retreats is a Montreal based luxury home rental service for travelers. [www.luxuryretreats.com] It lists over 2800 curated properties in over 90 destinations worldwide.Head office is in Montreal, Qc., The company employs 250 people in Montreal and worldwide. Nightly rates range from under $1000/night up to $124,000/night for private islands.It was founded in 1999 by Joe Poulin, age 17 at the time.Luxury Retreats is a full-service villa rental company, it provides 24/7 Concierge Services to all guests. History: Caribbean Way was Founded in 1999 by Joe Poulin [1]. In 2001 Caribbean Way hits its first million in sales. [2]. In 2002 Luxury Retreats is launched offering new European destinations [3]. In 2006 LR acquires Maui based property management company Fabulous Homes. [4]. In 2007 LR moves to new headquarters to accommodate rapidly growing team. In 2011 LR acquires Carimo, a leading villa management company in St. Martin [5]. In 2012 LR announces $5 million capital raise led by iNovia Capital.[6]. In 2012 Joe wins Ernst & Youngs Entrepreneur of the Year award in the Business-to-Consumer category [7]. 2013 LR announces launch of a rigorous vetting program which all villas must undergo to qualify to be listed for rent by LR, putting homes through a strict 100-point inspection to insure customer satisfaction [8].2015 LR raises $11 million in capital in Series B financing. Receives $11 million in investment by iNovia Capital. [9] List of all subpages of this page WikiProject Amusement Parks WikiProject Festivals WikiProject Geography WikiProject Holidays WikiProject Hotels WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and Route 66 WikiProject Transport WikiProject Vacations Wikipedia:Wikivoyage – page for the sister project, the Wikivoyage travel guide 111 112 228 WP:OTHERWIKIS Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? 111 "Wikipedia administrators often delete pages and media in accordance with our deletion policy. This page explains how to find out why a particular page or file was removed, and what you can do about a deletion you disagree with. Do not despair: none of the information on a ""deleted"" page has actually been lost. Continue reading for details. === First, check the deletion log === When a page is deleted, this is recorded in the deletion log along with a deletion summary supplied by the deleting administrator. To find this information, go to Special:Log/delete and enter the name of the page in the ""Target"" field. It only works if the exact name is entered, so be mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. Your talk page may also contain a notification with a red link to the deletion log for the page. There are five chief processes under which pages are deleted. The deletion summary tells you which: Very brief summaries such as ""A7"" or ""CSD A7"", as well as things like ""spam"" and {{db-bio}}, usually refer to speedy deletion. A summary including ""prod"" or ""PROD"" usually refers to proposed deletion. A summary including ""BLP prod"" or ""sticky prod"" usually refers to proposed deletion of biographies of living persons. A summary including ""AfD"", ""Articles for deletion"", or a similar acronym usually means the deletion is the outcome of a deletion discussion. A summary including ""copyvio"", or ""CP"" usually means the deletion is the result of a copyright problem, with the issue not being resolved within two weeks.See the appropriate section below for more information. If you're still confused after checking the deletion log, politely ask the administrator responsible for an explanation by leaving a message on their talk page. To do so: Click the ""talk"" link next to the administrator's name in the deletion log Click the ""new section"" or ""+"" tab next to the ""Edit"" tab Type a subject line and your message, sign it by typing ~~~~ or click the signature icon () and then click ""Publish changes"". === Speedy deletions === Pages and media in all namespaces that satisfy certain criteria are speedy deletion candidates, which means that administrators can delete them immediately and without discussion. The criteria include, among others, test pages, vandalism and hoaxes, nonsense, blatant copyright violations, empty pages or ones lacking sufficient context, articles in defined areas that do not credibly assert the importance of the topic, and pages on topics already covered under another title. Administrators often leave short codes in the deletion summary instead of typing out a full reason, such as ""A7"" or ""CSD A7"" for articles that do not assert importance; ""G1"" for patent nonsense and so on. These codes are explained at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. === Proposed deletions === Mainspace articles, lists, disambiguation pages, and files (but not other pages) may be proposed for deletion by any editor. If nobody objects to this within seven days, the article is deleted. If any objections are raised, the article is not properly deleted, but anyone may still start an Articles for deletion discussion (see below). Proposed deletions will often be labeled as ""prod"" in the deletion summary. === Proposed deletion of biographies of living persons === Articles on living people (BLPs) that contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) may be proposed for deletion under this process. Unlike standard proposed deletion (see above), the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If the required sourcing is not added within seven days, the article is deleted. Nominated articles will often be labeled as ""BLPPROD"" in the deletion summary. === Deletion discussions === A page or media file may also be nominated for deletion in a deletion discussion, where editors discuss whether it should be deleted. Articles are discussed at Articles for deletion; other pages elsewhere go through different processes (see deletion discussion for a complete list). Such discussions normally last seven days, after which an administrator will delete the page if there is a consensus to do so. Anyone may participate in such a discussion, however they are not ""votes"". The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument, so encouraging mass participation in such discussion to avoid the deletion of a particular article will not work. === Protected titles === If a particular page has been recreated and deleted multiple times, administrators may decide to protect it against recreation (often called ""salting"") so that it stays deleted. If you try to edit a protected title, a message box will inform you about it. === Missing deletion logs === If you cannot find a deletion log entry then the most likely explanation is that you did not enter the title exactly as it appeared, or the page was not actually deleted in Wikipedia's sense of the word. For example, pages may be redirected to an existing title, which effectively blanks the former entry, but it is not ""deletion"" in the true sense. If you can see your edits to the page in your contribution history, or you see another page where the page formerly was, then the page may have been redirected, or the content may have been edited out but still be visible in the page history. If you are unable to determine what happened, try asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Always do your best to provide the exact title (or possible titles); and state what username you were logged in under when the page was created, if different from the one you use to ask your question, since administrators can find any edits of yours which have been deleted. If a page or file that you created has been deleted, please don't take offense. See our content policies and the guide to creating your first article to get an idea of what you should be aiming for. Alternatively, remember we already have 6,636,078 articles – find a subject that interests you and work on improving our existing content. Depending on the reason why the page was deleted, there are also several ways you can try to have it undeleted by administrators. In every case, you should first make sure that the page is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and, if it is an article, that its content is based on reliable sources. If it is not, your request will likely be unsuccessful. === Deletion review === If you feel a page has been deleted involved a procedural error (or if you think you have good reasons for wanting to edit a protected title), first contact the administrator involved in closing the deletion. If you are still not satisfied after discussing it with the deleting admin, you may then start a deletion review. Do not use deletion review merely because you disagree with the deletion, but only if there was a procedural error in deleting the page – for example, if there was no consensus to delete the page, or if it was deleted without discussion for a reason that did not apply to the page in question. Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, and opinions are weighed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For this reason, arguing that there was not a majority in favor of deletion will normally not be successful in a deletion review. === Undeletion === If an article was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion (""prod""), meant only for uncontroversial deletion, any administrator should normally restore it on your request. In such cases, you can make your request at the Wikipedia:REFUND noticeboard. If the page was deleted for any other reason, and you would like to be able to access the text (for example, to resubmit it in a form that meets our content policies), the same noticeboard may be used. In that case, the content would be restored only in your user space or in draft space, not in mainspace. There are also some administrators who may provide you with the content of the deleted page on your request. Please do not bother to ask for the text of pages that were copyright violations as it will not be provided. === General advice === If anything about these processes remains unclear, you may ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk. A substantial number of new articles by new users are deleted. If you are one of those new users, you may feel confused right now, and need to ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk. If it looks like the page you created is definitely about to be deleted, copy-and-paste the source code to a text file, for example by using a text editor (which preserves your wikitext markup), or a word processor. However, after the page is deleted from Wikipedia, do not immediately put the page back up! Otherwise, it will probably just be deleted again, and the page name may even be protected against re-creation. Either find more evidence to demonstrate the notability of the topic, or wait for more evidence to be published elsewhere in reliable sources. If you intend to recreate the page straight away, consider asking at the Help Desk or Teahouse how you can improve the article the next time around. Please note that not all topics are suitable for inclusion – if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. === If all else fails, try another wiki === As a result of Wikipedia's rapid growth, by 2007 it had become one of the world's largest and most-visited wikis. Wikipedia articles tend to rank high in the search results for many popular search engines. Prior to Wikipedia, wiki technology was not very well-known; as a result, Wikipedia may be the first wiki many people see, and the first wiki they attempt to edit on. Some people may be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is the only wiki, or is synonymous with ""wiki"". In many cases, this is unfortunate, because Wikipedia is actually a very specialized kind of wiki (an encyclopedia), and newcomers may need some time to understand what constitutes encyclopedic writing. There is much content that Wikipedia is not appropriate for, but which may be appropriate somewhere else. There are many other wikis, many with content policies very different from Wikipedia's, catering to a wide range of interests. Some of these wikis were founded by groups of former or continuing Wikipedia editors, who had more to say about their topic of interest than belongs in an encyclopedia. Examples include Wookieepedia (for Star Wars enthusiasts); StrategyWiki (for video-game walkthroughs); and Conservapedia (for people with Republican and Conservative views). For almost every sort of article that would be interesting to someone, there is probably a wiki somewhere that would welcome it. To find a happy home for the deleted article, check the List of wikis, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and WikiIndex. If you cannot find a suitable wiki on your own, ask for some ""wiki outplacement"" assistance at the Wikipedia:Help desk. If the deleted article is in a subject area overseen by a WikiProject, members of that WikiProject may know of alternative wikis to publish subject area content not meeting Wikipedia's requirements. Once you find a home, you can immediately place the article there if you copied and saved the article's wikitext (though it may need modifications to fit into the new website.) If you did not save such a copy, you will have to ask an administrator to retrieve a copy for you. As mentioned above, please do not take offense. It is common to feel hurt or angry after seeing hours of your work deleted, but please try to work with the complex processes Wikipedians have developed to manage the world's largest collaborative editing project. Please do not post questions about your deleted article on this page's talk page. Instead, if you have questions, post them on the Wikipedia:Help desk. If you resubmit your article, please make the appropriate changes so it won't get deleted again. If the article was deleted because the text was a copyright violation, paraphrase the text from the source in your own words. If the article was deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements, and you think it is sufficiently notable, add multiple references from reliable sources that are independent from the topic (and from each other), and cover the topic in a non-trivial way. Otherwise, look for another wiki where it would fit (see above). WP:EIW#Del – lists many pages describing many details of the deletion process Wikipedia:What to do if your article gets CSD tagged – essay Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing your client's work – essay" 112 113 230 WP:PORNBIO Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers 112 "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be ""worthy of notice"" or ""note""—that is, ""remarkable"" or ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. ""Notable"" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted, or further developed. For advice about how to write biographical articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as ""John Doe"" or ""Jane Doe"") would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Travis Walton UFO incident. Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. If a notable person's main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information, such as George Orwell bibliography. If the person was the victim of a notable murder, then a title such as Murder of Kitty Genovese is appropriate. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion. === Any biography === The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). === Academics === Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as ""academics"" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. === Creative professionals === Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. === Crime victims and perpetrators === A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes), The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.For perpetrators, The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. === Entertainers === Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3) === Politicians and judges === The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. === Sports personalities === A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline). That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings. For most topics, search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the search results and linked webpages. If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered: If speedy deletion criterion A7 applies, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion. For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the {{subst:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process, where its merits will be discussed for 7 days. === Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria === If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context. Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged. If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written. === Failure to explain the subject's notability === If an article does not explain the notability of its subject, try to improve it by: Adding the {{cleanup biography}} template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc. Rewriting it yourself Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. === Insufficient sources === If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Look for sources yourself Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert needed}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, the disambiguation page Travis Walton redirects those looking for Travis Walton UFO incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. It is important to remember that ""notable"" is not a synonym for ""famous"". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections). Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. Some Wikipedia editors are the subject of an article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status as Wikipedia editors by itself has no effect on their notability, regardless of whether they edited Wikipedia before or after their articles were created. (The conflict of interest guideline still has bearing on their editing of articles about themselves.) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies, such as this guideline, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Recently dead or probably dead" 113 114 232 WP:WHENSPLIT Wikipedia:Splitting 113 "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia). The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split. === Size split === Articles should be neither too big nor too small. Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. Also, some users may have technical limitations, such as a low speed service, an unstable connection, or a pay per megabyte service. At 50 kB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. Consideration, however, needs to be given to the amount and quality of material to be moved. If the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it. Unsourced material shouldn't be used to create new articles as it may have notability or verifiability issues. Below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of XTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under ""Prose"" in the ""General statistics"" section; Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize. These guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. Too large after templates are expanded: After all templates and transclusions are accounted for, if the resulting ""post-expanded include size"" may reach a limit. Symptoms include templates lower in the page, such as {{reflist}} or navigation templates at the bottom of the page not displaying properly. One solution is to split the article. Since ""un-doing"" a split may be labor-intensive if significant editing happens to either page after the split, try to avoid splitting until after a community discussion. If there is another way to reduce the ""post-expanded size"" that is easier to ""undo"" than a split, consider doing it first, then opening a discussion to see what the long-term fix should be. Likewise, if a split would be controversial, try to find a less controversial way to temporarily reduce the ""post-expanded size"" then open a discussion to find consensus for a long-term fix. However, if splitting the page is the easiest-to-undo solution and such a split would not be controversial, consider being bold and splitting the page, then immediately opening a discussion to see if the community accepts the split or if it offers alternative solutions. In this case, be prepared to undo the split. === Content split === Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as ""light"", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat. When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and a disambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article. If unsure, start a discussion on the article's talk page using a template. Note: For disambiguation pages, use {{Split dab}} instead of {{split}}. If section to be split out is known, use {{split section}}. If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a ""Split"" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time. Note: To comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting ""split content from [[article name]]"". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, ""split content to [[article name]]"". The {{Copied}} template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline. === Step 1: Create a discussion === Skip to step 5 if making a bold split. Create a discussion on the talkpage of the page that content is to be split from. Include what sections are to be split and what the new page name should be. Example: Notify involved users (optional): To generate a discussion and to notify people who know a lot about the topic, it is recommended to contact involved users. These users can be: frequent contributors, the creator of the page or users who have a lot of posts on the talk page. You can notify them by {{ping |USER1|USER2|...}} or by using a notice for their talk page {{Subst:Splitnote | ARTICLE NAME | NEW ARTICLE NAME | TALK PAGE}}. Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split. === Step 2: Add notice === Use {{split}} to notify users of the proposed split. On the article (not the talkpage) add {{split|Article 1|date=March 2023}} or {{split|Article 1|Article 2|...|date=March 2023}}. This template adds a box to notify users about the split. If the new page name is unknown, use {{split}} by itself with no parameters. === Step 3: Discuss === In many cases, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example formatting: === Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus === Close the discussion and determine the consensus by using the following: === Step 5: Perform the splitting === See below. This is the most important step! === Step 6: Clean up === If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a {{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required; if the split is due to content (or scope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template {{Copied}}. The following procedure can be used for splitting from a single source article to a new article. These instructions are provided for guidance, but some steps may not be necessary in all cases and these instructions may not cover every eventuality. It is advisable to read through the whole of this procedure before starting. If the material you want for the new article is scattered around the source article, then prepare the source article by grouping the material to be split out into a single section. Save your changes with an edit summary like ""preparing to split article"". If the material you want for the new article is already in a single section, then skip this step. Create the new article by opening the empty page (or redirect page). Open the source article (or relevant section) to edit in another browser window (or tab) and copy the contents to be split out (from the section created in step #1) from the source article. Paste into the new article with edit summary ""Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]; please see its history for attribution."" and save the new article. Tidy up the new article: The lead sentence will need to be changed to use bold font and usually includes a link to the source article. A References section should be added and categories should be added. There may also be sections of a bibliography, navboxes, See also section or External links that can be copied from the source article. Adjust section headings. Add any background information about the parent subject that will be necessary for the reader to understand the subtopic. Resolve any cite errors that occur when invocations of a named reference are separated from their definition – i.e. copy the relevant information from the source article. Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Add ""{{Main|new article name}}"" (use the order: image, main tag, text). If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the ""See"" template instead of the ""Main"" template. Use the edit summary ""Material [[WP:SPLIT]] to [[New article name]]"" and save the edit. Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate). There may be some external links, bibliography items, etc. that can be removed from the source article as they are now in the new article. Check Special:WhatLinksHere to see whether some inlinks to the source article (especially any that were to the section that has been split off) can now be changed to point to the new article. (Optionally) Add templates referring to the split to the talk pages: If the new article is not being created from scratch (e.g. there is already a redirect), then go to the new article, click on 'View history' tab, select the edit where the copy was made, open it and copy the diff URL of the edit where the cut was made from the browser URL window. If the new article is being created from scratch, it's a bit more complicated to obtain a diff URL – see Template:Copied. Open the source article talk page to edit in a new tab. Add template {{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to source article talk page, and paste the diff URL into it, add the title of the new article and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit. Open the new (destination) article talk page to edit in a new tab. Add template {{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to the new article talk page, and paste the diff into it, add the title of the source page and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit. On the talk page of the new article, you can put the {{SubArticle}} or {{Summary in}} tag to create a banner that refers back to the main article. (Optionally) Put WikiProject tags on the new article's talk page. (If possible) Connect the new article to any corresponding articles in other Wikipedias – see Interwiki. There are a number of templates that can be used on articles and their talk pages as part of splitting articles. A list of articles that have been tagged for consideration for splitting are at Category:Articles to be split. Wikipedia:Proposed article splits Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) – for lists split into multiple pages Wikipedia:Summary style Wikipedia:Merging Wikipedia:Content forking – to be avoided Lumpers and splitters" 114 115 235 WP:BEARDKEEP User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard 114 "We are an association of Wikipedians to keep Jimbo's beard. We are opposed to WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard. Anyone who is interested in contributing, please sign up below and post any ideas and suggestions on the Talk page. Also, feel free to edit this page and add any public appearances by Jimbo that need attention to the open tasks section below. The notice board is to inform project members of current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project. See also WP:DONTCAREABOUTBEARD!!! == Members == Redwolf24 00:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Kel-nage - How can the beard go? OneHundredAndTwo-OneHundredAndTwo - Dude, keep the beard, it's awesome... Splarka (rant) - He might want to join ZZ Top someday. Tagishsimon - You can turn him upsidedown and hardly notice the difference. That has to be useful, non? Alphax τεχ 04:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Fernando Rizo - I have already started legal action to have any and all razor blades, knives, cheese graters and other potential beard-shaving devices seized from Mr. Wales' home. BD2412 talk 01:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC). Beardlessness leads to shaving, shaving leads to razor burn, razor burn leads to suffering. Jwrosenzweig 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) As a bearded Wikipedian myself, I promote the preservation of our unique subculture. Amren (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Ruggedness is a thing to be proud of. Thryduulf 10:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (see also below) Oldak Quill 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Snargle 23:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) It looks okay to me... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC) w00t4tehbeard. Power to the whiskers! --Elysianfields 05:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC) All dictators have beards, even benevolent ones Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) - I'm bored. — Phil Welch 04:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC). God Save Jimbo Wales (May His Beard Never Be Shaven) Merovingian (t) (c) 02:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC) I'll donate my two chin hairs... someday. Andre (talk) 00:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC) I'm a goatee man myself. Silence 02:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Bearded is beautiful. And, frankly, I'm most sick of the excessive attention the media has been giving to this beard. Haven't the beard and its family suffered enough already? Just let them be. Some of the greatest minds in history had facial hair and got away with it. If the beard must come off, it should at least be after collecting the Nobel Prize. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC) You MUST leave the beard. You Will leave the beard. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Jdavidb 17:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC) I am very much in favor of keeping the beard long-term, as I am usually bearded myself. However, I would respect a suggestion that Jimbo offer to shave his beard in an auction to raise funds for Wikipedia, provided he plans to regrow the beard afterward. So how about it, Jimbo? Why not auction off the shaving or non-shaving of your beard? Project2501a 11:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Abhishek 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC) → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - If he shaves it, I will call for a general Wikistrike. Power to the editors! Keep the beard or Wikipedia dies! Arrrr... ::wanders away looking confused:: I'm against the shaving. Didn't Solomon lose his powers when he cut his hair?Rob 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) I believe you're thinking of Samson. Picaroon9288 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I can't believe I'm signing this. I'm supposed to be an exopedian, dammit! But I can't deny the truth: the beard looks good. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I am pro-facial hair. He needs the beard to remain the Chuck Norris of Wikipedia! EdGl 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC) The beard cannot be sheared! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Can't sleep, clown will shave me. Thanks for putting that nightmare in his head. Femto 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Nuge talk 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)My main concern is that Jimmy's beard is a lot like Samson's hair, and Wikipedia's source of power will be lost upon shaving... ThatSandersKid 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Strong keep per WP:beArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. --Zoz (t) 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Who knows what will happen if the beard is shaven... GizzaChat © 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Woohoo! We're beating the shavers. Picaroon9288 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) --GCFreak2 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC) lol This beard is as much a symbol of tha WikiP as the logo itself. In conveys a message of slackerhood we should all embrace. Jimbo, I demand you keep the beard! ReverendG 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) The Cult of Jimbo demands the beard remain intact to protect the sanctity of the Deified One. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign Keep Beard is notable and uses correct sourcing. Captain panda 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE - THIS IS ALL TRUE AND VEIRFAIBLE! I HAVE A GAMEINFORMER THAT WRITES ABOUT JIMBOBEARD ON PAGE 32! Wickethewok 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy Keep Meets WP:V and WP:N. Let him keep the hair! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I'd want hair on my face too if I didn't have any on my head! V. D. F. 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC) It is imperative that the beard survives. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Greg Jones II 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) If you go against the beard you are assaulting wikipedia. LONG LIVE THE BEARD!!!! loolylolly1997 Keep the beard, I mean have you seen the alternative.--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Support but only if he agrees to grow sideburns as well. L'Aquatique likey da sideburns. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC) User:Tascha96 for the people, save the beard 23:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Keep the beard. They say that beards make you appear wise. And anyways, a beard makes Jimbo look much friendlier! ♣PrincessClown♥ 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Keep. Especially since the last fund-raising campaign, ""Jimbo Wales"" and ""beard"" are strongly associated in my memory, together with ""talent for smiling"" and ""better than a mascot"". If the ""beard"" tag were to go away, the ""Jimbo Wales"" object would fall nearly into oblivion, only being searcheable by the other two tags, which are must harder to remember than just ""beard"". On top of that, the ""bear"" query currently returns a whole wack of sympathetic individuals, such as ""Jesus"", ""Richard Stallman"", and ""my uncle"", increasing the probability of long-term conservation inside my brain. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Samson had unimaginable power when he had hair. Upon losing his hair, his power was lost. Grace Bedell convinced Abraham Lincoln to grow whiskers (an archaic term for a beard). He was elected to presidency and won the American Civil War. Chuck Norris has a beard. Enough said. Great things happen to the Bearded Ones. Jimbo Wales is not excluded. I mean, after all, he DID create Wikipedia. Mego (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Lol! I'm in this camp.. Keep the beard!! ;P -- œ™ 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Jimbo's beard is awesome! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:54pm • 11:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I like beards. Especially Jimbo's beard. End of story. WE MUST SAVE THE BEARDED WALES! Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 14:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Please don't shave... He looks more sophisticated with a beard. Agent 78787 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Keep The Beard! though if you do shave it you could sell it as a to raise funds. Thus Spake Lee Tru. 15:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Research has proven that men with beards are perceived as more trustworthy. It is imperative, if Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously as a source of information, that Jimbo retain his admirable beard. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Per BDD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keep it! Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Keeeeeeeeeeep ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! ProDuct0339sayworkproj 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Speedy Keep! :D He looks better with beard. Keep the beard!! Avi :D (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Keep The Beard Jimbo! Chicken4War (talk) Endorsed by a CheckUser wild Interstatefive because File:JimboBeardless.jpg looks someone put lipstick on him and dipped his chin in dirt. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek Keep because its there Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 13:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC) ""keep the faith beard"" The Dino-Pi (talk・contribs) 20:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC) == Notice beard == This notice board is intended to inform members of the project of votes or other current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project. Please do not list articles in need of attention here, but rather ideas on how Jimbo should grow his facial hair, current or ongoing events where Jimbo will make an appearance and could make an impact on Wikipedia's image, and other things that warrant the immediate attention of the member base of this WikiProject. Please remove notices when the event is no longer current. == To Do == == A Soliloquy in favour of Jimbo's beard == To shave or not to shave that is the question, whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer, The cuts and pains of old and rusty blades, Or to wear a beard against a wiki of shavers, And by opposing end them? —To block, —to sleep,— No more; and by a sleep to say we end The wikification, and the thousand minor edits That 'pedians are heir to, —'tis a consummationDevoutly to be wish'd. To die, —to sleep;— To edit! perchance to improve: —ay, there's the joy; For with that dearth of facial hair what m:grants may come, When you have shaved off this trademark beard, Must give us pause: there's the abuse That would remove that so long since grown; For who would bear the whips and scorns of vandals, The oppressor's wrong, the clean-shaven man's envy, The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That a Bearded Wonder must take, When with his facial hair he himself might quake. With a bare top lip? who would these infidels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of being shaved after death,— The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn No traveller returns,—puzzles the will, And makes us shudder to democratise our facesThan fly to others razors that we know not of? Thus conscience does make baldies of us all; And thus the native hue of Jimbo's chin Is sicklied not with the melanin of tan; And enterprises of great import and moment, Without this beard, achievements turn awry, And lose the Free software action. (Hamlet, III.i, William Shavespeare ca. 1600 / Thryduulf ca. 12:00 - 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC))" 115 116 236 WP:DOM Wikipedia:Delete or merge 115 "At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, one of many possible suggestions to deal with inappropriate content is to delete or merge. This is not to be confused with a request to ""Merge and delete"". Whereas many articles can be improved through ordinary editing, deleting an article is typically appropriate where the article cannot meet the general notability guideline, where the bulk of the article violates What Wikipedia is not, or where the article is a content fork that attempts to cover the same subject as an existing article. An editor who is willing to delete or merge is expressing a good faith belief that Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide a sound basis for deleting the article, but that they would also support or consent to a merge if it would produce a consensus. The editor should still be specific and clear on what needs merging. The root of consensus is ""consent"". Perhaps merging is not the ideal choice for every editor in every situation. But editors should be willing to consent to a merge if it will help produce a consensus. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia represent opposite viewpoints on how to deal with inappropriate content. In some instances, people are able to hold strong views and still work well with people who believe the opposite. But in other instances, people cling to these viewpoints and rarely acknowledge the validity of any other point of view. An editor who is unwilling to compromise on their strong views about deletion versus inclusion can leave other editors feeling angry, and sometimes provoke feelings of retaliation. The purpose of dispute resolution is to help editors reach a consensus. When discussions end in ""no consensus"", the dispute goes unresolved, and both sides of the dispute feel as though the other side is in the wrong. When the number of unresolved disputes add up, there is a risk that Wikipedia turns into a battleground. While some unresolved disputes can eventually be reconciled by gaining additional information or feedback, in many instances a resolution requires editors who are willing to swallow their pride accept something less than their most preferred outcome. Merging is a possible middle-ground solution to any deletion-inclusion battle. Many mergist Wikipedians believe in merging as a matter of principle, because merging the content is less polarizing than hard inclusion or hard deletion. Even for editors who might not prefer merging as their first choice, they should consider accepting a merge in a good faith effort to find common ground and reach consensus. Any merge !votes should be specific and clear on what information should be merged to aid the editor that completes the merge. Merging and deleting an article is not permissible under Wikipedia's licensing requirements, because Wikipedia must maintain a clearly traceable chain of attribution any time content is merged from one article into another (typically in the form of a redirect). A suggestion to either merge or delete is not in conflict with the need for attribution, or any other licensing requirements. If the consensus is ultimately to delete the article, no attribution needs to be maintained. If the consensus is ultimately to merge the article, then attribution is typically preserved under ordinary merging procedure." 116 117 237 WP:NOTCVG Wikipedia:Software notability 116 For the purpose of this essay, meant to provide commentary on the notability of software by measuring its technical or commercial achievements, software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console. Software applications are products, and fall under Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). This page gives rough suggestions which a number of Wikipedia editors use to decide if certain software applications should have an article on Wikipedia. That Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host, is a long-established fact. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where primary source documentation for software packages is hosted. Wikipedia is also not a directory of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed. === Definitions === For the purpose of this proposal: General interest means independent of, and having an audience broader than: business, management, or investment communities; or information technology or computer programming communities. Publications that focus on software whose chief purpose is entertainment (i.e. computer and console games) are general interest publications. Computing and trade publications are general interest sources if they have or have had versions printed on paper, and those printed versions regularly appear or have regularly appeared on magazine racks and newsstands that also carry non-computing or business related publications.Historical or technical significance means that software verifiably has: introduced an important technical innovation; or has been recognized as significant in the development of a sector in such a way that makes that software distinguish itself above its competitors in the field or sector in which it is marketed and sold. Claims of historical or technical significance must be verified in independent, neutral, third party sources; self published claims of significance do not meet this standard.Published means available in an installed standard version or series of standard versions, whether these versions are: distributed on electronic media; made available for download, or installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems. === Criteria === Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ==== Criteria requiring general interest sources ==== It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources; It has won a recognized award that is reported in multiple general interest sources; It has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources; ==== Criteria not requiring general interest sources ==== The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals or instruction books written by independent authors and published by independent publishers; It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by multiple reliable sources, even if those sources are not general interest sources;Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. The depth of coverage in the sources should be significant and directly about the software. Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated The duration of coverage in sources should show lasting impact. While notability is not temporary a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable. Software that has been extensively reported on as the product of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it. Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of disk editor.) Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content. Acceptable secondary sources do not include: Press releases; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies. Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) appearances in download directories or listings of available software, records of trade show appearances by vendors, and similar listings or directories. 117 118 238 WP:NS Wikipedia:Namespace 117 "A Wikipedia namespace is a set of Wikipedia pages whose names begin with a particular reserved word recognized by the MediaWiki software (followed by a colon). For example, in the user namespace all titles begin with the prefix User:. In the case of the article (or main) namespace, in which encyclopedia articles appear, the reserved word and colon are absent. (Note: main space articles can optionally include a colon at the beginning with no reserved word, so [[Article]] and [[:Article]] are equivalent. This is usually only necessary for the advanced technique of transcluding a main space article into a page in another namespace.) Wikipedia has 30 current namespaces: 14 subject namespaces, 14 corresponding talk namespaces, and 2 virtual namespaces. These are all listed in the box to the right. While surfing Wikipedia, a list of namespaces is available in two clicks: do an empty search, then click Advanced under the search box. The list also makes itself available where needed in the dropdown menus of, for example, Special:Prefixindex, Special:Allpages, Special:Recentchanges, and Special:Contributions. The aliases WP for Wikipedia, and WT for Wikipedia talk, work for page names in the search box, and making links as well as inclusions. See Aliases below for other aliases. (The pseudo-namespaces such as H for Help, and CAT for Category, are extremely limited. See Pseudo-namespaces below.) The table on the right shows what number to use when you want to hide pages that are on your watchlist. See: Wikipedia:Hide Pages in Watchlist for details. Previously, the Topic namespace was available for the Flow project but it has since been turned off on this wiki. Namespaces allow for the organization and separation of content pages from administration pages. Namespaces separate data into core sets, those intended for public viewing, and those intended for the editing community. Wikipedia's subject namespaces and their functions are listed below. A brief description is provided, but see the link for more information. A namespace is sometimes called a space, for short, as in ""Project space"". A subject page and its talk page form a pair. === In use === Main namespace (no prefix): contains all encyclopedia articles, lists, disambiguation pages, and encyclopedia redirects. Sometimes referred to as ""mainspace"" or ""Article"". User namespace (prefix User:): contains user pages and other pages created by individual users for their own personal use. Pages under this namespace can still be viewed and modified by others, so do not keep any of your sensitive data here. Wikipedia namespace or Project namespace (prefix Wikipedia:): contains many types of pages connected with the Wikipedia project itself: information, policies, guidelines, essays, processes, discussion, etc. Namespace aliases: WP: or Project: File namespace (prefix File:): contains description pages for media files (images, videos, and audio files). A link starting with [[File: will display the media at that position on the page instead of showing a wikilink that leads to the specified file description page, so if you want the latter effect, use a link beginning with [[:File: (the colon trick). Namespace alias: Image: MediaWiki namespace (prefix MediaWiki:): a namespace containing interface texts, such as the links and messages that appear on automatically generated pages. Pages in this namespace are permanently protected against editing by regular users. For a list of these messages, see Special:AllMessages. (The prefix cannot be shortened to ""MW"" because mw is an interwiki prefix. See Interwiki links below.) Template namespace (prefix Template:): contains templates – pages that are intended primarily to be transcluded or substituted onto other pages to insert standard text or boxes such as infoboxes and navigation boxes. Help namespace (prefix Help:): contains pages which provide help in using Wikipedia and its software, both for users of the encyclopedia and for editors. Category namespace (prefix Category:): contains category pages, which are curated lists of related pages and subcategories, along with optional additional text. A link beginning with [[Category: has the effect of adding the page the link appears on to the specified category; it will not result in a wikilink to the category page itself. If you want the latter, use the colon trick: [[:Category:. Portal namespace (prefix Portal:): for reader-oriented portals that help readers find articles related to a specific topic, and may contain links to encourage contributions to relevant WikiProjects. See, for example, Portal:Cricket and Portal:Spaceflight. Draft namespace (prefix Draft:): hosts drafts of new (potential) Wikipedia articles. TimedText namespace (prefix TimedText:): synchronized subtitles for media files. Module namespace (prefix Module:): contains Scribunto modules – Lua scripts implementing special-purpose parser functions for use in templates, beyond the basic set included with MediaWiki and its extensions. === Deprecated === Gadget namespace (prefix Gadget:): installed but not currently in use. Gadgets, which are small snippets enabled in user preferences, currently use the MediaWiki namespace with the MediaWiki:Gadget- page name prefix. It is a custom namespace installed by the Gadget extension. Gadget definition namespace (prefix Gadget definition:): installed but not currently in use; see above for more information. Gadget definitions currently use the MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition page. === Not installed === On MediaWiki installations other than the English Wikipedia, additional namespaces may be installed by MediaWiki extensions; the list of default IDs for these namespaces is at Extension default namespaces. Flow namespace (prefix Topic:) was a proposed talk page replacement, formerly installed on English Wikipedia by Extension:StructuredDiscussions. It is no longer installed after being rejected by the community. Education Program namespace (prefix Education Program:): uninstalled in 2018, and replaced with the Programs & Events Dashboard. However, the namespace was re-added later that year to allow access to old talk pages in the Education program talk: namespace. The namespace was then uninstalled again in 2021 after the remaining talk pages were moved to subpages of Wikipedia talk:Education program archive. Book namespace (prefix Book:): contained entries for Wikipedia books, collections of articles about one theme, which were used to generate downloadable files or printable documents or order books from PediaPress. In 2017, the online book rendering service was withdrawn, leading to the removal of most links leading to the namespace in 2019. The namespace and its transclusions were still retained in the hope that the WMF would come up with a solution, but in 2021 the namespace was uninstalled after all remaining books were moved to subpages of Wikipedia:Books/archive. === Aliases and pseudo-namespaces === An alias of a namespace is its namespace. For example, WP: is Wikipedia:, and so [[Wikipedia:Page name]] can be abbreviated [[WP:Page name]]. See Aliases below, for a list of aliases, such as WT: for Wikipedia talk:. A pseudo-namespace is an agreement to create redirect pages named that way, each of which is a shortcut from mainspace to a single page in its namespace. So an alias refers to any page in its namespace, but a pseudo-namespace has far fewer pages than its real namespace. There are a few pseudo-namespace names like H: for Help:, and CAT: for Category:, and these can be discovered below in the section Pseudo-namespaces. Each of the above namespaces (but not the virtual namespaces and the former Topic: namespace) has an associated talk namespace—these are also known as discussion pages. The talk namespaces are designated by appending the word talk to the namespace name. For example, the talk namespace associated with the user namespace has the prefix User talk:. The talk namespace associated with the article namespace is Talk:. Most of the pages in the talk namespaces are used to discuss changes to the corresponding page in the associated namespace. Pages in the user talk namespace are used to leave messages for a particular user. The user talk namespace is special in that, whenever a user's talk page is edited, that user will see an orange box saying ""You have new messages"" on the top of every page that they view until they visit their talk page. By default, logged-in users will see a red notification square and a small orange box on the top right hand corner of the page; IP users will only see a wide orange box spanning the top of the page. (Minor edits made by bots no longer set off the new message bar. For logged-in users, the new-message bar may be disabled in Special:Preferences.) Note that the prefix WT: expands to Wikipedia talk:, just as WP: expands to Wikipedia: (see Aliases below). For example, [[WT:Verifiability]] links to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. In addition to subject namespaces, and their corresponding talk pages, there are two virtual namespaces (without corresponding talk pages) for specialist purposes: === Special === The Special: namespace consists of pages (called special pages) that are created by the software on demand, such as Special:RecentChanges. These pages can be linked as usual, as with [[Special:RecentChanges]], except when they have parameters. To use parameters, the full URL must be given as an external link. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=3&limit=10, which returns the last ten changes in the last three days. You can create a redirect to a Special page, but the redirect will not be followed automatically. For a list of special pages, see Special:SpecialPages. === Media === The Media: namespace can be used to link directly to a file, rather than to the file description page. Aliases and pseudo-namespaces are not namespaces in themselves; their main role is to provide handy ways to link to actual namespaces, by providing shortened links. The main difference between them being the way they work for this purpose; while aliases directly link to namespaces, pseudo-namespaces can only link to other namespaces by using specialist redirect pages in the main namespace called shortcuts. While aliases are also used for shortcuts, this isn't necessary if the pagename is not shortened. Pseudo-namespaces all actually reside in main namespace; but a pseudo-namespace called Transwiki: exists as a pseudo-namespace before being moved to another namespace. === Aliases === There are six aliases defined for namespaces, all of which are case-insensitive: These aliases are automatically translated by the Wikipedia servers to the proper namespace prefix. So if a link is made to a page title beginning with one of these aliases, or else entered in the search box or used in a URL in a browser address bar, the alias links to the page with the corresponding true namespace prefix. Hence entering WP:External links or Project:External links is equivalent to entering Wikipedia:External links; and entering WT:External links or Project talk:External links is equivalent to entering Wikipedia talk:External links. An alias cannot be used as the actual namespace in a page title. For example, you cannot create page WP:123; if tried, the page name is instantly converted to Wikipedia:123. It is, however, possible to change the displayed title on page Wikipedia:123 to make it WP:123 or Project:123. This is very handy for the creation of shortcuts. For example, the shortcut for this section is WP:ALIAS, as shown in the right-side box. When the link is clicked, it automatically translated to Wikipedia:ALIAS. At this page is a redirect to Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases. This means that the shortcut goes directly to this section from anywhere on Wikipedia. It can also be entered as a URL in the browser address bar as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ALIAS . === Pseudo-namespaces === Apart from Wikipedia's 32 regular namespaces and their aliases, and 2 virtual ones, there are several title prefixes appearing in shortcut redirects pointing to frequently-referred-to Wikipedia pages. These prefixes are referred to as pseudo-namespaces and include the following: CAT: for shortcuts to the Category namespace. See also Category:Redirects to category space H: for shortcuts to the Help namespace. See also Category:Redirects to help namespace MOS: for shortcuts to the Manual of Style. See also Category:Redirects to project space P: for shortcuts to the Portal namespace. See also Category:Redirects to portal space T: for shortcuts to the Template namespace. See also Category:Redirects to template namespaceA more complete list is available at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes. Pseudo-namespaces are not in any way recognised by the wiki software; they are purely a community custom. Titles in pseudo-namespaces actually belong technically in the main (article) namespace and are treated as such by the software: they are case-sensitive and appear in search results restricted to the main namespace. An alias is treated like a real namespace, resulting in a search for the pagename in its namespace, but the ""pseudo-namespace:pagename"" search is in mainspace, not its pseudo-namespace. For example, searching for ""H:S"" will not search Help. To learn some of these shortcuts, first follow the pseudo-namespace link above, then follow one of the redirects listed on that page. It will take you to the target, where you then notice any {{shortcut}} boxes to the right of the page, which may also list some additional shortcuts to that same area. By observing these steps repeatedly, you can discover ways to shorten your typing. You will use pseudo-namespace names more often if you are an advanced editor, highly active in many namespaces, or constantly linking to pages that have a pseudo-namespace shortcut. To understand the appropriateness of redirects of this type, see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. All shortcuts are discoverable by searching for redirects. There is also the category Wikipedia redirects. As a final example, every Wikimedia Foundation project has a ""Transwiki:"" pseudo-namespace (sometimes a real namespace) for importing articles manually. A wiki project that would manually move many pages between sister projects uses this tag. Redirects/shortcuts are not directly involved here, as described above. Instead, the page title is moved to ""Transwiki:namespace:pagename"", and that content is then copied and pasted into a new page name of that temporary title on the target wiki. When it is accepted, the title is then moved out of the Transwiki pseudo-namespace there and becomes a real page name in its respective namespace. Interwiki and interlanguage prefixes do not define namespaces, but point to pages in other Wikimedia projects, outside the en.wikipedia.org website. They are mentioned here because they use a namespace-like prefix technique for linking. Examples of interwiki prefixes include w: for Wikipedia; m: (or meta:) for Meta-Wiki, mw: for MediaWiki, and wikt: for Wiktionary. Examples of interlanguage prefixes include en: for English language, fr: for French language, and de: for German language. Important points to note: In the presence of an interwiki prefix and the absence of an interlanguage prefix, the link will be to a specified project in the current language. So [[w:Internet]] links to ""Internet"" on the English Wikipedia, if the link is on any English-language Wikimedia project. In the presence of a interlanguage prefix and the absence of an interwiki prefix, the link will be to a specified language in the current project. So [[:en:Internet]] will link to ""Internet"" on the English Wikipedia, if the link is on a Wikipedia project in any language.When making links to other language Wikipedias, add an initial colon if you want the link to appear inline rather than in the skin's sidebar under ""Languages""; see Help:Colon trick for an explanation. So [[:de:Internet]] is an inline link to ""Internet"" in the German Wikipedia; but if using an interwiki prefix this is unnecessary, for example [[w:de:Internet]] is the same inline link. Further examples: m:Meta:Babel and meta:Meta:Babel both link to the ""Babel"" page in the project namespace (Meta:, the 2nd prefix) of Meta-Wiki (m: or meta:, the 1st prefix). wikt:fr:Discuter:pied/fusion daf links to the ""pied/fusion daf"" page in the talk namespace (Discuter:, the 3rd prefix) of French (fr:, the 2nd prefix) Wiktionary (wikt:, the 1st prefix).Interwiki prefixes are not just for Wikimedia projects. For example, Dictionary: is the interwiki link for dict.org (the DICT Development Group). For a complete list of interwiki prefixes, see the interwiki map and interwiki table. As with aliases, it is not possible to create a page with a title beginning with an interwiki or interlanguage prefix. It is also not possible to create redirects to interwiki pages, unless it is a soft redirect. Standard namespace names, aliases and interwiki prefixes are case insensitive. The same applies to the first character after the colon. Hence the following all link to the same page: Wikipedia:Afd, WIKIPEDIA:Afd, wIKIpedia:Afd, wikipedia:afd wP:Afd, wp:Afd, WP:afd PROJECT:Afd, project:Afd, ProjecT:Afd, Project:afd The namespace name is a useful variable for searching in and reporting on sets of pages. It is also used to apply features that configure the sets of pages in one namespace differently from another namespace. Using the namespace name MediaWiki can: Search for pages in a particular namespace only. Report on content or changes in content of a namespace. Enable or disable the subpage feature, per namespace. Offer a random article for the main page ([[Special:Random]]), or for a namespace [[Special:Random/Namespace]]. Change the functionality of [[wikilink]] if it targets the Category namespace or File namespace. Normally wikilinks are activated by the mouse, but [[Category:Pagename]] activates software functionality when the page is saved, and [[File:Page name]] activates software functionality when the page is rendered. Change the functionality of {{pagename}} so that it defaults to the set of pagenames in Template. Tailor edit notices to a particular namespace's edit page, informing an editor of certain aspects about the content of that namespace. Allow templates to behave differently on pages of different namespaces.The namespace functionality is often visible in the URL, where you will see a namespace number. These are given in the table below. Subpages are configured for all namespaces except Main, File, MediaWiki and Category namespaces. Subpages are configured in the software by enabling or disabling the subpage feature per namespace. This further extends the function of a namespace by extending the types of pages or topics of pages a namespace can home. For example, talk page /archives are subpages, and they are both namespace searchable and page name searchable from the search box, unlike history pages, which are in no namespace. Another example is in the Template namespace where it is routine to put the documentation in a subpage called /doc. Random pages are enabled, in the default software configuration, only for the mainspace. Searching and reporting can operate over the entire database, or they can be limited to a namespace, and so they will offer a list of all the namespaces currently configured. Special:WhatLinksHere also offers a list of namespaces. The 32 namespaces in the English Wikipedia are numbered for programming purposes. The prefix for each namespace is generated by a variable, using the magic word {{ns}}, in the form {{ns:xx}}, as shown in the table below. Alternative variables are available for most namespaces, for example {{ns:talk}}, {{ns:user}}, and {{ns:user_talk}} for {{ns:1}}, {{ns:2}} and {{ns:3}}. The portal namespace is numbered in the 100-plus range, as are all MediaWiki nonstandard namespaces. All namespaces with a positive number or zero in this list are searchable. Specifically, the Media and Special namespaces are not searchable. The magic word {{NAMESPACE}} returns the namespace prefix of the current page. This can be used in combination with other magic words and parser functions to change the appearance of templates depending on the namespace in which they are transcluded. Meta-templates have been created to simplify this process. These include the simple template {{main other}}, and the more complex and versatile {{namespace detect}}. For information on changing the appearance of a page or template by namespace based on CSS, see CSS-based namespace detection on the Meta help page. Wikipedia:Page name Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing Meta help page on namespaces, for general MediaWiki technical information mw:Extension default namespaces, for namespaces added by extensions" 118 119 239 WP:BADAFD User:Cyberbot I/AfD report 118 This list was created by an automated process and is updated regularly. Please report any bugs at User talk:Cyberpower678. Last updated on 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC). == Articles with redlinked AfD templates == Industrial management == AfD templates in the wrong namespace == User:Jaredscribe/Tesla master plan 20220327 == AfD's pointing to redirects whose target has no AfD template == Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bui Quoc Huy 119 120 240 WP:MINION Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry 119 "On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Sockpuppetry takes various forms: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions Using another person's account (piggybacking) Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)Misuse of multiple accounts is a serious breach of community trust. It may lead to: a block of all related accounts a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock) on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects the (potential) public exposure of any ""real-world"" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sockpuppetry or certain other abuses.An editor using multiple accounts for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose (see below). Optionally, the user and user talk pages of some of the accounts can be redirected to those of another. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.While there are legitimate use of alternative accounts, undisclosed alternative accounts might be connected publicly through a variety of means. Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to: Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project outside of limited circumstance. A legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted to contribute to project space discussions that directly affect the account. Circumventing policies: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. Evasion of blocks/sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts, unless specified otherwise. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block, community ban or other sanction imposed on your original account will result in further sanctions, which may include reversion of your contributions. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Evasion and enforcement. Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden. Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. ""Good hand"" and ""bad hand"" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing. Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts. When editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding. Misusing a clean start: Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Wikipedia:Clean start. Role accounts: Because an account represents your edits as an individual, ""role accounts"", or accounts shared by multiple people, are (as a rule) forbidden and blocked. Many first-time editors may sign up an account with a username that implies it is a role account or is being shared. Such accounts are permitted only if the account information is forever limited to one individual; however, policy recommends that usernames avoid being misleading or disruptive. As such, if you edit for an organization, please refer to Wikipedia's username policy for guidance on choosing a name or a replacement name that can avoid these problems. Role account exceptions can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list below), and approved bots with multiple managers. See Username policy § Sharing accounts. Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA. Using more than one administrator account: Editors may not have more than one account with administrator user rights, except for bots with administrator privileges. However, Wikimedia Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. If an administrator leaves the project, returns under a new username, and is nominated for adminship, they must resign or give up the administrator access of their old account. Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: Using an alternative account to participate in a discussion about another account operated by the same person. Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets. If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy. Operating a legitimate alternative account, even for a reason listed in this policy, does not prevent the accounts from being connected to one another publicly. Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project. Valid reasons for an alternative account include: Security: You may register an alternative account for use when accessing Wikipedia through a public computer, connecting to an unsecured network, or other scenarios when there's a risk of your account being compromised. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name. For example, User:Mickey might use User:Mickey (alt) or User:Mouse, and redirect that account's user and talk pages to their main account. Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below. Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is an account created with a username similar to your main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing. Doppelgänger accounts may be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag, or can simply redirect to the main account's userpage.Pseudonyms used to edit sister projects in a different language: Although SUL no longer requires Wikimedians to register different accounts to edit different projects, users who wish to have a separate account to edit a sister project written in a different script may do so. The other account should be treated as a Doppelgänger on the English Wikipedia, and vice-versa. These accounts may be marked with the {{User Alias}} tag to show a connection.Clean start under a new name: A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, usually due to past mistakes or to avoid harassment. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sockpuppet. Username violations: If you are soft-blocked for having an inappropriate username, and that is the sole reason for the block, you are permitted to create a new account with an appropriate username. Compromised accounts: If you are unable to access your account because you have lost the password or because someone has obtained or guessed your password, you may create a new account with a clean password. In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person. If necessary, you should also ask for an admin to block the compromised account. You may want to consider using a committed identity in advance to help deal with this rare situation should it arise later. Humor accounts: The community has accepted some obviously humorous alternative accounts—for example, Bishzilla, Floquenstein's monster, and Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late). Technical reasons: Maintenance: An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks, or to segregate functions so as to maintain a user talk page dedicated to the purpose. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. Bots: Bots are programs that edit automatically or semi-automatically. Editors who use bots are encouraged to create separate accounts, and ask that they be marked as bot accounts via Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. Bots should be clearly linked to their owner's account. See Wikipedia:Bot policy. Testing and training: Users who use a lot of scripts and other tools may wish to keep a second, vanilla account, for testing how things appear to others; or for demonstrating Wikipedia's default appearance when training new users. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account, except where doing so would interfere with testing or training. Two-factor authentication users: Users with two-factor authentication may not be able to log on from certain clients. Such users may create a second linked account such as User:Username (phone) or User:Username (mobile). Designated roles: Editors with specific roles, such as Wikipedian in residence or Wikimedia Foundation employees, may have specific accounts for those roles. Note the account still belongs to an individual, not the role itself, and should be named as such. For example, User:Username (WIR for Foo Museum) is an acceptable alternative account, but User:Wikipedian-in-residence for Foo Museum is not, because it is named after the role. It is not required that the names match, e.g. the main account User:Jane could have the role account User:Username (WIR for Foo Museum), but the accounts should be clearly connected. If the editor leaves the role, their role account must no longer be used. If a new editor assumes the role, they must create a new account. Education: Educators and students are encouraged to create a separate account that does not have to be linked to their main account for the purpose of managing or participating in student assignments. Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork.Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose. === Editing while logged out === There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki. If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is inappropriate, you can give the IP editor notice of this policy ({{subst:uw-login}} is available for this purpose), and if the behavior continues, you should contact a CheckUser privately and present the evidence to them. Unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following: Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot). Links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternative account | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Public user}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User alternative account name|OtherName|...|OtherName[n]}}. Links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, and editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. However, it is worth noting that making such notifications does not in any way protect the user or allow them to otherwise violate this policy. Properly maintaining separation between the main account and the alternative account is entirely the responsibility of the user. If the connection is discovered, prior notification is not a ""get out of jail free card"" and users should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki. Conversely, neither checkusers nor arbitrators monitor disclosed accounts to ensure compliance with policy. This is also entirely the responsibility of the user. Editors who have abandoned an account and are editing under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors: Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion. A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: ""For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.""The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a ""meatpuppet"", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute. === Sharing an IP address === If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics. === Sockpuppet investigations === Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sockpuppet. If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. In reporting suspected sockpuppetry, you must obey the rules of WP:OUTING with regard to disclosure of personal or identifying information. Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny. === CheckUser === Editors with access to the CheckUser tool may consult the server log to see which IP addresses are linked to which accounts. The CheckUser tool cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the investigation. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy and CheckUser policies, checks are only conducted with good cause, and (subject to the exceptions in those policies) results are reported in such a way as to avoid or minimize disclosure of personal identifying information. Particularly, ""fishing""—the use of the CheckUser tools without good cause specific to a given user account—is prohibited. === Blocking === If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sockpuppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks. === Tagging === Non-editing accounts that provide an easy way to contact internal email lists: User:Arbitration Committee User:Emergency User:Oversight User:Wikipedia Information Team Accounts approved by the Foundation Sock puppet account Wikipedia:Sleeper account Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations === Guidelines === Wikipedia:Canvassing === Essays === Wikipedia:Consequences of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Griefing Wikipedia:Lurkers Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Single-purpose account Wikipedia:Tag team Wikipedia:The duck test MeatBall:SockPuppet" 120 121 242 :WP:SOLDIER Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide 120 "The Military history WikiProject's notability guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the notability of topics within the scope of the project. Areas covered include events, people and units/formations. The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline, although the following is provided to give a general understanding of who, or what, is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand-alone article. In general, an event is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. However, determining whether an event should have a stand-alone article (and, if so, what the title of that article should be), or should be mentioned in an existing article (and, if so, which article), can be a more nuanced decision. The evolving nature of warfare has meant that an event that might have been classified as a minor skirmish in the past might now be called a battle; at the same time, not every exchange of fire, IED strike, or bombing needs to be documented, either as a stand-alone topic or within a larger article. Editorial discretion is required, particularly as media coverage is more prevalent than in the past, meaning that even minor incidents in current conflicts may receive significant press coverage. There are various options for writing about minor incidents; some will warrant stand-alone coverage (in an article titled ""Battle of X"", ""Attack on X"", or some other variation), while others can be sufficiently described in a section of an existing article on an overarching battle, campaign or conflict, and can be included there using a summary style of writing. Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article. In cases where the participating military units have their own articles, it may be appropriate to include mention of a minor incident there, albeit in a manner that does not breach the rules on undue weight. The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO. As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion: National armed forces or branches thereof. Examples include Canadian Forces, People's Liberation Army Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines, Special Republican Guard and United States Army; Higher level land forces command formations, such as regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, and armies, or their historical equivalents. Examples include 2nd Brigade (Australia), 1st Infantry Division (Germany), I ANZAC Corps and Eighth Army (United Kingdom); Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units such as 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and 21st Massachusetts Infantry Regiment; Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Examples include HMAS Sydney, USS Enterprise and SMS Blücher; Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. Otherwise, a civilian vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure. Examples include SS Ohio, RMS Lusitania and Queen Anne's Revenge; Higher level naval command formations, such as flotillas, squadrons and fleets. Examples include Caspian Flotilla, West Africa Squadron and United States Seventh Fleet; and Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands. Examples include No. 1 Squadron RAF, No. 1 Wing RAAF, No. 6 Group RCAF, 16th Air Army and Western Air Command, Indian Air Force.As a general rule, sub-units that exist below the level of those formations or units listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable. Such information as can be suitably sourced should normally be included, with appropriate focus, in an article about a notable parent formation. Rarely, some sub-units will meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. These however will be exceptional cases, such as E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which is notable because it was the subject of a best-selling and detailed book and TV miniseries. The requirement for ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject"" can be met through published books, journal articles, newspaper articles, and/or reputable websites that discuss in depth the units and their involvement in significant military operations. It does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by a unit itself about itself, its actions or personnel, or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation). While usually acceptable as sources for content, material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions (such as the USN's Naval History & Heritage Command or United States Army Center of Military History) should generally not be used as the only evidence towards a subject's notability or determining whether it should have a stand-alone article. Exceptions to this rule may be possible where it can be established that these works are reliable per the established guidelines and provide significant coverage of the subject. Significant coverage does not equate to multiple passing mentions in otherwise suitable sources; however, once notability has been otherwise established, it is acceptable to use such sources in constructing an article, per relevant guidelines on reliable sources. Additionally, while secondary sources should be used to establish notability, primary sources can also be consulted once notability has been established, so long as they are used in accordance with the restrictions set out in the rules on primary sources." 121 122 246 WP:INCST Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian caste system 121 Welcome to WikiProject Indian Caste System. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Caste System and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please add yourself as a participant in the project, inquire on the talk page, and see the to-do list, below. Create and improve articles related to the Indian caste system Feature reliable sources on all articles related to the Indian caste system ? For topics covering works of fiction, such as books or movies, see WP:FICTION, find material on reception, impact and themes. See To Kill A Mockingbird for an example on how to best write an article about a book. For a movie example, see Sholay. Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. --ayush (reach out) (I am interested in working on books/movies that approach the topic) 16:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)--Dr.SunBD (reach out) (I am interested in working on Vedic Clans of India) === Featured content === ==== Candidates ==== === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Indian Caste System-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,500 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. === Assessment === Assessment === Peer review === Peer review === Statistics === On the article talk page, include {{{WikiProject Indian Caste System}}It should show up like the following: === Related WikiProjects === === Sister project links === 122 123 247 WP:PURGE Wikipedia:Purge 122 "Purge is a function that is sometimes necessary to use to update a wiki page whenever template- or subpage-transclusions are involved. Purging clears the page's server cache, and the page is rebuilt. Before purging, you may want to try first to refresh the page using your web browser. For updating a page display, any purge methods do the job, but for categories and backlinks a null edit explained below is required, and other methods don't work. Update of images is explained in a section below. The page to purge is the one that transcludes, not the page that gets transcluded. Purge consumes a small amount of additional processing power to rebuild the page. === By clicking a link === ==== Sometimes already provided ==== Some pages already provide a link to purge the page, such as the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion page (WP:TFD). Simply click on the link to purge the page. (WP:TFD transcludes subpages like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 28, and updates from these subpages are not always reflected in WP:TFD. By purging, you will see the most recent version.) ==== {{purge}} ==== The {{purge}} template may be used to place a purge link on a page. ==== Gadgets ==== There are also two gadgets that can add a purge tab or link to every page. These may be found in the Gadgets section of your Wikipedia Preferences, under ""Appearance"": The ""Purgetab"" gadget (""Add a ""Purge"" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache""), and The ""UTCLiveClock"" gadget (""(S) Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC and provides a link to purge the current page (documentation)"").The ""purge"" option of the former can also be found in the Vector skin by navigating to the drop-down menu to the left of the Search box. In the MonoBook skin, it is in a separate tab. To change the text shown on the ""Purgetab"" gadget's menu, add the following to your common.js file (or create the file using it): In this case, the 'p' in the third line sets the text shown on the tab to the lowercase letter p. You can change this to whatever you prefer ('purge', 'purge page', etc). === Purge request to server === You can also request the MediaWiki server to purge using a special URL. The URL should be in the format //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=page_title&action=purge (it can be prefixed with http:, https:, or with nothing). Note that this will not work with URLs of the form //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_title, for which a slightly different form is required: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_title?action=purge. It may be easiest to make the URL by clicking ""edit"" or ""view source"" tab of the page, and changing the last portion of the URL's query string from action=edit to action=purge (anything in the URL that appears after action=edit can be deleted). This kind of URL is used to make the links and templates outlined in the Just by clicking a link section above. === Null edit === If a category or backlink page isn't showing linked articles known to exist, the page may be null-edited (refreshed) and will then show all properly linked articles. A null edit purges the target page (including category and backlink pages) if the page can be edited: Click any ""Edit"" or ""Edit source"" link on the page. Click ""Publish changes"" at the bottom of the edit box without making any changes.With a null edit, nothing is saved, and no edit is recorded. If you leave text in the edit summary, it will be discarded. Adding or deleting blank lines only at the end of the page is also usually a null edit. Trailing blank lines are largely ignored. Adding or deleting blank lines in section edits, however, sometimes result in changes, and gets saved. A page move or protection counts as a null edit as well, although an edit is recorded in the page history. Advantage None of the other purge methods apply to categorization, nor to ""what links here"" changes from template edits. Disadvantage If you can't edit the page, you can't perform a null edit to it. If you're looking for category or backlink updates, but cannot perform a null edit to the page, all you need to do is simply wait, or ask another editor who is capable of editing the page to do it for you. Changes in category links are put into the job queue, and re-cached when the server load is low. Depending on how busy the server is, the page may take days, or even months, to be updated.Do not confuse a null edit with a dummy edit. A dummy edit does modify the page source (even if only slightly), and does result in the edit being saved and logged to the page's edit history. If you have access to use the AutoWikiBrowser editor and need to purge a large number of pages (e.g., after changing a transcluded template), one way to do this is to click the save button without making any changes. No changes will be made, but the page will be purged. When you need to null edit a larger number of pages in a category (existing or not-existing), one of these tools may be used (e.g. User:Ahecht/Scripts/refresh.js). === Purge local browser cache === === forcerecursivelinkupdate === The behaviour of null edits changed around July 2013. Null edits previously added all pages which transcluded the page to the job queue to be reparsed. Now a null edit will reparse the page edited just as it always has (and therefore fix category membership and such), but it will no longer queue every transcluding page for reparse too. A new ""forcerecursivelinkupdate"" parameter was added to the API's action=purge to get the old behavior if necessary. So action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 in the URL (see above) will get the old behaviour. Only use this responsibly. These changes do not affect normal edits that change the content of a page. === User preference === Logged-in users have some options in their Special:Preferences to help purging and bypassing browser caches. See also Special:Gadgets. For purge gadgets in Commons, see commons:Help:purge. ==== Automating the confirmation screen ==== Logged in users may automate the ""OK"" confirmation by modifying their custom common.js file. An example script is below: When a change is made to a page, the MediaWiki software saves the change to the main database. Thereafter a copy of that page is made to a ""server cache"" on secondary servers, and until the page is changed again, that cached page will be shown. A change in a template puts updates of articles that use the template into a waiting list, called the Job queue, and the page is updated once it has reached its turn. Smaller changes to the cache are done when pages are deleted or restored, in that case only the links are updated. Similarly when an image is updated, thumbnails on all pages that use that image are updated. === Category counts === Counts in categories are normally done by adding to the count when a page is added to an category and subtracting when an page is removed. In categories with less than 5000 members users can purge the category to update the count. Since April 2022, larger categories are recounted monthly. === Templates === In a future update, in templates, the #time parser function and the formatDate() function in Modules will update server cache once the resulting time is up. If none of the previous conditions are met, then the page will be updated 30 days after the last edit. Some pages are updated more frequently, like the Main page, which is updated every hour. === Images === To refresh thumbnails, you may have to purge either or both of the image page and/or the page that loads the image. First go to the image description page by clicking the image. You should go further to Commons if the image is from Commons. Then purge. (Purge gadgets seem to work consistently. See commons:Help:Purge for Commons gadgets.) It may take a while for MediaWiki to complete rescaling, especially for an animated GIF. It depends on how busy the MediaWiki software is. After a while, go back to the page with thumbnails and reload, bypassing your browser cache (Ctrl-F5 on Firefox). If the page still shows the old thumbnails, then purge this page. If an image thumbnail will not yet regenerate successfully, it is probably because the server has cached an error page with the URL of a thumbnail, but the page is not purged because the actual thumbnail does not exist. The solution is to request the thumbnail with an unusual URL, say by appending ""?1"" to the end, then do a usual purge. If there is still a problem, ask for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Help:Transclusion Manual:Purge on MediaWiki, Manual:Cache on MediaWiki, and Manual:Job queue on MediaWiki Wikipedia:Bypass your cache, related but different concept of clearing a cache locally" 123 124 248 WP:HEYMAN Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard 123 "The Heymann Standard has two meanings. It is invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion, as the original David Heymann article was; in such cases an editor might say ""Keep per WP:HEY."" It can be used to describe the amount of work that an editor feels a page needs to change their !vote (not-vote) from ""delete"" or ""neutral"" to ""keep"" in an Articles for deletion debate. For example: If a !voting editor deems a nominated subject to be non-notable, or believes it could be notable but does not see sufficient evidence in the article ""as is"", the !voting editor could comment that ""This page would need a Heymann Standard (or WP:HEY for short) improvement to get my !vote."" The Heymann Standard is named after the David Heymann article, which was first proposed for deletion, then taken to AfD very shortly after it was created. The author and others did a great deal of work on the article while the debate was taking place and the article was both vastly improved and overwhelmingly kept. When first nominated, the page was an unsourced, two-sentence stub that looked like this. Three days later, it had fourteen independent sources and had become this. A short time later it was listed as a Good article. Following a Good article reassessment three years later, the article was delisted to C-class but this does not affect the principles discussed here. Debates involving possibly non-notable subjects or articles lacking verification sometimes see a number of ""keep"", ""weak keep"" or ""keep and expand"" type !votes, but little willingness to actually improve the article or demonstrate its notability. Invoking the ""Heymann Standard"" is an expression of: Desire to see quality content on Wikipedia Belief in a reasonable standard of notability Demand for compliance with WP:Verifiability, an official policy Respect for contributors willing to improve articles of questioned notability WP:Deletion to Quality Award This edit summary, from which came ""Kerrrzappp""." 124 125 249 WP:ALMAMATER Wikipedia:Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia 124 "Wikipedia has strict policies about the notability of people, and the creation of a new article about a non-notable individual frequently results in the speedy deletion of the page. However, it is common for people to go to their alma mater's Wikipedia page, and add their name or a friend's name to either the standalone list of ""notable alumni"" or a list of alumni in the institution's article. Here is some advice: don't do it! Namechecking is the practice of listing the names of unimportant individuals in another Wikipedia article. The practice is fairly common for a few reasons. It's easy. Creating a brand new Wikipedia article takes some effort, and requires that the user be a registered editor. Adding a sentence or two about a person is easy, and can be done by anyone. Individuals often have nostalgia for their alma maters, and want to be associated with it. Among people who don't frequently edit Wikipedia articles, there may be a misunderstanding about notability. Just because you have a number of degrees, own a small business, sit on your town's council, and feel important doesn't necessarily make you notable. This kind of namechecking is more likely to evade detection. New articles are patrolled by other editors, and will be submitted for deletion if the subject is not notable. For university articles, non-notable names are only removed if someone viewing the article sees them and removes them. Additionally, even if another editor who is familiar with the university sees them, they may not know whether or not the person is notable, and err on the side of caution by leaving the name. It is easy to detect non-notable names on a university alumni list. There are some recurrent characteristics. Person does not have their own Wikipedia article, and thus their name is not highlighted blue. Occasionally, someone notable won't have their own Wikipedia article yet, but will be listed in their university article, but that's the exception to the rule. Description of person or their achievements uses peacock terms, such as ""world-class"", ""leading"", ""prestigious"", or ""renowned."" Truly notable individuals don't need puffery because their achievements speak for themselves. A laundry list of positions held or awards won. Notable individuals often have a brief description on a university alumni list that focuses on their main accomplishment (e.g., governor of a state, Nobel Prize winner). Conversely, to compensate for their lack of notability, multiple jobs and awards are often listed for non-notable individuals. If you see terms like ""won third place"" or ""assistant to"", the person is probably not notable. A list of names that seems disproportionately large for the size and reputation of the school, or which shows a large number of recent graduates. This is the sole edit by the user who added the name, and in some very overt cases of self-promotion, the name added and the editor's name are similar (e.g., ""User:JSmith"" adds the name ""John Smith"" to a university alumni page). There are a few other variations of university namechecking. Including the names of instructors and professors who don't meet Wikipedia's notability of academics guideline. As a general rule, if an academic is a ""distinguished professor"" or is a leading expert in a field, they are notable. Most others, particularly ones with titles like ""instructor"", ""lecturer"", ""assistant professor"", or ""associate professor"", are not notable. Undergraduate or graduate students who add their name to the Wikipedia page of a notable professor who they do research with. Wikipedia clearly states that notability is not inherited from a personal or business relationship with another person. It's extremely rare for a student to be notable for their academic work, and students who work for a notable professor are not notable. Adding the name of a non-notable individual to a stand-alone list of alumni is bad for several reasons. It undermines Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites provide people a forum to discuss their lives. Wikipedia is meant to provide factual information about notable topics. The material is often neither verifiable nor neutral, thus violating core Wikipedia policies. There are usually few independent sources of information for non-notable people, so there is no way to confirm the background of someone described as a ""renowned scientist"" or ""prominent business leader"". A user who adds a name of a minor individual often has a conflict of interest, being a family member or close friend of the person being added. In some cases of unbridled arrogance, a non-notable person adds their own name to their alma mater's alumni list.Adding someone to a list of alumni in the institution's article is also a bad idea if you cannot provide a reliable source establishing that the person is (a) noteworthy enough to be included in that encyclopedia article and (b) connected to the institution. Of course, if you have enough sources to write an article about the person or they already have an article and it documents a connection to the institution, adding the person with a link to their article is very helpful in complying these suggestions. Don't engage in namechecking. If you believe that a person can meet Wikipedia's notability of people guideline, initiate an article about them. Then add a link to that article onto the university's Wikipedia page. If they don't qualify for a standalone article of their own, figure out if you have strong enough sources to justify adding them to the institution's article in its embedded ""Notable alumni"" section; it's pretty rare that someone would not be important enough to get their own article but be important enough to merit inclusion the institution's article, so think about this carefully. If you see people's names listed in an article that appear to play a very minor or tangential role in the person's biography, this may be namechecking. You can post a note on the talk page asking for a WP:Reliable source that attests to the pertinence and importance of person X in person Y's biography. Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Alumni Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of" 125 126 254 WP:RAILSTATION Wikipedia:Public transport 125 "Many articles already exist about public transportation. Public transportation is generally a very notable topic. As always, reliable sources must be provided for all information. Railroad, including regional rail and rapid transit systems are generally notable. The lines are notable in themselves for standalone articles, and in many cases, the individual stations are. Rapid transit usually exists only in major cities (with populations of at least several hundred thousand), and regional rail only exists when two or more such cities are found in relatively close proximity, or when the outlying suburbs of a major city go quite far from the city itself. Given these facts, it is likely that all lines of rapid transit and regional rail are notable. The question of whether to create a single article on an entire rail system, an article on each line, or an article on multiple lines identified as separate lines but sharing a single track for much of their route depends on how much sourced information can be provided, and therefore whether it is more suitable to have one article or more. === Stations === Like railroads, individual stations are generally notable. The amount of information on each station varies. For some, several pages worth of text can be written. For others, there is only the most basic information available, such as the location, the amount of parking, and the services to which a transfer is available. When only minimal information is available on all or most stations on a line, this should be provided on a List of _______ rail stations in chart form, which can be placed into the article on the line if the two combined are short enough. When more information becomes available, this could be expanded into individual articles. When sizeable articles have been created on most of the stations in a system, articles can be created on the remaining ones, which can be marked as stubs. There are many stubs templates available for rail stations in various geographic locations. When multiple rail lines, even on a different type of rail, meet at a single location, it is preferable to have a single article for all lines. Template:Infobox Station should be used on all articles about rapid transit and regional rail stations. Many cities, towns, and other jurisdictions around the world have agencies that operate one or more bus routes, and sometimes rail services as well. Some are operated by the local government and are tax-subsidized; others are privately owned and may be either non-profit or for-profit. The number of routes also vary. Some have just a few; others have hundreds. Bus services in themselves are notable. The majority of agencies providing public transport services, though local, are worthy of mention in one or more articles. Articles on bus service may list the agency's bus routes, either with headings or in chart form (preferred), and this can be sourced from the agency's own site, which is most likely to provide accurate information. This should be written in a fashion to provide encyclopedic information that is not directory-like, as the agency's own site can provide that. However, external links can be provided to the agency's site and maps and schedules of its individual routes. In a small town where only a handful of bus routes exist, and a very small amount of information can be written, it would be more appropriate to write about them in a ""transportation"" section of the article on the town rather than in a standalone article. Template:Infobox Bus transit can be used to provide basic information about the agency. === Bus routes === In most transit systems, bus routes are not notable enough to have standalone articles. Particularly, in smaller systems with fewer than 20 routes (though there is no exact number for any standard), it is unlikely that any will be notable enough to have a standalone article. Even if there is plenty of sourced information about one of the system's routes, it can usually be mentioned within the article on the system. For a larger system in a major city (often with 50 or more routes, though there is no exact number for any standard), it is not uncommon to find plenty of sourced information on many of the city's bus routes. This may range from news articles on routing controversies, to books about the history of the city's streetcar system (since many urban areas had streetcars in the past that have since been replaced with buses). For smaller transit agencies, the standard method of describing bus routes is to list them within the article on the operating agency, preferably in chart form, with the chart providing the most basic information. For longer lists of routes, they may be listed on a separate page titled ""List of _______ bus routes."" While the chart form may be used, an alternative is to have a heading for each route, under which a short description is provided. Writing articles on individual bus routes is acceptable when: There is enough information on each page to write a sizeable article Writing the article(s) together or within other articles would exceed article size guidelines The information is properly referenced with reliable sources, thereby establishing notability. The transit agency's own site can be used to source some of the article's information once notability has been established. The information provided in the articles meets the inclusion guidelines belowArticles on bus routes may require frequent updates, as their routes and schedules often change. Currently, very few cities around the world have comprehensive articles on all or most of the routes in their bus systems. The city of London has the most (see List of bus routes in London). In the United States, the city of Baltimore has the most (see List of MTA Maryland bus routes). But such articles in other cities are growing, and there is a potential for more bus route articles in the future that meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. ==== What to include ==== Information that can be written in bus route articles includes, but is not limited to: The route's basic description: Includes its ends, special branches, notable (blue-linked) areas and landmarks served, major streets on which it operates. History of the route, dating back to its origin, and any changes the route has undergone. Routing controversies, such as proposals to extend the route into a new community, cutbacks in service, or changes that inconvenienced some. Appearances in popular culture (such as books, movies, or TV shows, or sourced use by notable people), though this alone does not establish notability A photo of a bus on the route, clearly displaying that the bus is exactly from that routeIt is strongly recommended to create a navbox (if one does not already exist) displaying all the routes in the system in alphabetical/numerical order. The navbox should also display all other articles relating to the system. Infobox bus line can be used to provide basic information within the article. ==== What not to include ==== In accordance with various WP:NOT guidelines, the following information should not be included in bus route articles: The bus schedule (timetable). An external link can be provided to this, though it may require periodic updates. The exact route description in full detail. Only include important details of the route description that relate to the sourced information. A list of stops along the route. ==== Where to find sources ==== The best places to find sources beyond a basic web search are on Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar, entering the name of the city or operating agency (or its parent companies), along with the word ""bus"" or ""streetcar"" and its route number, or the name of some of the major streets on which the route operates or the landmarks it serves." 126 127 255 WP:FICTREF Wikipedia:Fictitious references 126 "A fictitious reference is a source that is listed within an article that an editor has added to support specific text within an article, or to support a claim of notability for the article's topic, while in reality that source does not exist, has nothing to do with the article and/or the information that the source is supposed to support, or otherwise does not support the content. Fictitious references are typically those used to support a hoax, original research, essays or opinion passed off as neutral facts, conflicts of interest, blatant advertising or spam, attack pages, or otherwise non-notable material passed off as notable. The fact that a source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline does not automatically make it fictitious; many editors do not fully understand this guideline, and a source that is considered reliable for one thing (such as a policy position of a candidate) may not be reliable for another (such as what an opponent has said or done). Also, some sources, though they do not establish notability, may be used to verify truth. The use of fictitious references is a form of gaming the system to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If any fictitious references are found on a page, they, and any information they solely support, shall be immediately removed upon discovery. Editors who find such a reference are encouraged to examine the full article to determine if it meets one or more criteria for deletion, even possibly speedy deletion. In addition, editors responsible for the placement of such information shall be warned; if they have been previously warned and persistent in such behavior, they may even be blocked. Problems should be reported at the incidents section of the administrators' noticeboard. When in doubt about the truth of such a reference, but also unsure that it is really fake, the accuracy shall be discussed. A {{dubious}} tag should be placed following the information in question. Such a discussion will hopefully attract some experts who can verify the accuracy of the reference and whatever information it is purported to support. If it is determined that any references or information shall be removed, but there is no definitive proof that its placement was done in bad faith, no action shall be taken against any editors. Any information that is removed can always be reinstated if confirmed to be true. An external link provided as a reference is easy to verify. Clicking on the link enables the reader to determine if what is stated in the article is found within the source, provided it is not a dead link and that its content is not dynamic. An offline reference, such as a book or a printed newspaper or magazine may be substantially trickier, particularly if this source is more obscure and accessible to fewer people. It may be very difficult to verify some references, such as books which are out of print, local newspapers which are only available in a certain region, or books which are written in a language other than English. Use of a search engine, such as Google, may be helpful in determining the truth of a topic, as the answer may be found, and hopefully will be found in multiple locations. A web search alone may not find the answer easily. A search using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar may get more hits but absence of any ""GHITS"" does not automatically mean the statement or even the entire topic is false. Also, it shall be considered that the information may be accurate and just not notable. In such a case, it may be grounds for deletion. See Wikipedia: Existence ≠ Notability. Some examples of fictitious references that can be passed off as fact are: Off-web references (books, journals, etc.) that do not exist Off-web references that do exist, but the meaning of the source text differs significantly from the information claimed by an editor (editors may summarize what a source says, but the meaning must not be changed) Off-web references that do exist, but the book or journal makes no reference to the topic referred to in the article Dynamic web pages or dead links where an editor is attempting to mislead other editors by claiming that the information was once contained within them Self-created web pages that appear to be reliable sources containing hoaxes or true but non-notable information Unlinked sentences placed between tags (be cautious in calling these ""false references"" in the edit summary, though, because when additional information is provided, but no book or journal title, it may be a good faith attempt to provide an explanatory note) The use of sources in some obscure language, such that most English Wikipedia editors can't understand the source, to make a claim not in the sourceTypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 can be easily detected using a search engine. Even if a book or magazine is only available in paper form, there will almost certainly be some online references to the existence of the book or magazine. Dead links can be checked with Internet archives. Self-created websites can be easily identified as non-professionally published sources. The most dangerous types of fictitious references are types 2 and 3. With type 2, an editor with POV can change the intended meaning of the content that is purportedly sourced from the book or magazine. This corruption of the source's intended meaning may stay in Wikipedia until someone can check the original book or magazine. Whereas type number 2 is used for adding POV, type number 3 can be used to introduce hoaxes and other false material into the encyclopedia. If an unprincipled Wikipedia editor has a POV motive to make a greater name for his uncle, a little-known guitar player, and creates a fictitious quote stating that ""Rock historians agree that Foo Barkely was the greatest rock guitarist from Southern California in the 1970s"", and then falsely references this fictitious quote to an actual 1976 guitar magazine article entitled ""Rock's guitar greats"", right down to citing all the bibliographic information and page numbers, this hoax quote may stay in Wikipedia for years. The following actions are not fictitious references, and should not be treated as such: Mistakenly providing the wrong date, page number, link, or other minor details in a reference Use of dynamic web pages or dead links that contained the information when placed there Use of unreliable sources in good faith WP:INTEGRITY: ""When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity.... Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained." 127 128 257 WP:inherent notability WP:inherent notability 127 "Inherent notability is the idea that certain subjects on Wikipedia qualify for articles on the English Wikipedia merely by the nature of their subjects, and without considering whether the subjects meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion or whether any material on the subject can be verified. The contrasting view argues that nothing is inherently notable since notability requires verifiable evidence and is not conferred by association with other topics. The word inherently means that, by the nature of the subject, it intrinsically belongs in a given group, regardless of any other considerations. Notability in wikijargon is a claim, based on WP:N, about whether an article belongs in the encyclopedia. To say that a subject is inherently notable, then, is to say that the subject intrinsically belongs in the encyclopedia, regardless of any other considerations—even including such critical considerations as whether or not it is possible for the resulting article to comply with the core content policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What makes a members of a category ""inherently notable"" or ""not inherently notable"" is really the way they tend to be viewed by the Wikipedia community. A sense of this can be given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. There are some topics for which editors have accepted all member subjects as notable, e.g. census-designated places. Every geographic area used by the U.S. Census Bureau now has an article on Wikipedia whether or not it is the subject of ""non-trivial coverage by multiple sources"". On the other hand, there are other topics for which not all member subjects are considered to be inherently notable. For example, bands are only viewed as notable if they seriously are shown to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Common examples tend to be found in geography based subjects, where all cities, towns, and certain other subjects are considered by some to be entitled to articles. This belief is fostered by the fact that these are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their own way. It is asserted that the articles have a right to exist, even if they are not the ""subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works"", as the articles can be sourced to publicly available data, for example census data. If others consider a topic ""worthy of note"" by writing about it in an independently published book or magazine, then we as Wikipedia's have proof that it should be considered notable; if no one has written about a topic in a published work, then notability may be difficult to gauge. We can argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable at all, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources. Unfortunately, too often this definition of notability is misused. I like it. An article is unsourced and efforts to produce sources have ended in failure, yet people argue that the subject is ""inherently notable"". Putting aside the bigger problem of having a possibly unverifiable (i.e., original research) article, the claim of ""inherent notability"" is subjective and cannot be proven. Unresearched. An article about a subject has no sources, so people claim that ""the subject is not notable"". That's a fallacy! The problem is not notability, but lack of verification. Only after one has searched for sources and failed to find any can one suggest: ""the subject does not seem to be notable"". We can prove that a subject is notable, but we cannot prove the converse; we can only note that no proof was found to establish notability. I don't like it. An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is ""inherently not notable"". This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant. The standard way of demonstrating notability involves showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability. Some sorts of articles will, by definition, meet Wikipedia's basic notability standard of non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources and long-term importance. For example, in the United States, places listed on the National Register of Historic Places will necessarily meet this standard, as inclusion on that list requires third-party, published documentation of a place's importance, and all NRHP listings, with detailed information on the listed place, are published. Thus, any place listed on the register will certainly have enough sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Obvious notability describes when few or no references are placed within an article and given this fact, the subject is not asserted to have met notability guidelines. However, the article is about a subject that is so well-known that everyone views it as notable, and therefore, no one is likely to ever challenge its presence. For example, no one would challenge articles about the Atlantic Ocean, George Washington, or tigers, even if there were zero sources. Everyone knows the Atlantic Ocean is an important part of our planet, and that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Just because a subject is obviously notable does not mean an article about the subject meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Such articles have numerous problems. These include, but are not limited to, neutrality violations, the possibility of containing original research, or sneaking in intentional inaccuracies. For biographies of living persons, regardless of how much they may be seen by society as being worthy of having articles, it is especially important that all information be accurately sourced. Additionally, the parent subject may be clearly notable. But this does not guarantee that every article pertaining to this subject is worthy of inclusion. Strict guidelines pertain to writing such sub-articles of a parent article, not just out of notability concerns, but also due to the possibility of a POV fork. For example, while it has been established that tiger is notable, this does not automatically mean that ""tiger behavior"" is worthy of a standalone article. Likewise, while it is agreed that George Washington is indeed notable, adding separate articles called ""Childhood of George Washington"", ""Criticism of George Washington"", and ""Legacy of George Washington"" without good cause could run afoul of Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and content forking guidelines. An obvious example of a strongly POV fork of the ""George Washington"" article would be ""Reasons why George Washington was the worst President."" Notability Notability in Wikipedia Template:Article issues for a list of possible tags to place on articles with various issues Template:IncGuide, listing current policies and active proposals Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability Wikipedia:Immunity Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Notabilitymandering, arguing that any notability guideline or inherently notable category should be as consistent as possible Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, describing what is not usually notable" 128 129 258 WP:NOTWARZONE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not a war zone 128 "This is a draft essay and is open to editing by all. Participation from those interested in deletion discussions is especially welcome. Deep within the lower depths of our encyclopedia, a mostly silent battle has been raging. Bitter, pitiless and endless; reliable sources have held up the conflict as a possible cause for Wikipedia's stagnating new article creation rate.The site of this conflict is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, widely known as AfD. The two factions are known as inclusionists and deletionists. Not all agree that these labels are helpful, and indeed many or most participants in AfD don't neatly fall into either camp. However, no better words exist for identifying the opposing philosophies. This essay discusses the different perspectives that drive the conflict, in the hopes that once participants can come to respect the opposing camp, all will be able to conduct themselves in a collegial and constructive manner. === Inclusionism === Inclusionism is the view that one can best help the encyclopedia by retaining as much content as possible, demonstrated by a tendency to !vote keep at AfD discussions. Adherents often think the people's encyclopedia should cater to all tastes, and with the exception of attack pages, hoaxes & obvious spam, they generally hold that if someone makes the effort to create an article, it should be retained; Wikipedia is not paper. If they worry about how the outside world views the project, they tend to think it will be judged on breadth and quality of content, and that having articles on relatively trivial or fan-related subjects is in no way a problem. They argue that overzealous deletion is a case of biting the newcomers, and that it discourages potentially useful contributors. === Deletionism === Deletionism is the view that one can best help the encyclopedia by ensuring that readers can trust that all material on it is reliable, accurate, and presented in terms of its impact on the real world. Since encyclopedias are supposed to use secondary sources to build articles, they take a dim view of topics that do not have secondary sourcing. To them, an article that uses only primary sources is original research and would be more appropriate somewhere else on the internet. They believe the various gems our project contains are diminished if they're presented alongside trivial or otherwise undesirable articles. Some of them worry that including trivial and fan-related articles reduces the project's academic respectability, and that unwatched articles on trivial subjects will be vandalized, hoaxed, or devolve into WP:OR. === The results of holding these views too strongly === Both views are in their own way noble. But sometimes they are so passionately held they cause their adherents to behave in non-constructive ways – insulting other editors, trying to prove a point, engaging in passive aggression, and underhanded tactics. Leaving aside the direct effect on the more sensitive editors, these kinds of behaviours perpetuate themselves by causing editors on both sides to become locked in a vicious circle of opposition. The result is a corrosive atmosphere that damages Wikipedia in many ways. Editors are drawn away from editing to instead engage in protracted arguments, and many editors avoid deletion discussions leaving only the battle-hardened few. === Breaking the circle === All who take part in AfD will elevate the environment towards lasting peace if they conduct themselves in a calm and civil manner. Here are some suggestions that may help: Remember that the vast majority of editors are motivated by a desire to the improve the encyclopedia, just as you are. You may not agree with them, but mutual respect goes a long way. By behaving well you encourage others to, which creates an upwards spiral of harmony that helps the encyclopedia. Do as you would be done by. Almost everyone feels aggression sometimes, but AfD is not the outlet for it. Better arenas are online war games, un-moderated forums, contact sports, or you may even be able to find an ongoing low-intensity war that accepts foreign combatants. Voting is evil. Casting an unreasoned Keep or Delete isn't worth your while, as it will be ignored by the closing admin, but it will rile other editors. Explain your position, don't just state it. A well-reasoned statement of your argument is much better than an abbreviated WP:VAGUEWAVE towards a policy. Refer to policy without wikilawyering, read policies and guidelines before referring to them to make sure they say what you think they say, and try to avoid common weak arguments. Read the article and quickly look for sources before you read the deletion discussion, so your comments are based on the article rather than what others think. Remember that there may be no one right answer. Although there are common outcomes, different Wikipedians at different times may come to opposite conclusions. Many of our policies and arguments involve subjective judgement calls and may be contradictory. As User:S Marshall once said, ""Wikipedia guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position."" Debates often hinge on notability. The general notability guideline is a good rule of thumb. Notability is not binary; there are grades of notability, and where we decide to draw the line is often a difficult decision. In particular, there is no community consensus on notability for fiction. Avoid badgering those who disagree with you. Comments that clarify positions or correct misunderstandings are useful, but replying to every comment that disagrees with you tends to be unhelpful. Trust other editors and the closing administrator to be able to judge the arguments on their merits. Read your comment in the preview window and ask yourself: Does it say something that you didn't say already? Does it focus on the article's merits, or some broader issue (e.g., a deletion philosophy) that should be discussed in another venue? Has the point you are making already been made more than once by other editors? Don't beat a dead horse. Read and consider all the arguments. There's no shame in changing your mind. Nobody wins or loses at AfD; it's the encyclopedia that matters. Put aside your personal feelings. If you make an error or lash out, an apology can clear the air. Why not have a nice cup of tea and a sit down with the editor you're in disagreement with? Make love not war! ==== If you wish to argue for deletion ==== Following WP:BEFORE helps avoid making invalid nominations, and can remind you of alternatives to deletion. Have you identified other articles that already exist where the content can be merged? While checking the article history for signs of previous deletion nominations, also check the article view statistics. If an article is on a popular topic, it will tend to have secondary sources written about it and may have potential. Was it once in a better state, but has since succumbed to vandalism and inexpert edits? Consider if your search for sources was comprehensive enough. Did you use the wrong key words? Did you only look at the Google News hits for the last month instead of at the archive? Many news sources aren't included in Google News, or even online at all. Especially for articles that cover something technical, in a non-English speaking country, or from before Al Gore invented the Internet, sources may exist but not be immediately apparent. Are you taking care to counter our systematic biases? We may even need to resort to looking for sources in dead trees, or asking other editors for help. Once you determine that its necessary to nominate the article, be responsive to changes in the article during the discussion. It is not uncommon for articles to be improved to the point that deletion is no longer needed. If this happens, withdraw your nomination. It is good practice to leave a note on the article talk page and the page of the article creator. Consider a personalized message rather than a template. Be wary of nominating multiple articles in the same AfD. It can be appropriate in some circumstances, such as a group of obvious hoaxes, but it is good idea to only list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. A bundled nomination can be overwhelming for participants in the deletion discussion, and may cause a backlash that results in all the articles being kept. Do not nominate a large number of articles on the same topic in a short period of time, as this can be perceived as an attempt to deluge editors who are attempting to find sourcing. Instead, nominate one or two of the articles that seem the least controversial of the bunch and nominate others if the community agrees that deletion is appropriate. The word ""cruft"" is wonderfully succinct, but it can be seen as pejorative and unhelpful. An acceptable alternative may be ""unnecessary detail."" If you tend towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, remember you don't have to win every battle; the article can always be re-nominated a few months on, when the dust has settled. See the other side of the coin - find an area which is lacking and start or improve an article. Content building can be hard work! Deletion sorting and the Article Rescue Squadron are not canvassing; the aim is to focus the efforts of interested editors. Anyone can look at the list of AfDs collected by these pages and join those debates. ==== If you wish to keep the article ==== The time to consider whether a subject meets our inclusion guidelines is before its creation, not after it has been nominated for deletion. Instead of engaging in a protracted argument with an intransigent opponent, work to improve the article using reliable sources. Without good sources, articles are not verifiable and notability cannot be demonstrated. Be skeptical of your sources - are they really reliable? Do they cover this topic directly and in depth? It is easy to engage in wishful thinking and improper synthesis on topics we like. Discuss alternatives to keeping an article, such as a merge or a change in the scope of the article - but it is best to avoid carrying out these plans until the discussion is closed. If an editor has nominated an article for deletion that is ultimately kept, don't begrudge them. They believed in good faith that the article did not meet our guidelines, and hopefully the article will have been improved in the process. See the other side of the coin - look at the new page patrol, and see how editors there are under siege by articles that in all likelihood will never meet our guidelines. It is no wonder they can become cynical. The Article Rescue Squadron is intended to focus efforts on improving salvageable articles, not to seek additional editors to vote keep. Make sure that all those great sources that have been identified during the AfD actually make it into the article. Remember the ultimate goal is not to ""win"" at AfD, rather it is to produce an article that serves our readers. If you tend towards inclusionism, note that deletion is not necessarily the end of an article. You can ask for it to be userfied, moved to a draft, or it can be copied to another wiki. ==== The middle ground ==== Mergism Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists Wikipedia is not a battleground Extreme article inclusion Extreme article deletion Wikipedia is an MMORPG Wikipedia:You don't have to be mad to work here, but" 129 130 259 WP:EXPERT Wikipedia:Expert editors 129 "Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find ""accepted knowledge"" in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books. Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your own papers (see WP:REFSPAM and WP:SELFCITE), and please do not author literature reviews in Wikipedia (we summarize reviews; we don't generate them here). There is great advice below — please take some time to read it and consider it, to help you adapt to this environment. We greatly appreciate your desire to help build and maintain the encyclopedia. Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed, or places where ideas are over- or under-emphasized, and to identify optimal and recent sources in their fields. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources apply to expert editors just as well. Although other encyclopedias might have articles based on personal ""expert opinion"" or unpublished conjecture, Wikipedia requires all text to be verifiable to published sources. Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic. Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bona fide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should edit. Given that many editors, including experts, post pseudonymously, vetting users as experts (identity, credentials or experience) is not practical, even though it is technically feasible to verify a user's identity if disclosed. In discussions with expert editors, lay editors are encouraged to use experts as a new source of information. Knowing why things are written as they are by the experts will facilitate future discussions. Despite claims to the contrary from Wikipedia critics, experts (or other editors) do not need to appeal to Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators to remove patent nonsense from the encyclopedia. Unsourced claims which are challenged can easily be removed, though they may be reinserted later by others. === Advice for expert editors === Experts can identify themselves on their user page and list any credentials and experience they wish to publicly divulge as it may help fellow Wikipedians who seek advice or expertise. Experts should be aware there is no personal advantage and considerable risk in divulging one's real identity and expertise in this way. However, please see WP:REALNAME, and think carefully before you do this. Do not publicly identify yourself if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers. It may make more sense to declare credentials without self-identifying. Wikipedia is based on consensus of editors, not on credentialism, so the fact that yours won't be directly verifiable isn't really important. We assume good faith, and generally trust you to be honest. A bit more on ""credentialism"" — authors of scholarly works are listed on the work, and the authority of authors matters a great deal to readers. In Wikipedia, there are no listed authors. The only authority for content, is what sources say, and the policies and guidelines under which we summarize them and work together. In its early days Wikipedia did stray into accepting the authority of editors, which led to the Essjay controversy. Since then the community has rigorously adhered to the principle that it doesn't matter who you are or who you say you are — what matters is the quality of the sources you bring and of your edits summarizing those sources, and how well you work with others. You will gain a reputation here, but it will be based solely on what you do here. Editing an article in Wikipedia is similar in some ways to writing an article for an academic journal and different in others. As with a literature review article you need to provide a solid review of the subject as a whole, accurately summarizing what other published reviews say. But be careful not to add your own interpretation or synthesis of the topic. Support all factual statements with citations in much the same way as required for a journal article. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, nor your own synthesis of the research literature. The genre here is ""encyclopedia""—each article is meant to provide ""a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject"". Wikipedia has its own article titles policy and manual of style, geared toward making the encyclopedia as reader-friendly as possible to a broad, general audience, without dumbing down content. These Wikipedia-internal best practices are a careful balance of compromises, and they generally do not match in every detail what is preferred in any particular discipline, since stylistic preferences vary in ways that conflict between different fields. Experts are already familiar with having to adapt their writing style for whatever publication to which they are submitting material, and should approach Wikipedia with the same mindset. Expert editors can join the WikiProjects concerning their areas of expertise. WikiProjects help articles on related subjects to be coordinated and edited by a group of identified interested parties. All editors are free to join any WikiProject in which they are interested, regardless of expertise. Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to ""pull rank"" and declare victory. ""Because I say so"" or ""because I have a PhD from Harvard"" or ""I wrote the most-used textbook in this field"" are never acceptable justifications for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite reliable sources for all claims. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits and the reliable sources upon which they are based that counts. Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about themself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from their own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia. A guy who never finished HS who can cite sources that support his arguments, is more compelling than a professor who can't. Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia – an essay from PLoS Computational Biology aimed at scientists Non-expert editors seeking expert advice may want Wikipedia:Expert help, and for social advice Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors. Wikipedia:Expert retention is about retaining expert editors as active editors on Wikipedia. WP:CURATOR - advice for museum curators and analogous professionals" 130 131 266 WP:NEWP Wikipedia:Deletion of newly created pages 130 Placing the {{New page}} template on a page will display the following: As mentioned in the above text, the creator has created the page in good faith and is aware of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Therefore, once all is said and done, the article will probably meet these guidelines. This tag has been designed to be used temporarily, preferably for not more than an hour without an edit, though there is no specific amount of time under this guideline. It is all a matter of judgment. This tag should not under any circumstances be used for biographies of living persons. Editors may vary how long they take to complete editing. This tag was designed to be very temporary as a way of notifying new page patrollers and others that multiple edits are required to complete the page's editing to meet Wikipedia's standards, and the creator is still in the process of the initial creation during his/her current Wikipedia session, and has not put creation of the page aside. If it appears the editor has probably abandoned his/her Wikipedia session but is planning to complete the page at a much later time or date, it is best not to delete the page but to userfy it to the creator's userspace. The page should not be deleted, but should be userfied if the impression is the page's topic is valid for a Wikipedia article and/or the editor will probably continue. The page may be marked for deletion using any appropriate method of the deletion process if any of the following conditions are met: The page is a biography of a living person and it does not meet biographical inclusion criteria The page is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy beyond a reasonable doubt, including advertising, spam, in violation of a copyright, a personal attack, or vandalism. It appears the creator has abandoned all attempts at creating the page, and content is non-sensical and so minimal that it can easily be recreated. The creator has removed the {{newpage}} tag, and the page falls short of meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. More time should be allowed and the page not be deleted when: The creator appears to be continually editing the page, adding bits of information at a time. If it appears the page will not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines when complete, the creator should be contacted in order to ascertain his/her intentions. The article has one or more issues (including lacking sources, containing original research, or being written as a dictionary entry) that can be addressed by placement of issue tags rather than deleting the page The article was previously deleted. Whether or not it appears in the version seen that the creator is attempting to address the issues that led to the page's earlier deletion, there is a chance that the creator will make necessary changes in upcoming edits. 131 132 272 WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia:Recentism 131 "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others: Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens. Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. Articles deleted despite concerning notable trans-historical subject matter, because a recentist article has given only flimsy and transient details available in news reports without the accompanying historical perspective, and because editors proposing deletion don't bother to research. The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus. Edit warring over whether to change an article's well-established title, abbreviation, date and numbering format, national variety of English and spelling, or wording in the lead section or article body on the basis of those used on breaking news sources. Impassioned discussions on talk pages that debate not just the notability of the recent event (""Is this topic of lasting importance?"") but also where (if anywhere) it should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Often conducted in ignorance of the historical facts.Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well – up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer. Still, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included, and with awareness that, under the general notability guideline, not every topic will merit its own stand-alone article. Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, deleted, or expanded. Certain articles might be merged or placed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion list. Conversely, an article might need to be split into multiple articles in order to achieve a balance not readily attainable within a single article. Sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews, which can be found here. Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time (see also § Suggestions for dealing with recentism, below). === News spikes === A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate). Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research. An event that occurs in a certain geographic region might come to dominate an entire article about that region. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the New Orleans, Louisiana, article was inundated with day-by-day facts about the hurricane. The solution: an article on the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans was created to collect this quickly accumulating content. === Article imbalance === Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were actually more significant in the past than they are today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits. For large-scale topics, such as slavery, marriage, or war, the stress might be on simply the last few centuries, though the subject matter of the article might have a history of thousands of years. This tendency towards article imbalance is enhanced by the availability of reliable sources, which is not uniform across different topics. This manifests both from the language a source is written in and the ease with which it can be accessed. Sources published in a medium that is both widely available and familiar to editors, such as a news website, are more likely to be used than those from esoteric or foreign-language publications regardless of their reliability. For example, a 2010 story on the CNN or BBC News website is more likely to be cited than a 1970 edition of the Thai Post or Večernje novosti. Similarly, the cost of access to a source can be a barrier; for example, most research in astronomy is freely available to the public via arXiv or NASA ADS, while many law journals are available only through costly subscription services. Thus, a political candidate's biography might become bloated with specific details related to a particular, recent election. Long passages in an athlete's or an actor's biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy. With celebrities, an article about a rock music singer or actor who became famous decades ago for achievements on stage may focus almost exclusively on recent news reports of alleged scandals, infidelity, or recreational drug use—none of which are the Notability justification behind the creation of their article in the first place. For example, Wikipedia's article on English disk jockey and television presenter Jimmy Savile changed rapidly and substantially during October 2012, with over 700 edits to the article in that month alone compared to 85 for the rest of the year to that point. Eventually, a breakout article, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal was required. Any disagreement over whether to remove an article might also be related to Wikipedia's ongoing inclusionism-versus-deletionism debate. (Deletionists tend to view Wikipedia as a traditional, rigorous encyclopedia. Inclusionists tend to see it as a compendium of all knowledge, with broader remit.) Many editors identify as mergists, separatists, or some other more nuanced position, and they may have their own thoughts on dealing with recent material. === Recentism as a negative === Recentism in one sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is considered a Wikipedia fault. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Yes, unneeded content can be eliminated later, but a cluttered ""first draft"" of an article may degrade its eventual quality and a coherent orientation may not always be attained. The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—can result in a slap-dash approach to the subject and a rambling, disorganized look to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and not every topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article. === Recentism as a positive === But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be—and are—improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated. One example is the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, which was developed day by day as the trial and appeals process advanced. Eventually, when the process ended, later editors could place everything in perspective—while also retaining the chronological coverage as an exhaustive historical record. (As of March 2016 this article is still marked as ""Cleanup Needed"", showing that the editing procedure is never really ended.) Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the twenty-first century. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: ""If we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."" One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation and sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. Finally, Wikipedia articles are often developed via on-line references, which may be temporary in nature. But by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later - and, with the original online sources linked from Wikipedia, they are much more likely to be picked up and archived by the Wayback Machine or other similar web archives before they disappear. Search engines drive a large amount of traffic to Wikipedia's articles about what were at the moment recent events—for example, the death of Ronald Reagan, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the death of Pope John Paul II and election of a successor, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States, and newsy articles like those from other English-speaking countries. What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serves the purpose of drawing in new readers—and among them, potential new Wikipedians. Example: Wikipedia received positive coverage on the American National Public Radio program On the Media about its quick response to the London bombings of July 2005. The related articles that are written during a ""recentist news frenzy"" provide an in-depth look for interested readers. For example, the Terri Schiavo piece and its companion articles at Category:Terri Schiavo case provide a case-study outlook into how the state and federal governments in the United States interact constitutionally, some insight into motivations for politicians to intervene in court cases, and nuances of end-of-life issues. Consider the ten or twenty-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful: Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? For example, in 2020, devoting more space to the 2020 United States presidential election article than to the 2000 United States presidential election article might seem logical. Nevertheless, in ten or twenty years' time, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles. Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the ""Presumed"" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in ten or twenty years. After ""recentist"" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. Much of the timeline and the day-to-day updates collected in the ""rough draft"" stages can safely be excised. A number of the citations to breaking news reports written at the time of the event (especially those later found to be inaccurate) could be replaced by those to more scholarly, historical, or retrospective references created later on. Any detailed subarticle relating to the event may also be either merged back into the main article, or deleted (this includes any article about a subject only notable for that one event). Use Wikinews. Unlike Wikipedia, the Wikinews project was founded to provide in-depth ""news article""-like coverage of current events. Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. === The Recentism tag === Some editors employ the Recentism tag {{Recentism}} at the top of articles to warn the reader that the content may be tilted toward recent perspectives. (Tagging is a subject of debate: Some think tags on articles make them ugly or caution readers that a tagged article is defective.) The tag looks like this: {{Recentism}} and results in this: Of course this tag, like many others, should be employed only if editors cannot immediately rectify the problems themselves. You can find a list of articles that have been tagged by going to Category:Articles slanted towards recent events. Choose any article and examine it to see why an editor has tagged it; you may have to check the article history or the Discussion page to find out. If the tag is dated, look at the history of that month and the month preceding it. Improve the article by deleting the recentism or adding information that brings the piece into chronological balance (this may take a while because you have to find reputable sources). You might have to add an ""Expert Needed"" tag and move on. (For information, see Wikipedia:TC#Expert_needed.) Sometimes you won't agree with the assessment, and you can simply remove the Recentism tag. === Policies === === Guidelines === === Essays === Wikipedia:Build content to endure – essay discussing how to prevent content from degrading over time Wikipedia:Proseline – the nephew of recentism, proseline is the tendency to choppy writing, often containing dates, that ends up looking like a timeline Wikipedia:Systemic bias Wikipedia:Too soon === Articles === Exceptionalism The Four Eras Of Wikipedia And Visualizing History Without Maps (includes graphs of years by number of references in Wikipedia) NPR audio/text - Coverage Rapid, And Often Wrong, In Tragedy's Early Hours" 132 133 274 WP:SYSTEMIC Wikipedia:Systemic bias 132 "Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspectives and sources within those articles. However, the encyclopedia fails in this goal because of systemic bias created by the editing community's narrow social and cultural demographic. Bias can be either implicit when articles or information are missing from the encyclopedia, or explicit when an article's content or sources are biased. This essay addresses issues of systemic bias specific to the English Wikipedia. As a result of systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the Global South, people who lack adequate access to the internet or a serviceable computer, and people who do not have free time to edit the encyclopedia. Topics for which reliable sources are not recently published, easily available online, and in English are systematically underrepresented, and Wikipedia tends to show a White Anglo-American perspective on issues due to the preponderance of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. The perspectives of women are also underrepresented. While there are some external factors that contribute to systemic bias (such as availability of sources and disproportionate global media coverage of events in predominately white Anglophone countries), there is also a vast body of critical and decolonial scholarship that offers broader perspectives than those that are presently available on Wikipedia. These peer-reviewed studies provide reliable sources that are relatively easy to incorporate into the encyclopedia and have enormous potential for countering systemic bias. Wikipedia's systemic bias portrays the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the ""average Wikipedian"". The common characteristics of average Wikipedians inevitably color the content of Wikipedia. The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is === Women are underrepresented === Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up only 8.5–15% of active contributors in 2011. A peer-reviewed study published in 2013 estimated 16.1% of editors were women.The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors. Research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length.Women typically perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men do. Wikipedia has articles that would appear to reflect male interests, such as Pinup girl (since 2003) and Hot rod (since 2004). Although there are articles on Women in engineering (since 2007), History of ballet (since 2009), Women in law (since 2015), Women in classical music (since 2016) and Pregnancy in art (since 2017), there is a shortage of many other topics related to women. === Those without Internet are underrepresented === Internet access is required to contribute to Wikipedia, so people who have less access to the internet, including people in developing nations, the poor, the disabled, and the elderly, are underrepresented on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia foundation estimates that ""80% of our page views are from the Global North, and 83% of our edits."" Groups who lack access to information technology, schooling, and education include African Americans and Latinos in the U.S., Indigenous peoples in Canada, Aboriginal Australians, and poorer populations of India, among others. Wikipedians are likely to be more technically inclined than the average internet user because of the technical barrier presented by the software interface and the Wiki markup language that discourage many potential editors. The VisualEditor offered by the Wikimedia Foundation for many of its projects (including the English Wikipedia), is buggy and increases load times. === Mobile device users are underrepresented === While most Internet traffic is generated by smartphones, the majority of Wikipedia edits are done on desktop and laptop computers. MediaWiki's functionality and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were primarily designed for editors using desktop web browsers. Editors who access the Internet through a mobile device may encounter difficulties with editing on Wikipedia using the mobile website and apps. For example, editors using the Wikipedia apps are currently not notified when they are mentioned or when they receive a new message on their user talk page, which hinders their ability to communicate with other editors. Also, it is significantly more burdensome for mobile device users to participate in talk page discussions as the editing interface is less accessible on mobile devices. === English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate === Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries (particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia). Anglophone countries are mostly in the global North, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. Countries and regions where either English is an official language (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other former colonies of the British Empire) and other countries where English-language schooling is common (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, and some other European countries) participate more than countries without broad teaching of English. Hence, the latter remain underrepresented. The majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which contributes toward a selection bias to a Northern Hemisphere perspective. This selection bias interacts with the other causes of systemic bias discussed above, which slants the selection to a pro-Northern Hemisphere perspective. Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship. The most common method of circumventing such censorship, editing through an open proxy, may not work as Wikipedia may block the proxy in an effort to prevent it from being abused by certain users, such as vandals. === An American or European perspective may exist === Maps of geotagged Wikipedia articles and geolocated images on Wikimedia Commons show notable gaps in comparison to the density of items in the GeoNames database. Most English-speaking (native or non-native) contributors to Wikipedia are American or European, which can lead to an American or European perspective. In addition, Anglophone contributors from outside of the United States and countries in Europe are likely to be more familiar with those countries than other parts of the world. This leads to, for example, a 2015 version of ""Demonym"" (an article that ostensibly is on all demonyms for all peoples across the globe) listing six different demonyms in the article lede, with five of them being western or central European nationalities, and the other being Canadian. Another example is that a 2015 version of the article ""Harbor"" listed three examples in the article lede all from California. Because reliable sources are required by Wikipedia policy, topics are limited in their contents by the sources available to editors. This is a particularly acute problem for biographies of living persons. The extent to which Wikipedia editors can correct for external factors is a matter of debate — should Wikipedia reflect the world as it presents itself, or as Wikipedians would hope the world could be? === Availability of sources may cause bias === Availability of sources is not uniform. This manifests both from the language a source is written in and the ease with which it can be accessed. Sources published in a medium that is both widely available and familiar to editors, such as a news website, are more likely to be used than those from esoteric or foreign-language publications regardless of their reliability. For example, a 2007 story on the BBC News website is more likely to be cited than a 1967 edition of the Thai Post or Večernje novosti. Similarly, the cost of access to a source can be a barrier; for example, most research in astronomy is freely available to the public via arXiv or NASA ADS, while many law journals are available only through costly subscription services. Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. Publication bias and full-text-on-the-net bias also make it more likely that editors will find reliable coverage for topics with easily available sources than articles dependent on off-line or difficult to find sources. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to go through the deletion process of Wikipedia. === Representation in sources may cause bias === Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage. A 2015 survey of material from 2000 U.S. newspapers and online news found that: Between 1983 and 2008 in 13 major U.S. newspapers, 40% of mentions went to 1% of names, and the people that received the most mentions were almost all male. Male names in those 13 newspapers were mentioned four times as often as female names. When the dataset was expanded to 2000 sources, the ratio went to nearly 5:1. The authors proposed that ""the persistent social realities of acute gender inequalities at the top in politics, the business world, and sports translate into highly imbalanced gender coverage patterns"".The Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) follows trends in newspaper, radio, television, internet news and news media tweets and, as of 2015, finds that women make up 24% of persons that are heard, seen, or read about. GMMP also noted imbalance in the subject matter of topics reported in the news overall: 27% social/legal, 24% government/politics, 14% economy, 13% crime/violence, 11% celebrity/arts/sports, and 8% science/health (and 2% other). Ethnocentric articles present a national situation as if it were global. In-depth coverage of national situations belongs in a national article. Wikipedia editors belong to a social class that has internet access and enough leisure time to edit Wikipedia articles, so issues of interest to other social classes aren't well covered. Perspective bias is internal to articles that are universal in aspect. It is not at all apparent from lunch (see tiffin) or the linguistic term continuous aspect that these concepts exist outside of the industrialized world. Popular culture topics, especially television and video games, are often covered as if only the US, the UK, and Japan exist (depending on the origin of the Wikipedian). The historical perspective of the Allies of World War II, particularly the US and the United Kingdom, prevails. As of March 22, 2012, 11 featured pictures on World War I were of Allied origin and none from the Central Powers. Articles containing a ""Religious views"" section frequently include Christianity, Islam, and Judaism while neglecting the views of other religions. Ideally, an article describing religious views on a topic should incorporate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist views, at a minimum, though the exact choice of religious opinions will depend upon the topic's scope (e.g., a Chinese topic might not necessitate a Christian view, but it might necessitate a Taoist view). Views of more prominent religions should be given more space in accordance with the policy on neutral point of view. One should be especially careful to not give more weight to Christian views on a non-Christian topic than to the views of religions more associated with that topic. For instance, as of 13 April 2022, the ""Influence"" section of the article on the Zohar, a foundational work in Jewish mysticism, devotes four times as much space to the document's influence on Christianity as it does to its influence on Judaism. Wikipedia content is skewed by widespread editing by persons with conflicts of interest, including corporations who pay staffers and consultants to create articles about themselves. This skews Wikipedia content toward POVs belonging to persons and corporations who pay for marketing. Articles where the article name can mean several different things tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian. Eurocentricism is particularly visibile in coverage of recent events. Such events are edited out of proportion with their significance. Jennifer Wilbanks, an American woman who attracted media attention when she was presumed kidnapped but actually ran away to avoid marrying her fiancé, has a significantly longer article than Bernard Makuza, who was Prime Minister of Rwanda from 2000 to 2011. Additionally, the ""In the news"" section on Wikipedia's front page features a disproportionate amount of news from English-speaking nations. Recentism is a bias toward coverage of recent events. It is caused by the difficulty of finding journals, magazines, and news sources from the pre-internet era. Some astronomy articles discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without adequate coverage of the view from the Southern Hemisphere. Sometimes ""not visible from the Northern Hemisphere"" is used as a synonym of ""not visible at all"". Some obscure constellations in the Northern sky are covered in more depth than more prominent Southern constellations. Articles often use Northern Hemisphere temperate zone seasons to describe time periods that are longer than a month and shorter than a year. Such usage can be confusing and misleading for people who live in the Southern Hemisphere and for people in tropical areas that do not experience temperate-zone seasons. Due to severe restrictions on the use of images that are not free content, certain groups of articles are more likely to be illustrated than others. For example, articles on American politicians often have images while articles on Nepalese politicians usually do not.There is further information on biases in Geography, in Politics, in History, and in Logic. See also Countering systemic bias: Project details for an older introduction. Systemic bias violates neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, so it should be fixed. Read about other people's perspectives, work to understand your own biases, and try to represent Wikipedia's NPOV policy in your editing. Invite others to edit, and be respectful of others' views. Avoid topics where you expect that you are biased or where you don't wish to make the effort to overcome those biases. Read newspapers, magazines, reliable websites, and other versions of Wikipedia in languages other than English. If you know only English, read articles from other countries where English is a primary language, like Australia, Canada, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, or Nigeria. Also, some countries where English is not an official language do have important English-language press (such as Brazil, Egypt, or Israel). Where such English-language press is not available, automated translation, though still very imperfect, can enable you access articles in many languages, and may be a reasonably adequate substitute. Consider learning another language. There is a vast body of critical and decolonial scholarship that offers much broader perspectives than those that are presently available on Wikipedia. These peer-reviewed studies provide reliable sources that are relatively easy to incorporate into the encyclopedia and have enormous potential for countering systemic bias.Use judicious placement of the {{Globalize}}, {{Globalize section}}, and {{Globalize-inline}} templates in Wikipedia articles which you believe exhibit systemic bias, along with adding your reasoning and possible mitigations to the corresponding talk pages. Academic studies about Wikipedia § A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content WP:Tendentious editing § Characteristics of problem editors Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance List of countries by number of Internet users Bias blind spot FUTON bias WEIRD bias Gender bias on Wikipedia Racial bias on Wikipedia Halo effect {{Systemic bias}} template {{Globalize}} template WP:Bias and prejudice, a principle from the Arbitration committee Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities - most Wikipedians find this topic overwhelming and confusing; we're here to help False consensus effect Single white males: Systemic bias in Wikipedia’s obsessions Wikipediocracy blog entry on systemic bias Under Reported Stories by Thomson Reuters Foundation Under-Told Stories" 133 134 278 WP:COATHOOK Wikipedia:Coatrack articles 133 "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. The nominal subject is functioning as an overloaded coat-rack, obscured by too many ""coats"" – additional topics that were grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. A similar effect can result when an article's original author writes too much about the background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a ""hook"" in a given article is not a good reason to ""hang"" irrelevant, undue or biased material there. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. However, this does not include largely critical articles about subjects that actually are discredited; see the tips laid out at WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories) for more information. Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that ""coatrack"" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, or they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one or more aspects of the subject. In either case, the article should be corrected. Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed. Below are simplified sketches of some common types of coatracks in articles. (Of course, Wikipedia policies disallow texts like ""a terrible general"", but a ""politically correct"" way to say so would make examples much longer, up to the TL;DR threat.) === Compilations of Something Very Bad === An article about some phenomenon might include multiple subsections, each of which is supposedly an example of the page subject. If there is good sourcing that unifies all of these examples under one general topic, then that can be appropriate. And if the examples include both good and bad, or favorable critiques as well as negative criticism, that can be neutral and encyclopedic. But if editors have just strung together a lot of things that might seem related, but are not linked together by sources, and present these individual page sections as Bad ThingsTM, then that's a coatrack. It's undesirable because it's unsourced overall, even if each subsection has its own sourcing, and because it implies that the original subject (the ""rack"") is itself something that is very bad. Sometimes, when there is already a well-balanced page about a subject, someone who wants to push a more biased view of that subject will create a separate coatrack article on which to hang all the ""bad"" things, and only the ""bad"" things, about that topic, a sort of walled garden for criticism of the subject. The same problem arises when the rack is loaded up with coats that present only a favorable view of the subject. === All About George === In an article about XYZ (a location in America) George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, and… (many following paragraphs all about George with little if anything to do with XYZ). While the article talks about XYZ and its relation to George Washington, it does so very briefly and quickly moves on to applying biased negative opinions (""a terrible general, a lousy President"") and facts (perhaps George Washington did own slaves at the time: nonetheless, the presentation of that fact is likely to cause a strong emotional reaction in the reader) and statements that are spurious, uncited, and unsourced (did he lie about chopping down a cherry tree? If so, can this be sourced?). The rest of the paragraphs have little to do with XYZ – the main Article – itself and continue to ""hang"" other negative unsourced ""coats"" on this coatrack, leading to a biased, slanted article. Since the example here is linked to a person of high notability, the statements most likely will be called into question and/or deleted on the spot without discussion. It's better to just say ""George Washington ate at XYZ on a date"", and link to a George-specific page. ""General George Washington slept here during the XYZ campaign"" is also reasonable, if being a military general on the campaign was part of the reason he slept here. So is ""Future President George Washington visited"", because it briefly explains why someone might care that George Washington did so. Remember that, according to transparency of piped links, we should add context, and not take it for granted that the reader knows who is Washington or will follow the link. The context, however, should be limited to what's needed for the current article. In this example, ""President George Washington"" or ""General George Washington"" (as opposed to just ""George Washington"") would be enough, as it clarifies why he would be considered a notable visitor. Try to keep a balance: provide context about other topics that may be relevant to the topic of the article, but don't lose focus of the current article and don't provide more context than what would be really needed. === A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing === Amanda Portemanteau is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows... followed by paragraph after paragraph about the conspiracy theory. In this example, the topic seems to be a journalist named Amanda Portemanteau. She also appears to have written Conspiracy Theory X. Suppose that the conspiracy theory was about why chickens cross the road. Does this help explain Amanda Portemanteau as a whole? Not really; this section simply rambles on about the conspiracy theory without linking back to her again. This section only mentioned her once and never again linked it back to that conspiracy theory. We don't clearly know for sure whether it's about the journalist or her conspiracy theory. However, it may be the case that a person may be notable for propagating an outrageous conspiracy. If there is such a significant connection between the object (the conspiracy theory) and the subject (the author of the conspiracy theory), the conspiracy theory should be explained in the article in a way that connects the object and the subject together. The point of this example is that any further added content must be link back to the original subject; in this fictional example, relevant content was added about the subject Amanda Portemanteau but there is no text describing this. === Some Famous Dude Did It so It Must Be Good === Jim W. Hales is a notable athlete/musician/actor. On Day XX/XX/XXXX (Day/Month/Year) he converted from religion X to religion Y. Isn't it nice how he saved his soul that way? Here are some more fun facts about religion Y, the greatest religion in the world: (endless paragraphs, and bullet lists describing the positive side of Religion Y) This is ""All About George"" but in reverse, instead of having an Ultra-Negative bias (negative, unsourced comments, facts presented in a non-neutral fashion/light), this Coatrack has an Ultra-Positive bias (expounding on and singing the praises and all the positives about Religion Y, never mind the negatives) totally goes off the deep-end and leaves the rest of Mr. Jim W. Hales's Personal Life in the dust. === The Mono-Topic Fringe Biography === Dr. Fronkensteen is a doctor known for his extensive research pioneering wongo juice as a cancer cure … Article then glosses over normal biographical details, except when useful as appeal to authority, and instead focuses on material relating to wongo juice. === The Criticism Gambit === Criticism section used to connect otherwise unrelated issues. === The Attack Article === Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic. For example: John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth). ==== The Yo Mama Article ==== An especially nasty type of article also violates multiple taboos and Wikipedia rules, like a poorly written Yo Mama joke: Marion Crane is the mother of Thomas Washington, an American politician of the Independent party, who had him when she was 16 years old and was an unwed teen mother. Crane raised him as a single mother, and ... (here are personal details and attacks about the poor, otherwise non-notable woman .... ). === The Flea === The wolf, or Canis lupus is a mammal with fur. In this fur, there are many fleas. The flea is an insect of the order Siphonaptera which is wingless insect with mouthparts adapted for piercing skin and sucking blood. Fleas are external parasites, living by hematophagy off the blood of mammals (including wolves and humans) and birds... (ad nauseam about all the different kinds of fleas there are in the world) This sort of case begins with facts about the main topic (perhaps a type of flea which is specific to wolves), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (""Wolf"") in an attempt to hide the coatracking. If the excess content is accurate and well-sourced, it may be appropriate to move it to a more relevant article (in this example, maybe ""Flea""). The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor ought to ask: what impression does a reader unfamiliar with the topic get from this article? If an article about a famous journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and possibly that he is a vocal advocate of the theory (which can cause major problems if the journalist is alive). The coverage of the journalist in Wikipedia needs to reflect the coverage of the journalist in reliable sources.An article might have a disproportionately large ""criticism"" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality, even though the details may be true.If an article is mainly on a criticism of a person or a topic, critical sources must keep focus on the scope of the article. This type of coatrack can occur when an editor tries to discredit a person or a controversial topic rather than keeping focus on the aim and scope of the article (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). For example, in Criticism of religion and Criticism of atheism, unacceptable material would include sources which focus too much on individuals. In articles which focus on criticism of an individual, such as Criticism of Muhammad, unacceptable material would include sources which extend too much beyond the individual, such as sources which focus on criticism of Islam in general. The same principle applies to sections within an article; critical sources must keep focus on the scope of the section and must not deviate from the subject at hand (for more information, see WP:CSECTION).For example: in Source 1, Alice says something related to Topic A. In Source 2, Bob says that Alice is a bad person. Source 2 should not be used to criticize Alice in an article on Topic A.In short, if something distracts too much from the focus, scope, and aim of the Wikipedia article, it is probably a coatrack. Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As such, fact picking is a breach of neutral point of view by a failure to assign due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A common fact picking device is listing great numbers of individual people's quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. Responding to a coatrack article depends on the nature of the article. If the article discusses some second subject more than the subject in the title, and it's otherwise a good article, often the easiest solution is to simply rename the page so that its title matches its content. Then, re-format the article as required. As an example, the article once titled legal death did not discuss the law at all, and instead discussed how doctors declare a person as dead. In this case, the article was renamed to Medical definition of death. If the coatracked content consists of bias and opinion, the best response is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and if there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. Editors are not required to fill out the article so that more time is spent on non-biased matters in order to keep biased content. Instead, editors may fix an article by balancing it out with more facts but are in no way required to do so. It is inappropriate to ""even out the percentage of bias"" by adding fluff, such as minute details of a subject's life. These are considered scarves, hats, and gloves, and along with the coats, obscure the coatrack, and are also good candidates for removal. An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip. In some cases where an event in a person's life is the only notable thing about them, it may make sense to only have an article on the event and not have an article on the person at all. An article that presents factual information (including criticism) about a discredited scientific theory is also not a coatrack; relevant guidelines are at WP:FRINGE. An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition. In this case, the article should be properly framed by beginning with ""{In the field of X} topic Y is…"" or by using a specific title possibly using parenthetical disambiguation, to show the article's limited scope. When the article is properly framed this way, it is not necessary to expand the article to cover every possible usage for balance – that content can be added over time and either merged or split through normal editing. It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain that the term arose from the biblical character Adam; a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary. Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack. The use of coatracks, though not the term, dates to the influential 18th century French encyclopedia Encyclopedie, where they were used to hide biographies. The editors of the Encyclopedie were ideologically opposed to biographies, thinking too much ink had been spilled on hagiographies of ""Great Men"" (kings, church fathers) instead of the common person, and largely banned biographies; dissenting contributors would then hide biographies in other articles – for example, a biography of Isaac Newton was hidden in the entry on Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, his birthplace. Conversely, encyclopedias which were centered around biographies of prominent figures would embed social histories in their biographies; e.g. the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica presents all information on the post-Roman ""Migrations Period"" of European History under the biography of Attila the Hun. Wikipedia:Be neutral in form Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability Wikipedia:Fringe theories Wikipedia:Stay on topic Wikipedia:No trojan horses Wikipedia:Cherrypicking === Templates === {{Coat rack}} {{Off-topic}} === References ===" 134 135 279 WP:SIZE Wikipedia:Article size 134 "This page contains an overview of the key issues concerning article size. There are three related measures of an article's size: Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections Wiki markup size: the amount of text in the full page edit window, as shown in the character count of the edit history page Browser page size: the total size of the page as loaded by a web browserThe article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. Maintenance, such as articles becoming time-consuming to maintain when they are very long Technical issues, such as limitations of mobile browsers.When an article is too large, consider breaking it into smaller articles, spinning part of it out into a new article, or merging part of it into another existing article. When an article is too small, it may be merged with one or more other existing articles. Such editorial decisions require consensus. Guidelines on the size of articles, and detailed solutions, are provided below. The licensing policy mandates that whenever any content is copied from one article to another new or existing article, an edit summary containing the required copy attribution must be used. Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing. Other editors will add to articles when you are done with them. Wikipedia has practically unlimited storage space; however, long articles may be more difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend. An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway. Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation. A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion. === Readable prose === Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections (""see also"", ""external links"", bibliography, etc.), diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up. XTools shows prose information, including number of characters (under ""Prose"" in the ""General statistics"" section). It may be used for an article currently being looked at by selecting the View History tab for the page, then Page Statistics from the line near the top headed External Tools. The prosesize gadget is also helpful for estimating readable prose size. === Lists, tables and summaries === Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no ""natural"" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy. Wikipedia articles are in constant need of maintenance. This ranges from minor edits correcting spelling and grammar, to major updates reflecting new events and new source material. Some articles may require being rewritten after some time, especially articles created about recent events. It is generally good practice to ensure that articles do not become too long to maintain, especially articles in need of frequent updating. Maintenance can become more difficult when the amount of text on a topic grows. Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. The text on a 32 kB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are difficult for older browsers to display. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles. Mobile browsers can be a problem if these devices have little memory and/or a slow CPU; long pages can take too much time to process, if they can be fully loaded at all. When using slow connections, e.g., a desktop computer with an analog modem dial-up or the wireless connection of some mobile devices, long articles can take too much time to load. For notes on unrelated problems that various web browsers have with MediaWiki sites, and for a list of alternative browsers you can download, see Wikipedia:Browser notes. The maximum limit for Wikipedia is via the MediaWiki software's wgMaxArticleSize to 2 MiB (specifically, 2048 kibibytes or 2,097,152 bytes). Exceeding the post-expand limit will result in templates in the article appearing incorrectly. Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. Also consider splitting and transcluding the split parts (for example with Template:Excerpt). When splitting a section into a new article, you should refer to the steps in WP:PROPERSPLIT, including an edit summary in the new article attributing the origin of the content to the existing article. === No need for haste === There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high-profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. If the discussion makes no progress consider adding one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors. === Breaking out trivial or controversial sections === A relatively trivial topic may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself. In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. It also violates the neutral point of view policy to create a new article specifically to contain information that consensus has rejected from the main article. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article, and be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view. === Breaking out an unwanted section === If a section of an article is a magnet for unhelpful contributions (such as the ""external links"" section or trivia sections), be aware that while moving it to another article may help to clean up the main article, it creates a new article that consists entirely of a section for unwanted contributions. If an article includes large amounts of material not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it is better to remove that content than to create a new article for it. === Size guideline === Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). Word counts can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize. The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. Readable prose tools do not count words or characters in image captions, lists or tables. When considering to split list articles, consider the impact of breaking up a sortable table. Removing appropriate content, especially summary style, and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talkpage; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons. Markup or markup language is the code used to organise a document and make it readable. Wiki markup is the codes used on Wikipedia. Markup size includes readable prose, the wiki codes, and any media used in the article, such as images or audio clips. Markup size will always be greater than or equal to the readable prose size on which the above size guideline is based. You can find the size of the markup of a page in bytes from its page history (near the bottom). Also the search box entry: intitle:Article title will show both number of words in the article and the size of the article in kilobytes. In most cases these are not reliable indications on their own of whether an article should be split. The largest articles by markup size are listed at Special:Longpages. Note that the ability to edit a section rather than the entire page decreases wait time, removing some of the many, oversized-page problems for editors; however, readers with slow connections will still have to wait for the entire page to load. If you have encountered an article that is so long you can't edit it, or if your browser chops off the end of the article when you try to edit it, there are a few ways you can solve the problem. The best improvement is to simply upgrade to a more modern web browser, if possible. There are also many other benefits to upgrading to their latest version, such as better security, better displaying of content written to more modern HTML, and bug fixes. Many articles on Wikipedia may be longer than 32 kB on a permanent basis, so older browsers will continue to have occasional problems with long articles. Often you can edit the article one section at a time by using the ""Edit"" links you see next to each header in the article. This should work as long as none of the sections are longer than 32 kB, which they really shouldn't be. You can edit text before the first section by editing the first section, then changing the §ion=1 part of the URL to §ion=0. (See T2156 and two JavaScript workarounds: 1, 2.) You can insert a new section either by using the ""New section"" link (if there is one) in the ""Views"" section, or by editing an existing section and explicitly adding a second header line within it. See also Section editing and Editing before the first section. If you find a section too long to edit correctly and safely, or have a problem otherwise relevant, you can post a request for assistance on the help desk. Follow the ""New section"" link, which will allow you to post a new comment without editing any existing text. Special:LongPages Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy Wikipedia:Article series Wikipedia:Content removal Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length Wikipedia:Out of scope Wikipedia:Template limits Wikipedia:Too much detail Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Stay on topic" 135 136 283 WP:IPSOFACTO Wikipedia:Ipso facto 135 Most notability guidelines have a subjective aspect. The general notability guidelines call for significant independent coverage by reliable sources, and many other notability guidelines follow the general notability guidelines. Many Articles for Deletion discussions turn on opinions as to what constitutes significant coverage. However, some notability guidelines provide what is known as a “bright-line” or an ipso facto criterion for notability, stating that a person is notable if they have had a particular achievement, honor, status, or position. In such cases, significant coverage is not necessary. It is either assumed that there has been significant coverage (whether or not it has been found) or assumed that there should have been significant coverage. Some examples of ipso facto notability standards are: The political notability guideline give ipso facto notability to members of national and subnational legislatures. It does not apply to members of lower-ranking legislatures, such as city councils, or to candidates for subnational legislatures, who must meet general notability. The sports notability guidelines consist largely of ipso facto notability for persons who have played at the highest professional level in a sport, who have competed in any modern Olympic games, or who have achieved any of various other specified distinctions. Other sportspeople who have not played at the highest professional level, competed in the Olympics, etc., are only notable if they satisfy general notability. The academic notability guidelines include criterion 3, academics who have been elected as fellows of academies and societies, and criterion 5, named chairs. Other criteria are subjective.However, the qualifying statement about the subject of an article must be verified by a reliable source. The statement must be sourced to a reliable source. The source should be assumed to be reliable, such as a local or regional newspaper, unless there is reason to think that the source is unreliable. Articles for Creation reviewers, New Page Patrol reviewers, Articles for Deletion participants, and other editors who are assessing notability should in particular be aware of ipso facto notability. Articles for Creation reviewers should Accept a draft that contains a verified statement satisfying an ipso facto notability test. They should Decline a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of notability. They should not Reject a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of ipso facto notability, because the author should be able to resubmit it with proper sourcing. New Page reviewers should not tag a page as A7 if it makes an unverified statement of ipso facto notability. It may be tagged as needing verification. However, the unverified statement of notability is a credible claim of significance. Articles that have been nominated for deletion should be Kept if there is a verified statement of ipso facto notability. If in doubt, reviewers and AFD participants should re-read the notability guideline and research the details. Not everyone knows that members of the assemblies in Tasmania and Bihar are notable, but Wikipedia provides that information. It is important to assume good faith by an editor who asserts ipso facto notability, and check out whether that argument is substantiated by a guideline. It is conversely important for an editor who is asserting ipso facto notability to assume good faith by other editors, who may not understand that a bright-line case is being made. Claims of notability, where the claims are based on sources meeting the WP:GNG, should be refused if these sources are all classified as deprecated or blacklisted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources WP:DEFACTO – Inherently notable topics are likely to survive AfDs. 136 137 285 WP:WEATHER Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather 136 There are many types of weather that have caused untold number of deaths and damage throughout human history. Weather events have shaped culture and civilizations, with many events lost to history. It is the goal of Wikipedians to document these weather types, events, researchers, and trends. Since the 1960s, weather satellites have helped people around the world see the weather in real time. Computer models are getting better year after year in anticipating these disasters. Since 2001, Wikipedians have been writing about these weather events past and current. This page and its subpages contain their activities, assessments, suggestions, and web links related to these weather articles. It is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices. WikiProject Weather The scope of WikiProject Weather is to have a single location for all weather-related articles on Wikipedia. This includes meteorology, which is the study of weather, describing the mechanics of weather phenomena such as wind or humidity. Meteorology includes atmospheric and oceanic phenomena, weather observation stations and networks, weather instrumentation and equipment, biographical articles on notable meteorologists, weather research projects, weather prediction and modeling, and phenomena related to every-day weather. The project includes every weather type, such as blizzards, cold front, droughts, European windstorms, extratropical cyclones, nor'easters, rain, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, and wildfires. Historical events involving or caused by these phenomena are included. Wherever possible, there should be lists of every recorded instance of the weather type in a given area. For example, Floods in Australia, Tornadoes in Bermuda, Typhoons in the Korean Peninsula, and Snow in Florida. Member userboxesBarnstar{{The Weather Barnstar}} === Current members === Please sign your name(s) at the bottom of this list if you want to join our WikiProject, but before doing so you have to have a registered Wikipedia account first. === Member languages === In order to better help others with conducting research, the languages each contributor speaks/writes should be listed below. Additionally, list any that you are familiar with for finding sources. Hurricane Noah Also familiar with sources in: Spanish Portuguese Greek Italian MalagasyDestroyeraa Also familiar with sources in: PortugueseCodingCyclone Also familiar with sources in: None (currently)CycloneFootball71 Also familiar with sources in: English FrenchHurricaneCovid Also familiar with sources in: SpanishAC5230 Familiar with sources in English, but doesn't edit often so no need yet for French Elijahandskip Also familiar with sources in: Spanish (semi-fluent with 5 years of Spanish in school.)Beraniladri19 Also familiar with sources in: None (currently)Chlod Familiar with Philippine-based sources, both in English and Filipino. KharmaDei Also familiar with sources in: None === Backlogs Reviewer === Please contact Hurricane Noah, self-appointed WPWX Backlogs Reviewer, for inquiries related to the following: Articles needing expert attention Articles needing infoboxes Articles with incomplete infoboxes Articles with incomplete b-class checklists Unassessed articles Unknown-importance articles Unsorted articles Articles needing a track map Articles with unknown units Articles needing copyediting ==== Backlog Levels: '23 ==== Create a list of every weather type by area Create yearly lists for every weather typeTropical cyclones - Tropical cyclones by year before 1992 Tornadoes - List of tornado events by year before 1950 Blizzards/winter stormsEuropean windstorm seasons before 2015–16 North American winters before 2009-10Clean up Global storm activity of 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006 Update Portal:Weather Create an article request page for all weather types Create a repository of website links for all weather types and every area Expand (Weather event stubs) and (Weather event drafts) Update the follow as needed: 2021–22 North American winter, 2021–22 European windstorm season, Tornadoes of 2021, Tropical cyclones in 2021 (South Pacific, Australia region, South-west Indian Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Pacific typhoon), Wildfires in 2021. Expand the vital article list, which is currently only tropical cyclonesCurrent weather unique drafts/articles: Early January winter storm 2021–2022 Malaysian floods === Weather of 2022 === Expand weather records and summary of the year's weather activity. Update as new weather events pass the Weather by Year criteria. === Weather of 2021 === Expand weather records and summary of the year's weather activity. Update Wildfires in 2021 Locate start and end date for 2021 Sicily wildfires. Translate the 2021 August Japan floods to an English article. Locate start and end date of the 2021 Niger floods. Update as new weather events pass the Weather by Year criteria. === Weather of 2020 === Expand weather records and summary of the year’s weather activity. Update Wildfires in 2020. Locate end date for 2020 Delta del Paraná wildfires. Update and locate end date for 2020 Uttarakhand forest fires. Locate start and end date for 2020 Córdoba wildfires. Update as new weather events pass the Weather by Year criteria. By location By year By weather type Requested articles === Article alerts === === Assessment === Assess all talk pages in Category:Unassessed Weather articles (3) and Category:Unknown-importance Weather articles (551). Suggest a selected feature or other ideas here! === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page. 137 138 287 WP:SELF Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid 137 "This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable. A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly or tells readers to take an action on Wikipedia, such as editing the article. Although self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should usually be avoided, there are exceptions. Some examples of acceptable self-references are articles about Wikipedia, categories, and maintenance templates. === This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ... === Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policies or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided in the article namespace where it is unnecessary. If mentioning a policy is necessary to disambiguate article titles or subtopics, hatnotes can serve that purpose. These types of self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as a free content encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our licenses. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful, even outside the context of the project used to create them. This means that while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to ""Wikipedia"" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. ""this website""). And our readers already know this is an encyclopedia; it is not useful to insert content disclaimers, e.g., ""While Wikipedia is not a dictionary ..."" to an article on a jargon term. Mentioning the Wikipedia community, or website features, can confuse readers of derived works. Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, nor mention any Wikipedia project page or process, specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. ""PoV"" in place of ""biased""), or any MediaWiki interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen. References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable. For instance, in the article on the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, before the alleged victim's identification, it said that ""Due to concerns over privacy, the name of the alleged victim is not being included in this article or at this time."" That is a reference that makes sense on mirrors and forks and in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia that contains only the article space. Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section. The template {{printworthy selfref}} can be used to mark such passages as intentional self-references that are generally printworthy and mirror-worthy, but which some reusers may wish to suppress. Other examples of permissible self-references of this sort include disambiguation links (the templates for which suppress their appearance in printed copies), and ""See ..."" cross-references (which may or may not be printworthy, depending upon whether they are inter-article; see Template:Crossreference/doc). The templates that render self-referencing messages for the maintenance needs of developing articles, such as {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{refimprove}}, are unavoidable (and may permissibly include things like ""Edit this page ...""), but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as {{shortcut}} and the others. === Note that ..., It is important to ..., What is ...?, Surprisingly ..., Of course ... === Avoid ""breaking the fourth wall"" to address readers directly in an unencyclopedic tone, either instructional or opinionated. This includes the pedagogical style of posing rhetorical questions to the reader (worst of all in headings). Neutral cross-references, e.g. (See also Cymric cat.), are permissible (and best done with the {{crossreference}} template), but are often best reworded (The Cymric cat is a recent breed developed from the Manx.). === Click here to see more (think about print) === Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles should be written in a manner that facilitates transmission in other forms such as print, spoken word, and via a screen reader. So terms such as ""this article"" are preferable to ""this webpage"", and phrases like ""click here"" should be avoided. In determining what language is most suitable, it may be helpful to imagine writing the article for a print encyclopedia. === Free content projects, such as this website ... (writing about Wikipedia itself) === Articles about online communities may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on—or is a part of—Wikipedia. In this framework, if you link from an article to a specific Wikipedia page, use external link style, so the link will make sense in any context. The {{srlink}} template will do this for you. Such pages may include: Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: Uncyclopedia Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia, for example: Jimmy Wales Articles about Wikipedia Articles where Wikipedia, or an individual incident related to it, is illustrative of the subject, such as virtual community, encyclopedia and Streisand effect === This article was criticized by ... (articles are about their subjects, not this website) === Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves. This means that even if an article itself becomes famous, that article should not report this about itself. For example, a discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriately mentioned in the article on The Colbert Report, but not in the article on elephants, because elephants have nothing to do with Stephen Colbert. Protests regarding depictions of Muhammad in Wikipedia's Muhammad article are not addressed in that article (which is about the prophet Muhammad), but rather in the article Depictions of Muhammad. A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article; such a mention would have to reflect its importance in the person's overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning that he read his Wikipedia biography is not normally an important event in his overall career. On the other hand, the media attention surrounding John Seigenthaler's Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life. Self-references are sometimes found in the templates and the categories. Some of these are necessary or intrinsic to the purpose of the page, as with disambiguation information at the top of category pages and in {{stub}} templates, which encourage readers to edit the page. Unnecessary self-references are not encouraged in templates or categories, due to the need of third-party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references. For example, all {{navbox}} templates should provide a list of related articles, but none of them should label these pages as ""Wikipedia articles"" or as ""Related articles on this website"". When forced to use templates like this, you should use them in a way such that the article still makes sense when the template is removed, in order to facilitate automated removal. Wikipedia project coordination pages should be under Category:Wikipedia administration, not in categories that contain main-namespace articles by topic. (A small number of articles about Wikipedia are in the mainstream categories and this is OK.) User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not in any of the subcategories under Category:People. The self-reference template, {{selfref}}, is used to mark pieces of text and links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. This gives the ability to programmatically remove all such references or transform them into external links. Thus, the end product can have all of its self-references removed automatically for users, such as forks and mirrors. This template is most often used as a hatnote template to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page in the Wikipedia project namespace. Many hatnote templates that do contain helpful preset text and linking, such as {{for}} and {{about}}, support a |selfref= parameter that gives them the same functionality as {{Self reference}}, making them better options in most circumstances. In cases where a Wikipedia page should link to Wikipedia itself (for instance, at Wikipedia) and this link should be kept on mirrors, the format {{srlink|link}} can be used to write the link as external, rather than internal when outside of Wikipedia, to prevent it breaking in mirrors. For instance: Wikipedia's Main Page (made by {{srlink|Main Page|Wikipedia's Main Page}}) as opposed to Wikipedia's Main Page ([[Main Page|Wikipedia's Main Page]]). Help:Printing, includes a partial list of page elements that are hidden on printable versions of pages Wikipedia:Printability, an essay about the printworthiness of redirect pages Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects List of Wikipedia articles with self-references List of Wikipedia articles with circular references Wikipedia:Verifiability § Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it – Do not use articles from Wikipedia as reference sources Wikipedia:Double redirects" 138 139 288 WP:NTELEVISION Wikipedia:Notability (media) 138 "This page is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The following is a tool to help determine whether a media outlet is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this page covers all forms of ""traditional media""—including newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Notability of websites is determined by referring to the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Simply stated, a media outlet is an organization formed to make some form of communication with a wider audience. This is often in the form of news and/or entertainment and may or may not be done for a profit. A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The ""secondary sources"" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, except for the following: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the outlet; and other works where the outlet talks about itself—whether published by the company itself or re-printed by other people. Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy. Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, short listings in a national database.Note that in certain countries where radio and television stations have call signs, Wikipedia titles our articles with the call sign rather than the on-air brand name. When searching for sources to improve the article, however, you will likely have to search on both names. (More information on titling can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting).) In the case of radio and television stations, the licensing documents from the appropriate regulatory agency (the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, Ofcom in the United Kingdom, etc.) are acceptable references for some facts—they may, in fact, be the only possible source for some details, such as the station's transmitter power. However, these sources do not constitute a permanent pass of this notability standard by themselves. Radio or television stations referenced only to the licensing documents themselves are granted a temporary presumption of notability pending the addition of better sources, but are not granted a permanent exemption from ever having to cite improved sourcing—even if the licensing documents are cited in the article, it may still be deleted in the future if real media sources simply cannot be found. Other methods of presuming notability for media related topics are listed below. Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as ""advertising for the competition."" Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources. As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Nothing in this document, however, is to be understood as extending media topics an exemption from having to cite any sourcing at all. The basic claim of notability must be verifiable in at least one reliable source which is independent of the topic itself before the presumption of notability is granted. A media topic's own self-published content about itself is not sufficient sourcing to get the presumption of notability; for instance, a television series is not presumed notable under this document's standards for the notability of a television series just because it has a fan interaction page on Facebook or a listing on IMDb, and a radio or television station is not presumed notable just because it has a website. People have sometimes created fake web content for the purposes of ""verifying"" a hoax topic into Wikipedia, including fake radio and television stations, so notability remains dependent on independent verification in unaffiliated sources. The following criteria have been developed by a consensus of Wikipedians and are considered standards to use when considering the notability of media related topics. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a topic should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included. === Newspapers, magazines and journals === Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: have produced work that has received a well-known and significant journalism award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area are frequently cited by other reliable sources are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche marketsPublications that primarily carry advertising and only have trivial content may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper (if notable). === Books === === Films === === Broadcast media === Broadcast radio and television stations must meet the general notability guideline. They are likely to do so if they verifiably meet, through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market or originating some of its own programming. A brief explanation of the broadcast market may be needed in the guideline for editors to make informed decisions. ==== Broadcast (terrestrial) television stations ==== The vast majority of over-the-air television stations serve a large regional market, often covering hundreds of thousands or millions of households, and typically pass the general notability guideline. Television stations that are generally non-notable include the following: Translator or relay stations, whether on full-service or translator licenses, which are fully dedicated to rebroadcasting the output of another station or a national service without significant local content (aside from potentially commercials and news inserts) (Examples: CFCN-DT-5 in CFCN-DT, many stations in Azteca 7) Proposed stations which never broadcast, unless coverage of such passes the notability guideline for organizations and corporations. A service about to launch should not get an article until a confirmed launch date has been announced. Subchannels of individual digital television stations, which should be mentioned in the main article. If the subchannel merely carries a multicast network such as Antenna TV, mention should be minimal in the article. (Example: TVW in WISC-TV)A station which was formerly an originating station in its own right but which now exists only as a rebroadcaster of another service is treated as an originating station because of its history. (Example: KNAT-TV, XHJUB-TDT) ==== Broadcast radio stations ==== A licensed broadcast radio station must meet the general notability guideline. It is likely to do so if it fulfills both of the following: Has an established broadcasting history: the station must have been constructed, begun broadcasting, and received its permanent operating authorization from the relevant authority, not merely having been authorized for construction. Originates (or has originated) at least some of its own programming.If multiple stations in the same general region or country broadcast the same service but have no independent programming history, a general article about the service, with a table of transmitters, is advisable. (Examples: LifeTalk Radio, Wawatay Native Communications Society; List of K-Love stations, which is a standalone list due to its size) Radio stations that are generally non-notable include the following: Travelers' information stations (highway advisory radio, also found in parks and airports): these may redirect to an article about the highway or operator. Translator or relay stations, whether as full-service repeaters or translator licenses fully dedicated to rebroadcasting the output of another station or a national service without significant local content, aside from potential commercial inserts or newscasts. Proposed stations which never broadcast, unless coverage of such passes the general notability guideline. An article should generally not be created on a station until it begins broadcasting, not when a construction permit or other authorizing document is issued. Internet, carrier current and unlicensed (pirate) stations, unless coverage of such passes the general notability guideline (Examples: Ordentlig Radio, Radio Caroline) Temporary stations authorized under such schemes as a Restricted Service Licence, unless coverage of such passes the general notability guideline. (Example: Sunrise Radio (Ireland))A station which was formerly an originating station in its own right but which now exists only as a rebroadcaster of another service is treated as an originating station because of its history. In some cases, particularly outside of North America, the article may only cover the period in which it originated programming. (Examples: WRQM, WKVB (FM), BBC Dorset FM) In the United States, some translators are used to rebroadcast HD Radio subchannels of other stations which together constitute a unique program service. These may be mentioned in a section in the main station article or in a separate article, depending on the available coverage in reliable sources and their notability. (Examples: WMMS-HD2, W233BF) ==== Pay television and radio services ==== Most national and regional pay television (cable, satellite, linear streaming) services are considered notable, as they are likely to meet the general notability guideline. If a channel is a timeshift channel, e.g. ITV +1, its existence should be mentioned in the article of the parent service. If a channel originates little programming and is part of a large bouquet, it may qualify to be redirected to the article on the suite of channels (e.g. Zee Cinemalu redirects to Zee TV). National and regional public access and legislative broadcasters are generally notable, though a local governmental access channel generally is not unless it meets the notability guideline for organizations and corporations. (The primary difference from the GNG in this case is that frequent attention solely from local media is not an indication of notability.)Most individual channels on a cable or satellite radio service are generally not notable unless they meet the general notability guideline. (The service provider as a whole, such as Sirius XM, is most likely notable.) === Student media === Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet. A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves. === Programming === Generally, an individual radio program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio stations (either national or regional in scope). It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal. See also Wikipedia:Notability (television)#National and local TV series. A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule. It can, however, describe programs the station originates—as long as such information is properly sourced and in-depth—and briefly mention syndicated programs it airs. Note that podcasts fall under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Lists of a particular type of media outlet (e.g. ""List of radio stations in X"", ""List of newspapers in Y"") should exist only at the country or first-order divisional (state, province, etc.) level. Individual cities or extended media markets are permitted ""Media in (City)"" lists which have subsections for radio, television and print media in that particular city, but should not have separate lists for each individual type of media. For example, a separate ""List of radio stations in Louisville, Kentucky"" should not be created, but Media in Louisville, Kentucky, combining local radio, television and newspaper lists into a single article, is valid. The channel lineup of a national service, such as a direct broadcast satellite company which offers the same channel lineup in all areas it serves, may be valid content. However, do not create articles listing an individual cable company's channel lineup in a local market. Subcategories by geographical division may be created where appropriate (e.g. Category:Radio stations in Oregon, Category:Television stations in Ontario). Where such categories are used, create a comprehensive set for all appropriate divisions, regardless of the number of stations in any individual state or province, and then use the state/province categories instead of the country category. Such categories may also be further subdivided by city or market where numbers warrant; however, at the city level it is not mandatory to diffuse all stations out of the state/province category. That is, Category:Radio stations in Oregon may include subcategories for major radio markets, but does not require subcategories for small towns which only have one local radio station. Subcategories by genre, network or ownership group may also be created (e.g. Category:College radio stations in the United States, Category:CTV Television Network stations). However, do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories — for instance, do not create third-level subcategories for ""College radio stations in Oregon"" or ""CTV network stations in Ontario"". Media outlets that are not notable may still have some information about them included, if properly verifiable, in related articles such as their parent company or organization or in lists based on location, service or format. The list can include all verifiable information about each outlet. If/when an outlet becomes notable enough for its own article, its entry in the list should be reduced to only the most basic information, with a link to the article." 139 140 294 WP:NOTNOTBURO User:HectorMoffet/Wikipedia is NOT NOT a BUREAUCRACY 139 While Wikipedia has many elements not usually found in a bureaucracy, it is governed by a byzantine system of policies, guidelines, rules, and unwritten norms. Rules are the purpose for some parts of the community. Written rules do not themselves constitute all accepted practice, as many rules are unwritten. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should not be taken so seriously, they are often be gamed or misused. We often follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the ignore a rule would truly help you improving the encyclopedia, follow the rules. Disagreements are resolved through tightly sticking to rules and procedures, rather than by consensus-based discussion. Furthermore, consensus may be ignored to reflect new policies and guidelines. A procedural error made in a proposal or request is automatic grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution automatically grounds for reverting it, even if the error cannot easily be fixed. 140 141 296 WP:MALFORMED WP:MALFORMED 140 Wikipedia:MALFORMED may refer to: a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page a misconstructed move request; when detected, these are bot-reported at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Malformed requests, e.g. HERE an incomplete move request; see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial § Request all associated moves explicitly these are bot-reported at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Possibly incomplete requests, e.g. HERE 141 142 297 WP:XFDC Wikipedia:XFDcloser 141 "XFDcloser (source) is a gadget to close XfD discussions at multiple venues. Feedback, including bug reports and feature suggestions, can be given on the talk page. To install the gadget, visit Special:Preferences § Gadgets, scroll down to ""Maintenance and administration"", tick XFDcloser, and save the page. If you previously installed the userscript version (or one of its redirects listed here), you should uninstall it: User:Czar/closexfd.js (source) User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js (source) User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v3.js (source) User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js (source)Remove the line importScript('User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js'); // [[User:Evad37/XFDcloser]] or importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js'); from Special:MyPage/common.js (or skin-specific js such as vector.js, monobook.js, etc) Note that the gadget is not available unless you are extended confirmed. In addition to closing or relisting discussions, XFDcloser can undertake actions to implement a close: When there is more than one page nominated, multiple results (i.e. ""keep some, delete others"") can be specified, with appropriate actions applied to each page. XFDcloser adds closing/relisting links after the headings of each discussion, for the following XfD venues: AfD, CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD, TfD === Close === Click on the [close] link to bring up a dialogue box, where you can select various options, and type out a rationale. ==== Multiple results ==== To specify results individually for each page in a multiple-nomination XfD, choose the Multiple results... button. ==== QuickClose ==== Clicking on the [quickClose] link brings up two links, qk and qD. These are shortcuts that bypass the form, to quickly close the discussion as keep or delete (respectively), with no further rationale, and with default options. === Relist === Click on the [relist] link to bring up a dialogue box, where you can optionally type out a rationale. === Unlinking backlinks === For AfD and FfD discussions, there is an option to unlink backlinks (including file usage). For links within list items, it is sometimes more appropriate to remove the list item rather than unlinking it, depending on the list's selection criteria. In such cases, the script will ask whether to keep the unlinked item, keep it and request a citation (add {{citation needed}}), or remove it: === Hide/Show closed sections === An option to hide or show already closed sections, making it easer to find unclosed sections. Appears in a small yellow box in the bottom-right corner of the screen. When you change states, this will be remembered (if localStorage usage is available/allowed by your browser) === Discussion age detection === XFDcloser detects how long a discussion has been listed for, and if it has been relisted. Closers will be warned if it has been less than 7 full days since the discussion was listed, or since it was last relisted. This information is also, by default, displayed using background colours for the closing/relisting links: Green if older than 7 days Orange if less than 7 days since last relist Red if less than 7 days since initial listing Yellow if age could not be detectedThese styles can be adjusted by editing your common.css (or skin-specific) CSS page, as the script applies the following classes to heading elements: one of xfdc-old, xfdc-notOld, or xfdc-unknownAge, and xfdc-relisted if the discussion has been relisted.Here are some example code of alternative styles you can use: === Notes === Non-admin users will automatically have their closes marked with ""(non-admin closure)"". Non-admins are not offered deletion options, except for TfD's which get listed at the TfD holding cell. Entering the result ""soft delete"" will automatically add an explanation and request for undeletion link to the additional rationale box, using Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion rationale. For TfD: If the holding cell section ""Ready for deletion"" is selected, the template(s) will have {{db-xfd}} added instead of {{being deleted}}. For RfD: If the discussion is closed to any result that changes the redirect(s), all of the existing categories and categorization templates will be removed. It is advised to verify each redirect after the RfD is closed, and restore any applicable categories and categorization templates on the redirect(s). Originally published on the English Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser.js and available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html This gadget incorporates code derived from, and is a direct replacement for, these scripts also written by Evad37: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/CFDcloser.js https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/FFDcloser.js https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/TFDcloser.jsFuthermore, it incorporates code copied/derived from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-twinkleunlink.js https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.jsSee these pages' ""History"" pages for their authors. All of the these pages are also published on Wikipedia, and thus also available under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and GFDL." 142 143 301 WP:ADL Wikipedia:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format 142 This page is intended to help achieve and maintain standardized List inclusion criteria and format for the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft article. List articles on Wikipedia in general suffer from several common problems: Vague inclusion criteria: confusion about eligibility causes constant conflicts, especially with newer contributors to the list and/or inconsistent entries Inconsistent format: entries contributed by different editors are different in format and style, making the list harder to read with haphazard appearance Bloat: good lists should be restricted in length to about 25-32K, while poor ones bloat indefinitely due to lack of standards and controls – overly long lists should be broken up into smaller sub articlesThe above are general ailments that many lists suffer from. The specific list here is no exception, and its current state reflects all these generic problems. Specifically, it may be missing some fairly notable cases while including marginally notable or non-notable ones. It has differing grammar and punctuation styles for different entries: present vs. past tense, semi-colon separated single sentence vs. period separated multi sentence, etc. It is also excessively bloated, currently weighing in at 87 kilobytes, more than 3 times the recommended size for a good list article. Wikipedia is open to change by anyone at any time, but list articles specifically are extremely difficult to maintain properly, as they consist of a long list of individual items. The only way to maintain a high quality list is by agreeing on a rigid set of rules for the list and strictly enforcing them. If some editor is unhappy with the list status, s/he can either work to change the rules (with resultant retroactive changes possibly needed in the list) or start a new list with his/her own rules. But once the rules exist, even if they are not perfect or ideal by everyone's perspective, they must be enforced, or else the list degrades in quality over time. The restriction to minimize the number of entries, and minimize the words per entry, could seem to contradict the 'Wikipedia is not paper' rule, but in fact the non-paper rule deals with inclusion of articles into Wikipedia, not entries into a list. If a list has too many entries and becomes excessively long, it loses its readability, usefulness and attractiveness. Also, Wikipedia in general, and this List article specifically, only allow inclusion of notable and verifiable entries. If each individual List entry is already wiki-linked to its own existing Wikipedia article, then by definition its notability and verifiability have been (or will be) proven and maintained elsewhere. On the other hand, if an entry were not linked to an article it would shift the burden to prove and maintain its notability and verifiability to the List level, which could require prolonged AfD-like debates along with supplying and vetting of multiple references per entry. This would have to be done in addition to the normal task of determining the specific List admissibility criteria, and would require including and vetting multiple references per entry, which would increase the overall article size beyond the recommended limits and require excessive attention and effort per entry. === Inclusion criteria === Each entry in this list must be linked to a specific corresponding Wikipedia article about the accident or incident being described; if there is no such article, write it first and then insert it in this list; if the article is deleted, its list entry will also be deleted (but see 'Proposed enforcement mechanism' below about temporary insertion into the Talk page) Each entry in this list must describe an aviation accident or incident (see definitions in section below) that involves at least one commercial aircraft (as defined in the includable commercial aircraft section below) === Entry tense === This article is sorted by increasing time and is a timeline type list. As such, it should use the historical present tense, which sounds more dynamic and engaging, as if describing unfolding events in real time. Therefore, each entry in this article shall be in the present tense only as it describes the specific event. === Entry length === No individual entry in this list shall exceed 40 words; if the entry describes an accident involving multiple aircraft then the maximum size may be increased to 60 words. This is a maximum value and should not be used unless absolutely needed; we want to keep the overall article size to a minimum so simpler events should use less words, to allow more complex ones more space. === Entry style === Editors will attempt to minimize the words for each entry to convey the most critical highlights from the linked main article's lead: date, site, airline/flight number (link to accident/incident article), aircraft type, nature of accident/incident, reason(s) (when known), number of casualties. The structure shall normally be one long sentence broken up into sub-sentences by semi-colons. An en dash (–) is preferred over a regular dash (-) after the date to maintain consistency throughout the article. The link to the main article should be in bold text, as in the examples below. Example 1: July 9 – '''[[S7 Airlines Flight 778]]''', an Airbus A310, crashes on landing in Irkutsk, Russia; 125 killed July 9 – S7 Airlines Flight 778, an Airbus A310, crashes on landing in Irkutsk, Russia; 125 killedExample 2: March 23 – A TransAVIAexport Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 '''[[2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash|crashes]]''' – thought to have been shot down – in Mogadishu, Somalia, killing all 11 on board March 23 – A TransAVIAexport Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 crashes – thought to have been shot down – in Mogadishu, Somalia, killing all 11 on board === Hyperlinks === Avoid placing hyperlinks within the text of the list item. If each individual List entry is already wiki-linked to its own existing Wikipedia article, then hyperlinks to related terms within the entry (such as place names, airports, etc.) will be provided in the linked article. The only hyperlink visible should be the emboldened text that defines the entry and provides the link to the associated article. === References === Since the list items must all be linked to their main dedicated Wikipedia article, references should not be provided in the list article. All references related to an item should be included in its main article.[under discussion] For the purposes of this list article only we define 'includable commercial aircraft' involved in an accident or incident as any of the following: A civilian airliner, commuter, airtaxi or charter aircraft while carrying paying passengers, with minimum passenger seating capacity of 10 seats (8 passenger seats minimum prior to 1940, 4 passenger seats minimum prior to 1920); this specifically excludes flights operated under 14 CFR Part 91 in the U.S., or its legal equivalent elsewhere A civilian cargo aircraft while carrying cargo for hire, with a gross takeoff weight of at least 20,000 pounds and involved in an accident only (incidents for cargo aircraft of any size are excluded in this article)Note that any entry in this article must also meet the notability criterion by having its own dedicated accident/incident Wikipedia article. In the case of a collision, at least one of the aircraft must meet the inclusion criteria on its own. Note also that military aircraft are specifically excluded from this list, as non-commercial. Aircraft chartered by the military from a civilian operator to transport troops are eligible for inclusion, as the operator was non-military. In the case of a collision between civilian and military aircraft, the civilian aircraft would have to be eligible for inclusion in its own right. Also, a civilian aircraft with a civilian crew, operated by a government to carry passengers, otherwise meeting the above minimum seating criteria, is includable. From the NTSB's site:An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations. The ICAO definitions are similar, though somewhat more involved. This guideline is a sub-page of the List article's page, and is linked to from the Talk page; the article includes one or more references to it in the comments (visible only to editors). Any new entry that does not meet the inclusion requirement of this guideline can be removed by anyone; the burden is on the includer to prove that a new entry meets the guideline (but as a courtesy, if the entry seems eligible except it lacks a corresponding article, please move the proposed entry to the 'holding area' per next item) Any editor who would like to add a new entry which is otherwise eligible for inclusion except that it currently lacks a Wikipedia article, is encouraged to temporarily insert the proposed entry into the article Talk page's temporary Holding zone subpage, until a corresponding article is prepared Entries with main articles which have been deleted as non-notable should not be added to the holding zone; the proper venue in such cases should be deletion review for the deleted articles Any new entry that does not conform to the style/grammar/format of the guideline should be fixed Old existing entries that do not conform to the style/grammar/format of the guideline will be fixed by volunteers over time This guideline requires all editors to conform to all applicable Wikipedia policies and encourages civil discourse at all times Discussion of this guideline will take place in its own Talk page. Any change to this guideline must be discussed and agreed to by consensus on that page. Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia Wikipedia:List guideline 143 144 306 WP:IMBALANCE Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance 143 "A geographic imbalance or geographical bias on Wikipedia is a disparity in which a very large number of articles exist that somehow pertain to a city, town, or region that is disproportionate with the locality's population or other factors of importance within the world. Though obtaining a mathematical percentage that the number of articles comprises out of the total number of region-based articles within all of Wikipedia is not easy, and is not attempted, in such cases, it is clear that if such a percentage were obtained, it would far exceed the percentage of the world's population that the region's population comprises. Such articles that would be considered regional interests may include those about: A region's towns, villages, neighborhoods, or parks A city's or region's landmarks, such as office buildings, businesses (that are not part of a multi-city chain), malls, shopping centers, schools, places of worship, etc. A city's or region's transportation infrastructure, such as streets, roads, highways, buses, or rail lines People who are notable only within the region, and for whom all existing published reliable sources are local News events that have occurred within the city or region, and have only been reported in local newspapers or broadcasts The city's or region's history which has had little or no impact on the population beyond the regionThere is no prohibition on writing such articles, and many of these articles that have been written fully meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. This essay is not about whether or not these should be included. A geographic imbalance may occur when one or more devoted Wikipedians compose numerous articles of interest mostly to those within a city, town, or region, and the same does not occur in other areas that are more heavily populated or otherwise of greater importance within the world. In theory, this may occur as a result of regional lifestyle variations that allow some more free time to edit, and leave others too busy, or else may be pure coincidence. Also, a version of Wikipedia in a certain language may have more articles on places where the language is spoken than on places where it is not. This is a question you may ask if you come across this essay: are there any problems with having a geographic imbalance? The answer is there is no blanket policy against a geographic imbalance. All editors with accounts have the right to create articles, even if it is about some topic in their own region. In fact, a resident, native, or someone who otherwise frequently visits a place likely has far more familiarity with a region than one who has never been to the area, and may therefore be a much better candidate for writing such an article. But there are some things to keep in mind when writing an article about a topic within your hometown: Be sure that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The notability may come into question and the article's existence may be challenged if all the sources come from the local papers or news networks, especially if similar articles have been deleted or have not been initially composed in other places with comparable populations. Think from a global perspective. Write the article as if you are writing it for the whole world, not just locals. Wikipedia is not Yourtownpedia. Be sure that all the information you provide is from existing reliable sources rather than your own knowledge of unpublished information. And be careful to avoid original research. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. If you are concerned about there being a geographic imbalance (for example, 100 articles on interests to a place with a population of 50,000, and just 20 relating to a place with a population of 500,000), the best thing you can do is to get involved. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Wikipedia is not finished, and is not even close. It is because of people like you who want to be involved that Wikipedia is growing. So if you discover that some other place on earth has far more articles than your own hometown, you could propose some of those articles for deletion, but there are several reasons why that is not a good idea. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia it is a gazetteer as well. Wikipedia:Five pillars. By suggesting deletion you will be working to dismantle the work in progress that is Wikipedia. Your account and user name will be associated with a large number of deletion proposals. And you may be hated as a result of this. Besides, there is a good chance that all settlements and municipalities will be kept, except for very local neighborhoods, pubs, bars, clubs, and parks. See WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. The better option is to create a series of really good articles on the place where you live. Doing so will have some benefits. You will become a valued editor with a reputation as a builder of the encyclopedia. Your account and username will be associated with some very useful contributions. And most of all, you will no longer have to be jealous of some other place, for your own town will rank high up. Even better, you will inspire others to do the same where they live, as well as making their own contributions to your creations. This is a win-win for all. Remember. There is no deadline. If the articles on your city or town do not exist today, check back again later. They may be here tomorrow, six months from now, in a year, in five years, or longer. Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion. Wikipedia is a volunteer service in which contributions will be made over the years when people have time. Hopefully, some day, someone will write about where you live. If you so choose, that could be you. Meta:Category:Proposals for closing African language projects Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) List of countries by number of Internet users WP:LOCAL Wikipedia:Systemic bias {{Globalize}} template Mark Graham (12 November 2009). ""Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content"". ZeroGeography. Retrieved 2009-11-16. Mark Graham (2 December 2009). ""Wikipedia's known unknowns"". The Guardian. Mark Graham (12 December 2009). ""The directionalities of Wikipedia: Concentration in language versions"". ZeroGeography. Mark Graham (30 November 2010). ""Wikipedia in the UK"". ZeroGeography. Mark J. Nelson (17 May 2011). ""Geographically densest Wikipedia coverage"". Retrieved 2011-05-24. Mark Graham (10 November 2011). ""Mapping Wikipedia's augmentations of our planet"". ZeroGeography." 144 145 313 WP:NEPISODE Wikipedia:Notability (television) 144 "The following is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, it is meant to provide a tool to help determine if a television-related topic warrants its own article. For the majority of topics related to television, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow. This essay explains the general notability guideline as it applies to television and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for television. The general notability guideline (GNG) states: ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."" The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article. Additional criteria for the evaluation of television-related articles are outlined in the sections below. Television pilots that have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles. A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot. An unaired pilot, such as Aquaman or Marvel's Most Wanted, can qualify for an article should there be significant reliable sources covering the development and other production aspects of the pilot independent of its own marketing materials. In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming (excluding a pilot's filming). Various production issues can interfere with a project and affect its status. The assumption should also not be made that, because a television series or season is likely to be a high-profile release, it will be immune to setbacks—there is no ""sure thing"" production; projects that have been announced to series or season renewals also have the possibility to have those decisions reversed, such as with On Becoming a God in Central Florida or GLOW. Should information on the start of filming not be known, a formal confirmation by a television network or streaming provider may be used instead (for instance, it has been announced at an entity's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series), a promotional trailer has been released, and/or it has a scheduled premiere date. In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.Articles for future series or seasons can first be created in the Draft space until such time that they can be moved into the mainspace as defined above. For additional information on when splitting content to season articles may be justified, see MOS:TVSPLIT. An episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. Having a plot, episode-specific cast and crew or ratings and viewership numbers is sometimes redundant to similar information at a main article, season article, or an in-depth character article. A standalone episode article should be expected to be able to meet WP:GNG on its own; most especially, the episode itself, apart from its series, should have more than a passing mention in reliable source coverage. Such individual coverage is typically harder to achieve for episodes released in blocks, particularly streaming blocks, and these (with the exception of anthologies) are often non-notable. Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot. This could include discussions of its broader impact. The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. While these may be used in episode articles that have already demonstrated notability, a reception section only comprising these is generally not adequately demonstrating coverage. See ""Fire and Blood"", ""Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience"", ""Marge vs. the Monorail"", or ""Volcano"" as examples of such articles. It is generally expected that for an episode to be notable enough for its own article, the series it belongs to (and often, the season of that series) will already have an article; this is not the case for notable episodes from non-notable series which demonstrate their own lasting impact in reliable sources. If an episode of a commissioned series (i.e. not pilots, see above) was unaired, or not completed, it should demonstrate sufficient notability for unproduced works as if it did not belong to any series. This includes production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources. Many television films generally do not receive significant independent coverage, despite being broadcast or released nationally, such as those released yearly during the holiday season on the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime Channel. Consideration for articles on television films should also satisfy the notability guidelines defined at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Generally, an individual television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on a network of television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broader regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. However, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel. Wikipedia:Notability (film) Wikipedia:Notability (media)" 145 146 314 WP:NOCLUE Wikipedia:Assume no clue 145 "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, but it generally isn't helpful when you get angry at someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia really works. Therefore, when an editor insists that what they're doing is an improvement when it isn't, assume no clue before assuming bad faith. Instead of assuming that fellow editors are out to harm the project and its ideals, assume that they don't know how they're contributing in a non-constructive way. Assuming no clue preserves sanity and helps communication: instead of accusing someone of harming the project, you can help them contribute constructively. If an editor just added material into a featured article on a film that is sourced to a fan blog site, don't assume bad faith. Assume that they do not know about Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. If another editor just reverted a direct quote you made from the Oxford English Dictionary regarding the etymology of the article name with the edit summary ""dubious-never heard that origin of the word before"", do not assume bad faith. The editor may genuinely believe that folk etymology is the best source for word origin, rather than Wikipedia's approach, which is to prefer etymologies that are found in sources published by reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia:Assume Ignorance Wikipedia:Assume stupidity Wikipedia:Competence is required Wikipedia:Editors can be wrong Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope Hanlon's razor Wikipedia:Having a clue Wikipedia:Imagine others complexly Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" 146 147 315 WP:NONSENSE Wikipedia:Patent nonsense 146 "Wikipedia writers and editors contribute a lot of featured and good articles, but occasionally, they contribute some patent nonsense. This falls into two categories: Total nonsense, e.g. text that purposefully has no relevant meaning at all (e.g. lorem ipsum) and random text (banging on the keyboard). Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it, such as ""The land attests that agriculture shafts the uncontrollably mild delicacy and wistfully inanimates the fresh spruce tango jumpsuit impressively in one month"". See word salad. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text. The following should not be speedily deleted as patent nonsense (though some might meet other speedy-deletion criteria). There are other ways to deal with these things: editing to fix the problem(s); possibly reverting or tagging; or see the deletion policy. Disinformation and factual errors, including citations to unreliable sources. Libelous, defamatory, or slanderous comments, no matter how silly. They should be removed immediately if not supported by a reliable source, and possibly revision deleted by an administrator. In extreme cases, libellous edits may be suppressed by an oversighter. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Poorly written content that could be improved, such as text containing many grammar errors. See Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. Text without links. Consider tagging it with {{Underlinked}}. Text not written using the Latin alphabet or otherwise not written in English, unless it is genuinely gibberish in whatever language it was written in. See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Text poorly written in, or similarly translated to, English. For examples of this type, see All your base are belong to us or Engrish. Vandalism (i.e., intentionally harmful edits), including joke edits, hoaxes, (irrelevant) obscenities and other immature material, might (or might not) be patent nonsense, but it still needs to be removed. Other nonsense may be mistakes, badly formatted text, or test edits, without malicious intent, and tact may be needed. Copyright violations, nonsense or not. These should be removed immediately (not merely moved). Plagiarism. Instead, the plagiarized content should be properly attributed (or paraphrased) unless it is also a copyright violation. There are various ways to deal with total nonsense—use your good judgment to decide which is most appropriate: Replace it with a well-written article. Move it to the page's talk page. Move it to the user's talk page. Remove it from the article if there is any acceptable content left in the article after that. Often patent nonsense is easy to undo.Do consider that it might have been a test edit, and don't bite the newbies by calling them vandals in this case, but instead warn them with a personal note or by using the uw-test series of warning templates (Template:Uw-test1). Where vandal intent is clear warn using the uw-vandalism series of warning templates, and report them as vandals if they continue. However, if a user objects because they believe the content is not patent nonsense, discuss the issue and try to reach a consensus. In particular, if someone offers to rework the ""nonsense"" into worthwhile content, please allow them reasonable time to do so. If a page contains nothing but patent nonsense: First, examine the page history to determine whether the patent nonsense present replaced other earlier content. If so, restore the page to the latest revision before the content was replaced by patent nonsense. Warn users responsible for introducing patent nonsense as above. Otherwise, identify it for speedy deletion by placing {{db-g1}} or {{db-nonsense}} at the top of the page. Warn and report as above. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (article), a notable instance of grammatically correct nonsense Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, another example Sokal affair (article), nonsense that made it into Social Text Word salad Wikipedia:Complete bollocks Wikipedia:Deletion policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G1, Wikipedia's speedy deletion criterion dealing with patent nonsense." 147 148 316 WP:B2B User:Ihcoyc/The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses 147 """Bias"" and ""prejudice"" have become tendentious terms. What I am saying here might be considered evidence of bias or prejudice. I prefer the term presumption, myself. == The presumptions for and against == Whatever word you choose to apply, I do use the following presumption as a personal yardstick in Articles for Deletion discussions about the notability of businesses, and urge others to adopt something similar: I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it: Relates to technology, software, computing, or the internet; Is a service or publicity business; or Provides goods or services to other businesses rather than the general public.This has a flip side, of course: I presume that a business is likely to be notable if it: Manufactures tangible goods in its own facilities; and Sells its manufactures to consumers under its own brand.Being an inclusionist, I tend to give articles the benefit of a doubt in favor of keeping them. But being hostile to spam in all its forms, business articles are somewhat suspect. Businesses that fall within the presumption, very simply, do not get the benefit of a doubt from me. As the business notability guideline says, ""When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."" Where the possibility of commercial conflict of interest exists, this kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance rises in importance, and should be considered a standard for inclusion. These presumptions actually flow from official content policies, which is why I don't consider it to be a bias or prejudice. To be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, a topic must be independently verifiable through reliable sources, and the subject covered neutrally. Business owners who seek to promote their business often have conflicts of interest that prevent them from writing objectively about their subject. This is a source of many related issues. == The core issue == What turns a business into something you'd expect to have an encyclopedia article? == A presumption, not a prejudice == The presumption mostly comes into play in considering notability. We begin with Jimmy Wales's assumption: we ""attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something."" There are many ways for a business to make the history books. You could invent a product that changes the face of your industry. You could launch a brand so successful that it becomes a household name. You could also preside over a major disaster, a scandalous white collar crime, or a spectacular bankruptcy. There are hundreds of different paths to historical notability. There are probably more ugly ways to encyclopedic notability than there are desirable ways. You probably don't really want your business to be notorious enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. But without anything like that, odds are your business is not notable. Very simply: businesses that make tangible consumer goods are likely to generate truly independent reviews in reliable media, published under by-lines and subject to some editorial control. If you make wine or shoe polish or toasters, odds are that some consumer or connoisseur's magazine or edited website has given your product line some attention. If you haven't yet reached that stage, odds are you aren't going to pass muster under the guidelines anyways. Your customer base, moreover, is rather broad: everyone who drinks wine, eats bread, or wears shoes. This is why tangible consumer product businesses get the benefit of a doubt, though. The odds are in their favor that it could be shown that they received truly independent attention. Because of the spam problem, the criteria for inclusion for businesses ought to be at least as rigorous as the criteria for porn stars. If the general public is likely to have heard of them, or they've achieved something that has the sort of historic significance so that the general public ought to be interested, they meet the test. If not, they should not be included. Similarly, owning brick and mortar factories and shops is likelier to increase public awareness of the business in question. This too makes it likelier that independent, reliable sources can be found for an article about the business. === A question of audience === If you are some kind of tech or service business selling your ""solutions"" to other businesses, I consider the odds are substantially less likely that general interest publications are interested in you or your wares. And trade publications are not good enough, either. There are several reasons why. First, the more technical your product is, and the more limited your customer base is, the less likely you are to receive independent, reliable coverage. If your customer base consists of investment banks or dental practices, that's a very small subset of the general public. This makes it less likely that your business or your wares will receive coverage in truly independent sources — i.e. outside the investment or dental industries. There are, of course, consumer electronics and software companies; these generally get the benefit of the doubt from me, to the extent that they serve a consumer customer base and sell tangible goods under their own brands. === Notability is not temporary. Technology often is. === Businesses whose chief stock in trade is programming and services can be established in anonymous office buildings. Given the nature of their wares, they can be somewhat ephemeral; they can appear overnight and vanish equally quickly. Brick and mortar manufacturing plants, by contrast, have a certain ""long term historical"" persistence and durability that service based and intellectual businesses do not have. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Finding that a topic is notable is exactly equal to a claim that the topic deserves a standalone article in an encyclopedia. Because notability is not temporary, any business or product needs to be examined from a geological time scale. 500 years from now, will this business or product be thought worthy of mention in an account of the development of the field? That's the sort of thing that sources should say to make a behind the scenes business notable. === The IT department is not the world === We have long acknowledged that inherent biases creep in due to the sort of people who choose to edit Wikipedia. They are probably going to be busier on the Internet and more proficient with computers than most people are. Many will make their livings using computers, often in programming or information technology jobs. This means that IT department trivia may loom larger in their minds than is strictly warranted. ""(S)ignificant or demonstrable effects"" on culture, society or history means ""outside the IT department"". While the supervision of computer programmers and the automated updating of websites may be worthy subjects for general articles, the many separate software tools designed for these tasks probably do not warrant separate articles. Nobody without a professional stake in them is likely to have heard of them, or care about how they compare to one another. The same is true of many other crowded back-office software fields. === Wikipedia is not a free advertisement host === Moreover, if your business involves publicity, computing, or the Internet, I presume that you are aware of the prominence Wikipedia has in Google.com and other search engines. Very simply, having a Wikipedia article is a publicity coup, and is likely to rocket your firm to the top of search engine results. We're not here to help you this way. == Trade publications and awards aren't good enough == The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world. Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business. Inclusion in ""Top 100"" lists of various sorts is especially unconvincing. Unless the list has the kind of significance to make each of the 99 other businesses listed there an encyclopedia subject, your inclusion on the list isn't the kind of independent notice that confers notability. Trade awards generally count very little towards encyclopedic notability. Likewise, there seem to be many trade awards, and few of them have any import in the outside world. There does seem to be something of a mutual admiration society at work in their bestowal. Trade awards are about as convincing evidence of notability as those Valentine cards your elementary school teacher made you give everyone of the opposite sex are convincing evidence of true love. Especially if they're given for ""Innovation!"" or ""Excellence!"" Obviously, there is a sliding scale here with no clear cutoff point. Some publications and awards serving a particular trade (e.g. Variety, Pulitzer Prize, Great American Beer Festival), are nevertheless valuable for establishing notability. Being of interest to the general public is what counts for notability, though. The bottom line is: like your local newspaper, trade publications may serve a limited community of readers. General interest outside your locality and outside your industry is what makes a case for notability. == No bullshit, please == The Wrath of Heaven May it visit laryngitis, halitosis and a severe stutter on those vendors who describe disk drives, network routers, printers, computers, or pretty well anything that contains silicon and plugs in, as “solutions”. A disk drive is not a solution dammit, it’s a disk drive. This is so freaking retarded, can there be a living human being who believes anyone will be more willing to drop the $450 on their box because it’s described as a “storage solution”? Bah. - Tim BrayThe management schools, and the pretense that business management is a real academic subject, do not encourage their victims to write well. The prose that comes from minds that have been malnourished on management fad paperbacks tends to be a morass of euphemisms, inappropriate abstractions, deliberate ambiguities, depersonalizing constructions, weasel words and glittering generalities designed as a sort of verbal sleight of hand. This sleight of hand act may serve to mask the harsh reality of the manager's actual plans. It may also be used to make banal business plans seem innovative, incomprehensible, and so complex that you've no choice but to pay the proponent to enact them. Bernard Madoff and his operatives were apparently masters of this kind of sales patter.I consider this prose style to be an intentional breach of the neutrality policy. If it seems constructed to be deliberately obscure, or make the obvious seem impressive, it is also patent nonsense. Moreover, it is uninformative - perhaps deliberately uninformative - and therefore just does not belong in an encyclopedia. That sort of material also generates instant doubts about the motives of the inserter: the actual method would be trivial or obvious if stated plainly, so verbal tricks must be used to make it appear to be something worth paying for. It is very hard to assume good faith about the authors of pages that are full of slanted, meaningless, and grandiose but deliberately evasive sales patter. Perhaps a softer line should be taken with pages that are obviously by people who are not native speakers of English. They may be just repeating buzzwords that they read, without really perceiving their vacuousness. They may innocently imagine that people with real responsibilities normally speak and write that way. Still, it's all nonsense. As the Wall Street Journal put it: Coca-Cola Co. and General Motors Co. don't have to explain to the outside world what they make.That isn't true of Ingersoll-Rand PLC. The company, with headquarters in Ireland but most of its operations in the U.S., this year began calling itself a ""world leader in creating and sustaining safe, comfortable and efficient environments.""Translation: The company makes locks, air-conditioning equipment and battery-powered golf cars, among many other things.If a maker of air conditioners and golf carts calls itself a ""world leader in creating and sustaining safe, comfortable and efficient environments,"" you aren't going to be able to restate that neutrally from the information provided in the text. Don't tell me it can be fixed by editing; it can't, the specifics aren't there. It's deliberately evasive and uninformative: therefore, it's content that, though meaningful after a fashion, isn't the sort of thing that a reader is going to get much information out of. It is indeed patent nonsense, in our technical sense. This is one of the most frequently encountered problems with business articles: they read like advertisements or press releases, and are therefore fairly obviously slanted. If you'd have to do a total rewrite on an article to make it pass muster under the neutrality policy, odds are I will favor its deletion even if it is notable. You will also be judged on the readability of your prose; and if it reads like an advertisement or a press release, or appears to be written in bullshit rather than English, I will likely argue that the current article should be deleted even if a case for notability could be made. The world of business is full of fascinating industrial processes, complicated legal regulations, and local resources, and frankly we'd love to learn about them from you. Just keep it in English. Even if your business is not notable, if you make something very specialized and specific and are famous in the field for it, we might be able to reference it in an article about the industry generally. If your text contains information you've met the first hurdle. But if you don't want to tell us more than that your business is a multinational information technology company providing software solutions in vanguard growth markets, your text is going to the round file the same as all other such inane and meaningless patter. The more you try to make yourself look important and omnicompetent with vagueness, the more you actually look like just another spammer. Writing bullshit rather than English is almost guaranteed to make me want to delete your article, regardless of your business's notability. The Briticism bollocks is sometimes used, and on account of its relative obscurity it sounds politer in the USA. This is where my feelings become quite hot. If you write vague, evasive, buzzword laden prose that seems as if its chief purpose is to demonstrate fluency with current TLAs, or to disguise the triviality or banal truisms of the underlying content, be warned. That kind of prose arouses the sort of disgust in me that you'd expect to feel if you found a dead mouse in a can of soda pop you'd just had a swig from. The bottom line is, that sort of glib but incoherent gibberish probably ought to be deleted on sight. All such text is morally suspect. The world abounds with ""management theories"" whose chief feature is that they increase the amount of documentation and overhead workers are expected to comply with while maintaining previous levels of production. These are typically trotted out with lofty sounding abstractions about Quality and Excellence, but in the trenches everybody knows how they really work. An article that ""explains"" such things by the self-chosen words of its promoters is inherently pushing a point of view, and as such does not belong here. And if your text contains passages like In today's complex and ever-changing world of technology, where it's all so complicated and up-to-the-minute that you'd like to think that your potential clients will cheerfully throw money at you just to be saved from all the change and complexity, you aren't going to win my confidence that way, either. This kind of text is just going to stand out as flagrant advertising and inherently non-neutral. == How should I write about a business? == Apply this test to your prose: am I getting a clear picture of the wares you will have on your stock shelves? What your rank and file employees spend their time on the job doing? If not, your article is too vague and seems evasive, even dishonest. An article about a business can be saved from non-neutral language by being rich in verifiable facts about the business itself. An article that is poor in facts can't be helped at all, and ought to be deleted. Ask yourself: is this business or product really an encyclopedia subject? This WP:AFD discussion contains a useful precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055, an article about 2N3055, a large and fairly familiar transistor that's been around since the Sixties. I was persuaded to say the article should be kept. "" If electronic engineers say that this transistor belongs in ""the archives of history"", it belongs in an encyclopedia."" That's what it takes to be an encyclopedia subject. If you sell or rent goods or services, don't say you ""provide"" them. Who do you think you're fooling? I am probably revealing what ought to be a closely guarded trade secret here. My method in looking for spam is very, very simple. I start by searching for mainspace pages that contain phrases I've learned to associate with spam, such as, leverage as a verb, or solution used in the offensive and inherently promotional way. I look through the results and either propose for various speeds of deletion, or if it seems that the business would likely be considered notable by consensus, stub and rewrite them so that they will no longer contain any of the trigger phrases. If you really wanted to, you could probably look at my searches and edit history, figure out how I was operating, and learn to write bullshit that evades all the search parameters I've fashioned so far. It's probably easier to just write concrete and informative articles in the first instance, though. Your PR people are not the ones who should be writing the Wikipedia article. Amid neutral and encyclopedia style texts, their material will stick out. Somebody in engineering should do it. They may not write elegantly, but their text will contain information, and if the information is there it can be fixed by editing. == Notes == == External links == The following links are to off-Wikipedia sites that contain instructions, of various quality, about how to spam Wikipedia to make money fast on the Internet so that you can afford a pair of pants. They are presented here for the edification of the actual editing community. My advice is to avoid any advice they attempt to present, and just avoid conflict of interest editing. Stephan Spencer, SEO: Can Wikipedia Help Your Business, from Practical Ecommerce Debra Mastalter, How to Get Your Company Listed on Wikipedia, from Marketing Sherpa Todd Mintz, How To Create Your Own Wikipedia Page, at Marketing Sherpa Mike Svatek, How to Get Your Business Listed in Wikipedia, YouTube video Matt McGee, Should a Small Business have a Wikipedia article?, Small Business Search MarketingThis also merits preservation. This is from a version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHUB that was modified after the business person realized he'd put his foot in his mouth: I regret for this. Here is what was happening. In 7/09, we hired a contract marketing firm. They created an RHUB article in Wikipedia, which was removed eventually. Later I was asked to create an RHUB article because I am the best person to tell the story behind RHUB, which may meet Wikipedia expectation. I was also told that visitors from Wikipedia stayed with the RHUB website several times longer than those from Google search. This is good to RHUB but also shows the RHUB article does bring values to Wikipedia visitors. That is why I am willing to spend time on this article and answer the challenges from you." 148 149 317 WP:complete bollocks WP:complete bollocks 148 "The policies of Wikipedia state that articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. This strongly implies that they must also be true. Sometimes, articles arrive at articles for deletion which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, complete bollocks. Some giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed. Articles puffing non-notable websites are often complete bollocks or, in other terms, ""bullshit"", in that they make wholly spurious claims to notability (e.g. claiming to have originated some new process, neologism or phenomenon which is either not verifiably existent or, conversely, blindingly obvious). These articles very often start with the name of the site, properly capitalized, as a link. Whereas Geogre's Law posits incorrect capitalization as a hallmark of vanity in biographies, abundant capitalization and/or trademark signs (sometimes linked at every single instance) is often a hallmark of complete bollocks in articles about websites. A confirmatory sign of complete bollocks is a set of circular articles, or a self-contained nest of articles, such as three articles that reference only each other and are themselves composed of nonsense, particularly if the set is started by one author or a set of authors (or IP addresses) who all contribute to the same set of articles. In wiki parlance this is a walled garden. Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity. As Uncle G put it, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not all this, however, is complete bollocks: some of it will have to be subjected to a deletion process before it is finally removed. There is no shortage of bad ideas for articles, and some of them elevate themselves to the giddy heights of really stupid ideas for articles. It's this latter category which is likely to be complete bollocks. Consider these deathless lines by Charles Battell Loomis: As Douglas Hofstadter has pointed out, the archaizing language and the mix of classical and Biblical allusions all lend authority to this poem. A reader may read it, and re-read it: there must be some meaning there, it seems so serious in tone and intention. Further study will bring it to light. Good luck! After you have figured out the poem, consider the following: Problems in a business process may arise in three places: at its proposal and inception, which in Neuman's terminology is labelled the alpha phase; during the period of its operational implementation, the theta phase; and during its finalization, or the closing stages of the process: the omega phase. Problems in a business process may moreover be classified into two separate categories: the monogenetic problem, in which a single cause intervenes in the process, and the polygenetic problem, in which several different causes intervene, either simultaneously, concurrently, or serially.The reader is challenged by this section to identify what he has learned from the text that was not already known, or could not have been thought up by a mind gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary. Pay careful heed to the bolded terms, with their Greek letters and classical compounds. The presence of Greek letters is a sure indication of mathematical rigor, and classical compounds indicate that science is at play here. If there is an exam with this course, be assured that the student will be expected to repeat these terms and their given definitions. The tone assures the reader that a great deal of research, or at least logic, backs up the assertion that the causes of a polygenetic problem will intervene either simultaneously, concurrently, or serially. He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.— Attributed to Abraham LincolnOne thing you will note about shopping-center theory is that you could have thought of it yourself, and a course in it will go a long way toward dispelling the notion that business proceeds from mysteries too recondite for you and me.— Joan Didion, ""On the Mall"", in The White AlbumOw! My groin.— Hans Moleman Vanispamcruftisement Patent nonsense Jibber-Jabber Dealing with hoaxes Handwavium Economy of Sri Lanka#Transition to biological agriculture" 149 150 318 WP: MANOTE Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability 149 "The existence of many martial arts, schools and artists has resulted in many stub articles. The following are guidelines created by WikiProject Martial arts to help assess the notability of articles. Feel free to discuss improvements on the project talk page. This essay gives some guidance on points to consider when discussing the notability of martial arts related articles, it is a specific supplement to the overall policy of Wikipedia:Notability relating to martial arts organisations, schools and styles and to practitioners and in no way supersedes them. Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that ""make a case"" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion. Google and other search engines are a useful tool for finding sources, and may sometimes be persuasive (very high or very low result counts), but is not proof of whether or not something is notable (see WP:Google test). Using quotes around the search (""example martial art"") will look for only exact matches and using -Wikipedia at the end will remove self references. Make the content of articles appropriate for the breadth of the article. That is, in an article about a national organization the school which is its headquarters or flagship might be appropriate to discuss in some detail, but certainly not every school that belongs to the organization. Articles on broad types of martial arts should usually not focus on a single organisation or school, but attempt to present a universal perspective on the art and include sections on these organisations with links if appropriate. Articles about techniques practised by more than one type of martial art, such as Kick, should follow the same principle, and not unduly focus upon a particular martial art. When discussing Mixed martial arts organisations fighters and events MMA Project's Notability page may be useful. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary: Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program. Be careful with 'niche' publications; check they are not related to the school teaching it. If it is an internal magazine with an annual issue it probably isn't notable, but a style big enough to produce a widely distributed monthly magazine may well be notable—though sourcing from it should be treated as with all primary sources. A long externally verifiable history (i.e. secondary sources, not the club's website that says it has existed since 10,000 BC...) Multiple notable practitioners (see Martial artists) A large number of students: Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 7 billion people in the world. Competitive successes in large inter-style tournaments: For example UFC 1Criteria supporting deletion Short history: created in last 5–10 years (less than 2 years and significant counter arguments would be needed but remember notability is not inherited) Single/few schools that teach the artNeither of these is conclusive but they are a reason to look more closely. Note: unless the art/style is notable, a school or organisation teaching it is unlikely to be. Hence these criteria are similar. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. Long, externally verifiable history Large number of students Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable. Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point.Criteria supporting deletion Short history: be wary of adverts and splinter styles, a sub-section is more appropriates for the latter Small school In general, even if an artist is notable - if there is only one paragraph or so of material about them, then that should be included in the article about their style or school if that is notable,- redirects are cheap. If they are independently notable and the style is not, then do not create the article on the style but on them. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary; - same again... Founder of notable style (see section intro) Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors, Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press.Criteria supporting deletion Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." 150 151 320 WP:BOLDFACE Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting 150 "This is the part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style which covers when to format text in articles, such as which text should use boldface or italic type. Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but is considered appropriate only for certain usages. To create it, surround the text to be boldfaced with triple apostrophes ('''...''').For semantical emphasis (to denote importance, seriousness, or urgency), you can also use the HTML element ..., or the template {{strong}}. This is desirable because the words can stand out for text to speech and other software, important due to accessibility issues. === Article title terms === The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not (see § Other uses, below). These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement. It will not be helpful in a case where a large number of terms redirect to a single article, e.g. a plant species with dozens of vernacular names. === Automatically applied boldface === In the following cases, boldface is applied automatically, either by MediaWiki software or by the browser: Subsection headings of level 3 and below (===Subheading===, ====Sub-subheading====, etc., markup). There are five heading levels used in writing articles (the top-level one being reserved for the auto-displayed page name). Terms in description lists (example: Glossary of the American trucking industry) Table headers and captions (but not image captions) A link to the page on which that link appears, called a self linkManually added boldface markup in such cases would be redundant and is to be avoided. It will end up making double-bold (900 weight) fonts that are excessive. === Other uses === Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic – see § Article title terms, above). Mathematical objects which are sometimes written in boldface, such as vectors and certain special sets, such as the rational number symbol Q (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics § Blackboard bold for further details) In some citation formats, for the volume number of a journal or other multi-volume works.Citation templates, such as Template:citation, automatically supply all formatting (such as italic, boldface, and quotation marks). Therefore, applying manual formatting inside a citation template will cause undesired results. HTML's ... emphasis, which usually renders as boldface, can be used in quotations to represent material boldfaced in the original material. It can also be rendered with the {{strong|...}} template. === When not to use boldface === Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text. Instead, use HTML's ... element or the {{em|...}} template (which usually render as italic). Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms. Instead, italics are preferred (see § Words as words). Avoid using boldface (or other font gimmicks) in the expansions of acronyms, as in United Nations (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms for guidelines on acronym style). The same applies to over-explaining portmanteau terms; avoid things like Texarkana is named for Texas and Arkansas. Although it is technically possible to put non-Latin alphabets such as Greek or Cyrillic in boldface, this should be avoided. The ({{strong}}) markup is generally not appropriate in article text except in quoted material (see above), though it is common in project pages, template documentation, talk page discussions, and other non-article contexts. Italic type (text like this) is produced with double apostrophes around the content to be italicized: ''...''. Italics, along with semantic emphasis (usually rendered as italics), are used for various specific purposes in Wikipedia, outlined below. === Emphasis === The use of italics for emphasis on Wikipedia should follow good English print style. The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML ... element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{em|...}} template. Italics markup (''...'', or ...) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not semantically correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred. (Italics markup are for non-emphasis purposes, such as for book titles and foreign-language phrases, as detailed below). Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast: Gellner accepts that knowledge must be knowledge of something.It may be preferable to avoid the need for emphasis by rewriting a sentence more explicitly. Use of emphasis more than once in a sentence is rarely helpful to readers, unless the emphasized terms are being directly compared (more often a words-as-words case for regular italics). Other, non-emphasis, uses of italics on Wikipedia should use ''...'' markup, not or {{em}} markup.Do not use boldfacing for emphasis, as covered in § When not to use boldface above. Do not use underlining, all caps, or small caps for emphasis, as covered in § How not to apply emphasis below. === Names and titles === Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers, journals, magazines, epic poems, plays, television programs or series, radio shows, comics and comic strips. Medium of publication or presentation is not a factor; a video feature only released on video tape, disc or the Internet is considered a ""film"" for these purposes, and so on. (See WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for details.)Minor works (and any specifically titled subdivisions of italicized major works) are given in double quotation marks not italics, even when the title is not in English. (For details, see § When not to use italics.)These cases are well-established conventions recognized in most style guides. Do not apply italics to other categories or instances because you feel they are creative or artful (e.g. game or sport moves, logical arguments, ""artisanal"" products, schools of practice or thought, etc.).Court case names: FCC v. Pacifica. (Case citation or law report information is presented in normal font.)Certain scientific names: Genes (but not proteins encoded by genes). Genera (and abbreviation thereof) and all lower taxa (including species and subspecies), but not higher taxa (e.g. family, order, etc.). The entire scientific name should be italicized, except where an interpolation is included in or appended to the name. (For details, see § Scientific names.) Named, specific vessels: proper names given to: Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font: USS Baltimore (CA-68). However, italicize ship names when they appear in the names of classes of ships (the Baltimore-class cruisers). (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) for more detail on ship and ship class titles.) Aircraft: the Spirit of St. Louis Spacecraft (including fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, Gaia space observatory, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships. Do not italicize a mission, series, or class except where it coincides with a craft's name: the Eagle was the Apollo 11 lunar lander; Voyager 2 was launched as part of the Voyager program. Trains and locomotives: the City of New Orleans (train)The vessels convention does not apply to smaller conveyances such as cars, trucks, and buses, or to mission names. Also, most real-world spacecraft and rockets at this time are not given proper names, thus Apollo 11, Saturn V, Falcon 9, etc. are not appropriate.Use piped linking to properly italicize in wikilinks: ""USS Baltimore (CA-68), the lead ship of the Baltimore-class cruisers"", is produced by [[USS Baltimore (CA-68)|USS ''Baltimore'' (CA-68)]], the lead ship of the [[Baltimore-class cruiser|''Baltimore''-class cruisers]] === Words as words === Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction). Examples: The term panning is derived from panorama, which was coined in 1787. Deuce means 'two'. (Linguistic glosses go in single quotation marks.) The most common letter in English is e.When italics could cause confusion (such as when italics are already being heavily used in the page for some other purpose, e.g., many non-English words and phrases), double quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words. Quotation marks may also be used when a whole sentence is mentioned (The preposition in She sat on the chair is on; or The preposition in ""She sat on the chair"" is ""on""). The alternative style . is helpful for very small characters by themselves (this is produced by: .). A technical or other jargon term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted, usually the former. The first occurrence of a technical term should also usually be linked if the term has its own article (or section, or glossary entry) corresponding exactly to the meaning when used in the present article. Italics may also be used where tags or {{dfn}} templates mark a term's first use, definition, introduction, or distinguished meaning on the page. Note that tags and {{dfn}} templates do not apply text formatting, so the italicization (or quoting) must be added if intended. For instance, in the Consciousness article: Access consciousness is the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report and reasoning. ''Access consciousness'' is ... If, however, a term is an alternative name for the subject of the article (often the target of a redirect), then boldface should be used in place of italics or quotation marks at such a first occurrence (see § Article title terms, above): The small forward (SF), also known as the three, is one of the five positions in a regulation basketball game.Generally, use only one of these styles at a time (do not italicize and quote, or quote and boldface, or italicize and boldface) for words-as-words purposes. Exceptionally, two styles can be combined for distinct purposes, e.g. a film title is italicized and it is also boldfaced in the lead sentence of the article on that film: Roundhay Garden Scene is a very brief silent motion picture...Combined styles are also valid in articles about a term or when significant terms redirect to an article, as in: The ""New World"" is a term which is applied to...Do not switch back and forth between styles in the same material (e.g., using italics for words as words in one paragraph, then quotes in another). === Foreign terms === Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English. Use the native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet (with or without diacritics)—otherwise anglicize their spelling. For example: Gustav I of Sweden liked to breakfast on crispbread (knäckebröd) open sandwiches with toppings such as messmör (butter made from goat's milk), ham, and vegetables. Code: [[Gustav I of Sweden]] liked to breakfast on [[crispbread]] ({{lang|sv|knäckebröd}}) open sandwiches with toppings such as {{lang|sv|messmör}} (butter made from goat's milk), ham, and vegetables.The {{lang}} template and its variants support all ISO 639 language codes, correctly identifying the language and automatically italicizing for you. Please use these templates rather than manually italicizing non-English material. (See WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Other languages for more information.) Use foreign words sparingly; for more information, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Use other languages sparingly. Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. Likewise, musical tempo markings, and terms like minuet and trio, are in normal upright font. Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries. If there is a reason to include a term in a non-Latin script, it can be placed in parentheses. Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page. However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek and Cyrillic); do not apply italic markup to scripts that do not (including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean).A proper name is usually not italicized, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). There may be other reasons to italicize a phrase that is or contains a non-English proper name, such as the title of a major published work: Les Liaisons dangereuses. Names of organizations and institutions should not be in italics, unless the context would otherwise require it, as upon first usage in an article about the organization. When a name should not be italicized, language markup can still ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, by using the |italic=unset parameter: {{lang|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}. For better accessibility, Latin quotations should not be set in all caps or small caps. When reproduced for their content, inscriptions that were originally set in all caps should be transcribed according to standard rules of English capitalization. Please note, however, that simply undoing caps may result in incorrect orthography; for example, capital V may represent either the consonant v or the vowel u. All-caps or preferably small-caps presentation may be preserved when it is contextually useful, as in technical linguistic material and descriptions of artifacts. Editors should be cautious about making their own interpretations when transcribing epigraphic and numismatic sources. Particularly on coins, a character that appears to be a letter may instead be a Roman numeral, a denomination, or a symbol. For articles that reproduce examples of epigraphy or coin legends, editors should consult the orthography of expert secondary sources (see also diplomatic transcription). === Scientific names === Scientific names of organisms are formatted according to normal taxonomic nomenclature. Do not italicize (but do capitalize) taxa higher than genus (exceptions are below). Virus taxonomy is a partial exception; current scientific practice is to italicize all ranks of taxa (even those higher than genus; e.g., Ortervirales, an order, or Herpesviridae, a family). However, this should only be done in articles about viruses or virology; mentions of virus taxa in articles about other forms of life should follow the normal rules for italicizing scientific names. Italicize all lower ranks (taxa): genus (capitalized), subgenus (capitalized), species, subspecies. Names of genera are always italicized (and capitalized), even when not paired with a species name: Allosaurus, Falco, Anas. The entire binomial or trinomial scientific name is italicized, whether given in full or abbreviated: (Liriodendron tulipifera, N. v. piaropicola). Interpolations such as ""cf."", ""×"", ""var."", or ""subsp."" are not italicized: Ninox cf. novaeseelandiae, the chaussie is a hybrid cat (Felis catus × F. chaus). Parenthetic expressions should not be italicized unless part of the scientific name, as in the case of a subgenus, which is always italicized, though the parentheses (round brackets) are not: Potentilla (Sibbaldiopsis) tridentata. Do not italicize authorities (author names) juxtaposed with scientific names: Subgenus Potentilla Syme and subgenus Hypargyrium (Fourr.) Juz. have been combined under subgenus Potentilla Syme. In the article body, wrap the authority information in {{small}} or .... (This need not be done in a taxobox, which handles this automatically.)Derived uses in non-biological contexts are not italicized: The largest carnivore in family Tyrannosauridae was T. rex itself, but Unicorn was an album by the band T. Rex. Although often derived from Latin or Ancient Greek, scientific names are never marked up with {{lang}} or related templates. === Quotations === It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words. Quotation marks alone are sufficient and the correct way to denote quotations. Indicate whether italics were used in the original text or whether they were added later. For example: ""Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!"" (emphasis added). === Variables === ==== Program variables ==== Variables in computer programs and symbols for program variables within plain-English prose and in computer source code presented as textual content can be marked up with the element, or its wiki markup equivalent, the {{var}} template: ...where x is incremented on each pass... ⇒ ...where x is incremented on each pass... |id={{var|ISBN or other identifier}} ⇒ |id=ISBN or other identifierThis provides richer semantic markup over simple italicization (or no formatting at all), that can aid in searching, accessibility, and disambiguation between variables and literal values. ==== Mathematics variables ==== Symbols for mathematics variables, either used within mathematical formulas or used in isolation, are simply italicized: The value of ''y'' when ''x'' = 3 ⇒ The value of y when x = 3 ''E'' = ''mc''2 ⇒ E = mc2Some things remain in upright form regardless of the surrounding text Bold-face variables (such as vectors) and structures (such as Q, the rational numbers) Letters with an arrow on top for vectors Symbols for chemical elements and compounds such as HCl Symbols for units of measure such as kg, ft/s Symbols for mathematical operators such as sin and ln sin x, ln (p/p0)The template {{mvar}} is available to distinguish between I (upper-case i) and l (lower-case L) as variables, which look almost identical in most sans-serif fonts, including the default typefaces of many browsers. === Uses of italics that are specific to Wikipedia === One-line notes that are placed at the top of articles or sections (most often to assist disambiguation or provide cross-references) are hatnotes. One-line notes may also be placed at the top of sections to cross-reference or point to additional information that is not directly linked in the text. Both of these are in italics and indented to distinguish them from the text of the article proper. The Disambiguation and redirection templates and Wikipedia page-section templates automatically provide the required italic formatting. Special section headings for appendices such as ==See also== are not in italics. A further type of cross-reference may occur within a paragraph of text, usually in parentheses (round brackets). For example: At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see Demographics of France). Here, the cross-referenced article does not topically make a good target for a running-text link from the phrase ""largest population in Europe"", or any other text in the sentence, but has been deemed relevant enough to mention in passing without relegating it to the ""See also"" section at the bottom of the article. These kinds of cross-references can be formatted easily with the {{Crossreference}} a.k.a. {{Crossref}} template (or, to other sections on the same page, {{See above}} and {{See below}}). In any case where such a link in running text would be proper, it is preferred over a parenthetical, explicit cross-reference. Like hatnotes, these parenthetical cross-references are set off by being italicized in their entirety, as Wikipedia self-references, and not part of the article content proper. Unlike some traditional reference works, the convention that has evolved on Wikipedia is not to individually italicize ""see"" or ""see also"". Wikipedia's own article titles are not put in quotation marks in such cross-references. === When not to use italics === Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks (""text like this""). This particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. These include but are not limited to: articles, essays, papers, chapters, reference work entries, newspaper and magazine sections or departments, episodes of audio-visual series, segments or skits in longer programs, short poems, short stories, story lines and plot arcs; songs, album tracks and other short musical works; leaflets and circulars. (See WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Quotation marks for details.) Italics should not be used for foreign-language text in non-Latin scripts, such as Chinese characters and Cyrillic script, or for proper names, to which the convention of italicizing non-English words and phrases does not apply; thus, a title of a short non-English work simply receives quotation marks. Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, other than the recommended one (see: MOS:EMPHASIS), which would distract from the writing: Exclamation points (!) should usually only be used in direct quotes and titles of creative works. Bold type is reserved for certain uses. Quotation marks for emphasis of a single word or phrase are incorrect, and ""scare quotes"" are discouraged. Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name ""Aaron"" instead of the spelling he used during his life. Avoid using ALL CAPS and small caps for emphasis (for legitimate uses, see WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § All caps). Italics are usually more appropriate. Double emphasis, such as italics and boldface, ""italics in quotation marks"", or italics and an exclamation point!, is unnecessary. Underlining is used in typewriting and handwriting to represent italic type. Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page. Do not capitalize words merely as a form of emphasis or signification. === Font size === Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates. Additionally, large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen. Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly, and are usually done with automated page elements such as headings, table headers, and standardized templates. Size changes are specified as a percentage of the original font size and not as an absolute size in pixels or point size. This improves accessibility for visually impaired users who use a large default font size. Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections. This means that ... tags, and templates such as {{small}} and {{smalldiv}}, should not be applied to plain text within those elements. In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook). Note that the HTML ... tag has a semantic meaning of fine print or side comments; do not use it for stylistic changes. For use of small text for authority names with binomials, see § Scientific names. === Color === ==== In prose ==== Prose text should never be manually colored. Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons. ==== In templates and tables ==== Colors used in templates such as navboxes and infoboxes, and in tables, should not make reading difficult, including for colorblind or otherwise visually impaired readers. Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors for more information. An ""appropriate, representative"" color, when intended to identify with an organization's logo or branding, should use the most prominent accessible color in the logo. For example, Template:Pink Panther should be using a background of F6D4E6   (the color of the body in File:Pink Panther.png) rather than E466A9   (the color of the background in that image). A representative color useful in a navbox is often already present in an article's infobox (if included), and these are sometimes specified programmatically. For example, the navbox associated with the National Register of Historic Places and other related categorizations should conform to Wikipedia's NRHP colors legend. In the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the template or table should not be identified with a particular color (e.g., an average biography), the default colors provided by the template or the table class should be used. If an article includes several navboxes whose colors conflict with each other, discretion should be used to minimize the visual disruption by using the default colors for navboxes. === Font family === Font families should not be explicitly defined in an article, with the exception of PUA characters (next section), because this interferes with Wikipedia's flexibility, and it is impossible to foresee what fonts will be installed on a user's computer. Articles used to explicitly define font families for special characters, because older browsers could not automatically select an appropriate font. This is no longer dealt with by using explicit font definitions in the articles. Certain definitions can be invoked by using special templates (see Help:Special characters, and templates listed at Template:Unicode). === Capital letters === The use of capital (upper-case) letters, including small-capitals style, is covered in detail at WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters. === Citations === Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system. Parameters in the citation templates should be accurate. Do not evade the formatting applied by a parameter, e.g. by using markup tricks or by switching to an inapplicable parameter simply because its style of output is different. A parameter with useful citation data should not be omitted just because the auto-applied style is not in agreement with text-formatting guidelines; that is a template bug to fix. === Strikethrough === Do not use strikethrough to indicate inappropriate or incorrect material; this causes accessibility and comprehensibility problems, and there are several better alternatives, including commenting out, deletion, and tagging for discussion. Intentional use of strikethrough as part of the content is discouraged for similar reasons. If strikethrough is used to indicate deleted text, such as in textual analysis, it should be implemented with semantic HTML element and combined with other techniques for accessibility purposes. The only invisible characters in the editable text should be spaces and tabs. However, other invisible characters are often inserted inadvertently by pasting from a word processor. These can cause confusion with editors and handling problems with editing software. Any necessary invisible or Private Use Area (PUA) characters should be substituted with their decimal or hexadecimal code values (that is, as &...;) so that they can be edited properly. A template, {{PUA}}, is used to mark PUA characters; it has no effect on the text, but places the article in a tracking category. (See the next sections for examples.) === Mixed right-to-left text === When right-to-left text is embedded in certain left-to-right contexts, such as when tagged with a reference, it may require control characters to display properly. The marker to return to left-to-right text should be encoded as ‎ or supplied through the template {{lang}}. Depending on your browser, there may be a difference between the display of unformatted Urdu: خ ?citation details: خ ?[1] with formatted: خ‎ ?citation details: خ‎ ?[1] or {{lang|ur|خ}} ?citation details: خ ?[1]and unformatted: (خ)citation details: (خ)[1] with formatted: (خ)‎citation details: (خ)‎[1] or {{lang|ur|(خ)}}citation details: (خ)[1]If there is intervening LTR text, as in خ abccitation details, a control character is not required. Spacing and most punctuation, however, are not defined as either LTR or RTL, so the direction of the text needs to be reset manually. === PUA characters === Private Use Area (PUA) characters are in three ranges of code points (U+E000–U+F8FF in the BMP, and in planes 15 and 16). PUA characters should normally be avoided, but they are sometimes used when they are found in common fonts, especially when the character itself is the topic of discussion. Where PUA characters cannot be replaced with non-PUA Unicode characters, they should be converted to their (hexa)decimal code values (that is, &#...; or &#x...;). However, whenever a PUA character has a Unicode equivalent, it should instead be replaced with that equivalent (Unicodified). The Unicode may be obvious when text is copied and pasted from a document that uses the PUA for bullets or similar characters in Latin text, but similar things happen with punctuation and emoticons in documents using Japanese and other scripts, so an editor familiar with those scripts may be needed. In Chinese documents it's not uncommon for the PUA to be used for characters that now have full Unicode support, due to poorer support for Chinese characters when those fonts were designed. Such PUA characters, which are sometimes found on Wikipedia in references and footnotes, should not be substituted with their (hexa)decimal values, as that will lock in the illegible character. If you're moderately familiar with the script, an internet search of the surrounding text will often locate a fully Unicode version of the text which can be used to correct the Wikipedia article. Because browsers do not know which fonts to use for PUA characters, it is necessary for Wikipedia to specify them. Formatting via one of the templates listed at Template:Unicode is sufficient in some cases. Otherwise the fonts should be specified through html markup, as in the example below. Note that if a font is not specified, or if none of the fonts are installed, readers will only see a numbered box in place of the PUA character. Tagging a (hexa)decimal code with the template {{PUA}} will enable future editors to review the page, and to Unicodify the character if it is included in future expansions of Unicode. This happened, for example, at strident vowel, where a non-Unicode symbol for the sound was used in the literature and added to the PUA of SIL's IPA fonts. Unicode didn't support it until several years after the Wikipedia article was written, and once the fonts were updated to support it, the PUA character in the article was replaced with its new Unicode value. For example, SIL added these letters at U+F267 and U+F268: {{PUA|}}, {{PUA|}}.which renders as: SIL added these letters at U+F267 and U+F268: , .See Category:Articles with wanted PUA characters and especially Tengwar § Unicode for examples of PUA characters which cannot easily be replaced. WP:Advanced text formatting WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters WP:Manual of Style/Command-line examples WP:Manual of Style § Ligatures WP:Superfluous bolding explained (essay)" 151 152 322 WP:BLPW Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch 151 "Quality control on biographical articles (""BLPs"", short for ""biographies of living persons"") is a high priority for Wikipedia. BLPWatch is a new BLP monitoring system whereby a user who feels a page is at risk from a BLP perspective (vandalism, smearing, improper negative or unsourced information being added, or ""slanting""), or any untoward editing related to biographical material, may ""tag"" the page after correction, to automatically have its edits watched for an extended period of time on behalf of users and biography subjects. It is effectively a controlled recent changes feed specifically for BLP-related pages that any user deems ""at risk"", together with protective code to address vandalistic removal of monitoring. BLPWatch is most suitable for biographical articles that have been rectified following obvious problems or following consensus, but where concerns exist over repetition. For manual patrol of biographies of living persons, see Wikipedia:Living People Patrol. As of March 2008, Wikipedia contains some 260,000 biographical articles on living people, and an unknown number of other pages which may contain biographical information or where biographical information may be added. It can also be edited by almost anyone. Whilst some pages are watched by many people and have a high profile, inevitably most do not, and only come to attention when a problem arises. Sometimes this is noticed by the biography subject themselves. In such cases, once rectified, it can be difficult to ensure that the problem is not reinstated days, weeks, or a few months later. In practice if a page were sporadically ""targeted"" by someone, then it may not be noticed that the problem was reinstated, even though the article subject believes it has been fixed and may have been told this. Clearly it is also utterly unfair and unreasonable to expect a biography subject, who may have no interest or desire to know about Wikipedia, to have to watch it themselves and be forced to do so hourly or daily. Although this applies to all pages and all articles in principle, it is of especial priority when it refers to biographical material about living people. Users are asked to help ensure the quality of BLPs by watching the output of BLPWatch when they are able. === Summary of process === BLPWatch is a monitoring system by which pages deemed ""at risk"" of BLP issues may be tagged by adding the {{Blpwatch|from=DATE|reason=REASON}} template (where 'from' is today's date in the format MM/YYYY). They will then automatically be watched and all edits reported to an IRC-based monitoring channel at #wikipedia-en-blpwatch. Such channels already exist for unblocking, technical assistance, and the like. The bot that does this task is designed to help users track edits on any BLP related ""at-risk"" pages, easily. It also watches carefully for attempts to bypass the system. It is currently awaiting approval. === When is BLPWatch appropriate === If BLP related material or pages are felt to be at risk of mis-editing, then the page can quickly be tagged by anyone for watching. Example reasons: The article has been vandalized in a way that suggests it may be again. The subject of the article has complained and we wish to be sure that the article is being watched against further quality issues for an extended period. The article is prone to disruptive editing.Pages that have a high profile and many users already watching in the usual way, are unlikely to need BLPWatch. This process is designed for lower profile articles, where multiple eyeballs are less likely or where errors or further mis-editing may not otherwise be noticed and removed in seconds or minutes. The ideal scenario is an article that would not otherwise be sure to have problem editing noticed promptly, or which has caused upset and additional care is required to ensure the maximum level of awareness, and where it is not certain that enough users are regularly watching the article in the normal way, to ensure this. === Comparison with other BLP processes === BLPWatch aims to provide a quick informal way that articles at risk related to BLP can be watched for an extended period without constant checking by editors or the biography subject. A typical context is some less active biographical article that has had some vandalism or other problem editing, and having reverted we want to ensure the vandalism isn't put back 2 weeks later. So we monitor its edits for a few months ""to play safe"". If all's good then it automatically gets delisted at that point; if there is vandalism then the bot can be told to update the end-time of the monitoring for a further few months from that date. As such it's not the same as OTRS, because any user can tag, any user can help watch, and it is intended to be used on any page with a blp concern, not just the ones specifically brought to OTRS attention. === When to tag a page === pages should be tagged when there has been activity that suggests they may be more likely to be ""hit"" again by problem editing, or when there is some kind of other concern, such as a BLP subject with concerns. In general, ""driveby"" (once off) vandalism is less appropriate for tagging. Factors that make a page more appropriate include: Multiple attempts to make problematic edits (now or in recent history) Targeted problematic edits (someone singling out the specific article) Subtle problematic edits that might not be noticed in future and need vigilance, or A higher level of concern than usual for any reason.In general, edits that would merit watchlisting the article as well as fixing, are likely to be edits one would tag for. The other criterion is article activity and profile. An article that has significant activity already, or where bad edits are obviously being watched for and rapdily noticed anyway, is less likely to need watching this way as well. As such, the typical BLPWatch article is a page that has been hit, and may or may not get hit again, but where it would possibly not be promptly noticed by editors, if it were hit again in a few weeks time, where a bad version might stand a while before being seen and identified by editors or readers. Therefore the article is set to be watched for an extended period by the fixing editor, in order to be sure that the problem is not recurrent, or is proactively being checked for. === How to tag a page === Add the tag: {{Blpwatch|from=DATE|reason=REASON}} to the actual page/s affected that need watching. It's that simple. The bot will pick this up and begin to monitor it when it next restarts. Since this could be some time, to force the bot to monitor it immediately, say !add
      or !reset in the IRC channel. The recommended location for the tag is the bottom of the page. ==== Date and reason ==== The date is the date at which watching starts or was restarted from (usually today's date), in the format MM/YYYY.The reason is a brief hint what sort of issue to watch for. In some cases the issue may not be obvious unless users are told. Example reasons - ""obvious vandalism"", ""insertion of POV related to X"", ""claims about Y"".(Note that BLPWatch can also be used to protect articles against other less common forms of risk, for example removal of appropriate content, or ""massaging"" of text to a favorable non-neutral viewpoint. It is effectively able to be used for any BLP related risk, which requires attention to all edits.)Please be careful not to tag articles unnecessarily, since tagged articles must have each edit reviewed. Deliberate inappropriate misuse or removal of the tag will be treated seriously. ==== Recognition ==== If an edit summary contains the word ""blpwatch"" in any form (blpwatch, !blpwatch, {{blpwatch}}, turn blpwatch off, etc) then the bot will check and update itself for that article. This is the fastest and easiest way to ensure a newly watched article will be noticed, and also makes the edit history easy to follow. The !tag command (when approved) is the other quick way, and both tags the article and updates the bot to watch it. If the edit summary does not contain ""blpwatch"", or if the bot is off at the time of tagging or does not for any other reason become aware, it will become recognized at the sooner of bot restart, and use of !add
      or !reset, provided the tag has not been removed in the meantime. === Effect of tagging === Once an article is tagged, BLPWatchBot will track all edits to tracked articles, and all newly tracked articles, that are added to the bot by resetting it (say !reset or !add in IRC). The relevant category is at Category:BLP watched articles. Various methods are used to protect against abuse or bypassing. Note that the bot cannot watch articles and additions when switched off. It will notice newly tagged articles on start-up, and report them so their recent edits may be reviewed. It will also notice articles that have been manually detagged, and which may therefore need checking for improper removal of watched status. All articles being watched will have their edits passed to the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-blpwatch where any user may stay and watch for BLP edits needing checking. A typical report will list the entire edit summary, a diff, and the details of the BLP problem being watched and the editor making the edit. There is also a category, so an on-wiki ""watchlist format"" page is available at Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:BLP watched articles, but this cannot detect removal of the tag. Watching lasts for several months, and may be extended at any time the problem is seen to require it. Monitoring ends automatically after several months, if no user has seen the need to update the date tag to signify a further period is needed. === Bot commands === The bot responds to the following commands from any user: !add
      - tells the bot that an article has been added, without needing to recheck the category via !reset !tag
      {{Blpwatch|from=DATE|reason=REASON}} - quickly tags an article !redate
      - ""restarts the clock"" on monitoring. Use this if an article has had continuing problems, to renew the monitoring period ""from today"". Only use when an edit makes it likely there may be ongoing problems. !info (!help is an alias) With an article it provides information on the monitoring status of an article, and the date monitoring was last started or reset and the user (if known) and reason. Without an article it provides information on BLPWatch itself, the bot, and its watchlist. !dump - saves a list of the current watchlist to the bot's wiki page !reset - reload category (ie, checking its own list of monitored articles against the actual list of pages tagged on the wiki and synchronizing the two). Also reports any discrepancies found, ie items that appear to have been newly tagged, or manually detagged, without bot awareness.The following three commands are being trialled for approval. If approved they will be restricted to approved users only, and the user that uses them will be named in the edit summary: !untag
      - allows trusted users to quickly detag articles !reason
      reason= - updates the reason !revert - allows trusted users to ""quick revert"" based upon edit summaryIf you are heavily involved in #wikipedia-en-blpwatch or have another good reason (eg OTRS), you can gain access to these commands by contacting ST47. All edits are given an item id by the bot, which can be used as a shortcut to refer to that page or edit in bot commands for a short time afterwards. Additionally a log is kept, readable by anyone with a web browser, that lists all events. Events listed include: bot start/stop, page tag/detag, and pages that were found to be newly tagged/detagged on startup. The link is at or can be found via !info. ==== Examples ==== !info !info George Bush !revert 3 !untag 76 !tag Michael Jackson 03/2008 porn images/links !reason Michael Jackson slurs and general vandalism !redate Michael Jackson !redate 17 Policies, guidelines and project pagesWikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Flagged revisionsBLPWatch and BLPWatchBot relatedTemplate:Blpwatch - the template used for this process User:BLPWatchBot - the BLPWatch monitoring bot's user page User talk:BLPWatchBot - the discussion page for the bot itself Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BLPWatchBot - Bot approval request page (current)" 152 153 323 WP:XYZ Wikipedia:Example 152 This is an example page for use in tutorials, help pages, or any other place where it would be inconvenient to link to another Wikipedia page. = Example title-sized heading = === Example sub-heading === ==== Example sub-sub-heading ==== ===== Example sub-sub-sub-heading ===== Example text Example bold text Example italic text Example bold and italic text Example bullet pointExample underlined text Example preformatted text Example block quote textExample blue link Example red link Example fake link Example fake redlink Example cited text with web reference Example cited text without web reference 153 154 326 WP:GETOVERIT Wikipedia:Get over it 153 "After it has been determined, often through multiple processes, that a certain result will stand, it makes no sense to continue fighting. Editors feeling the need to continue fighting after the result has been settled need to get over it and work together to improve the encyclopedia. Not everyone ""gets over it"", though. You may feel frustrated in a short-term sense, because you ""lost that round"". Or, you might have a deep sense that your beliefs or views on a certain matter are the best way of improving the Wikipedia project. You do not view yourself as a dark-cloaked rabble-rouser, but rather as a noble, good faith crusader for justice. As an editor, if you feel a strong need to continue ""fighting the battle"", you may feel inspired by the various great crusaders throughout history. The problem with becoming a Wikipedia Crusader Against Injustice, though, is that you may find that your online efforts to go head-to-head with the entire Wikipedia system may cause a lot of real-world grief for you, in terms of stress and anxiety. === Better options === Rather than becoming a Crusader Against Injustice and trying to take on the whole Wikipedia system, and causing yourself to get stomach ulcers, sleepless nights, and migraine headaches, you might wish to try some of these options: ==== The Ukulele option ==== If you really feel that the Wikipedia system or a dominant group of admins or the attitudes of certain other editors makes it impossible for you to continue on at Wikipedia, you might want to consider a WikiBreak. Go offline, and do non-Wiki activities such as rollerskating, tap-dancing, or ukulele lessons. Or ask that cute person sitting alone at the coffee shop out to a movie... ==== Swiss Family Robinson option ==== If you were getting into a huge disagreement with the editors in the Film Project page or the Actors Notability Guideline page, perhaps it is time to ""walk away"" from the whole film/movies area. Be like the Swiss Family Robinson, and go to an uncharted realm of Wikipedia where all there are is stub and start class articles, and write articles, set up categories, and build a new world. ==== Lord of your Domain Name option ==== Or perhaps the Wikipedia model and structure is not a good fit for you. There are other non-Wikipedia Wiki-style projects with different rules and different cultures. If you want to get totally away from having to deal with other people's rules and restrictions, starting your own website or blog might be a much more satisfying option. On your own blog, there are no admins, no ArbCom, and no policies. You are the Lord of your Domain. Throughout the last century, there have been individuals who have, at a great personal cost, waged one-man or one-woman battles against huge organizations and systems, because those individuals believed that there were important values at stake. Just to give one example, in the 1960s, civil rights activists in the US protested against discriminatory practices in a number of US states. Should those activists, after a state-level court ruled that ""Whites Only"" theaters or beaches were not in violation of the law, have just decided to ""get over it"", and accept the status quo? It can be argued that in some cases, some of the civil rights activists did a great service to society when they continued to battle for their cause, and appeal their cases up to the Supreme Court. Their protests and court challenges led to the removal of official, state-sanctioned discrimination throughout the US, when the Supreme Court struck down state-level discriminatory laws as unconstitutional. These activists were viewed, at the time, by certain sectors as troublemakers who were disrupting the established order of society. Just as today, some Wikipedia editors view fellow editors who wish to continue battling for a certain policy or guideline—even after a Committee or board has ruled against them—to be ""troublesome"" or ""disruptive"". However, so long as the activists in question are using civil behaviour, legitimate channels and a good faith approach to raise their concerns, and not going to the ""dark side"" of WikiHate, bad faith, and disruption/flaming, it can be argued that these individuals serve a purpose. It could be argued that ""good faith"", clean-fighting crusaders for policy changes and guideline modifications are like modern-day version of Socrates; they are gadflies who raise concerns about the system and call for reforms. We should accept them, then, rather than pushing a cup of poison Hemlock towards them. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Wikipedia:Snowball clause Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads User:Guy Macon/One against many" 154 155 330 WP:GOLDENRULE Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything 154 "We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, government records, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it. We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and the text must be approved by an editor before it is printed. Choose: books from reputable publishing houses, mainstream newspapers, or other periodicals. Not: tabloids, discussion boards, fansites, Facebook, YouTube, or most blogs. (Some blogs are written by professional journalists and published on newspaper websites, but most blogs have no editorial oversight, and comments on blogs, like forum posts, are almost never ok.) We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist that puts a positive ""spin"" on a subject and omits negative incidents. Not a report put out by an organization owned by the subject. Not just a Q&A interview where virtually all of the information is just the subject or a spokesperson speaking for themselves. We want readers to be able to rely on what they read, and to be able to verify claims they read in Wikipedia articles. So, please add footnotes to your article citing reliable sources such as recognized experts on the subject or trustworthy reporters, best if published in mainstream media or in books and journals printed by reputable publishers. This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in cases of inconsistency with this page. For an explanation of the title of this page, see The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD Wikipedia:Cite WP42 at AfD Wikipedia:Everything you need to know: a similar guide in the same style. Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)" 155 156 331 WP:MOSAR Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic 155 "This page proposes a guideline regarding the use of Arabic words on the English Wikipedia. On the English Wikipedia, Arabic is rendered into Latin script according to one of four methods in order of decreasing preference: Common English translation Common transcription Basic transcription Strict transliterationThe transliteration of Arabic used by Wikipedia is based on the ALA-LC romanization method, with a few simple changes that make it easier to read and manage in compliance with the main Manual of Style. The strict transliteration uses accents, underscores, and underdots, and is only used for etymology, usually alongside the original Arabic. All other cases of Arabic script romanization will use the same standard, but without accents, underscores, and underdots. Some exceptions to this rule may apply. === Arabic === In general, as specified on WP:English, a common English translation takes precedence over other methods to represent Arabic. This convention deals with the cases in which no common English translation is available. For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is defined as a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic script, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word. These could be in any language that uses this script, such as Arabic, Persian, or Ottoman Turkish. Examples of Arabic script rendered into Latin: Abu Sayyaf (organization) Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi (poet) Ta'if (city)Examples of titles not transliterated from Arabic script: Yazdegerd III of Persia (ruled Persia before Arabic script became used) Ahmet Necdet Sezer (ruled Turkey after the script stopped being used) Egypt (does not derive from an Arabic word) Algorism and Algorithm (common English words, no longer perceived as transcriptions of الخوارزمي al-Khwārizmī) === Common transcription === A word or name has a common transcription (anglicization) if a large majority of references in English use the same transcription or if a reliable source shows that an individual self-identifies with a particular transcription. Non-printable characters (including underscores) should be avoided. Examples of references include the Oxford Dictionary, the FBI, the NY Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Encarta, Britannica, the Library of Congress, and other academic sources. Examples of self-identification include a driver's license or passport in which the individual personally chose a particular form of transcription. Google searches can be useful in determining the most common usage, but should not be heavily relied upon. The content of large searches may not be relevant to the subject being discussed or may misrepresent the figures due to the use in languages other than English. For example, the ISO transliteration (ISO 233) of القائم is ""al-Qāʾim"", but the transcription ""al-Qaim"" receives five times as many hits. This word is used in the names of three historical Caliphs and a town in Iraq, and is also another name for the Mahdi in Shia Islam. Since Google searches do not discriminate between them, other sources must be used to determine if a common transcription exists for any particular usage. Google search counts are also biased toward syndicated news articles: a single syndicated reference may generate hundreds or thousands of hits, amplifying the weight of whatever spelling happens to be used by that one reference. If there is no common transcription, a basic transcription is used (see below). Examples: There is no single most popular transcription for the name of the prophet of Islam. ""Mohammed"", ""Mohammad"", ""Muhammad"", and ""Mohamed"" are all commonly used. The basic transcription ""Muhammad"" is used. The capital of Egypt is most widely known as Cairo. The basic transcription of ""al-Qahira"" is not used. The common transcription of the leader of al-Qaeda (itself a common transcription of the strict transliteration al-Qāʿida) is ""Osama bin Laden"". The basic transcription of Usama ibn Ladin is not used.Note: the Arabic word بن/ابن (English: son of) should be transcribed ibn unless a common transcription requires the colloquial bin. === Basic transcription === The basic transcription uses a systematic convention of rendering Arabic scripts. The basic transcription from Arabic to Roman letters is found below. The basic transcription does not carry enough information to accurately write or pronounce the original Arabic script. For example, it does not differentiate between certain pairs of similar letters (e.g. س sīn vs. ص ṣād), or between long and short vowels. It does, however, increase the readability of the article to those not familiar with Arabic transliteration, and avoids characters that may be unreadable to browsers. This transcription method can be seen as a compromise between strict transliteration and Wikipedia conventions. === Strict transliteration === A strict transliteration is completely reversible, allowing the original writing to be faithfully restored. A strict transliteration need not be a 1:1 mapping of characters as long as there are clear rules for choosing one character over another. A source character may be mapped (1:n) into a sequence of several target characters without losing sequential reversibility. A strict transliteration uses a system of accents, underscores, and underdots to render the original Arabic in a form that preserves all the information in the original Arabic. ALA-LC romanization is most commonly used for this purpose; other common transliteration standards include ISO 233 and DIN 31635. Note that several letters proposed in the strict transliteration system below do not render correctly for some widespread software configurations (e.g. ḥ, ṣ, ḍ, ṭ, ṛ, and ẓ). Using the {{transl}} template to enclose transliterations allows CSS classes to address these issues. === Examples === === Article titles === Article titles should conform to WP:CRITERIA. Rules of thumb that will work in most cases: Use the translation or transcription that is most often used in English-language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME principle). Example: Henna When there are several forms that occur often in English-language reliable sources, and for those that are used most often it is unclear which one outdoes the others in usage, choose among these the one that is closest to the basic transcription. Example: Jinn (not Djinn nor Genies) In all other cases use the basic transcription. Example: Jabir ibn Aflah Stay within the constraints of WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. Example: Na'im ibn Musa (not Na‘im ibn Musa)Choosing an article title that diverts from the above rules of thumb can only be done with a consensus that the alternative article title conforms better to WP:CRITERIA, and when all applicable redirects are in place. Example: Thābit ibn Qurra === Redirects === All frequently occurring name variants, including transcriptions and transliterations, should redirect to the article. There will often be many redirects, but this is intentional and does not represent a problem. === Lead paragraph === All articles with Arabic titles should have a lead paragraph which includes the article title, along with the original Arabic script and the strict transliteration in parentheses, preferably in the lead sentence. This is in accordance with the official Wikipedia policy at WP:ENGLISH. Many articles that are missing this information are listed at Category:Articles needing Arabic script or text. Arabic script is used in combination with the {{lang-ar}} or {{lang|ar}} template, while the strict transliteration is written using {{transl}}. A combination of the {{lang-ar}} and {{transl}} templates can be represented by {{lang-ar-at}}: {{lang|ar|...}}: will mark the text as Arabic. In some browsers, this may trigger a more legible font.. {{transl|ar|...}}: provides a mouseover note indicating that the inserted text is transliterated from Arabic. The transliteration has to be italicised manually. {{lang-ar|...1...|...2...|lit=...|link=...}}: provides a combination of a link to Arabic language, the original Arabic term, its transliteration and a literal translation. Parameter 1: Arabic-script text Parameter 2: strict transliteration |lit= ""literal translation"" |link= fill in |link=no to unlink ArabicThe standard format, with, pursuant to {{transl}}, the transliteration system indicated, is given in the following examples: Cairo (Arabic: القاهرة, romanized: al-Qāhira) is ... Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (Arabic: الحاكم بأمر الله, romanized: al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh; 13 August 985 – 13 February 1021) was the sixth Fatimid caliph...Some cases will require variations on this format. If the name is extremely long, the first appearance of the name is suitable to provide the strict transliteration. Likewise, if a strict transliteration appears overly repetitious, it should be in place of the page title in the lead paragraph. Example: Abū al-ʿAbbās ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad as-Saffāḥ (Arabic: أبو العباس عبد الله بن محمد السفاح) was the first Abbasid caliph. Abu al-Abbas was the head of... === Main text and general usage === As with the convention for titles, common English translations should be used as much as possible. Likewise, if these are not available, one should first try a common transcription before resorting to the basic transcription. Strict transliterations in the main text should only be used out of necessity, e.g. explanations in linguistic texts or articles about transliterating. ==== Clash with wiki markup ==== Words ending with ayn or a hamza are transcribed with an apostrophe at the end. This can cause a problem if the word is at the end of an italicized or bold text. In order to prevent the final apostrophe from being interpreted as wiki markup '' and ''', use {{`}}. Example: ''Karbala{{`}}'' for Karbala'. Index by family name in modern cases where there is one, otherwise by the first component in the commonly used name. Example: Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan should be indexed under ""Muawiya"". For indexing of persons, the definite article ""al-"" and its variants (ash-, ad-, etc.) should be omitted when they form part of a modern family name. Example: Hanadi Zakaria al-Hindi, Yahya El Hindi and Baba Ratan Hindi should all be indexed under ""Hindi"". However, for organisational names, where a common transcription is established by usage, the al- or el- part is often treated as a full part of the word. Example: Al-Qaeda should be indexed as ""Al-Qaeda"", not ""Qaeda"". Include particles such as Abu, Abd, Abdel, Abdul, ben, bin and bint as part of the name. When found in modern surnames, such names are considered compound names and the particles are integral to the name. Example: Osama bin Laden should be indexed as ""Bin Laden, Osama"". For indexing, the apostrophe (representing hamza and ‘ayn) should be ignored, and letters with diacritics should be indexed as if they did not have their diacritics. Example: Ibn Sa‘ūd should be indexed under ""Saud"". The strict transliteration presented below is based on the ALA-LC Romanization method (1997), and standards from the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. It also includes some alternative symbols adopted in ISO 233 and DIN 31635, which are used by such sources as the Encyclopedia of Islam, and are available in the Arabic tab of the default Wikipedia editor. The basic transcription is a simplified version. === Consonants === Notes from the ALA-LC specifications ^ Rule 8(a): ""In initial position, whether at the beginning of a word, following a prefixed preposition or conjunction, or following the definite article, ء is not represented in romanization. When medial or final, ء is romanized."" In basic transcriptions, the same applies to ‘ayn and consonantal alif. ^ Rule 8(a): ""In initial position, whether at the beginning of a word, following a prefixed preposition or conjunction, or following the definite article, ء is not represented in romanization. When medial or final, ء is romanized."" In basic transcriptions, the same applies to ‘ayn and consonantal alif. ^ Rule 7: ""When the word ending in ة is in the construct state, ة is romanized t. ... When the word ending in ة is used adverbially, ة (vocalized ةً) is romanized tan."" ^ Rule 11(b)(2): ""Final ‏◌ِيّ is romanized ī."" === Vowels === === Definite article === Romanizing the Arabic definite article is usually preferred unassimilated. Arabic has only one definite article (الـ al-). However, if it is followed by a solar letter (listed in the table right), the ""L"" is assimilated in pronunciation with this solar letter and the solar letter is doubled. Examples تقي الدين is pronounced as /taˈqijj adˈdiːn/ and is either transliterated as Taqi al-Din (preferably) or Taqi ad-Din.Both the non-assimilated (al-) or the assimilated (ad-) form appear in various standards of transliteration. Choose one and use it consistently throughout the article. ""Al-"" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case, also when forming part of proper nouns, except when beginning a sentence. It is always separated from the following word (which takes the upper case when it is a proper noun) by a hyphen. Examples ""He was a member of al-Qaeda."" ""Al-Qaeda has been designated as a terrorist group."" ==== Dynastic Al ==== Some people, especially in the region of Arabia, when they are descended from a famous ancestor, start their last name with آل āl /ʔaːl/, a noun meaning ""family"" or ""clan"", like the dynasty Al Saud (family of Saud) or Al ash-Sheikh (family of the Sheikh). آل āl /ʔaːl/ is distinct from the definite article ال al- /al/. === Capitalization === Rules for the capitalization of English should be followed, except for the definite article, as explained above. === Names === The basic transcription of Arabic names comprises a variation on the following structure: the given name (ism) multiple patronymics (nasab), as appropriate, each preceded by the particle ibn (son) or bint (daughter).Note: the Arabic particle بن (English: son of) should be transcribed ibn unless a common transcription requires the colloquial form bin (e.g. Osama bin Laden)multiple descriptive nicknames (laqab) or family names (nisba), as appropriate.If Abū is preceded by ibn, the correct grammatical format is ibn Abī, not ibn Abū. When the Arabic script was adopted for the Persian language, there were letters pronounced in Persian which did not have a representation in the Arabic alphabet, and vice versa. The Persian alphabet adds letters to the Arabic alphabet, and changes the pronunciation of some Arabic letters. In addition, Persian does not use a definite article (al-). Urdu adds additional letters, and some existing letters are transliterated differently. The strict transliteration is based on the ALA-LC Romanization method for Urdu (2012). The basic transcription is the same for the additional letters, but without accents, underscores and underdots. All letters in common with Arabic should likewise follow the Arabic transcription and/or translation conventions. === Consonants === === Aspirates === === Vowels === The Ottoman Turkish language differs from the above languages in that, since 1928, words that were once written with a Persian-influenced version of the Arabic abjad have been written using the Latin alphabet. As such, there is a long established set of standards for writing the language in a basic transcription; however, in a strict transliteration, the language adheres closely to the standards for strict transliteration described above. Guidelines for writing Ottoman Turkish words according to the basic transcription can be found at the website of the Turkish Language Association (Türk Dil Kurumu): here for the majority of words, and here for names of people. In the following table, only those letters which differ in either their strict transliteration or their basic transcription from the Arabic-oriented table above are shown; all others are transliterated according to that table. === Definite article === In words that use the Arabic definite article ال, the article always follows the assimilation of solar letters. However, the vowel ا can be transliterated in a number of ways. For a definite article in initial position, the definite article is written as el- in both the basic and the strict renderings; e.g. الوهاب el-Vehhāb, الرمضان er-Ramażān. For a definite article in medial position, such as is found in many names of Arabic origin, the vowel in the strict transliteration can be written in a variety of ways; e.g. u’l, ü’l, i’l, ’l, etc. In such cases, the diacritic representing the hamza or ‘ayin (i.e. ’ or ‘) is always used, and the choice of vowel should follow modern Turkish orthography; e.g. عبد الله ‘Abdu’llah', عبد العزيز ‘Abdü’l-‘Azīz, بالخاصه bi’l-ḫaṣṣa. For a definite article in medial position in the basic transcription, ’ is not used, and the choice of vowel and spelling should follow modern Turkish orthography; e.g. عبد الله Abdullah, عبد العزيز Abdülâziz, بالخاصه bilhassa. Guideline for the ALA-LC romanization: Arabic Romanization at the Library of Congress - Fact sheet for the ALA-LC standard Arabic - Sheet comparing 6 major transliteration standards. Arabic - Report on the status of United Nations romanization systems for geographical names. January 2003 Yamli Real-Time Arabic transliteration eiktub Another real-time Arabic transliteration software, also capable of exact transliteration according to the rules of Bikdash Transliteration." 156 157 332 WP:DCP Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials 156 "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work. For information on verifying permission to use work previously published by others, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.Often, people wish to ""donate"" copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. These materials may be text (including monographs, articles, etc.) or images (including photographs). They may or may not already be posted on some other website. They may or may not actually be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. This page exists to provide some guidance in these matters. (Most of what is on this page also applies to work in the public domain, but the focus is on copyrighted materials, because they raise more complicated issues.) When you contribute material to Wikipedia, you are not giving us exclusive use of it. You still retain any rights you previously held, but you are giving non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). These licenses allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author. Wikipedia does not accept material that claims ""this can be used in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else or in derivative works."" Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. Note, too, that the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use allow text by others or which you have co-authored with others to be imported under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-SA-compatible license alone, without need to verify compatibility with GFDL, but text for which you hold the copyright yourself must be licensed under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Please be aware that the content you donate is subject to continuous editing by the Wikipedia community. It may be added to, subtracted from, rearranged, illustrated, split into multiple articles, translated into other languages, and otherwise changed beyond your expectations. Your contribution will always be part of the page history, so you retain credit for your work — our licenses are conditioned on our providing that credit, and ensuring that you are not held liable in any sense for the changes others make to your work. Please note that one of the benefits of this freedom to edit is that you are freely able to incorporate the improvements that others make into your own website or source work, so long as it remains under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL. If it is important that your work remain unchanged, please read the guidelines for our sister project, Wikisource, which may be better suited to host such work. === You cannot donate what someone else owns === If you are not the copyright holder of the material you cannot donate rights to Wikipedia! The last thing we want are copyright problems: we try to be ruthless in rooting out material where there is even the slightest question about our right to use it. For example: Most web pages do not allow their material to be freely copied. Unless the material is either public domain, carries a copyleft notice compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, or you have explicit permission to use it, please don't copy and paste from other websites into Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission provides information on obtaining and verifying explicit permission.) If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us. If you are the subject of a photograph, you probably do not own the copyright to it as that remains with the person who has taken the picture. === Wikipedia is not a universal compendium === Wikipedia is not a universal compendium. There are things we include and things we don't. Probably the best explanation of this is at the page ""Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not"". In particular, we try not to include content that is below an encyclopedic level of notability. We probably don't need an article about your college club (unless it happens to be something like the Oxford Union). On the other hand, we are open to encyclopedic articles, with cited sources and written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The content of most websites, as written, usually does not meet these criteria, so it may be best to simply paraphrase, rather than copy verbatim. This also avoids the need to re-license the content. === Wikipedia does not publish original research === Wikipedia is not a primary source, and does not publish new and untested research and claims. Our position on such material is described more thoroughly at ""Wikipedia:No original research"". In brief, Wikipedia at a minimum will not consider covering a matter at least until it has a proven history of gaining significant attention by significant third party sources, or (for matters testable by science) by the global scientific community. Therefore if your work is unscrutinized, unpublished, theoretical, cutting-edge, or otherwise not covered in depth through other reliable sources, you will need to seek other avenues to publish it first. Alternatively, you might consider publishing it at Wikiversity, if the topic is suitable for that project. Contributions of media material (images, videos and the like) are by their nature less likely to be ""original research"" in this sense; however they would still be covered by the same policy in the same way. If you have taken photographs that you think would be useful to Wikipedia, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons (to activate your account in Commons, login using the same credentials you use in Wikipedia on Commons), where they can be used by any Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia. Please, if you are uploading images, become familiar with the image copyright tags. If you are the photographer, you will probably want to use one of the following: {{CC-BY-4.0}} or {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} to retain copyright, but license your image under a Creative Commons license (note, not all CC licenses are accepted here, non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not accepted) {{Attribution}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} to retain copyright, but allow the image to be used freely subject to certain restrictions, such as acknowledgment. Note that any restrictions cannot include terms from unacceptable licenses, such as ""no derivative works"" or ""no commercial use."" {{CC0}} or {{PD-self}} to release your image into the public domain.Contributions can also be dual-licensed, being subject to two different licenses, and allowing users to choose which one they want to use your content under. We encourage you to place a descriptive caption and source information (such as when and how it was taken) onto the Image description page in addition to the image copyright tag. One simple way to grant permission to copy material already online is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a ""copyleft"" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read: The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).If you do not wish to retain any rights to the work, you may instead release it under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver, which effectively releases your work into the public domain: The text of this website [or page] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0).If you verify text by placing a note at the website, you may wish to use {{Text release}} to make sure that your release is documented at the talk page of the article. Instructions for using that template can be found at Template:Text release. Please do not use this template if the release is not published at your website, as the text will need to be removed. If you would like to allow Wikipedia or another Wikimedia site to use your content, be it text or images, but don't want to put a license statement on the website, you still must release it under the free licenses noted above and can do so in the following ways: For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org; (2) After sending the email, place {{Permission pending}} on the article's talk page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.For images, you can send an email through the new interactive consent release form:Try our new Interactive Release Generator!Alternatively, you should send an email using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{Permission pending}} on the image page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.If you would like to license your site's content under a free license, but don't have any particular articles in mind to put the content in, you can follow the above directions, and list your site on one of the following pages, based on the type of content and license: Wikipedia:Free or semi-free non-Public-Domain information resources Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources Wikipedia:Public domain resources Wikipedia:Public domain image resources Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Source materials#Public domain and free map resources Commons:Free media resourcesIf you have any further questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia:Copyright issues - undigested talk on this topic Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries Wikipedia:Example requests for permission Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)" 157 158 333 WP: C Wikipedia:Copyrights 157 "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Some text has been imported only under CC BY-SA and CC BY-SA-compatible license and cannot be reused under GFDL; such text will be identified on the page footer, in the page history, or on the discussion page of the article that utilizes the text. Every image has a description page that indicates the license under which it is released or, if it is non-free, the rationale under which it is used. The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses. To this end, Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts. A copy of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License is included in the section entitled ""Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License"" A copy of the GNU Free Documentation License is included in the section entitled ""GNU Free Documentation License"". Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.The English text of the CC BY-SA and GFDL licenses is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content. What follows is our interpretation of CC BY-SA and GFDL, as it pertains to the rights and obligations of users and contributors. If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Non-text media may be contributed under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. See Guidelines for images and other media files, below. If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author. Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL. In other words, you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC BY-SA license or (b) dual-licensed with the GFDL and another license with terms compatible with the CC BY-SA license. If you are the sole author of the material, you must license it under both CC BY-SA and GFDL. If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details. If you are not a copyright holder, you will still need to verify copyright permission; see the Using copyrighted work from others section below. You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death). === Using copyrighted work from others === All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Generally, Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works. There are some circumstances under which copyrighted works may be legally utilized without permission; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for specific details on when and how to utilize such material. However, it is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use or otherwise. If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license. If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement. If you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under compatible terms, you must make a note of that fact (along with the relevant names and dates) and verify this through one of several processes. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for asking a copyright holder to grant a usable license for their work and for the processes for verifying that license has been granted. Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble. Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference (see the plagiarism guideline). === Linking to copyrighted works === Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use. === Copyright violations === Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation on Wikipedia's part. If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material–and the whole page, if there is no other material present–should be removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for detailed instructions. === Guidelines for images and other media files === Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless the work has explicitly been placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims. On Wikipedia, the use of media files is subject to the image use policy, and additionally the use of non-free content is governed by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Image description pages must be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images, as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Untagged or incorrectly-tagged images may be deleted. Questions about media copyright may be directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is generally staffed by volunteers familiar with Wikipedia's media copyright guidelines and policies. The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.[2] A brief summary of non-U.S. copyright laws, including guidelines on determining copyright status of the material in the United States, is available at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. === Works by the United States Federal Government === Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States (though they may be protected by copyright outside the U.S.). It is not enough that the employee was working at the time; he/she must have made the work as part of his/her duties (e.g. a soldier who takes a photograph with his/her personal camera while on patrol in Iraq owns the copyright to the photo, but it may find its way onto a unit webpage or otherwise be licensed to the government). However, not every work republished by the U.S. government falls into this category. The U.S. government can own copyrights that are assigned to it by others–for example, works created by contractors. United States Code; Title 17; Chapter 1; § 105 Subject matter of copyright; United States Government works. Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.US Code Moreover, images and other media found on .mil and .gov websites may be using commercial stock photography owned by others. It may be useful to check the privacy and security notice of the website, but only with an email to the webmaster can you be confident that an image is in the public domain. Note that while the United States government does not claim copyright protection on its own works, governments outside the U.S. often do claim copyright over works produced by their employees. (For example, several Commonwealth realms utilize Crown copyright.) === Works by state governments of the United States === In contrast to the federal government, most state and local governments in the United States retain copyright to their employees' work. Such work is not in the public domain, so please make sure to check copyright information before using it. The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission (members of the media, see Foundation:Press room, others see Wikipedia:Contact us). If you want to use other Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/websites or other publications, you can do so, unless it is used under the non-free content provisions—but only in compliance with the licensing terms. Please follow the guidelines below: === Re-use of text === Attribution To re-distribute text on Wikipedia in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which should be indicated on an article's face or on its talk page. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users. Copyleft/Share Alike If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later. Indicate changes If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page history is sufficient. Licensing notice Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. For this purpose, a suitable URL is: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/For further information, please refer to the legal code of the CC BY-SA License. ==== Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License ==== For compatibility reasons, any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC BY-SA or a CC BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible. Since all text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, you can ensure GFDL compatibility by using the page history to retrieve content published before that date. === Re-use of non-text media === Where not otherwise noted, non-text media files are available under various free culture licenses, consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file. === Non-free materials and special requirements === Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law ""fair use"" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such ""fair use"" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style). This leads to possible restrictions on the use, outside of Wikipedia, of such ""fair use"" content retrieved from Wikipedia: this ""fair use"" content does not fall under the CC BY-SA or GFDL license as such, but under the ""fair use"" (or similar/different) regulations in the country where the media are retrieved. Prior to June 15, 2009, Wikipedia did permit some text under licenses that were compatible with the GFDL but might require additional terms that were not required for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). However, these materials could only be placed if the original copyright holders did not require that they be carried forward; for that reason, they impose no special burden for reuse. When you merge or split an article, or otherwise move text from one page to another within Wikipedia, the page history functionality cannot by itself determine where the content originally came from. This may violate the attribution clause of the project's licenses. If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page. It is encouraged to do the same thing at the source page, and to add notices at the talk pages of both. If you reuse text which you created yourself, the above may still be a good idea to avoid confusion, but it isn't mandatory. If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request the page be immediately removed from Wikipedia; see Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You can also contact our designated agent to have it permanently removed (but it may take up to a week for the page to be deleted that way). You may also blank the page and replace it with the words {{copyvio|URL or place you published the text}} but the text will still be in the page history. Either way, we will, of course, need some evidence to support your claim of ownership. Inversely, if you are the editor of a Wikipedia article and have found a copy hosted without following the licensing requirements for attribution, please see Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. Wikipedia:Copyright problems Wikipedia:Designated agent Wikipedia:Example requests for permission Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#Copyrights Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright Wikipedia:File copyright tags Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks Wikipedia:Non-free content Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights Wikipedia:Plagiarism Wikipedia:Scanning an image does not make it your ""own work"" Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup Commons:Copyright rules m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia" 158 159 335 WP:CSB Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 158 "The Wikipedia project contains several types of WP:NPOV violations that arise from systemic bias in the demographics of the editor community. Encyclopedic coverage is imbalanced and often omits points of view from under-represented demographic groups. Systemic bias on Wikipedia may take the form of gender, geographical, racial, ideological and other forms of bias. See § Further reading for studies, statistics, and more information that demonstrate contributor or subject imbalances. Eliminate the gaps caused by the systemic bias in editors' cultural perspective, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. Improve the editing community's understanding of the systemic bias in Wikipedia by reviewing existing scholarship and ensuring that recent studies about Wikipedia's systemic bias are included as sources in various articles about Wikipedia itself. Ensure that sections about systemic bias in these articles are clear, complete, and concise. === Scope === The first goal is extremely broad, as under-represented POVs may affect almost any article. It may be effective to prioritise WP:Featured articles, WP:Good articles, and WP:Vital articles. The second goal is limited to articles about Wikipedia itself. Research consistently finds systemic bias in Wikipedia's selection of articles in its various language editions. This bias leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices and omission of important information. Wikipedia's increasing influence on the way people comprehend the world makes this bias a potentially serious threat. === Selection based on gender bias === Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism. Wikipedia has been criticized by some journalists and academics for lacking not only female contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender. An article in The New York Times cites a Wikimedia Foundation study which found that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia were women. Sue Gardner, then the executive director of the foundation, said increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia ""as good as it could be"". Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the ""obsessive fact-loving realm"", associations with the ""hard-driving hacker crowd"", and the necessity to be ""open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists"". === Selection based on racial bias === A challenge for editors trying to add Black history articles to Wikipedia is the requirement that potential article topics, such as historical individuals or events, meet Wikipedia's ""notability"" criteria. Sara Boboltz of HuffPost wrote that the Wikipedia notability criteria ""is a troubling problem for those fighting for more content about women and minorities"", because ""there's simply less [published] documentation on many accomplished women and minorities throughout history – they were often ignored, after all, or forced to make their contributions as someone else's assistant.""Maher stated that one issue is that ""content on Wikipedia has to be backed up by secondary sources, sources that she says throughout history have contained a bias toward white men;"" ""people of color have not been represented in mainstream knowledge creation or inclusion in that knowledge,"" as ""encyclopedias of old were mostly written by European men.""Although these assume bias, the presence of white nationalists and other far-right extremists on Wikipedia is an ongoing problem that is unlikely to go away in the near future given the rightward political shift in countries where the majority of the site’s users live."" The SPLC cited the article Race and intelligence as an example of the alt-right influence on Wikipedia, stating that at that time the article presented a ""false balance"" between fringe racialist views and the ""mainstream perspective in psychology."" Some task forces that focus on particular aspects of systemic bias are linked below: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force === Defunct task forces === Talk pages for the following task forces have not been edited in over two years Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/History Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force There are many things you may do, listed roughly from least to most intensive: Sign up as a participant and mention any interests you may have related to CSB. Watch the talk page, and participate in discussions there. Read news articles and other sources from political view points you wouldn't normally read or in other languages. If you're multilingual, translate articles from other languages. Consciously edit topics that are systemically under-represented, such as geographic places in Africa. Changing one out of every twenty of your edits to something outside your ""comfort zone"" would be substantial. Create articles for underrepresented groups and topics. Women in Red keeps a list of potentially notable women that do not have articles on the English Wikipedia. Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations. If you are not familiar with a subject area, discuss your concerns on appropriate forums before making an AfD nomination. Review articles being discussed for deletion. Advocate to keep suitable articles about under-represented topics. Improve articles that are being considered for deletion. For example, use WikiProect delete sorting to review deletion nominations of biographies about women WP:DS/WOMEN Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at high school or university, contact a professor in minority, women's, or critical studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia. There are several WikiProjects and regional notice boards that have potential to help out in our efforts. We may also eventually want to create new WikiProjects as part of this effort. Article Rescue Squadron Middle Eastern military history task force WikiProject Authors WikiProject Biblical Criticism WikiProject Biography WikiProject Catholicism WikiProject Disability WikiProject Ethnic Groups WikiProject Gender Studies WikiProject Feminism Hinduism-related topics notice board WikiProject Islam WikiProject Languages WikiProject LGBT_studies WikiProject Organized Labour WikiProject political figures WikiProject Military history WikiProject World music (includes tasks to do) Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's healthSee also: Category:WikiProjects relevant for countering systemic bias {{Infobox WikiProject}}, which has a |csb=yes parameter putting projects in that category ==== Africa ==== ==== Latin America or the Caribbean ==== Argentina-related regional notice board WikiProject Mexican-Americans Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board WikiProject Echo, which translates pages from other WikiProjects ==== Asia ==== Also Middle East, under Category:WikiProject Middle East Notice board for Pakistan-related topics Notice board for India-related topics Indonesia-related topics notice board|topics notice board Thailand-related topics notice board ==== Europe ==== WikiProject Basque WikiProject Belarus WikiProject Bulgaria WikiProject Croatia WikiProject Estonia WikiProject Galicia WikiProject Latvia WikiProject Moldova WikiProject Netherlands WikiProject Ukraine ==== Other projects ==== meta:Wikimedia urban postering campaign Wikipedia:WikiProject Interlanguage Links/Ideas from the Hebrew Wikipedia - a project in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and in the first stages of being exported to other languages, to add interlanguage links to articles which don't have them. One of its positive side effects is that it facilitates writing articles about the culture specific to that language. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics The template {{globalize}} may be placed to produce The template {{toofewopinions}} may be placed to produce The template {{religion primary}} may be placed to produce The template {{recentism}} may be placed to produce When these templates are used they should be accompanied by a brief note on the talk page to outline what exactly you feel needs to be addressed. Please add your name to the members page. We of course encourage all members of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, to also promote their membership to other Wikipedians, by adding the Userbox template to their personal user page. This is fast and easy to do. You only need to add this line at your user page: {{User WikiProject Countering systemic bias}}, and then you will find this wonderful blue userbox displayed: If you have specific interests relating to countering systemic bias, feel free to briefly describe them there or on this Wikiproject's talk page so we can get a sense of the strengths of the project. Wikipedia:Systemic bias FUTON bias Wikipedia:Translation Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective Wikipedia:CSB Collaboration of the Week (inactive) Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 (old) Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias (inactive) Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Research publications/harasssment Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity Self-censorship Floating Sheep Collective's report ""Geographies of the World's Knowledge"" (pdf) is available from Visualizing Data at the Oxford Internet Institute and discusses places and time periods which Wikipedia articles tend to focus on or ignore. Wikipedia edits visualized shows the locations of editors worldwide as they edit on the randomly selected day of May 10, 2011. ""Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica"" by Joseph Reagle and Lauren Rhue in the International Journal of Communication ""WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance"" a conference paper by Lam, Uduwage, Dong, Sen, Musicant, Terveen, and Riedl. (commentary on this from Signpost) ""Gender Gap: Recapping some basics about what we're doing"" a note by Sue Gardner, the Wikimedia Foundation's executive director ""Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List"" by Noam Cohen in The New York Times Under Reported Stories by Thomson Reuters Foundation Under-Told Stories The Neglected Books Page - www.NeglectedBooks.com: Where forgotten books are remembered" 159 160 337 WP:CORE Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics 159 "The Core Topics subproject of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team is intended to identify and work toward improvement of the most important articles (realizing that ""importance"" is subjective). Currently our work is limited to about 150 articles, which are listed with comments below. A supplementary list, similar in size, has been created to cover some other important subjects. If you're interested in helping, here are some good places to start: IndividuallyWork on any article listed in the tree and update its status if needed. Especially, use the article status summary as a guide. The ""Start Class"" topics are more than stubs but often need substantial work.CollaborationsCore topics and stubs at WP:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. This was begun in December 2004, by popular demand, more or less, to be a list of about 150 core subjects that would go in a ""release"" version of Wikipedia. The list is small so as to be tightly focused. Articles on individual countries are core topics, but beyond the scope of this list because there are so many and their value is clear. Biographies are beyond the scope of this list because their value when considered individually is too subjective. Other contenders for core articles include articles on the English language, timelines, maps and any reference material. === Elite Nine === === General === To aid in topic checking and development, links to the corresponding outlines have been provided, where available. To aid in topic checking and development, links to the corresponding outlines have been provided, where available. Martin Walker Ahmed Al-Hilali Tastemyhouse Deliri Maurreen Mahanga Randy Johnston E Pluribus Anthony Jaranda Silence NCurse Oldak Quill CQ Reswik John of Paris Unionhawk Adavis444 Dirtlawyer1 Smuckola Wikipedia:Core topics, inner levels simple:Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have m:List of articles all languages should have - duplicate at meta Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded - duplicate at Wikipedia Wikipedia:Vital articles (an edited copy with images noting GAs and FAs, and bold noting those with cleanup tags) Portal:Contents - list of subject lists. Each of the following pages is a list of subjects, but their links lead to navigation pages rather than to articles. Great for identifying core topics. Portal:Contents/Indexes - almost all the index page titles are major subjects. The indexes themselves attempt to be comprehensive and mix major and minor topics together alphabetically with no distinction between them. Portal:Contents/Outlines - in addition to their titles representing major subjects, each outline is further broken down into major subjects within its subject. For example, geography is broken down into human geography, physical geography, landforms, regions, etc. You can tell how major a topic is by where it is on the knowledge tree. If you are hunting for core topics, this system will help you find many. Wikipedia:Most referenced articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies User:Danny/100 most important articles Category:Top-importance articles /Category sets worksheet /Core topics COTF (obsolete, historic interest only) /Requests for pictures and images /Supplement /Table and changes to article list /Tree, historical" 160 161 338 WP:ECU Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecuador 160 Welcome to WikiProject Ecuador, a WikiProject created to better organize, coordinate, expand, and present information in articles related to Ecuador. Our mission is to develop and improve all Ecuador-related articles in order to make Wikipedia an accurate and reliable resource for Ecuador-related information. If you would like to help, please join us or inquire on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecuador/Missing articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Ecuador Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ecuador Articles for deletion 17 Mar 2023 – Efraín Saavedra (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted) 21 Mar 2023 – Virginia Greville (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by LibStar (t · c) was closed as delete by Courcelles (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023; see discussion (6 participants)Good article nominees 10 Mar 2023 – Simón Bolívar (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Vami IV (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 12 Mar 2023 – Adrienne Bailon (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Adrienne Bailon-Houghton by MrSchimpf (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged 16 Jan 2023 – Concha Revolution (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ecuadorian Civil War of 1913–1916 by Fontaine347 (t · c); see discussion 16 Jan 2023 – Ecuadorian Civil War of 1913–1916 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Concha Revolution by Fontaine347 (t · c); see discussion 19 Aug 2022 – Galápagos Province (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Galápagos Islands by 93.44.196.46 (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 04 Feb 2023 – Julian Assange (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by NadVolum (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Carlos Crespi Croci (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 09 Feb 2023 – Draft:Assassination of Omar Menéndez (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Oltrepier (t · c) {{WikiProject Ecuador}} - talk page banner for articles {{User WP Ecuador}} - user box for participant userpages Category:Ecuador user templates {{Ecuador-stub}} {{Ecuador-geo-stub}} {{Ecuador-bio-stub}} {{Ecuador-politician-stub}} es:Wikiproyecto:Ecuador: Ecuador Project on Spanish Wikipedia Diccionario biografico de Ecuador /Recognized content === Active members === To register your interest in WikiProject Ecuador, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}}, optionally with your areas of interest, to the bottom of the following list of members. Antonio Torito Martin (talk) 12:55, March 5, 2006 (UTC) Endlessdan (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Aetheling (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld White cat 00:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Yakushima (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Crispulop (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC) BeowulfBrower (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Vami_IV (talk · contribs): I'm in. mk170101 (talk · contribs) Been working on some local fauna/flora/people Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) Esmost (talk · contribs) David C. S. (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Victuallers (talk · contribs) 23 May 2022 Women in Red in the National Assembly 161 162 339 WP:faith Wikipedia:Assume good faith 161 "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to ""Assume Good Faith"" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others. Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders. However, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not. Violation of policies—such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not. === Good faith and newcomers === It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors. A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them. === Good faith and copyright === When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good-faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices. === Good faith and administerial action === When dealing with potential breaches of policy, administrators should not assume editors have breached policy in bad faith absent evidence to that effect. In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors. Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout. Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence. === Accusing others of bad faith === Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations. === Guidelines === Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Wikipedia:Disruptive editing === Essays === === Articles === Hanlon's razor Presumption of innocence Suspension of judgment" 162 163 341 WP:WHIST Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History 162 "Welcome to WikiProject Women's History, a collaboration area for Wikipedians interested in improving coverage of women's history. The project's primary purpose is to provide support for members and any other editors in improving Wikipedia's coverage of women from a historical perspective. New members are always welcome! Just add your name to our participants list. You might also want to join one of our task forces. The project currently has two: Women in World War I and Women in technology. Although we recognize that the definition of women's history as an academic field of study can be flexible and even problematic, this project focuses on: the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins contemporary women as agents of historic changeA major goal of WikiProject Women's History is to incorporate the perspective of women's history in overview articles of historical periods or pre-1950 events which may currently lack such coverage. A history article (such as American Old West) should be included in this project if reliable sources exist for improving the coverage of women throughout or in a section that focuses on the experiences and contributions of women. Topics of interest primarily because they reflect perceptions or views of women and their prescribed roles, as well as articles on current events without a verifiable historical dimension or on contemporary popular culture, may be more aptly covered by WikiProject Gender Studies, WikiProject Feminism, or other projects. WikiProject Women's History is not ""WikiProject Women"" or ""WikiProject Women's Studies"". === Criteria for inclusion === Below are more detailed criteria for including various types of articles under this project's banner. When in doubt, join us for a discussion. (For more on how these criteria were drafted and consensus on them was reached, see Women's History Scope Workshop.) New Jersey Women's History @ Rowan University April 6, 2018 Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon/Women Warriors in Times of War Edit-a-thon 2018 Tennessee State University- March 30, 2018 Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Science Edit-a-thon 2016 - Oklahoma University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma - October 11, 2016 Indigenous Women Edit-a-thon Algoma University, Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada - June 20, 2016 Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon/Women's History Month Edit-a-thon Tennessee State University, Tennessee – March 25, 2016 Medieval Women Editathon, Swansea, Wales – January 28, 2015 2014 Bangalore Edit-a-thon on Indian women in science 2014 Berkshire Conference on the History of Women Edit-a-thon - Toronto – May 24, 2014 Women in Jewish History Editathon 2014 – New York City Wikipedia:Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2013 - Brown Wikipedia:Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2013 - Brussels Wikipedia:Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon - Harvard (2012) Improve Top importance articles: Women in the Middle Ages, Women in the Victorian era Expand stubs: See this list of Women's History stubs Update: Women and Social Movements in the United States, 1600-2000 Assess: The articles on this list need assessment for quality and importance using the WikiProject Women's History guidelines Create a requested article: See Requested Women's History articles for the complete list or to request a new article. Add a requested image: None Translate: Articles needing translation can be found at Requested translations, where you can also add new translation requests. Monitor: Keep an eye on our article alerts page and on recent changes to the talk pages of Women's History articles. Cleanup: The Cleanup listing for WikiProject Women's History includes both challenging and easy tasks, like adding wikilinks, de-orphaning. Repair dead links: Many dead external links can be fixed by searching the link at the Wayback Machine and replacing the dead link with an archived version. Banner: Add {{WMNHIST}} to the talk pages of new (or newly found) articles if they fall with the scope of WikiProject Women's History. This list is bot-generated periodically; recent changes may not appear. Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies Wikipedia:WikiProject History Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists Wikipedia:Wikiproject Women writers Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/WNBA task forceWikiWomen's History Month The following Categories are potentially of interest to this project, although not all of their articles may be within the project's scope. If you are using Wikipedia as an educational assignment, and your students will be writing or editing articles related to women's history, do drop us a note at our project's talk page. There are many resources available to support such projects including: Wikipedia:Ambassadors Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination Wikipedia:School and university projectsUseful tools: The Educational assignment tag can be used to mark an article as being/having been part of an assignment by placing the following at the top of the article's talk page:{{EducationalAssignment}}Be sure to click ""Publish changes"" afterwards. There are further options for the template such as adding the date the assignment will end or a link to your project's write-up at Wikipedia:School and university projects, if you have one. There's more information at Template:EducationalAssignment. The Article wizard helps you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia. There are 6 sections to step through, then you'll be taken to the editing page. As each section is completed, the next becomes available.See also: Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities, The Wikipedia Signpost, May, 9. 2008 WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem for an excellent example of classroom/Wikipedia cooperation, aided by experienced editors, but it did not generate any articles about women or works by women, etc. WikiProject Global Economics for an example of what not to do For a complete list of Recognized content bannered by this project see WikiProject Women's History Recognized content. The page is regularly updated by a bot and includes: Featured articles Former featured articles Featured lists Former featured lists Good articles Former good articles Did you know? articles In the News articlesThe Featured Articles in the hand-maintained list below are relevant to our project, but do not necessarily carry the WikiProject Women's History banner. === Prominent women in need of peer-evaluation upgrade === Sandra Day O'Connor Ruth Bader Ginsburg (upgrade from GA to FA) Sonia Sotomayor (upgrade from GA to FA) Elena Kagan (upgrade from GA to FA) Heloise (the abbess; needs primary redirect from Heloise) === Project === {{WikiProject Women's History}} {{User WMNHIST}}" 163 164 342 WP:BIBLIO Wikipedia:List of bibliographies 163 For a list of books that have articles on Wikipedia see, Lists of books This page is a space for a list of bibliographies, or, more properly, links to those bibliographies. It is intended as a research tool for finding sets of information. For comprehensive listing of bibliographies on Wikipedia see, Category:Wikipedia bibliographies. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Bibliographies. Bibliography of Abkhazia Bibliography of Afghanistan Bibliography of the Ainu Bibliography of the Åland Islands Bibliography of Albania Bibliography of Andorra Bibliography of Angola Bibliography of Anguilla Bibliography of Antarctica Bibliography of Antigua and Barbuda Bibliography of Aruba Bibliography of Canada Bibliography of the Bahamas Bibliography of Finland Bibliography of Ganges Bibliography of Ghana Bibliography of Gibraltar Bibliography of Greece Bibliography of Guadeloupe Bibliography of Guatemala Bibliography of Guernsey Bibliography of India Bibliography of Jersey List of books about Korea List of books about Nazi Germany Bibliography of Martinique Bibliography of Montserrat Bibliography of New Caledonia Bibliography of New Zealand history Bibliography of Nicaragua Bibliography of North Korea Bibliography of Niue Bibliography of Norfolk Island Bibliography of the Ottoman Empire List of books about Oxford Bibliography of Paraguay Bibliography of Pitcairn Islands Bibliography of Rivers State Bibliography of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Bibliography of Saint Lucia Bibliography of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Bibliography of the Turks and Caicos Islands Bibliography of Varanasi Bibliography of Western Sahara Main: Category:History booksBibliography of encyclopedias: history Bibliography of Australian history Bibliography of Canadian history Bibliography of Chicago history Bibliography of New Zealand history Historiography of the British Empire Historiography of the Poor Laws Historiography of Scotland Bibliography of Ukrainian history Historiography of the United Kingdom Historiography of the United States Press coverage during the Armenian Genocide === Military (wars and conflicts) === Bibliography of the War of 1812 Bibliography of the 1837–38 insurrections in Lower Canada Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict List of books on Liberation War of Bangladesh Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history Bibliography of American Civil War battles and campaigns Bibliography of American Civil War homefront Bibliography of American Civil War military leaders Bibliography of early American naval history Bibliography of the American Civil War Bibliography of the Battle of Little Bighorn Bibliography of the Reconstruction Era Bibliography of United States military history Bibliography of Canadian military history List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War Bibliography of Colditz Castle Bibliography of the War in Darfur Historiography of the French Revolution Bibliography of the Front de libération du Québec Bibliography of The Holocaust List of books on military executions in World War I Bibliography of Napoleon List of books about the Napoleonic Wars Nuremberg Trials bibliography Regional bibliography of the American Civil War List of books about the Romanian Revolution Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide Bibliography of World War I Historiography of the causes of World War I Bibliography of World War II === Art === List of art reference books ==== Film ==== Bibliography of Hindi cinema Bibliography of film by genre Bibliography of encyclopedias: film and television Bibliography of film: documentary Bibliography of film: film noir Bibliography of film: horror Bibliography of James Bond List of books on films ==== Music ==== Bibliography of classical guitar List of shape-note tunebooks Bibliography of jazz ==== Literature ==== Bibliography of Ayn Rand and Objectivism Orson Scott Card bibliography List of bibliographies of works on Catullus === Food === Bibliography of encyclopedias: cuisine List of books about bacon === Religion === Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography List of apologetic works Sathya Sai Baba bibliography Sylvia Browne bibliography Carlos Castaneda bibliography Christian bibliographies List of works by Aleister Crowley List of Discordian works Mircea Eliade bibliography Gnostic texts Bibliography of Halloween Hebrew Printing in America List of Hindu scriptures Ibn Hazm bibliography List of works on intelligent design Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses Works of Madhvacharya List of works about Thomas Merton List of mythology books and sources List of books by Jacob Neusner Adnan Oktar bibliography Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations Religious text Bibliography of Scientology Adi Shankara bibliography Singerman list List of tafsir works Rabbinic literature === Script === List of Glagolitic books List of Glagolitic manuscripts === Fishing === Bibliography of fly fishing Lists of important publications in science === Natural sciences === Bibliography of biology Bibliography of popular physics concepts Bibliography of encyclopedias: astronomy and astronomers List of books about energy issues List of books about renewable energy List of environmental books List of important publications in chemistry List of important publications in cryptography List of important publications in geology List of important publications in physics List of textbooks in statistical mechanics === Social sciences === Bibliography of anthropology Bibliography of sociology List of humor research publications List of important publications in economics List of important publications in psychology === Health sciences === List of important publications in medicine Bibliography of evidence-based medicine === Scientists === Carl Linnaeus bibliography Charles Darwin bibliography Frank Macfarlane Burnet bibliography Jared Diamond bibliography List of scientific publications by Jacques Cauvin List of scientific publications by Manuel Iturralde-Vinent Marvin Harris bibliography Milton Friedman bibliography Raymond Cattell bibliography Thomas Hunt Morgan bibliography List of books in computational geometry List of important publications in mathematics List of important publications in statistics Emmy Noether bibliography === Computers === The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies List of important publications in computer science List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing List of important publications in theoretical computer science List of books about coal mining List of books about nuclear issues List of books about renewable energy Bibliography of encyclopedias List of academic databases and search engines List of digital library projects List of scientific journals List of online databases List of Internet encyclopedias List of educational video websites List of neuroscience databases === Botany === Fern book bibliography === Communications === Quantum cryptography bibliography === Computers === Electronic publishing bibliography BibNetWiki Human-Computer Interaction Bibliography Database === History === Bibliography of World War II History Bibliografía Mesoamericana, database maintained @ FAMSI for publications on Mesoamerican studies WikiProject Mesoamerica citations, pre-filled and ready-to-use selection of selected reference citations on Mesoamerican topics, maintained by WP:MESO === Literature === A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism, and Philology (José Ángel García Landa, University of Zaragoza, Spain) The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB) World Shakespeare bibliography Hebrew Printing In America === Mathematics === Spline theory bibliography === Religion === Wabash Center Guide to Religion on the Internet A gateway to bibliographies and other resources for the study of religion on the Internet. Jewish Bibliographies === Robotics === AI Robotics Bibliography Evolutionary Robotics bibliography === Science === Bibliography of Aeolian Research === Social sciences === The International Bibliography of the Social Sciences 164 165 345 WP:DIVERSITY Wikipedia:WikiProject Diversity 164 Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017 165 166 349 WP:IGNORE Wikipedia:Ignore all rules 165 "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Be bold Wikipedia's fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules ""Ignore all rules"" essays and related topics Ignore all rules Letter and spirit of the law" 166 167 351 WP:UFY Wikipedia:Userfication 166 "Userfication is the process by which material that was posted in one namespace is moved into the user namespace (prefix User:). Generally, material is moved from the article, Wikipedia/project, or template namespace to a subpage of the user that originally posted the material. Such materials (pages) are moved because they are not ready to be seen by the public (articles), used on other pages (templates), or (least common) put out as guidance to the community (""Wikipedia:"" or ""Help:"" prefix pages). But the material is worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — they may just need more work, or more time. This page contains guidelines for when and how to userfy material. For help on moving pages, see Help:Moving a page. For help getting a copy of a deleted article, to put into your userspace, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, or post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. For articles, an alternative to userfication is the draft space. Like userfication, draft space allows editors the opportunity to work on sub-par articles outside of the main article namespace. Draft space, however, may increase the chance of collaboration by placing draft articles in a central location. Another advantage is that incubated articles are automatically ""noindexed"", meaning they won't show up in search engines. === Article namespace content === Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space. In some cases, a new user will inadvertently create an article in article namespace that appears to be content meant to be in a user page. Generally, such material should be moved to a user subpage with a note placed on that user's talk page informing them of the move. If such an article is made, it is appropriate to move the article to the creator's user page, provided that (1) their user page doesn't already exist, and (2) the creator is the only editor who has edited the content of the page. It may also be appropriate to move an article that only you have edited into your user space somewhere. If others have edited it, a page move is usually preferable to a cut and paste move, in order to preserve the edit history. Userspace material is frequently deleted via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion where the material is judged to be merely an archive of previously deleted content. Regarding biographies (including autobiographies), the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may preclude userfication. The fact that an editor initially chose to userfy content rather than delete it does not in any way prohibit a later editor from nominating that content for deletion. === Template namespace content === Userboxes posted in template namespace are controversial, since templates generally have wide range applicability and point of view, extra-wiki affiliation, and other userboxes have uses limited to only some Wikipedians. The outright userfying of userboxes was rejected in April 2006. However, the non-policy userbox migration solution suggests moving the userboxes in question to user space. If only one editor makes use of a userbox, consider moving that userbox to a sub userpage of that user, redirecting any ""What links here"" links, and listing the now redirected template page for speedy deletion under {{db-r3}}. If more than one editor makes use of a userbox, consider moving that userbox to a user subpage of User:UBX, redirecting any ""What links here"" links, and listing the now redirected template page for speedy deletion under {{db-r3}}. In either situation, post a note on the userbox creator's talk page informing them of the move. Copyright infringing or inappropriately licensed material – Userfication must not be used to resolve copyright problems, even where the user who posted the material is the one claiming copyright ownership. Wikipedia's licensing requirements and the copyright policy apply to all pages posted anywhere on Wikipedia. Material already not permitted in user namespace – Material that should not be posted on user pages or subpages in the first place should not be relegated to user space if placed in article space (see Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?). Personal attacks, invasions of private information, spam, and posts by banned users should be deleted altogether. By contrast, an article intended as a joke, an essay, patent nonsense — or even an earnest attempt to cover an unencyclopedic topic — can be userfied, as such material would generally be permitted in user space. These materials may even offer useful examples of things the community has deemed unencyclopedic, and may also reflect the contributor's view about what should be contained in the encyclopedia. Note, however, that nonsense pages may be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Articles not undergoing deletion process – Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it is generally inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) is recommended for this since, unlike proposed deletion or speedy deletion, the community often recommends alternate remedies such as userfication during AfD. Articles for which an AfD discussion is underway – Userfication of an article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD is disruptive to the AfD process. The editor desiring to userfy the article must wait until the process has been concluded. Note that, if all participants agree, the AfD can be closed early in favor of userfication. File (image or multimedia) and category pages – Due to technical limitations, there is no process for the userfication of an image or multimedia upload's page from file namespace to user namespace. Similarly, although there are numerous user categories, category pages can not be userfied because the category functionality requires that the page reside in the category namespace. Anonymous material to IP address pages – Material posted by an anonymous user generally should not be userfied under their IP address's user page. To engage in such userfication would make it more difficult for Wikipedia to control its content. If such a user posts unencyclopedic material that would be appropriate for a user page, they should be contacted and invited to register an account; failing that, the material could be restored to draft space or deleted. Material substantially violating the biographies of living persons policy. Potentially libellous material does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. If negative material on a living person is to be worked on to make it comply with the BLP policy, this should generally be done off wiki, and the material only recreated once fully compliant with the policy. Use discretion when considering whether to userfy a biography of a person that has been considered non-notable in a deletion discussion. In general, the source page may be moved to a target user subpage, the ""What links here"" links for the source page manually may be redirected, any resulting redirect on the source page may be listed for speedy deletion under {{db-r2}}, and a note may be placed on the user's talk page informing them of the move details. No purpose is served by userfying materials that duplicate content already in the contributor's user space. Such materials should be deleted with a note to the contributor. === General steps === Regardless of the target location, the following steps need to be carried out on the userfied page: Remove all non-free images Wikipedia copyright policy allows non-free images to be used only in articles, not in user pages. Remove maintenance tags Remove deletion notices, cleanup tags, and other maintenance tags, as the Wikipedia community is not responsible for maintaining the quality of pages in user space. Disable any categories (per WP:USERNOCAT). for this, you can either use Hidden text commenting, or you can change the individual entries as follows Add a colon right after the double brackets like this: [[:Category:Cars]]. Tag it Add the {{Userspace draft}} template to notify others of the status of the article. Delete the resulting redirect. Moving a page creates a redirect from the original location to the destination. Redirects should not point from article space to user space, so the editor must tag the resulting redirect for deletion (by adding, for example, {{db-rediruser}}). Administrators and page movers can prevent the redirect from being created while moving the page. Notification Make sure the user knows about the userfication. While a personal note is generally nice, the following templates may simplify the task for you:{{Nn-userfy}}, for A7 article namespace posts {{Userfied}}, for other than A7 article namespace posts {{Userfied2}}, talk page message box for other than A7 article namespace posts {{Userfy warning}}, warning for conflict of interest (Vanity)/user pages in article namespace identifying an autobiography article in namespace === Subpage userfication === In order to properly userfy an article, an editor must have access to the ""move"" function. Thus only registered users will be able to take the necessary steps to userfy a page. Copy–paste moves are generally prohibited by policy (but see instructions below for unusual cases), because they fail to retain the edit history of the content, so userfication must be done via the move function. To do so, go to the page, click the ""move"" button, and enter the receiving party's username followed by a slash before the original pagename, like so: User:Receiving Party/Original page nameThe user for whom such a subpage is created should be notified of this event on their talk page, as the creation of a user subpage does not appear on a watchlist (unless the page that was moved was being watched). === Main user page userfication === In some cases an article describes a certain contributor, such as when they accidentally place a personal profile in article space. In these cases the following can be done: If the actual userpage of the contributor is empty: Move the article as a whole to the user page. If there is already some content on the user page, but the contributions are only by one contributor: Cut and paste the content as described below. === Cut-and-paste userfication === If text is copied to user space, rather than moved via the page move tool, a list of all the contributors to the original text (obtained from the edit history of the original page) must be kept to meet the requirements of CC BY-SA and GFDL. If the original content has been modified by other users, and is later moved or copied to another namespace, the list of contributors should be copied to the corresponding talk page. The userfying editor can also simply search the article history for the last version which had only been edited by the person whose space the article is to be moved to, and cut and paste only that text. === Userfication of deleted content === Administrators can undelete a deleted page and move it into a user's userspace, without creating a redirect; this results in a page in userspace with all the history intact and a red link in main space. This can be requested from requests for undeletion, or alternatively from any administrator or via Deletion Review. There is also a list of administrators who say that they are willing to provide deleted content on an editor's request. Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request, depending on the administrator's judgment. In addition, content inappropriate for the mainspace should not be kept indefinitely in user space, per Wikipedia policy regarding the third disallowed use of subpages. Pages in userspace (including those that have been userfied) may be nominated for deletion through Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. The administrator who userfies a deleted page may subsequently reverse their action and delete it again, at their own discretion. The administrator might do this if, for example, an intention to improve the page is not carried out. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion Administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Help:Merging Help:Moving a page Wikipedia:Subpages Wikipedia:Editors are not mindreaders – essay encouraging editors to create articles first in user space. Wikipedia:When in doubt, userfy it – essay encouraging the userfication of articles that could potentially become notable.UserboxesUser:UBX, user namespace created to house userboxes Wikipedia:Userbox migration, discussing userfying userboxes Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, rejected mandatory move of userboxes from template space" 167 168 354 WP:WINDOWS Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows 167 Welcome to the Microsoft Windows WikiProject. We are a WikiProject who is dedicated to improving and expanding articles about Microsoft Windows. This includes software that runs on Microsoft Windows and anything about Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. Anyone is free to join, once you join, go to the Things to do or Goals section and complete some awaiting tasks. Obtain FA status for the Microsoft Windows article Obtain FA status for all Microsoft Windows Operating System articles Expand all Stub articles to the highest status possible Find and tag article talk pages that haven't been tagged yet with the WikiProject Microsoft Windows Article Talkpagetag available at: Template:WikiProject Microsoft Windows Expand some of the articles (check out Category:Stub-Class Microsoft articles or some of its subcategories), always respecting Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Also, check the Wikipedia: Manual of StyleCheck out the Microsoft Windows articles needing expert attention category to see if there's any articles needing expert attention Improve this WikiProject in anyway possible. Listing any trusted sources you know may help us You can see the list of participants and join here. Instructions on how to join be on that page. If you know someone who you think could help this project, feel free to invite them! === Article pages === === Statistics of articles === === Trusted sources === If you know of any trusted sources that could help us improve articles faster, please list them below: 168 169 356 WP:COISOURCE Wikipedia:Independent sources 168 "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article. It also ensures articles can catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure. In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify: Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.)Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources. This page deals primarily with the second question: identifying and using independent and non-independent sources. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. An interest in this sense may be either positive or negative. An example of a positive interest is writing about yourself, your family, or a product that is made or sold by your company or employer; an example of a negative interest is owning or working for a company that represents a competing product's article. These conflicts of interest make Wikipedia editors suspect that sources from these people will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic. Sources by involved family members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent. Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic. Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the person's own viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure. Articles that don't reference independent sources should be tagged with {{third-party}}, and if no substantive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can be identified, then the article should be nominated for deletion. If the article's content is strictly promotional, it should even be made a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD G11. Wikipedia strives to be of the highest standard possible, and to avoid writing on topics from a biased viewpoint. Wikipedia:Verifiability was created as an expansion of the neutral point of view policy, to allow information to be checked for any form of bias. It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct. Such articles tend to be vanity pieces, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written about without bias; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines. In the case of a Wikipedia article about a website, for example, independent sources would include an article in a newspaper which describes the site, but a reference to the site itself would lack independence (and would instead be considered a primary source). These simple examples need to be interpreted with all the facts and circumstances in mind. For example, a newspaper that depends on advertising revenue might not be truly independent in their coverage of the local businesses that advertise in the paper. As well, a newspaper owned by person X might not be truly independent in its coverage of person X and their business activities. Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A first-party, non-independent source about the president of an environmental lobby group would be a report published by that lobby group's communications branch. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material. This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source, which is one where the material presented is based on some other original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports, and with a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals. Secondary does not mean third-party, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but they are not always third-party sources. Although there is technically a small distinction between a third-party source and an independent one, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines use the terms interchangeably, and most sources that are third-party also happen to be independent. Note that a third party is not necessarily independent. For example, if famous filmmaker Y has a protege who runs a film review website (""Fully Independent Critic.com""), and if filmmaker Y instructs ""Independent Critic"" to praise or attack film Q, then filmmaker Y and Fully Independent Critic.com might not be independent, even though they are not related by ownership, contract or any legal means. Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. Arguably, an independent and reliable source is not always objective enough or knowledgeable to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In severe cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.) If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, or better still debated a topic, then that improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines. Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, ""Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest"" is OK when using material published by the organization, but ""10,000 people showed up to protest"" is not. Similarly, it is undesirable to say ""Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer"" (without attribution) instead of ""Pax-Luv's manufacturer, Umbrella Cor., says Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer"". Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details. === Press releases === A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization (e.g., a spin doctor). Press releases commonly show up in Google News and DuckDuckGo searches and other searches that editors commonly use to locate reliable sources. Usually, but not always, a press release will be identified as such. Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called ""churnalism""). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article. In general, press releases have effusive praise, rather than factual statements. A press release about the Bippledorp 9000 effect pedal by its manufacturer might call it the ""greatest invention in the history of electric guitar""; in contrast, an independent review in Guitar Player magazine may simply make factual statements about its features and call it an ""incremental tweak to existing pedal features"". Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions. === Syndicated stories === There are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source. (See also: Wikipedia:Notability#cite ref-3.) === Conflicts of interest === Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. In some cases, the conflict of interest is easy to see. For example, suppose Foo Petrochemicals Inc. wrote an article about a chemical spill caused by Foo Petrochemicals Inc.. This is not an independent source on the spill, nor on how green, nature-loving and environment-saving Foo is. If the source is written by a public relations firm hired by Foo, it's the same as if it were written by Foo, itself. Foo and the hired PR firm both have a conflict of interest between a) being accurate and b) favouring Foo. However, less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish. Caution must be used in accepting sources as independent. Suppose a non-profit organization named ""Grassroots Reach-out Accountability Sustainability (""GRASS"") writes a press release calling Foo Petrochemicals ""the No. 1 savior of the environment and the planet"". Does GRASS have a conflict of interest? Well, the GRASS.com website says GRASS is 100% independent and community-based. However, closer research may reveal that GRASS was astroturfed by unnamed corporations who gave the organization lots of money to pursue these ""independent"" agendas. U.S. funding laws allow such anonymity. Many other countries have stricter transparency laws. Covert ads are illegal or restricted in many jurisdictions. The peer-review process does not guarantee independence of a source. Journal policies on conflicts of interest vary. Caution is needed on topics with large commercial interests at stake, where controversy may be manufactured, and genuinely controversial topics where there may be a great deal of honest debate and dissent. Much scientific research is funded by companies with an interest in the outcome of the experiments, and such research makes its way into peer-reviewed journals. For example, pharmaceutical companies may fund research on their new medication Pax-Luv. If you are a scientist doing research funded by the manufacturer of Pax-Luv, you may be tempted (or pressured) into downplaying adverse information about the drug. Resistance may cause you to lose your funding. Journals can also have conflicts of interest due to their funding sources. Some profit from paid supplements and some predatory journals have no real peer-review. See conflicts of interest in academic publishing. Independent studies, if available, are preferred. It may be best to include a source with a potential conflict of interest. In this case, it's important to identify the connection between the source and topic: ""A study by X found that Y."" In sectors where conflicts of interests are rampant, it may be preferable to assume that a publication is affected by a conflict of interest unless proven otherwise. Stronger transparency and disclosure practices can provide confidence in a publication. For instance, ICMJE recommendations exists for required disclosures on medical journals, but nearly 90% of the biggest medical journals fail to report potential conflicts of interests of their editors, leading to scarce confidence on the correct handling of conflicts of interests in the contents they publish. Independence alone is not a guarantee that the source is accurate or reliable for a given purpose. Independent sources may be outdated, self-published, mistaken, or not have a reputation for fact-checking. Outdated: A book from 1950 about how asbestos fibre insulation is 100% safe for your house's roof may be published by a source which is completely independent from the asbestos mining and asbestos insulation industries. However, as of 2022, this 1950 book is outdated. Self-published: A book by a self-proclaimed ""International Insulation Expert"", Foo Barkeley, may claim that asbestos fibre insulation is totally safe, and that we should all have fluffy heaps of asbestos fibre in our roofs and walls. Even if Foo Barkeley has paid the vanity press company ""You Pay, We Print It!"" to print 100,000 copies of his treatise praising asbestos, we don't know if Barkeley's views on asbestos are reliable. Mistaken: The world's most elite effect pedal experts, the International Guitar Pedal Institute, may declare in 1989 that the ""Bippledorp 9000 pedal is the first pedal to use a fuzz bass effect""; however, in 2018, new research may show that fuzz bass effects were available in pedal formats in the 1970s. Not good reputation for fact-checking: A tabloid newspaper, the Daily Truth, may declare that a film celebrity, Fingel Stempleton, was kidnapped by space aliens and taken to their home planet for probing/surgery for the entire day of January 1, 2018. DT may make this claim based on an interview with a guest at Stempleton's mansion who witnessed the UFO's arrival in the gated Stempleton mansion/compound. However, a major newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking counters this claim with the release of 60 days of police video surveillance showing Stempleton was locked up for drunk driving from December 1, 2017 to January 30, 2018. (Hmmm, perhaps Stempleton used a Jedi astral travel trick to get out of lockup?) Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability. The core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not requires that it be possible to verify a subject with at least one independent source, or else the subject may not have a separate article in Wikipedia. There is no requirement that every article currently contain citations to such sources, although it is highly desirable. === Indiscriminate sources === Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate sources. For example, a travel guide might attempt to provide a review for every single point of interest, restaurant, or hotel in a given area. A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town, or the everyday activities of local citizens. An enthusiastic local music reviewer may pen a review of every single person who comes on stage in their town with a guitar and a microphone, whether it is an amateur garage band playing for the first time or a major touring group. Sometimes, WP editors think that because a reliable source mentions a certain band, book, film or other topic, this confers notability on the book, film or other topic. Not necessarily. The New York Times may state that Foo Barkeley was onstage at a rock concert (""Foo Barkeley was one of the opening acts who performed on May 1, 2017 at the venue"". This is arguably a ""bare mention""; yes the NYT says that Foo performed, but they don't say whether the concert was good or noteworthy). Indiscriminate but independent sources may be reliable – for example, an online travel guide may provide accurate information for every single hotel and restaurant in a town – but the existence of this information should be considered skeptically when determining due weight and whether each of the mentioned locations qualifies for a separate, standalone article. If a subject, such as a local business, is only mentioned in indiscriminate independent sources, then it does not qualify for a separate article on Wikipedia, but may be mentioned briefly in related articles (e.g., the local business may be mentioned in the article about the town where it is located). === Articles without third-party sources === An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject. Also consider tagging the article with an appropriate template, such as {{Third-party}} or {{unreferenced}}. If no amount of searching will remedy this lack of sources, then it may still be possible to preserve some of the information by merging it into another broad topic. But in order to avoid undue weight, the subject may first need to be summarized appropriately. Consider starting a merge discussion, using the template {{merge}}. Otherwise, if deleting: If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page. Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for at least seven days.Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. They may be copied there using transwiki functionality before considering their merger or deletion. If an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created under the same name, it may be turned into a soft redirect to a more appropriate sister project's article. === Relationship to primary and secondary sources === This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source. A secondary source derives its material from some other, original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports. Secondary sources are contrasted with primary sources. Primary sources are the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography, a politician's speech about their own campaign goals or quoted material from a holy text. Secondary does not mean independent, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but not always. === Relationship to self-published sources === This concept is unrelated to whether a source is self-published. A self-published source is made available to the public (""published"") by or at the direction of the person or entity that created it. Blog posts by consumers about their personal experiences with a product are completely independent, self-published sources. A peer-reviewed article in an reputable academic journal by researchers at a pharmaceutical company about one of their products is a non-independent, non-self-published source. === Biased sources === A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent. In particular, many academic journals are sometimes said to be ""biased"", but the fact that education journals are in favor of education, pharmaceutical journals are in favor of pharmaceutical drugs, journals about specific regions write about the people and places in that region, etc., does not mean that these sources are non-independent, or even biased. What matters for independence is whether they stand to gain from it. For example, a drug company publishing about their own products in a pharmaceutical journal is a non-independent source. The same type of article, written by a government researcher, would be an independent source. === Third-party versus independent === There is technically a small distinction between a third-party source and an independent one. An ""independent"" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A ""third-party"" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. For example, if a lawsuit between two people may result in one person's insurance company paying a claim, then that insurance company is a third party but is not financially independent. However, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines use the terms interchangeably, and most published sources that are third-party also happen to be independent. Except when directly specified otherwise in the policy or guideline, it is sufficient for a source to be either independent or third-party, and it is ideal to rely on sources that are both. === Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources === The necessity of reliable, third-party sources is cemented in several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not states that ""All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources"". Wikipedia's policies on both Verifiability and No original research state that ""If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."" Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that ""Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."" Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources states that ""Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."" Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."" === How to meet the requirement === An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if: Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. However, any information that violates What Wikipedia is not must be removed, regardless of whether or not it is verified in reliable third-party sources. Relevant encyclopedia articles Editorial independence: The ability of a journalist to accurately report news regardless of commercial considerations like pleasing advertisers Independent sources: Whether journalistic sources are repeating each other, or have separately come to the same conclusionsRelated Wikipedia pages Wikipedia:Articles with a single source – multiple sources are always better than {{onesource}}. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest – a Wikipedia behavioral guideline regarding advancing outside interests Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources – a non-independent source is sometimes still reliable. Wikipedia:Party and person – ""Secondary"" does not mean ""independent""; ""third party"" does not mean ""secondary"" (or ""tertiary"").Relevant templates {{Third-party-inline}}, to mark sentences needing an independent or third-party source {{Third-party}}, to tag pages that contain zero independent or third-party sources" 169 170 361 WP:MEDPRI Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 169 "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials. See the reliable sources noticeboard for questions about reliability of specific sources, and feel free to ask at WikiProjects such as WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology. === Types of sources === In the biomedical literature: A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or supervised those who did. Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations. A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources. === Biomedical v. general information === Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not. For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain both biomedical and non-biomedical claims: Dr Foster's pills cure everything. A biomedical claim! Strong MEDRS sourcing is definitely required here (see WP:MEDASSESS) The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS They are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box, as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one. === Avoid primary sources === Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies. Note that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles. (News sources may be useful for non-biomedical content, such as information about ""society and culture"" – see WP:MEDPOP.) Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). === Respect secondary sources === Primary sources should not be cited with intent of ""debunking"", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources. Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study: ""A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements, separately as well as together, did not decrease the risk of getting prostate cancer and that vitamin E may increase the risk; they were previously thought to prevent prostate cancer."" (citing PMID 20924966) Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: ""Neither vitamin E nor selenium decreases the risk of prostate cancer and vitamin E may increase it."" (citing PMID 29376219PMID 26957512) If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable (see also replication crisis) and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Scientists at Bayer reported in 2011 that they were able to replicate results in only ~20 to 25% of prominent studies they examined; scientists from Amgen followed with a 2012 publication showing that they were only able to replicate 6 (11%) of 53 high-impact publications and called for higher standards in scientific publishing. Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.) === Summarize scientific consensus === Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. Be careful of material published in journals lacking peer review or which report material mainly in other fields. (See: Martin Rimm.) Be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable fields. (See: Sokal affair.) Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. === Assess evidence quality === When writing about any health effect, assessing evidence quality helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information. Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence, and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews. Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided. Medical guidelines or position statements by internationally or nationally recognized expert bodies also often contain recommendations, along with assessments of underlying evidence (see WP:MEDORG). The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Lower levels of evidence in medical research come from primary studies (see WP:MEDDEF). Roughly in descending order, these include: individual RCTs; quasi-experimental studies; prospective observational (non-experimental) studies, such as prospective cohort studies (one type of longitudinal study); case control studies; cross-sectional studies (surveys), and other correlation studies such as ecological studies; other retrospective analyses (including retrospective cohort studies); and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience. Case reports and series are especially avoided, as they are uncontrolled. Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the 'Treatment' section of a disease article because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., ""first-in-human safety testing""). Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects. Here, ""assess evidence quality"" essentially means editors should determine the appropriate type of source and quality of publication. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. === Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies === In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. === Use up-to-date evidence === Keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism). Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For instance, the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: History sections often cite older work. Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window. A newer source which is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality. === Use independent sources === Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of marginal ideas may be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest more controversial opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant for mention in other articles. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal. Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter ""s"" added to a page number, or ""Suppl."" in a reference. === Bias === Bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandated, but isn't always done – and, even when it is, it may not be helpful. A source can also simply be bad, where biases in criteria make it less than ideal. Claims of bias should not be made lightly – if you simply call out results as biased, you may introduce your own bias. Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus – instead, qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased. Obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia. If there is consensus on an article that a certain source should be omitted for bias, it may be excluded. It may be simpler to find a ""better"" source – either a higher quality study type or a more specific source instead (see WP:MEDASSESS). If no high-quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias. ==== Personal conflicts of interest ==== Use your best judgement when writing about topics where you may have a conflict of interest: citing yourself on Wikipedia is problematic. Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable – if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site. All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed. According to the conflict of interest guideline – conflicts of interest (COI) must be disclosed. Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged. Medicine is not an exception. One way to contribute with a COI is to post on talk-pages, suggesting edits. Another alternative is the articles for creation pathway. These methods are often best when writing about oneself, one's organization or company – but may be less so when there is a potential conflict of interest in a research field. For example, one may legitimately be an authority on a certain topic – a volunteer who reads the talk-page will not always have the knowledge to assess the sources properly. Then it is better to follow ordinary editing protocol, disclosing any COI and to be careful not to overemphasize your own sources. === Non-free content === A Wikipedia article should cite high-quality reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. Some high-prestige journals, such as JAMA, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. A few high-quality journals, such as PLoS Medicine, publish only freely readable sources. Also, a few sources are in the public domain; these include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. === Don't just cite the abstract === When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if neither is possible, the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source. === Biomedical journals === Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Primary publications describe new research, while review articles summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall view. In medicine, primary sources include clinical trials, which test new treatments. In addition to experiments, primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. If challenged by another editor in good faith, the primary source should be supplemented with a more appropriate source. Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Such reviews typically do not contain primary research, but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do. Systematic reviews use sophisticated methodology to address a particular clinical question in as balanced (unbiased) a way as possible. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary (or sometimes secondary) studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question. Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials can provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of particular treatments in given scenarios, which may in turn be incorporated into medical guidelines or institutional position papers (ideal sources for clinical recommendations). It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible. Reviews give a balanced and general perspective of a topic, and are usually easier to understand. However, whereas a narrative review may give a panorama of current knowledge on a particular topic, a systematic review tends to have a narrower focus. Journals may specialize in particular article types. A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry (ISSN 1462-0049), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. If an editor has access to both the original source and the summary, and finds both helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see: Citing medical sources for details). Others, such as Journal of Medical Biography, publish historical material that can be valuable for History sections, but is rarely useful for current medicine. Still others, such as Medical Hypotheses, publish speculative proposals that are not reliable sources for biomedical topics. ==== List of core journals ==== The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected ""core clinical journals"". Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality). Core general medical journals include the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (British Medical Journal), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Core basic science and biology journals include Nature, Science and Cell. ==== Predatory journals ==== Avoid articles from journals with a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A journal article is probably not reliable for biomedical claims if its publisher has a reputation for exhibiting ""predatory"" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles. (See also WP:RS#Predatory journals and the #References section below for examples of such publishers.) Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE, or its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal). Determining the reliability of any individual journal article may also take into account whether the article has garnered significant positive citations in sources of undisputed reliability, suggesting wider acceptance in the medical literature despite any red flags suggested here. An archive of Beall's List, an early list of potentially predatory journals, can be found at Beall's List – of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers; updates are added separately by an anonymous post-doctoral researcher. On Wikipedia, the CiteWatch compilation (updated twice monthly) and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector script can be leveraged to facilitate the detection of predatory journals. Some baseline methods to identify questionable journals have reached consensus in the academic community. ==== Sponsored supplements ==== Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such shill articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited. Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter ""S"" added to a page number, or ""Suppl."" in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement need not necessarily have a COI with its medical content; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained. === Books === High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important. Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources. If a textbook is intended for students, it may not be as thorough as a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates. Ensure that the book is up to date, unless a historical perspective is required. Doody's maintains a list of core health sciences books, which is available only to subscribers. Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized biomedical encyclopaedias published by these established publishers are often of good quality, but as a tertiary source, the information may be too terse for detailed articles. Additionally, popular science books are useful sources, but generally should not be referenced on Wikipedia to support medical statements (see #Popular press). In addition, most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources. However, books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes. === Medical and scientific organizations === Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow). Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with ""however"", ""this is not supported by"", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia. === Popular press === The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as ""the cure"" for a disease or an every-day substance as ""the cause"" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which themselves promote research with uncertain relevance to human health and do not acknowledge important limitations, even when issued by an academic medical center. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source. Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines. Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review website Health News Review along with specialized academic journals, such as the Journal of Health Communication; reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public Health, the Columbia Journalism Review and others. Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article. === Other sources === Press releases, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, blogs and other websites, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Conference abstracts present incomplete and unpublished data and undergo varying levels of review; they are often unreviewed and their initial conclusions may have changed dramatically if and when the data are finally ready for publication. Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work. Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. UpToDate is less preferred as it is not possible to reference specific versions of their articles, archives do not exist, and it can be difficult to access. Search engines are commonly used to find biomedical sources. Each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs unless used carefully. It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-than-useful material. A good strategy for avoiding sole reliance on search engines is to find a few recent high-quality sources and follow their citations to see what the search engine missed. It can also be helpful to perform a plain web search rather than one of scholarly articles only. PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years. It offers a free search engine for accessing the MEDLINE database of biomedical research articles offered by the National Library of Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. PubMed can be searched in a variety of ways. For example, clicking on the ""Review"" tab will help narrow the search to review articles. The ""Filters"" options can further narrow the search, for example, to meta-analyses, to practice guidelines, and/or to freely readable sources. Although PubMed is a comprehensive database, many of its indexed journals restrict online access. Another website, PubMed Central, provides free access to full texts. While it is often not the official published version, it is a peer-reviewed manuscript that is substantially the same, but lacks minor copy-editing by the publisher.When looking at an individual abstract on the PubMed website, an editor can consult ""Publication Types"", ""MeSH Terms"", etc. at the bottom of the page to see how the document has been classified in PubMed. For example, a page that is tagged as ""Comment"" or ""Letter"" is a letter to the editor (often not peer-reviewed). The classification scheme includes about 80 types of documents. For medical information, the most useful types of articles are typically labeled ""Guideline"", ""Meta-analysis"", ""Practice guideline"", or ""Review"". Even when an article is one of the most useful types and recently published, it can be helpful to check the journal on DOAJ and other databases as well as the status and publishing track of authors if they make extraordinary claims. There is no magic number, but it is useful to compare the authors to others' in the same field of study. {{Medical citation needed}} – adds: some text. {{Medical citation needed span}} – adds: some text. (same as above, except the text is highlighted) {{Unreliable medical source}} – adds: some text. {{Primary source inline}} – adds: some text. {{More medical citations needed}} – maintenance tag for articles lacking reliable medical sources {{Reliable medical sources please}} – a note for user talk pages with links to this page {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} – for talk pages Wikipedia:Reliable source examples § Physical sciences and medicine Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides § Topical academic style guides (essay) Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?, an essay about why this guideline exists Users' Guides to the Medical Literature Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine. The Wikipedia Signpost (2008-06-30) Replication crisis WP:CITEWATCH, a bot-compiled listing of potentially unreliable publications cited by Wikipedia (see this Signpost article for details) WP:UPSD, a user script which highlights potentially unreliable citations." 170 171 366 WP:BULLOCKS Wikipedia:Complete bollocks 170 "The policies of Wikipedia state that articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. This strongly implies that they must also be true. Sometimes, articles arrive at articles for deletion which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, complete bollocks. Some giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed. Articles puffing non-notable websites are often complete bollocks or, in other terms, ""bullshit"", in that they make wholly spurious claims to notability (e.g. claiming to have originated some new process, neologism or phenomenon which is either not verifiably existent or, conversely, blindingly obvious). These articles very often start with the name of the site, properly capitalized, as a link. Whereas Geogre's Law posits incorrect capitalization as a hallmark of vanity in biographies, abundant capitalization and/or trademark signs (sometimes linked at every single instance) is often a hallmark of complete bollocks in articles about websites. A confirmatory sign of complete bollocks is a set of circular articles, or a self-contained nest of articles, such as three articles that reference only each other and are themselves composed of nonsense, particularly if the set is started by one author or a set of authors (or IP addresses) who all contribute to the same set of articles. In wiki parlance this is a walled garden. Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity. As Uncle G put it, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not all this, however, is complete bollocks: some of it will have to be subjected to a deletion process before it is finally removed. There is no shortage of bad ideas for articles, and some of them elevate themselves to the giddy heights of really stupid ideas for articles. It's this latter category which is likely to be complete bollocks. Consider these deathless lines by Charles Battell Loomis: As Douglas Hofstadter has pointed out, the archaizing language and the mix of classical and Biblical allusions all lend authority to this poem. A reader may read it, and re-read it: there must be some meaning there, it seems so serious in tone and intention. Further study will bring it to light. Good luck! After you have figured out the poem, consider the following: Problems in a business process may arise in three places: at its proposal and inception, which in Neuman's terminology is labelled the alpha phase; during the period of its operational implementation, the theta phase; and during its finalization, or the closing stages of the process: the omega phase. Problems in a business process may moreover be classified into two separate categories: the monogenetic problem, in which a single cause intervenes in the process, and the polygenetic problem, in which several different causes intervene, either simultaneously, concurrently, or serially.The reader is challenged by this section to identify what he has learned from the text that was not already known, or could not have been thought up by a mind gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary. Pay careful heed to the bolded terms, with their Greek letters and classical compounds. The presence of Greek letters is a sure indication of mathematical rigor, and classical compounds indicate that science is at play here. If there is an exam with this course, be assured that the student will be expected to repeat these terms and their given definitions. The tone assures the reader that a great deal of research, or at least logic, backs up the assertion that the causes of a polygenetic problem will intervene either simultaneously, concurrently, or serially. He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.— Attributed to Abraham LincolnOne thing you will note about shopping-center theory is that you could have thought of it yourself, and a course in it will go a long way toward dispelling the notion that business proceeds from mysteries too recondite for you and me.— Joan Didion, ""On the Mall"", in The White AlbumOw! My groin.— Hans Moleman Vanispamcruftisement Patent nonsense Jibber-Jabber Dealing with hoaxes Handwavium Economy of Sri Lanka#Transition to biological agriculture" 171 172 367 WP:FM Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry 171 "Welcome to WikiProject Freemasonry! If you've come to this place and are interested in improving Freemasonry-related knowledge on Wikipedia, simply add your name to the list of participants and jump right in. You might find it helpful to watch this page and the pages listed in the convenient links section below. The scope of this project is to handle all things related to the fraternity known as Freemasonry, its Grand Lodges, appendant and concordant organizations and related practices. All articles should be written in a neutral and well-documented manner, and placed within the hierarchy starting at Category:Freemasonry. All editors with a genuine interest in Freemasonry are encouraged to join and participate. The {{WikiProject Freemasonry}} template has |class= and |importance= parameters that provide an article assessment rating. Think of ""class"" as representing the article's quality and completeness, and ""importance"" as the priority of an article's subject matter to be expanded by this WikiProject. The two assessments measure different parameters: a Start or Stub class article may well be of High or even Top importance, and vice versa. Assessing an article's quality (other than FA or GA) and importance is done by placing the following template on its talk page, and filling in the appropriate parameter values: {{WikiProject Freemasonry|class=???|importance=???}} If you are unsure of either, leave the value blank, thus: |class=| or |importance=| The following values may be used for the |class= parameter. FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Freemasonry articles) GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Freemasonry articles) B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Freemasonry articles) C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Freemasonry articles) Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Freemasonry articles) Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Freemasonry articles) ??? If a quality rating is not assigned, the article will be placed in Category:Unassessed Freemasonry articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme. Articles that are unassessed or in dispute can be discussed on the project's article assessment page.The following values may be used for the |importance= parameter. Top (Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia) High (Subject contributes a depth of knowledge) Mid (Subject fills in more minor details) Low (Subject is mainly of specialist interest) NA (for pages where importance assessment is unnecessary, such as Template, Category, Disambiguation and Redirect pages; adds items to Category:NA-importance Freemasonry articles) ??? If an importance rating is not assigned, the article will be placed in Category:Unknown-importance Freemasonry articles. The rating should be assigned according to the grading scheme. As stated above, articles that are unassessed or in dispute can be discussed on the project's article assessment page. Editors are expected to adhere to all Wikipedia policies when creating articles, and behave in a collegial manner. View/edit the active project To Do list === Collaboration === The project does not currently have a Collaboration of the Week (COTW) article. If you have a suggestion for one, please post a message explaining why at the project's COTW talk page. === Requests for articles === List articles requested to be created in this section and if possible, also create the article yourself so other editors can simply drop by and contribute as they can. The Grand Priory of Knights Templar in the United Kingdom Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America Freemasonry in the United States Floral Frascati Restaurant, on Oxford Street in London East Hertfordshire Lodge No. 3748 === Projects === This section is for listing major projects. Upgrade the Freemasonry page to Featured Article status. Our flagship article needs a bit of polishing and a bit of thought to progress from Good Article to FA status. Articles for all Grand Lodges considered regular by the United Grand Lodge of England and major European lodges (if notable). The articles Ancient and Primitive Rite and Rite of Memphis-Misraim need to be consolidated into one, describing the rite(s) history and current use. This would be a big project requiring someone to do a lot of research. === Vandalism === Report repeated vandalism of Freemasonry-related pages here so that an admin can deal with the issue. === Featured articles === None at present === Good articles === Adolphus Frederick Alexander Woodford Belgrave Ninnis Freemasonry Freemasonry and women Masonic Hall, Taunton === Did You Knows (DYKs) === None at present === Former featured articles === Freemasonry === Former good articles === None === Former Did You Knows (DYKs) === ...that Indianapolis' Scottish Rite Cathedral is the largest building dedicated to Freemasonry in the United States, and features many measurements in multiples of 33? (from Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January) Freemasonry articles recent changes Freemasons category watchlist" 172 173 368 WP:WHACK Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout 172 "For newcomers (or for a less spammy version), use a {{minnow}}, {{diet trout small}} or {{trout small}}. For a styleable version that can, e.g., be floated the right of talk page posts, use {{minnow}}. For not-so-subtle adjustments, try a {{whale}}. For a group of users, try {{multitrout}}. Any Wikipedian who wants to advertise an openness to being trout-slapped can add {{trout me}} to the top of their user page for a topicon or {{Wikipedians open to trout slapping}} for a banner. For a button, see Template:Emergency-user-slap. The following is not intended to be reliable encyclopedic information, although it is as accurate an explanation as we could find.Trout slapping originated in 1995 with internet relay chat (IRC). While in an IRC chat room, the IRC client mIRC would allow users to enter the command: /slap Samwhich would make the chat client send an action command to the channel to announce something along the lines of: Steve slaps Sam around a bit with a large troutThe trout as the standard weapon-of-choice for slapping users in IRC can probably be attributed to the surreal humor that computer programmers are known to appreciate. There is additionally an old saying that some personal experience is ""better than a slap in the face with a wet fish."" A 1971 Monty Python sketch called The Fish-Slapping Dance may be partly to blame, even though this sketch did not specifically involve trout (utilizing sardines and a halibut in addition). Also, in the Tintin books, the character Jolyon Wagg frequently quoted his uncle Anatole in saying that some situation was “better than a smack in the eye with a wet kipper”. Asterix comics also feature copious amounts of fish fights.In any event, this phenomenon proved to be inordinately popular, and so the ""trout-slap"" became a kind of Internet meme of the generation, though at that point only cyber-geeks were aware of such things. Trout-slaps have endured in the hearts and minds of those individuals to the present day, and since those were the people to form Wikipedia's early user-base, the trout made its way into regular use here—with the notable and possibly mistaken change in wording to ""whack"", which was here from the beginning, and went unnoticed long enough to become commonplace. Today, getting whacked with a wet trout can be compared to when your mother said she was ""hitting you over the head with a wet noodle"", and it makes about as much sense. When someone does something inadvisable that they had the experience and intelligence to avoid, you may likely see the suggestion that they are ""trouted""—or ""trouts all around"", as it has recently become more stylish to blame all parties in a dispute instead of one. By degree of trouting: {{Minnow}} – An even smaller trout, though still centered and nicely intrusive by default, but can be floated to the side on talk pages, and custom-styled {{Trout}} – The original trout {{Whale}} – For larger jobs With alternative formatting: {{Trout small}} – A replacement reasonably-sized, left-aligned trout, suitable for trout victims to replace a regular trout after getting the message. {{Diet trout}} is identical {{Diet trout small}} — A smaller trout than {{Trout small}} {{Troutalt}} – A barnstar-style trout-in-a-banner If you want to be trouted: {{troutme}} – a small auto-trout icon for the top of your userpage {{User slap me}} – a message indicating a user is open to being slapped with a trout, should they need it {{self-trout}} – a {{facepalm}}-style trout for when you realize that you've done something silly yourself {{self-whale}} – a {{facepalm}}-style whale for when you realize that you've done something very silly yourself Warnings for trout misuse: {{OverdoneTrout}} – A response to use against Wikipedians who tend to overuse the {{trout}} template {{Small Overdone Trout}} – a more reasonably-sized, less-intrusive, left-aligned overdone trout, suitable for overdone trout victims to use as a replacement after getting the message {{whalemeat}} – if the Wikiwhale is overzealously used too often For someone who doesn't like fish, but does like Monty Python, you could ask the {{colonel}} to stop things if they're getting too silly. Grangemouth, Scotland – 15 May 2005. (The fish used went missing and was never identified.) Royal Tunbridge Wells, England – February 2006. London, England – 19 August 2006. Nyköping, Sweden – 17 October 2013. (A mackerel was substituted for the trout.) Accrington, England – 25 February 2014. (A bream was substituted for the trout.) Lufkin, Texas – 1 June 2014. (A catfish was substituted for the trout.) Sebastian, Florida – 22 April 2018. (A Big Mouth Billy Bass was substituted for the trout.) Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping Wikipedia:A Side of Chips Wikipedia:Oops Defense Wikipedia:Stop that, it's silly Wikipedia:Village stocks Friedman, Linda W.; Friedman, Hershey H. (August 2002). ""Computer-Oriented HUMor (COHUM):'I get it.'"". Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. #CIS-2002-10." 173 174 373 WP:NYF Wikipedia:Too soon 173 "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon. Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. If an article is deemed TOOSOON, you may consider writing a draft. Please note that drafts can be automatically deleted after a period of inactivity, after which they may be requested for undeletion. For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. This applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging. Even the rediscovery of old artefacts, such as archaeological finds or declassified documents, needs to be independently verified. === Meeting the criteria === The meeting of any of the various criteria as set out in WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT must always be verifiable in reliable sources. (See WP:NRVE) ==== General notability guideline ==== Inclusion criteria might be met through an individual meeting the ""general notability guideline"" and their having significant coverage in ""reliable sources"" (not editorials, not Facebook, nor Twitter). It should be remembered that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people) (shortcuts: WP:BIO or WP:PEOPLE) === Notability for biographies === ==== Biography notability basics ==== WP:BASIC acts to remind editors of the caveats at the general notability guideline, in its restating that an individual is presumed to be notable ""if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"", and expands that ""if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability"". It re-states that coverage ""must be more than trivial and must be reliable"". WP:BASIC explains that primary sources may be used to support the content of an article, as they are not against the rules. However, and even when used, primary sources do not contribute toward notability and may only support other content. ==== WP:ANYBIO ==== WP:ANYBIO describes attributes that may be considered toward establishing notability... as long as the attributes are themselves supported by reliable sources in their allowing then the presumption that additional sources are likely to exist. WP:ANYBIO allows that ANY individual may be presumed notable if ""the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"", OR ""the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field"".Meeting these ""attributes"" allows editors to accept a presumption in good faith that other sources are likely to exist without also demanding that these ""other sources"" be immediately found and offered. Remember... WP:ANYBIO allows for the reasonable presumption and makes no other demand. ==== Verify ==== Meeting any of the criteria set out in notability, general notability guideline, biography notability guideline, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or entertainer notability guideline must always be verifiable in reliable sources, as most importantly, notability requires verifiable evidence.... and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive. === Actors === An actor might merit an article in Wikipedia if they meet any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at WP:Notability and/or the various applicable topic-specific notability sub-sections, as explained above. Actors are grouped in with Entertainers, as detailed in WP:NACTOR. The guidelines do not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion from 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film ('Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys') that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. Thus the article was deleted (redirected to her father's page). The article was reinstated in August 2013. As of 2022 the movie remains unreleased. Another example is Raegan Revord. At the time of this writing, she has been part of a big mainstream TV series (Young Sheldon) for almost six years. Yet, Wikipedia did not have a Raegan Revord page as of November 2022 (the preceding link was red at that time). This is because while she easily meets the general guidelines, the article cannot establish significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is not because the draft is poorly written or researched. It is instead for the simple reason she hasn't had more than the one such role - there just isn't any second such role to find references for. If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. ==== Entertainers ==== WP:ENTERTAINER expands on consideration of entertainment-specific criteria for actors who, even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having 1 ""significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"", OR 3 ""made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"" A film could merit an article in Wikipedia if it meets any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at WP:Notability and/or its various applicable topic-specific notability sub-sections. Guideline does not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if a film cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. === Meeting criteria === The meeting any of the various subject-specific criteria as set out in notability, general notability guideline, and notability for films must be always be verifiable in reliable sources. (See notability requires verifiable evidence) and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive. ==== General notability guideline ==== Inclusion criteria might be met through a film meeting the ""general notability guideline"" and having significant coverage in ""reliable sources"" (not blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Begun or not, completed or not, distributed or not... a film might meet inclusion criteria through meeting the General notability guideline and having significant coverage in reliable sources. The further away a film is from release, the greater the amount of coverage needs to be in order for the topic to be seen as ""worthy of note"". It is to be remembered that even in cases where a film might not meet the general notability guideline, it is not the final word... for even if it is not met, editors are encouraged to look to the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (film). (shortcuts: WP:NOTFILM, WP:NF, WP:FILMNOT) === Notability for films === ==== General principles ==== Notability for films ""general principles"" remind editors of the caveats at the general notability guideline and stress that the sources used toward notability specifically exclude media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film, and trivial coverage, such as simple newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews, plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides. While some of the latter might be used to support the content of an article, they do not contribute toward notability. The general principles expand with attributes that generally indicate, when the attribute assertion is supported with a reliable source, that the required additional and not-yet-present sources are likely to exist. This is in the section's encouragement to editors that they be A) diligent in their searches and B) accepting of the presumption that the required sources may exist somewhere even if not immediately found. ===== Attributes to consider ===== These listed ""attributes"" do not all need be met, and it is understood that many are completely inapplicable to either very new films or very old films. With the many different types of film released in so many different places in the world, common sense must be used in their application. Generally, additional attributes that editors may consider are ""The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics"". Common sense indicates that wide distribution for a film does not mean only distribution in or limited to the United States. For example, a non-English-speaking country's wide distribution only within itself or to other non-English-speaking countries can be a wide enough distribution. A film distributed only in Asia or Europe, or only within India or Argentina... can have ""wide"" enough distribution for consideration without the film being heard of or written of in English language sources. Common sense indicates that being a ""nationally known critic"" does not limit just which nation where a critic may have their renown. Other countries have their own hierarchies of film critics that may be ""nationally known"" to that nation, even if unheard of in the United States. Further, film critics need not be ""known"" only for their being critics who limit their reviews to highly touted blockbuster films. Different genres of film create different hierarchies of ""known critics"" within those various genre. ""The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:"" ""Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release"". (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.) ""The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release"". (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.) ""The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"". (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.) ""The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema"". (This criterion is usually inapplicable to a film that is less than 5 years old... but documentaries, programs, or retrospectives sometimes do include more recent works in comparisons when covering past works as part of an inclusive program.) "" The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"". (Standards have not yet been established to define a ""major award"". Many major festivals should be expected fit our standard as well) "" The film was selected for preservation in a national archive"".(While this criterion is rarely applicable to a film that is less than 5 years old, it is much more likely for films that are much older) ""The film is ""taught"" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program"". (While this criterion is rarely applicable to a film that is less than 5 years old, it is much more likely for films that are much older)Again, these ""attributes"", when themselves supported by a reliable source verifying the existence of the asserted attribute, allow editors a reasonable presumption that the additional required sources are likely to exist somewhere... even if not immediately available or presented. And again, these attributes do not all need be met... and they are not all applicable to every film that was ever made. Common sense must to be used in their application. ==== Other evidence of notability ==== The general notability guideline and/or the attributes to consider as listed in general principles are not the last word. Additional criteria are offered that must be evaluated on their own merits. Notability might exist if The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with the assertions being verifiable. The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of their career. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a ""major film studio."" Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited. ==== Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films ==== Generally speaking, and due to the vagaries of film production, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should usually not have their own articles. Generally speaking, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been released, should not have their own articles unless the production itself has the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines. Generally speaking, films that were produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their ""failure"" has the coverage to be notable per the guidelines. We are advised by Policy: ""All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.""We are advised by WP:Notability: ""A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT.""We are advised by the General notability guideline: ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.""So, there are circumstances where reliable sources discuss an anticipated event, such as a proposed film, with enough depth and persistence so that discussion of the topic itself might meet notability through the general notability guideline, even without there actually being a film (yet). In such cases the article should not use film article templates, but instead be treated as ""film projects"" and be presented then as non-film but film-related articles. For examples of articles on topics whose persistent and enduring in-depth coverage has allowed them to be among the few rare but common sense exceptions to WP:NFF, see The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit (2012 film), The Avengers (2012 film), and X-Men: First Class all being early film articles allowed under considerations of exceptions to the future films guideline. === To summarize on films === If a film cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. ==== Verify ==== Meeting any of the criteria set out in notability, general notability guideline, and Notability for films must be always be verifiable in reliable sources, as most importantly, notability requires verifiable evidence... and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive. Wikipedia:Usual caveats – an essay dealing with how a topic might become notable in the future, even if not quite yet. WP:HAMMER – an essay about unnamed albums Wikipedia:OEN – an essay that explains how to apply WP:Notability (film)'s ""Other evidence of notability"" section. Wikipedia:There is no deadline WP:NOPE – an essay on notability Wikipedia:Improve the junk – an essay on improving the improvable Wikipedia:GNGACTOR – an essay on actors and the general notability guide Wikipedia:PRIMER – an essay to help newcomers get a grip. Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing – on up-and-coming next big things which may never up and come or be big things Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork" 174 175 376 WP: WEB Wikipedia:Notability (web) 174 "From WP:NOT § INTERNET: Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples. This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted. Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deleting. Articles that may be non-notable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem. When such articles are being listed for deletion, the articles are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Alternatively, the proposed deletion process may be used for articles that are uncontroversially deletion candidates, while the {{db-web}} template can be used to mark an article for speedy deletion; see criterion A7 for details. In the dictionary, notable means ""worthy of being noted"" or ""attracting notice."" Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article. === No inherent notability === ""Notability"" is not synonymous with ""fame"" or ""importance,"" and even web content that editors personally believe is ""important"" or ""famous"" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists (see ""If the content is not notable"", below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites. === No inherited notability === Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not ""inherit"" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person. Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not ""inherit"" notability due to the web content they wrote. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website. Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves. However, information about such web content may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it: has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article; avoids self-promotion; and includes information that can be verified through independent sources.Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content like the List of internet phenomena. Material about websites might be merged to articles about the organizations that own the websites. Appropriate redirects from the subject's name should be created to help readers find such information. Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Search engine test Wikipedia:Verifiability" 175 176 380 WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Resolving content disputes 175 "Wikipedia's core is its articles' content. With so many editors collaborating on Wikipedia, disagreements over content are inevitable. Most of the time, editors resolve these matters on their own, after a reasonable discussion. If you find yourself involved in a content dispute, follow the guidelines in this chapter to engage the other editor in a helpful discussion. If push comes to shove, this chapter also shows you how to use Wikipedia's formal processes for important disagreements that are not resolved informally. If it's true that there's strength in diversity, then Wikipedia has the strongest volunteer corps possible. More than a billion people worldwide have Internet access, and a very large percentage of those speak English as a primary or additional language. They're all potential editors of the English Wikipedia. The diversity of editors is one reason why editors disagree about article content. Another is a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, which aren't all intuitively obvious. === Diversity of backgrounds === Only about half the editors of the English Wikipedia live in the United States (population 300 million). The rest come from an incredibly wide range of countries, cultures, and continents. English is the primary language of most inhabitants of the United Kingdom (60 million people), Canada (33 million), Australia (21 million), Ireland (6 million), New Zealand (4 million), and numerous Caribbean islands like Jamaica (population 3 million). English is also spoken as an additional language by hundreds of millions of adults in Europe, India, the Philippines, and other countries. United primarily by a common language, differences of opinion are inevitable when people work collaboratively on an encyclopedia that intends to offer definitive information to the world. Wikipedia has no age requirement for editors; there are certainly many pre-teenagers and teenagers who contribute constructively, as well as a number of adults who do not. Nor are there requirements for expertise (in anything, let alone in what's being edited), a point on which Wikipedia has been criticized by many people. (People often overlook the fact that the lack of such barriers made Wikipedia what it is today.) Finally, people's beliefs differ. This goes beyond whether Elvis is alive or not; Wikipedia's articles cover politics, religion, sexuality, culture, geography, and numerous other areas where people know they are right and others are wrong. Wikipedia's rules emphasize that facts and sources matter, and that personal beliefs and opinions don't, but that's not the norm on the Internet, at places like discussion boards and blogs. Wikipedia's rules are thus often a major shock to newcomers. === Differing motivations === Other editors may not only come from a different background, but may also have different reasons for editing at Wikipedia. Those reasons can make a big difference in how determined they are to defend their edits. A number of studies have looked at why people edit at Wikipedia. From the perspective of content disagreements, the level of emotional engagement an editor has with an article they're editing is important. Not surprisingly, emotional engagement runs the gamut: negative concern (a vandal), just passing by (a casual reader), relatively disinterested (not the same as uninterested), personally involved (a conflict of interest problem), expert (a plus, but not an unmitigated one), passionate (a plus if the passion can be kept in check), fanatic (a big problem), and kook (someone usually shut down pretty quickly). === Not knowing Wikipedia policies === As discussed in Part 1, Wikipedia has three core content policies: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. These three policies are at the heart of a majority of content mistakes, so checking for their violation should be the first step in examining an article's edits (see the section about reviewing content). Editors also frequently violate two other policies, simply because they're not familiar with them: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (shortcut: WP:OWN) states that no editor owns the content of an article. It doesn't matter if they created it, or if they have been the main contributor to it for the past year, or if they are acknowledged the world's best expert in the subject; they don't have the right to revert other editors' edits simply because they don't like them.The only way that an editor can properly prevent their words from being changed is not to put them in a Wikipedia article in the first place. And no editor has any special power or authority over any other editor when articles are edited.What Wikipedia is not (shortcut: WP:NOT) makes it clear that certain types of information aren't in accordance with Wikipedia's purposes. Content that doesn't belong in Wikipedia includes: usage guides or slang and idiom guides; presentation of original thought; routine news coverage, including first-hand news reports on breaking stories; advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, self-promotion, or advertising; directories of external links; collections of public domain or other source materials; tributes to departed friends and relatives; instruction manuals, and how-to instructions; FAQs; articles that consist solely of plot summaries or song lyrics; and other matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, and gossip.In short, if the text in question is not the sort that you'd find in the Encyclopædia Britannica, then there's a pretty good chance that Wikipedia doesn't want that text either. Wikipedia is, like EB, an encyclopedia. You can avoid a lot of content disputes by doing just a bit of checking before you make major changes to articles, by doing as few reverts as possible (and not getting into edit wars), and, above all, by focusing on content rather than commenting on editors. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (shortcut: WP:DR) includes the following tip: ""The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place."" === Don't charge in blindly === If you're adding just a little well-sourced information to a page, or if you're doing minor copyediting of a section of a page, then go ahead and do the edit; only rarely will someone object. But if you're planning to add a lot of information, change a lot of wording, or reorganize an article, you can minimize content disputes if you do just a little bit of checking first: Read the article's talk (discussion) page. If you see a gnarled mass of recent arguments, you stand a significant chance of getting caught up in an edit war. Even if you aren't interested in joining whatever argument's going on, other editors may interpret what you did as supporting one side or the other. Secondly, you should routinely do a quick check in the article history tab. If you see a lot of recent edits, make sure you're not updating a vandalized version. === Explain your edits === Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes to which other users might object. If you can cite a relevant policy or guideline, do so. Wikilinks in edit summaries do work, as in this example: Removing information that appears to be added from personal knowledge (see [[WP:NOR]]) and copyediting. If you can't fit your explanation into an edit summary, then put a brief summary and conclude it with See talk/discussion page. Explain further on the article talk page. (Chapter 8: Communicating with your fellow editors covers the use of article talk pages—see the section about article talk pages.) === Minimize your reverts === Reverts (Chapter 5: Who did what: Page histories and reverting) are powerful things. Use them only when there are clear policy violations. Good-faith editors often consider being reverted an insult. (Consider how you'd feel if an edit you did that you thought improved an article was entirely removed.) In particular, if you revert an edit by an experienced editor, you'd better be justified. It's much better if you can salvage part of the content from an edit that you disagree with. And don't use the rv expression or standard (software-supplied) undo text (see the section about undo) in an edit summary unless you're absolutely sure that you're right. To quote directly from WP:DR: ""When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit if you can, rather than reverting it, or if you do not see it as improvable, discuss it on the talk page."" (For more details on dealing with content added by others, see ""Reviewing content changes: A general plan of action"" below.) Wikipedia forbids edit wars—two or more editors reverting each other continuously. (For details, see Wikipedia:Edit war, shortcut WP:EW.) To prevent edit wars, the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (shortcut: WP:3RR) states that editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. Those exceptions include simple and obvious vandalism, copyright violations, spam, copyrighted images that lack a free content license, and unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons, particularly negative information, which could be libelous. If you run into an editor who's unaware of this policy, warn them after they have made two or three reverts within a day to the same article, on the same content. You can find the standard warning at the page Template:uw-3rr. Simply post this warning text on the user talk page of the editor who's approaching the 3RR limit (or has even gone over, but not yet been warned). If you want to use your own words, make sure to provide a wikilink to the policy Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, because you can't expect new editors to find the policy without such a link. Once you've posted the warning, don't worry if the editor deletes it from their talk page. If an editor deletes the warning, that means they've read it. The warning remains in the history of their user talk page. (Users have every right to delete postings from their own user talk page. Don't make the mistake of taking it as an insult.) The 3RR rule does not convey an entitlement to revert thrice each day, nor is it intended to encourage reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule acts as a sort of electric fence that gives a little leeway to revert but prevents an intense edit war. An administrator may still block an editor if their pattern of ongoing reverts is found to be disruptive, even if they're following the 24-hour rule. The policy aims to get editors to work together; administrators consider it a violation when editors treat the rule like a challenge. === Discuss edits, not editors === When disagreement about content spills over into incivility and personal attacks, it gets much harder to resolve the content dispute. Chapter 11: Handling incivility and personal attacks shows you how to deal with incivility and personal attacks directed against you, and also has advice on what to do if you get irritated (or worse) with another editor, or if you've posted something that you realize you shouldn't have (see the section about if you've posted something you shouldn't). If you're involved in a disagreement over content that's becoming uncivil, take a look at Chapter 11: Handling incivility and personal attacks: If you can get the focus back to content, the chances are much better that you and other editors can find an acceptable compromise. It's a good idea, every now and then, to review the guideline at Wikipedia:Assume good faith (shortcut: WP:AGF). If you start out with the attitude that a particular editor is a problem, there's a good chance that they will be one. On the other hand, if you assume that the editor is well-intentioned, but perhaps uninformed, and does have something to contribute, then you're following the ""assume good faith"" guideline. You may be incorrect, but you won't make the problem any worse. Finally, it's important to use article talk pages correctly. As discussed previously (see the section about what not to post on article talk pages), keep discussions about editor behavior off the article talk page. Discussions about editors belong on user talk pages, not article talk pages. If someone else starts something on an article talk page, don't take the bait. If you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, you probably have a pretty good idea of what you shouldn't do when editing, and you can identify problems in others' edits without going through a step-by-step review. While you're still gaining experience, however, a systematic approach is a good way to figure out what not to do yourself, what you should revert and what you shouldn't, and how to handle edits by others that aren't bad enough to revert but aren't good enough to stay as is. The approach laid out in the following sections will help you improve articles and reduce the number of content disputes you're in. For example, policy violations come first, since they're easy to define and no one disputes the need to revert them. Then you'll turn to more subtle points like sourcing and wording. === Policy violations === If you see any of the following, revert them (see the section about reverting), and cite the applicable policy in your edit summary: Simple and obvious vandalism (WP:VAND); for more information, see the section defining vandalism and spam. Linkspam (WP:SPAM); see the section defining vandalism and spam. Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO); see the section about copyright violations. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (WP:BLP); see the section about biographical information. Privacy violations (WP:BLP); see the section about biographical information. === Proper weight and balance === Most editors probably think of the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (shortcut: WP:NPOV) as being about wording. For example, the following text wouldn't pass the POV test, since it's hopelessly biased (as well as unverifiable, and quite possibly a copyright violation): The committee has become a significant force in enhancing relations between Somewheristan and Nowhereistan. With an in-depth understanding of both countries, the committee deepens the ties of friendship and addresses the concerns of all who are interested in the wellbeing of both countries. But Wikipedia also defines ""neutral point of view"" to include the amount of text about different aspects of a topic. An article that goes into detail about extreme fringe views on a topic is violating the NPOV policy, as is an article that lists all the good legislation that an elected official has voted for. (The latter also is a violation of WP:NOT, since it's a collection of indiscriminate information.) So while a chunk of text may have a neutral point of view, inserting it into an article could well unbalance the article, and unbalanced articles aren't neutral. To apply the ""weight and balance"" part of the NPOV policy, evaluate the importance of added information to a particular aspect of a topic. When a particular aspect or view is getting way too much coverage (usually because it includes a level of detail that isn't appropriate for the entire article), the proper action is to remove the excess, leaving an appropriate amount of text, plus cited sources that readers can pursue if they're interested in more information. On the other hand, if an article is short, the addition of a lot of information about a particular aspect of the topic may seem to make the article unbalanced, particularly where that text is negative (say, about the problems of a politician, businessperson, or company). In fact, the article is not unbalanced—it's simply too short. The real problem is the lack of information about other aspects of the topic, not the new addition. Someone who adds information to a short article isn't required to simultaneously expand all parts of the article. The solution is for other editors to expand the rest of the article, not to remove valuable information. === Proper sourcing === If editors provided sources for everything they added to Wikipedia, the number of content disputes would drop sharply. When content is controversial, editors have an extra responsibility to cite a source, in accordance with the core policies of verifiability (WP:V) and no original research (WP:NOR). If you follow the guidance in the section about documenting sources and add information to Wikipedia only when you have the source in hand (or onscreen), other editors are much less likely to find problems with what you add to articles. Unfortunately, not everyone has read this book or understands the importance of sourcing as well as you do. You're going to have to deal with editors who don't provide sources, or who provide inappropriate ones. This section describes what to do in such cases. ==== When no source is given ==== Unsourced content falls into several types. How you handle unsourced information depends what kind of information it is: Non-controversial and plausible. Leave as is. It's not absolutely against the rules to mark such statements as needing a source, but if every unsourced statement and section in Wikipedia articles were marked as such, it would make articles far less readable. It definitely won't bring a rush of editors to fix things. Editors know when information is unsourced; you don't need to mark it just to identify that you know this too. Controversial or contentious, but not negative. Any controversial statement needs a source. You can request one by placing a {{citation needed}} template immediately after the unsourced sentence or paragraph, which tags the text with """". If the problem is with an entire section, use {{Unreferenced section}} immediately after the section heading.If you doubt that a reliable source will turn up (perhaps the wording has an obvious point of view), move the information to the article talk (discussion) page, noting in your edit summary that you're doing so, and comment on the talk page about your doubts.For biographical information, see the Biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP). This says that contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. This applies both to negative and positive information about a person. Check the policy before you remove any information, and cite the policy when you do.Implausible. If you have the time and interest, consider using a search engine to see if you can find a source. If you don't find a source, or don't have time, remove the information, but don't mention vandalism in the edit summary. Instead, say that the editor is free to add back the information if a source is provided. Controversial and negative. Generally, you can remove information like this on sight. It's potentially libelous, and a clear violation of WP:BLP if it concerns a living person. In the edit summary, note that the editor's free to add it back if a source is provided.Ideally, whenever you decide not to revert an edit that added unsourced material to an article, letting some or all of the material stay in the article (because it's not a serious problem), you should take a moment to post a note regarding the problem on the user talk page of the editor who added the material. The Needsource template makes it easy. Add a new section to the talk page with the heading [[Articlename]] and the text: {{subst:Needsource|Articlename}} ~~~~. ==== When the source isn't reliable ==== A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Self-published works, particularly personal Internet blogs, discussion forums, and personal and social Web pages are almost always considered unreliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources (shortcut: WP:RS) goes into more detail about the requirements of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (WP:V). You can often determine that a source is unreliable just by the URL, or by the citation information. If it's not obvious, and the source is online, follow the link and make a determination. If you find information that's supported by an unreliable source, do the following: If the cited source is online, be sure to follow the link. Sometimes an unreliable source, like a blog, has a link to a newspaper story or other source that is reliable. If you find a reliable source, edit the article to change the source. If you can't find a reliable source as a substitute (using a search engine is another option, if you have time), then evaluate the information as if it were unsourced (as described in the previous section), and take appropriate action. If you decide to remove unreliably sourced information based on the previous section (treating it as if it had no source), make sure your edit summary includes an explanation, like source provided was not [[WP:RS|reliable]]. If you decide to leave the added information in the article, even though it's essentially unsourced, edit the article to delete the unreliable source and put {{citation needed}} in its place. That action, and, ideally, a note on the editor's user talk page, alerts the editor who added the information that it needs a reliable source. === Correct wording === If you've made it this far in the process, and have taken care of any policy and sourcing issues, it's time to shift your focus to the wording of the information added to an article. In ""Proper weight and balance"" above, you saw how to evaluate information added to an article for neutrality and balance. Now you need to see whether these issues exist in the wording itself. Even when information is taken verbatim from a reliable source, it can be problematical. Omitting key phrases like ""Some critics in the opposition party have charged that"" can shift an article's point of view to one side of an arguments or the other. Also, as mentioned above, the added text may include excessive detail on certain points. Editing a Wikipedia article to get exactly the right wording is an art, not a science. It's impossible to come up with a comprehensive checklist, because the English language is so diffuse and flexible. Fortunately, you're not required to get the wording perfect, just to try to improve it when you see problems. If you do that, and other editors do the same, then the wording will improve with every edit. Here are two pages to consult when wording is at issue. Each has a lot of good examples: Wikipedia:Controversial articles (shortcut: WP:GFCA) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (shortcut: WP:WTW) The first part of this chapter focused on ways to decrease the probability of getting into a content dispute. But if you're editing articles, such disputes are almost inevitable, unless no one else cares enough to edit the same articles. This section shows you what to do if someone disputes one of your edits, or disagrees with how you responded to one of their edits. When you're in a content dispute, your goal should be to resolve the matter informally. You usually try to reach an informal resolution by discussing the matter on the article talk page, as discussed in the section about article talk pages. With any luck, both you and the other editors who get involved in the discussion about content are reasonable, respectful of the other editors (who are also unpaid volunteers), and focused solely on what's best for Wikipedia. Taking that approach improves the chances of a successful outcome. If you find yourself disagreeing with another editor about content, start with the following suggestions. You'll be much less likely to need to use more formal methods to resolve matters. === Avoid incivility and personal attacks === ""Discuss edits, not editors"" above stressed the importance of avoiding incivility, and assuming good faith. Those objectives hold even more true once a dispute is underway. Don't make disagreements a personal matter if you want to easily resolve content disagreements. === Look for compromises === Remember that your goal is to improve an article, not to win an argument. As the guideline Wikipedia:Etiquette (shortcut: WP:EQ) puts it, ""Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste."" Ski instructors tell new students, ""If you're not falling, you're not learning."" In Wikipedia, when you edit articles, you should consider your errors (when pointed out) as an indication that you're learning. There's absolutely nothing wrong if your changes to an article weren't perfect. What's absolutely wrong is defending something because you did it and another editor didn't like it, and you think that somehow you have to defend the edit simply because it's yours. An example of a compromise, where information posted by another editor seems plausible and there's no problem with wording, is to put a ""citation needed"" template (like {{citation needed|date=March 2023}} into the article, rather than removing the information for lack of a source. If your goal, even for controversial content, is to get everything that you think belongs in an article into that article, and to have the wording exactly as you want it, then you're just asking for more arguments. You're not going to reach those goals without a grinding battle that consumes time much better spent editing (or doing just about anything else). Here are three goals that are far more achievable than getting exactly what you want: Get enough information into an article so that readers have at least a basic sense of why a topic is interesting and important, and what that topic is. Keep incorrect information out of an article, so that readers aren't misled. Keep good links and sources in an article, so that interested readers can follow the links and read the sources for more information.Remember also that a bitter, protracted battle over content can play a large part in a decision by an editor to quit Wikipedia. (If you're not enjoying editing, why do it?) When you know that the other editors involved in a discussion are valuable contributors to Wikipedia, be especially certain that discussion about content is a constructive, pleasant one. By contrast, if you battle over every point and refuse to concede anything, you hurt Wikipedia in many ways. === Disengage for a while === A very experienced editor once said that the most effective tactic he knew was to post, on a user talk page, the message, ""It's getting late, let's continue this tomorrow or the day after that."" Waiting a day or two gives everyone's inner caveman (who always wants to fight back) a chance to settle down. Then you can look at the discussion with better perspective. In WP:DR, disengagement is the second step in the dispute resolution process. The policy says that the simplest way to resolve a dispute is to simply stop having it. You can just stop editing the article or you can ask another editor to join in, and defer to that editor's suggestions. Work on other articles instead. By the time you return to the disputed article, it'll have evolved, other editors will have worked on the problem, and the disagreement may no longer exist. Disengagement is also good because it gives you a chance to do a reality check. The following two essays may help get you into an effective frame of mind: Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic (shortcut: WP:DBF) Wikipedia:Uphill Battles (shortcut: WP:UHB) It may be clear, after some discussion, that you and other editors involved in a content dispute aren't making much progress in resolving a dispute. Sometimes no one's aware of a particularly relevant policy or guideline; sometimes one side or the other can't state clearly what they object to or why; and sometimes editors have different opinions about what's acceptable at Wikipedia. Regardless of the reason, some informal discussions just aren't particularly productive. Wikipedia has a number of ways editors in a dispute can get assistance. Don't hesitate to use them when progress slows or stops. These resources exist because editors do need help, even when everyone's being reasonable. (And, unfortunately, sometimes editors aren't reasonable, so getting help is even more important.) As mentioned earlier, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (shortcut: WP:DR) lays out the recommended process for resolving content disputes. Which processes you use, and in what order, depends on the nature of the dispute. But in general, try following the order listed in this section, starting with editor assistance. And take it slow: The Wikipedia community doesn't like what it calls forum shopping, where the same question is posted on multiple pages without waiting to see if the first posting gets satisfactory answers. === Editor assistance === Wikipedia:Editor assistance (shortcut: WP:EA) is an informal way of getting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another, more experienced editor. You can get this advice in two ways: You can post something on the Requests page, or you can contact one of the editors listed on the primary page. If you ask at the editor assistance page, it should be about processes and policy, not to get a tie-breaking vote regarding content. Or, put differently, you should be looking for a way to restart or improve the informal discussion, if possible, not trying to get someone else to join in the discussion among you and other editors. (If you want to get other editors to join an existing discussion, you can ask at a WikiProject or use the RfC process, below.) === Subject specific pages === If the matter involves some specialized knowledge, like terminology for Canadian football, then a good place to ask for comments is at a WikiProject (Chapter 9: WikiProjects and other group efforts). For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football. You can find the directory of WikiProjects—over a thousand exist—at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory (shortcut: WP:PROJDIR). If the matter concerns the interpretation of a policy or guideline, try posting a question at the talk page of the policy or guideline. For example, suppose editors disagree on whether combining statistics from a report is a synthesis of information that's not allowed by the ""no original research"" policy. In that case, posting at the page Wikipedia talk:No original research might get a good answer from an editor who is particularly interested in how the policy has been interpreted in the past, or should be interpreted. (If you don't get much of a response in 3 or 4 days, try another approach.) === Third opinions === Wikipedia:Third opinion (shortcut: WP:3O) is a place to request a third-party mediator to review the arguments presented and offer an opinion. Only two editors can be involved; if there are more, you have to use another alternative. After you post the request, a mediator (from a group of editors who have volunteered to help) will read the discussion and post their opinion. Hopefully that editor's opinion will help resolve things. (The chances are better that it will if the other editor has agreed to the WP:3O process, though agreement's not mandatory.) === Informal mediation === The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (shortcut: WP:DRN) provides informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. This informal mediation is only as good as the mediators who handle each case, who are other editors (unscreened volunteers) with limited time. If your mediator vanishes, don't be shy about posting a request for a new one. And don't expect an instant response, since the service may have a backlog. Some mediators here are very good, but they can only make progress if both sides are willing to try for an acceptable compromise. If the mediator proposes something that you can live with, but isn't perfect, give strong consideration to accepting that proposal. (Good wording is, ""That's okay with me if it's okay with the others."") === Requests for comments === On Wikipedia:Requests for comment (shortcut: WP:RFC), you'll find a link at the top of the page to the section ""Request comment through talk pages"". Article RfCs are split out by general topic; pick whichever area seems appropriate. RfCs aim to get a number of other editors to join in a discussion, thereby (hopefully) getting something approaching (rough) consensus. Splitting RfCs into a number of general topics is intended to encourage editors to pick an area and comment on a number of RfCs in that area. Although RfCs are the first step in the Wikipedia's formal dispute resolution process, an RfC does not result in a formal decision or in any enforcement action by administrators. Rather, the intent is that the involved editors, in view of comments by others that are posted via the RfC, change their minds sufficiently to be able to reach an agreement on changes to the article." 176 177 381 WP:MUSICNN User:Giggy/Satisfying music notability guidelines 176 == Inevitable disclaimer == Make sure you’ve actually read the music notability guideline before reading through this! Remember, a lot of this is just my suggestions, based on my editing experience - you’re welcome to disagree and encouraged to edit/discuss this ruthlessly. Content on this page may sometimes contradict WP:MUSIC, either because I’m lazy, or…yeah, probably just because I’m lazy. In such cases, the guideline is always right - never cite this page over it. Finally, it’s highly recommended that exceptions be taken with a grain of salt and a bit of research - any assistance through linking to controversial AfDs etc. would help! == The criteria, and how to satisfy them == === 1. Coverage from reliable sources === Point one of the notability guideline asks for coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The words in bold are the key there! It says multiple, not “1”, which means exactly that - we need at least two newspapers/journals/books/websites/whatevers to cover it, not just one! The sources must be independent. Independent (conveniently linked to Wiktionary, so don’t say you don’t know what it means) means the source was not published by the band who produce the music. The sources must be reliable - go read RS for more information about what this means. You are not a reliable source, mmk? Neither are some newspapers that get REALLY bad reps, although in most cases the word on the street isn’t going to influence how reliable a source is considered. ==== Tips on satisfying this criterion ==== Google News is a great place to start - as it’s an archive of a great deal of the news stories published this century (and many more, I’m not sure on the specifics but you get the gist), there’s a good chance the article you were looking for can be found there, if it was published online. Autobiographies are another great way to get quality sources, so it’s good to check out your local library if you get the chance. If they were published by a notable book publisher, they are reliable, and if they contain a co-author (not JUST the subject of the book) they are fully independent. If your favourite band’s website has a fanclub or email list you can subscribe to, do so! Even if the newsletter isn’t always independent/reliable (see the exception with Dream Days at the Hotel Existence mentioned above, courtesy of the Powderfinger fanclub newsletter), you’ll still get up-to-date news on what the band’s doing, which is great for focusing your research around a particular date. Google Alerts is a service provided by Google which sends you an email every time there’s a new web/news/groups/images (whatever you choose) result for a specific word or phrase. With (very) popular bands, this can result in inbox clogging, so it’s good to set up a filter (to a new folder in hotmail, or to a label in gmail) to keep these messages under control. Let the alert run for a while, and suddenly you have a library of relevant sources available in your inbox! ==== Useful sites ==== Australian Music Online; their article says it all, really Australian Music Central has fansites set up for various Australian bands (I mainly use it for Powderfinger central, which includes an archive of articles about the band for about 7 years), as well as other useful content. Independent, mostly reliable. EveryHit is a searchable database for UK chart positions for any band you could possibly imagine. You can also search for singles, album or dates. === Band/Artist has gone on an international tour === International is the keyword here...define it how you will, the essence is that they must have set foot in multiple countries. I like to use 2 “major countries” as a benchmark, but you can argue this as long as they flew overseas and did a show there, AND linked that show to a show they did in their home country/another country. ==== Example ==== Across the Great Divide Tour is an international tour - there were shows in both Australia and New Zealand. However, the New Zealand shows weren’t announced as part of the tour from the start; initially the tour was advertised as Australian shows only, whilst in New Zealand the advertising was simply “Powderfinger and Silverchair together in concert”. If it had remained like that, it would NOT have been an international tour, as the shows in NZ weren’t part of the tour itself, but were “just shows”. ==== Useful sites and tips on finding information ==== Be sure to check out travel agencies and organisations like TicketMaster - if they advertise the tour, you know it’s notable enough locally, and you now just need to see if it’s international. For this, many businesses that organise international touring “experiences” are useful - look for the tour on their website, there will usually be links to where you can find more (citable) information about the tour itself. === Releasing two notable albums through a notable record label === Many album articles at the moment are notable because the artist who produces them is notable, so this is a bit of an infinite loop. The easiest to way to get out of it is to get two independent sources for the album or for the record label, thus asserting notability for THEM. ==== Links and tips on satisfying this criterion ==== It’s usually easier to focus on the album. Look through all the music review websites around, try and find stuff about the album. A review that contains contextual information is good - get two and you’ve got a notable album. Australian music online contains details of virtually every Australian music release - it certainly covers ALL of the notable ones. Sometimes all that AMO has is a track listing and release date, but sometimes they also include information about the release which can constitute an independent and reliable source. Just be careful - occasionally the blurbs they use are just copy-pasted from the record label’s website, so they aren’t independent. Herald Sun Hit publishes stacks of album reviews - if it was released in Australia and was a bit popular, chances are it will receive some sort of mention here. === Won a major award === ARIA Awards in Australia, Grammy Awards in the USA, BRIT Awards in the UK are all major awards. There are many more awards that have articles, and most of them would scrape the band/artist through this criteria, but it’s best to start from the biggest awards and work your way down. ==== Tips and links for this criterion ==== Be sure you’ve looked through the awards archives for the respective award. Some of them (like the ARIA Awards) have websites designed by Satin, making it near on impossible to find your band mentioned without just loading every year’s awards and hitting Ctrl + F. Some awards sites (and some mirror sites or sites devoted to awards sites) are designed so you can search for your artist and find everything they’ve won - these sites deserve a barnstar. If you can find them, use them. === Appeared on a chart === Generally, the nation’s official music chart is good enough for the criteria, so just work with that. Depending on how the chart functions, you may be able to argue that getting #458 on the Nowheresville National Chart is good enough, but this rarely works - top 40 or top 100 is most likely to get you through, depending on the country and chart design. ==== Tips and links ==== Many songs and albums that don’t achieve much success in the US (ie. Don't achieve the Billboard Top 40) still make it on to the ARIA Charts. That said, ARIA’s website is designed to be as difficult to use as possible, so use Australian Charts instead. It has a nifty search engine that shows how many entries they’ve had on the chart, where it peaked, etc. === Contains a notable musician OR Is a member of a notable band === This is by far the most fun criterion to play around with :) Basically, to achieve notability for a band, one of the band members must have been notable in another band, or in an individual career. To achieve notability for an artist, they must be part of a band which is notable for containing an otherwise notable band member. Quite a tongue twister, so here’s an example. ==== Example - The Powderfinger notability tree ==== I’ve trimmed this to only include one relevant examplePowderfinger contains Bernard Fanning, Darren Middleton, Ian Haug, John Collins, and Jon Coghill. Steven Bishop is a former member. The band is notable for multiple albums and awards. Ian Haug is notable as a Powderfinger member. John Collins is notable as a Powderfinger member. Steven Bishop is notable as a former/founding Powderfinger member. The Predators contains Ian Haug, John Collins, Steven Bishop, and Ross McLennan. The band has only released an EP, and has not achieved notability standards itself. However, it’s notable because of Haug, Collins, and Bishop being past/present Powderfinger members AND therefore being notable members of it. Ross McLennan is notable as a member of The Predators, which in turn is notable for having Powderfinger members in it. Far Out Corporation is notable for containing Ross McLennan, and Grant McLennan how is a notable individual musician.Get the idea? Ross McLennan has no (direct) relation to Powderfinger - he’s never performed for them or worked for them, yet he’s notable through the notability they pass down into his band. ==== Tips on achieving this criterion ==== Make sure all your band articles and artist articles are well linked, and contain all the relevant information about which bands this person has played in. It makes it so much easier to check if the article you want to create is notable! Remember, if a band is notable, so are its members, and if a person has achieved notability through an individual career, all his/her bands are notable. == See also == Wikipedia:Notability (music) - The guideline that this page is designed to help you satisfy. Manual of Style for Music - Nothing to do with notability, but when writing about music you’ll need to adhere to this. Wikipedia:WikiProject music - If you need help with music in general, the best place to ask is here. It’s also where the guidelines and MoS for music are discussed and co-ordinated, so you can request/suggest changes there. Wikipedia:WikiProject albums - Co-ordination for album related articles. Specific album notability help can be sought there. Wikipedia:WikiProject songs- Co-ordination for song related articles. Specific song notability help can be sought there. == Footnotes == 177 178 385 WP:MUSINST Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments 177 Welcome to the Musical Instruments WikiProject, a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Musical Instruments. (For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects). GoalsStandardize the appearance and layout of musical instrument related articles. Improve and generally guide the development of musical instrument related articles.ScopeAny article relating to musical instruments. As we have just formed, we will likely be discussing this very matter once we have a workable number of participants. Please see the guideline page for further discussion. To do Please feel free to add your name to this list of members and honoured guests. There is no minimum or maximum participation level, these two divisions are for you to determine where you believe you would fit best. It would also help the project if you would indicate any areas of particular interest. This way, if there is an article that may especially interest you, you could be notified of the required assistance. NOTE: Italicized dates immediately after the username indicates when the name was first added to this list. Daniel kenneth (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) 05:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Barkjon (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - learning drummer (on drum kit) and guitarist. I love percussion instruments! Basketball110 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - cello Laser brain (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - Multi-instrumentalist. Melodia (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (10 April 2007): I played (Bass) Clarinet, Piano, and other various instruments when younger. MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - 5 April 2008: I play assorted traditional string instruments (ukulele, dulcimer), concertina, and Swedish bagpipes. TUF-KAT (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (June 17 2008) Wikidude57 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - I play recorder,clarinet and piano Hornplayer2 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (13 June 2008): I rock your socks on the French horn Tennisetviola (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (October 29 2008) : I am a violist. Patrickmcg (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (December 23 2008) : BME, MM, I'm an oboist/multi-instrumentalist Geofferybard (talk · contribs) Viol family instruments violin, fiddle, viola de gamba, guitar, a bit of experimentation with (diatonic)blues harp, mandolin, transverse flute, interested in shakuhachi, all clavichord->synthesizer and Latin percussion. Cage, Shostakovich, Jean Luc Ponty, Papa John Creach. Write songs some simple composing also. Pretty good on theory for non-conservatory grad:up on modes, blues scale, etc but not a jazz head. YelloCello (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) I'm a cellist! (hence username) I'll be doing a lot of stuff pertaining to orchestra around here. KSWarrior8 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I am a learning drummer and pianist Ninehouse (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - musician, music teacher, specifically interested in organology, Hornbostel-Sachs Charlesb1970 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - professional trumpet player. I am also interested in music theory. Antonio Lopez (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (29 May 2009) Euphonium jonesdaniel4291 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - Eb Horn player Diligence 5960 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - Woodwinds dadaszehon - ameteur trumpet and piano player Sanethhilll (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - French horn, and Keyboard, a perfect combination!! Jaxdelaguerre (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (4 October 2009): Polymusician, I've been editing the brass pages, especially Alto Horn. Midiboxaddict (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (December 16 2009): I'm a synthesizer collector and builder. Mega Gamer05 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (December 27 2009): I play guitar and clarinet Hanjay09 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (January 30 2010): I play Cello, Sing and am Learning to play Piano and sing. (classically) synthfiend (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (Nov 5, 2010): I play synthesizer, piano, and keyboard. My primary interest here is the history related to designers and manufacturers of synthesizers and recording equipment. Focus (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (Nov 27, 2010) - I play violin; very interested in Stradivari instruments. Rwberndt (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (Apr 12, 2011) - I play euphonium and abuse Trumpet for fun. I have been working on biographies and company history entries related to brass instrument makers. AMVStecker (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (June 24 2011): I study music at the university level, and play carillon and am currently learning organ, but have been playing trumpet and other wind band instruments for about 8 years and singing in sacred and secular settings since I was a small child. I also have experience with the great highland bagpipes, baroque recorder, pennywhistle, handbell choirs, and other various instruments. Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (June 26 2012) - Semi-pro keyboardist, arranger and composer. Have improved various instrument articles over the years, but with a particular interest in Hammond Organ, Leslie speaker and Clavia. Cubanabop (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (August 11 2012) - ethnomusicologist, musician, professor of music of University of San Francisco. My students, when we learn about organology, help update and clean up musical instrument stubs as a class project. Adjwilley (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (September 20 2012) - part-time piano technician/tuner, and I play several string instruments. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC) ashquarter8 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (October 24 2012 - I play the alto saxophone, piano, synthesizers, a little bass and I am familiar with some trumpet, french horn and mellophone fingerings. I know a little percussion. I am familiar with the flute, clarinet, trombone, euphonium, tuba and oboe also. I have modest ability to play the marimba and similar instruments. I am in a marching band, concert band for 5 years and a choir. Saxophilist (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - I play the saxophone. Mostly classical music. Tuner420 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) Martin of Sheffield (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) Music lover (baroque + early in particular), play the recorder and am a change ringer. Also tune & maintain violia, viola, cello, trumpet, guitar and piano for the family JordanKyser22 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) (May 6 2014) I am a young alto saxophonist. I love creating my own music. Evertype (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 24 November 2014 – recorder. Sbcloatitr (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - Dec 12 2014 - I play alto sax, I play small jazz/blues pieces and make fractal music Jacqke (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 25 March 2015 – I work frequently on mandolin, mandore, gittern. Probably will spend time on citole and lute. Planning a mandolino/baroque mandolin article. AllenHaggaiMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - June 15 2015 - I'm a music lover!!! Xavier enc (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) Hello members! I am honoured to join the project and hope we can get this subject into the next level! There is some serious work that needs to be done and I am here to help! I am a very active participant in my projects and you will quickly find a hero to the rescue!--Xavier (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Theodore Kloba (talk · contribs · count) - 28 April 2007: I play: piano, guitar, bass guitar, Chemnitzer concertina/Bandonion (both of which I also repair), and am learning: Cümbüş, Kanklės, Garmon', drums; I have tagged many of the articles I've contributed to with {{WPMusInst |quality=|importance=}}, and I'd like someone less involved with them to assess quality/importance. Cdtuba (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) I am a tubist but have experience with all brass instruments Gisel (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) I play clarinet, german and French system Lindjosh (talk · contribs) 01:13:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC) I am a well versed musician who can play a variety of instruments, such as the french horn, trumpet, valve trombone, tuba, euphonium, baritone, as well as some woodwind instruments. These include all instruments in the clarinet family and all of the instruments in the saxophone family. RacingMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) I Play Guitar and Bass, All the saxophone and clarinet families, Piano and keyboards (Associate Performance Diploma). Played in orchestra's, Big Bands, as well as jazz/rock bands professionally. Well versed in theory and gear knowledge. I am also well versed in vocals of all styles. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) – more often DBaK which works too – (November 27 2020): some vague kind of trumpet player and brass teacher and stuff. Cuts no ice at all in the Greater Scheme Of Thangs™ but means well. Clueless on many, nay most, topics. Dobekofcas (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) I play the flute and am fairly versed in theory. Eagledj (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 14 February 2021 –Nashville guitarist. Slide guitar GA; Earl Scruggs GA; Steel guitar, Lap Steel Guitar, Pedal steel guitar. Heeps of Wiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 11 November 2021 -Audio engineer and amateur musician. Bass, keys, drums. Groovymama (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) Especially interested in unusual instruments like the American Fotoplayer and Wintergatan Marble Machine. Jon (talk) bass & contrabass trombone, cimbasso. Play in orchestras, operas, musicals, big band etc. Yinglong999 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 25 April 2022 - Violins Ghostsax (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - 12 October 2022 - Synth nerd working to expand, standardize & generally improve articles about synthesizers, samplers, drum machines, and other electronic instruments. Schminnte (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 28 October 2022 - I will pretty much copyedit anything that needs it, also write/improve articles on Keyboard instruments e.g. Piano and synthesizers Frzzl (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)- 7 November 2022 - Cellist and Organist. Writing new articles about interesting old instruments (a lot of Austrian and French folk). List of articles here, see Martinshorn. Andrewa (talk · contribs · count) - 14 April 2007: Drummer and occasional player of many instruments including almost anything with frets. Particularly interested in cymbal articles, and to a lesser degree with drum kit, fretted instrument and electric and electronic equipment articles. Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs · count) - 25 January 2007: I play the violin and piano, and am in a string orchestra, so I think I can contribute to those articles. CharlieHuang (talk · contribs · count) - 28 April 2007: Guqin player of the UK. Former admin de facto bona fide, contributor and editor to the guqin articles. Daniel Alan Phillips (talk · contribs · count) - 15 May 2007: I have a bachelor's degree in music, play synths, piano, drums, and a little pedal steel guitar, and sing. In the past, I've written extensively about topics in electronic music for Electronic Musician magazine. I produce and compose, and work for a major synthesizer manufacturer. I'll spend time as it's available. Deborahjay (talk · contribs · count) - 21 April 2007: Willing to copyedit and Wikify translated articles and those written in non-native English. Metalcore424 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (9 April 2007): Percussionist and self-taught theorist, as well as beginner pianist. Rigadoun (talk · contribs · count) - 28 April 2007: I play many different instruments, and have contributed many related to the gamelan. I put myself here as I'm not sure how much time I can devote to the project, but I'm all in favor of improving and systematizing these articles. Strobilus (talk · contribs · count) - 9 April 2007: Mostly interested in percussion instruments. Swellbow (talk · contribs · count) - 17 April 2007: Drummer interested in drums and hammered dulcimers around the world. Theodore Kloba (talk · contribs · count) - 28 April 2007: I play: piano, guitar, bass guitar, Chemnitzer concertina/Bandonion (both of which I also repair), and am learning: Cümbüş, Kanklės, Garmon', drums; I have tagged many of the articles I've contributed to with {{WPMusInst |quality=|importance=}}, and I'd like someone less involved with them to assess quality/importance. Moved to Members section --Theodore Kloba (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Wbchilds (talk · contribs · count) - 23 April 2007: I play the cornet and piano, and in a range of brass and jazz bands and orchestras. I have a strong interest in brass music so I can contribute there! Yvesnimmo (talk · contribs · count) - 13 June 2007: I play violin and piano and could contribute to many pages. SeanMD80 (talk · contribs · count) - 10 January 2008: -- I play piano, clarinet, bass clarinet, and soprano sax. Wiki libs (talk · contribs · count) I guess I fit here. Was a professional touring sidesman(guitar, bass, banjo, mandolin, dulcimer, piano, synths, harmonica, uke, cowbell whatever I got paid most for :-D) from 1978 to 1992. Beggarsbanquet (talk · contribs · count)- 15 October 2008: I'm a composer so I have a lot of general knowledge about instruments (and I've played in string/full orchestras, symphonic bands and jazz bands), but I'm particularly knowledgeable about the classical strings. Willing to help wherever I can. jclifford1 (talk · contribs · count)- 1 December 2008:-- Im a cantonese-opera musician. I play erxian,gaohu, yehu, percussion, and a bunch of other Chinese instruments. HexaChord (talk · contribs · count)- 1 February 2009:-- Playing several instruments to a certain extend. MarkKalien (talk · contribs · count)- 2009: I play brass and woodwind intstruments. jbgg007 (talk · contribs · count)- 26 May 2009: I play brass, horn primarily, in a wide variety of ensembles. I will help where I can, but I have more knowledge of the horn than of any other instrument. Tunborough (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) - (5 December 2010): Interested in the acoustics of musical instruments, early music and early instruments. Some experience with instrument making. Have an engineering background and not afraid of math. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk · contribs · count)- 17 June 2013: Play and research the ukulele and related musicians.Membership === Featured content === Elderly Instruments – listed March 2008 List of Caribbean membranophones – listed June 2009 Taiko – listed March 2015 Roland TR-808 – listed September 2017 Carillon – listed September 2021 ==== Candidates ==== None ==== Former featured articles ==== Saxophone – delisted December 2006 Timpani – delisted August 2007 Guqin – delisted March 2008 === Good articles === Pipe organ – listed October 2006; reassessed July 2009 Kulintang – listed March 2007; reassessed July 2009 Gandingan – listed April 2007 Agung – listed June 2007 Musical instrument – listed March 2012; reassessed May 2015 Nord Stage – listed August 2012 Hammond organ – listed August 2013 Mellotron – listed February 2014 Rhodes piano – listed February 2014; reassessed August 2014 Slide guitar – listed December 2017 Vox Continental – listed March 2021 Wurlitzer electronic piano – listed March 2021 Rocky Mount Instruments - listed April 2021 Lap steel guitar – listed July 2021 Clavinet - listed January 2022 Farfisa - listed April 2022 ==== Former Good articles ==== String instrument – delisted September 2006 Bassoon – delisted November 2006 Cello – delisted November 2006 Synthesizer – delisted December 2006 Hurdy gurdy – delisted June 2009 Recorder (musical instrument) – delisted July 2009 Clarinet – delisted May 2022 === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Musical Instruments-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page. Arched harp March 2023 Joseph Friedrich Bernhard Caspar Majer February 2023 Bülban February 2023 Chazozra December 2022 Nafir December 2022 Persian musical instruments (major overhaul, Nov-Dec 2022) Qairaq (December 2022) Bohemian harp (December 2022) Zang (bell) (November 2022) Dammam (drum) (November 2022) Streichmelodion (November 2022), featured on DYK Violinzither (November 2022) Guide-chant (November 2022) Shahrud (November 2022), rewritten for copyvio Almpfeiferl (November 2022) Harmoneon (October 2022) Orthotonophonium (October 2022) Martinshorn (October 2022) Hirtenschalmei (October 2022) (rewritten) Simbing (October 2022) Angular harp (October 2022) Maghreb rebab (October 2022) Frame zither (October 2022) Ancient Greek harps (October 2022) Yamaha CP-70 (August 2022) Precision Bass Lyte (December 2021) Gourd mouth organ (May 2021) Kinnari vina (May 2021) Alpini vina and eka-tantri vina (April 2021) Pinaka vina (April 2021) Trough zither (February 2021) Keluri (February 2021) Zane Beck (February 2021) Lap steel guitar (February 2021, completely rewritten) Tifa (drum) (February 2021) Tifa totobuang (February 2021) Hugu (instrument) (January 2021) Noel Boggs(January 2021) Donali (January 2021) Dozaleh (January 2021) Bud Isaacs(January 2021) Yelatáj chos woley (musical bow) (December 2020) Bar zither (December 2020) Yak (instrument) (December 2020) Bamboo flute (November 2020) Tyamko (November 2020) Aarbajo (November 2020) Raft zither (November 2020) List of Nepali musical instruments (November 2020) Completely re-done Tube zither (October 2020) Sneng (July 2019) Russell Collection (March 2017) Raymond Russell (organologist) (March 2017) Traditional violin craftsmanship in Cremona (February 2017) === Collaboration and review === Collaboration of the weekPeer reviewAssessmentEarl MacDonald Please feel free to assess my newly expanded Gourd mouth organ. Thank you very much! Ryssian (talk)Newsletter Template page (a collection of templates) === By region === {{Asian musical instruments}} {{Music of Asia}} {{Burmese musical instruments}} {{Cambodian musical instruments}} {{Traditional Chinese musical instruments}} {{Indian musical instruments}} {{Gamelan}} Indonesia {{Iranian musical instruments}} {{Japanese musical instruments}} {{Fue}} {{Traditional Laotian musical instruments}} {{Traditional musical instruments of Malaysia}} {{Musical instruments of Nepal}} {{Music of the Philippines}} {{S Filipino instruments}} {{Thai musical instruments}} {{Turkish musical instruments}} {{Vietnamese musical instruments}} {{Arabic musical instruments}} === Morphology === {{Hornbostel-Sachs instruments}} {{Instruments}} {{Woodwinds}} {{Recorders}} {{Brass}} {{String instruments}} {{Percussion}} {{Lamellophones}} {{Plucked idiophones}} {{Squeezebox}} {{Infobox Instrument}}Project templates {{Musical-instrument-stub}} {{WPMusInst}} {{User WPMusInst}} There are userboxes for members, which adds them to Category:WikiProject Musical Instruments members. To add the userbox of your choice to your user page, use this template with these options. The full instructions and documentation are on the userbox documentation page. {{User WPMusInst}} {{User WPMusInst |guest=yes}} {{User WPMusInst |family=brass}} {{User WPMusInst |family=keyboards}} {{User WPMusInst |family=percussion}} {{User WPMusInst |family=strings}} {{User WPMusInst |family=woodwinds}} {{User WPMusInst |family=violin}} List of musical instruments List of folk music traditions with subpages listing instruments List of Caribbean drums List of archaic musical instruments - this one needs attention List of membranophones Traditional Chinese musical instruments Traditional Japanese musical instruments Traditional Korean musical instruments Traditional Vietnamese musical instruments List of string instruments List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number Sachs, Curt (September 10, 2006). The History of Musical Instruments (Paperback). Dover Publications. pp. 560 pp. ISBN 9780486452654. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help) Wade-Matthews, Max (March 25, 2003). Musical Instruments (Illustrated Encyclopedia) (Paperback). Lorenz Books. pp. 168 pp. ISBN 9780754811824. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help) Baines, Anthony (October 29, 1992). The Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments (Hardcover). Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 416 pp. ISBN 978-0-1-9311334-3. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help) === Related WikiProjects === === Related Portals === Music Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Musical Instruments 178 179 387 WP:CRIMEBIO Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 178 "Welcome to WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. This project needs the help of all of you here, who are interested in the history of crime and criminals, ranging from conspiratorial corporate crime to scary serial killers. Please help! To improve the quality of articles related to subjects about crime. === Crime === This portion of the WikiProject focuses on criminology and a wide range of crime-related topics, verifying notability of articles, expanding stub-class crime related articles and writing specific contributions to requested crime articles. === Criminal biographies === In Wikipedia, the biography page of a criminal often uses the same style and form of other regular biographies. However, due to the sensitiveness and uniqueness of their biography, something different needs to be done. === Usage of infoboxes === Use the exact infobox text below and add the information of the criminal, but do not insert any rows that do not appear below or change the text of any row, such as using ""convicted of"" instead of ""charge"". If you do, the information will not be displayed in the infobox. Link all possible information such as locations, charges, penalties, etc. Do not link dates, years or use flag icons in the infobox.You are more than welcome to expand these infoboxes, but be careful when doing so, as editing a template may affect all articles using the template. ==== Serial killer infobox ==== {{Infobox serial killer}} - should be used for all serial killer, mass murder and spree killer biographies.Copy the text below and fill in the information: Attention: before using, please read the section on ""Usage of infoboxes"", located above. {{Infobox serial killer | name= | image= | caption= | birthname= | alias= | birth= | location= | death= | deathplace = | cause= | nationality = | other_names = | citizenship = | criminal_charge = | conviction_penalty = | conviction_status = | motive = | conviction = | states= | beginyear= | endyear= | apprehended= | weapons = | penalty= }} ==== Criminal biography infobox ==== {{Infobox criminal}} - should be used for all criminal biographies that do not fit the above categories.Copy the text below and fill in the information: Attention: before using, please read the section on ""Usage of infoboxes"", located above. {{Infobox criminal | honorific_prefix = | name = | honorific_suffix = | native_name = | native_name_lang = | image = | image_upright = | image_size = | alt = | caption = | birth_name = | birth_date = | birth_place = | disappeared_date = | disappeared_place = | disappeared_status = | death_date = | death_place = | death_cause = | body_discovered = | resting_place = | resting_place_coordinates = | monuments = | residence = | nationality = | other_names = | citizenship = | education = | alma_mater = | occupation = | years_active = | employer = | organization = | agent = | known_for = | notable_works = | style = | home_town = | salary = | net_worth = | height = | weight = | television = | title = | term = | predecessor = | successor = | party = | movement = | opponents = | boards = | criminal_charge = | conviction_penalty = | conviction_status = | spouse = | children = | parents = | relatives = | callsign = | awards = | website = | allegiance = | motive = | conviction = | trial = | trial_start = | trial_end = | reward_amount = | capture_status = | wanted_by = | partners = | wanted_since = | time_at_large = | escaped = | escape_end = | comments = | victims = | date = | time = | beginyear = | endyear = | country = | states = | locations = | targets = | fatalities = | injuries = | weapons = | apprehended = | imprisoned = | module = | signature = | signature_size = | signature_alt = | footnotes = }} ==== Criminal organization infobox ==== {{Infobox criminal organization}} - should be used for all gang and crime family articles.Copy the text below and fill in the information: Attention: before using, please read the section on ""Usage of infoboxes"", located above. {{Infobox criminal organization | name = | image = | image_size = | caption = | founded = | founder = | named_after = | founding_location = | years_active = | territory = | ethnicity = | membership = | leaders = | activities = | allies = | rivals = | notable_members = }} === Project templates === Other templates used by the project include: {{WP Crime}}, a project banner used to assess crime related articles as well as identify related projects working on the article. {{WP Criminal}}, an alternate project banner specifically for criminal biographies. {{Crime opentask}}, a template displaying open tasks related to the project. {{crime-stub}}, adds article to Category:Crime stubs. {{crime-bio-stub}}, adds article to Category:Crime biography stubs. This WikiProject was originally proposed by User:Remember in December 2006 (see [1]) which was eventually merged with the present biography project established by User:Wooyi in February 2007. === Task Forces === Serial Killer Task Force Missing People Task Force Biographies and other subjects generally follow standard Wikipedia ""Manual of Style"" formatting; however, there are a few exceptions, such as specialized formats established of criminal organizations (as seen in Bufalino crime family originally established by User:ExplorerCDT). Crime and criminology related subjects can range from specific areas, geographical locations, and historical periods as well as overlap with other subjects such as WikiProject Law and Law Enforcement. The subjects, defined by crime and criminology, include people, events, and related information on: True crime Street gangs (from the early-19th century to present) Mafia/Syndicate groups and members (particularly of the 20th century) Criminal societies and similar organizations. === To-do list === Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography: Requests: start a new article for Yazeed Essa, mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com(2012), start a new article for Kip McFarlin, USA Today (2016), start an article for Murder of Alexandra Flores (2001 kidnapping/murder, front page El Paso Times 21 Nov 2001, rcv'd nat'l coverage) Expand and improve citations: David Thai, Lords of Chaos (group), Violent crime, 2017 Bishop International Airport incident Stubs: Narco tank, Calling card (crime), Crime Classification Manual Current Merger Proposal: Comments needed regarding the merger of the four perpetrator wiki-articles into the Sterling Hall bombing article; Ongoing Discussion Here. Images: On-going tasks: Improve references in articles. Actively remove tangential ""mentions"" of article subjects from articles. The only valid mentions that might remain are specific and historically accurate depictions of subjects in film, music, etc. ==== Listing of pertinent articles and other entries that are being discussed for deletion ==== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_6#Category:Celebrities_sentenced_to_jailMurder of Dr. Melissa Ketunuti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Dr._Melissa_Ketunuti === Articles that need expansion/improvement === === Murders by Year === At present the category for Mass murders by year go back to Category:Mass murder in 1981, but for Murders by year only to 1999, e.g. Category:Murder in 1999, and also for 1993 and 1989. Hence I propose to finish the 1990s decade, and later the 1980s back to 1980. And to separate the American ones which only go back at present to Category:2005 murders in the United States. Plus a need to add all murders to Category:Murder in 2002 and Category:Murder in 2003 (or the American subcategory) as they only have one in each year at present; and to check that individual Mass Murders are also included in the Murders in US by year category where appropriate. NB: for Category:Mass murderers the requirement is four at once or over a short period of time (though some mass murders have only three?). Hugo999 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC) This is a list of Wikipedians, who are committed to this WikiProject. Please, feel free to join, by clicking edit on the right and signing your name at the bottom of the list with four tildes (~~~~), with an optional comment. Also add this template to your user page, if you want to, type: {{User CB}} to produce: === Members === Remember 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Longhair\talk 07:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Wjhonson\talk 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Jimbonator 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Malick78 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Agtaz 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Bentley Banana 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) C i d 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Chwyatt 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Kuzwa 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) George100 06:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) WTGDMan1986 -- --DFW 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) college student bothered by (and tired of) all the criminals with striking resemblances to One Tree Hill actor James Lafferty murdering defenseless women. I'm entering to revert vandalism and make changes if necessary. Rogermx 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC) copy editing articles on American Cosa Nostra figures - you got a problem with that?? Robbie (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Nicknackrussian (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) - I've been making organized crime/gangster articles since I signed up ... Johnnyarbogast (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC) - Don't look too deeply into the abyss Dan Dassow (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and related events Doc9871 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC) - I've already worked on several related articles ... DocOfSoc (talk) Cindamuse (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Basilisk4u (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Hutcher (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC) WPPilot (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Researching Federal Security Crimes for many Wiki projects. Wikid77 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC) - since 2006: Manson Family, Oswald, MoMK User:Solomaverick (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2011 (GMT) KokoPhantom (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Paris1127 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Ntbolton (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Interested in the expansion and maintenance of articles dedicated to this genre. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Interested in Biographies about criminals, murderers, any crime etc. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Interested in expansion, maintenance and new articles about the genre. David J Johnson (talk) 1037. 30 March 2013 (UTC) EricEnfermero Howdy! 09:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC) - interest in serial killers, psychology and healthcare providers who kill Bali88 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC) GouramiWatcher(?) 14:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Danni Ruthvan (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Discott (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC) - will not do biographies but am interested in trends, history, stats, gangs and gang types, crime fighting methods, and criminology more generally. I also mostly tend to focus on crime issues affecting South American and African countries. Breckham101 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Average contributor whose unofficial unlicensed expertise are terrorism related articles. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Crimsonrain158 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Interested in American organized crime, especially Jewish-American gangsters Ellis.Donnie (talk) 9:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Mostly interested in Italian and Jewish-American organized crime. BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) FortitudineVincimus (talk) Libertybison (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC) BarrierBuilder (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Always been interested in the psychology of criminals, mostly interested in British crime. Vwanweb (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC) TomCat4680 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Inexpiable (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Mostly interested in American crime, specifically 1990s murders. TTTAssasinator (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Expertise in Vietnamese criminals Cypresscross (talk) Maxim Stoyalov ilindytree\talk Walker in the Mist (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Surprised I hadn't added myself after a few related articles. Matuko (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC) ArcticAres (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Primarily interested in mass school killers. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Primarily interested in writing about major child abusers. Euliss (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC) EDG 543 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC) UpdatedAutopsyReport (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Beata May (talk) 26 August 2019 (UTC) Paperworkorange (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) I prefer to write from other side.I will add legal system problems for cases I know.As a result,we can create neutral article. User:Aude, for numerous edits and contributions to crime and criminology related articles. User:Capitalistroadster, revising and rewriting pre-1900 street gang leaders, most notably Slobbery Jim of the Daybreak Boys User:Christophervincent01, contributing to articles about executed criminals, some that I am working on, include, Draft:David Loomis Cargill, Draft:Ricky Lee Sanderson and Draft:Alfred Bourgeois User:Eusebeus, for rewriting several articles including Charles Luciano, Jack McGurn and Owney Madden. User:Fordmadoxfraud, for contributing several criminal biographies on Depression-era outlaws. User:Func User:ExplorerCDT, early work on US mafia crime families User:Irishguy, for his work on Danny Greene User:Jackie24, for work on the Scarfo crime family, Jewish Mafia User:JBAK, for work on the Los Angeles Mafia User:Lanoitarus, revising of organized crime articles, specifically the former copyvio Frank Salemme Little Joe Shots, for work on the Timeline of organized crime User:Mafia Expert, for work on the Ciaculli massacre User:Mikedash, extensive contributions on major crimes and criminal biographies. User:Mzucker, for work on the Cleveland Mafia and Porello Family. User:Nelliebellie, for numerous contributions including work on the Tucker telephone article. User:ONEder Boy, for the creation of the Serial Killer Info Box. User:Phatcat68, for contributions on several members of the John Gotti family. User:Robert Mercer, for his work on Sicilian mafiosi including Salvatore Riina User:Scott Sanchez, for work on Jack Dragna User:Sherurcij, numerous contributions including biographies on criminals, police officials, etc. User:SilverWings, for contributions on several criminal biographies. User:Skysmith, for compiling the extremely comprehensive Missing topics about Crime list User:Stefanomione, extensive categorizing of organized crime articles TheChin, for work on the Timeline of organized crime User:Trac.Melton, work and research on pre-1900 street gangs, specifically the Plug Uglies User:Wiseguy100, for work on various members of the Chicago Outfit including Harry Aleman, Frank Schweihs, Samuel Carlisi and others such as New York mobster Vincent Basciano and federal agent William F. Roemer, Jr. as well as providing a number of images. User:Vaselineeeeeeee, for extensive work on Italian-Canadian Mafia families/members. User:70.29.2.96, for his work on the Genna Brothers User:216.20.1.212, numerous articles on Irish-American organized crime User: Gingerbreadhouse97. I have created and contributed to several articles about high profile crimes. Some of these articles include: Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders; Murder of Tessa Majors; Murder of Eve Carson; George Brinkman murders; and Murder of Reagan Tokes. V.a.PJHC (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Carrierudd (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC) --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 15:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Occasional participant User:Elijahandskip (talk) - {Lead Coordinator of WikiProject of Current Events} 22:10, 25 December 2020. Pladica (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ArcticAres (talk) Primarily interested in American mass murderers. Contributed greatly to the Jokela High School shooting page. Space-daddy29 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Such-change47 (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Edd Wesson Contributor to criminal biographies and handling poor or outdated citations. RaskBunzzz I primarily update lists. 20:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC) User:CroissantAvenue 21:59 30 March 2022 (UTC) Contributor to list of murder convictions without a body and list of unsolved murders. CroissantAvenue (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Coolheights23 6:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC) LRFtheLion - I add new pages for missing topics and also expand and improve existing pages related to the following: history of prisons, prison operations, penological policy, criminal justice in Washington State, biographies of incarcerated writers, biographies of prisoner reformers, and other similar topics. LRFtheLion (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC) AFDDiary - I've added 7 pages for criminal biographies (as of now), I've expanded at least 10 similar stubs, and I have a list of at least 40 more biographies I would like to add, plus at least 10 stubs I would like to expand, or old, poorly-sourced, and/or poorly-structured articles that need some TLC. I specialize in capital punishment, which I 100% oppose but know a lot about (know your enemy, I guess), and any cases related to the death penalty, particularly in the southern United States. I've also authored 9 articles covering African countries' capital punishment histories and overviews. Afddiary (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC) #MMiller324 (talk · contribs) 16:11:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) creator of [Gomez Espinoza] article on the Costa Rican cartel leader, recently updating Sentencing in the United States article Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC) - I have been assessing crime related articles since February 2021, and see no reason to stop, now. So it is probably time to declare myself a member. DylanJ10000 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC) - Have a major interest in cold cases, and have authored pages such as Baby Boy Horry and Disappearance of Joshua Guimond. TrueCrimeData (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC) At the moment my focus is on serial killers. I update pretty frequently. CT55555(talk) 00:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC) I have created and edited various relevant articles === Inactive members === Members who are currently inactive on Wikipedia. Wooyi --- Project author. 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) MadMax 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Destructo 087 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Ozgod 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Quadzilla99 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The H-Man2 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Jmm6f488 00:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Alexbonaro 07:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Skosem 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Wildhartlivie 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Kathryn.rebecca42 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Ryleth777 09:34, 03 October 2007 (UTC) Stephoswalk 06:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Seth71 Khanhamzakhan--Khanhamzakhan (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Sickero (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC) F-451 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) LOTRrules (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) ||||Tonight, you sleep with the fishes* * |Talk|| 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) HumanFrailty 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Dcoetzee 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Tyciol 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I'm watching a specific genre of criminal in the news, if they become relevant enough in the future to be judged deserving of articles I'll help make them. I feel obligated to do this. Lucy-marie 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Lord23sutch (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ReignMan 03:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC) adding crime tables to cities, suggest you do the same! YegerMeister 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC) LisaSmall T/C 18:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC), particular interest in adding or correcting legal details of charges, sentences, etc. SkepticalGal (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Keeping an eye on ""profiling"" references, general copy editing Joyson Noel (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I am particularly interested in expanding and fixing up articles generally related to Organized Crime. METALFREAK04 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC) - I signed up for serial killers dychoa {talk} 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I signed up for serial killers Jake Wartenberg 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC) ChuckStone (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Expanding, adding references, and modifying inaccurate details about American organised crime figures, primarily American Cosa Nostra and Chicago Outfit Mistress of Awesome (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Lord23sutch (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) MooreSvn (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC) VulpineLady (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Recently sentenced serial in California. Draft up at * * * * Rodney Alcala User:Roxy:Pkid User:Jarovid Wombat24 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I have added biographies before. CrohnieGalTalk 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I've been working in this area for quite some time now. Luckymelon (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) KimChee (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Aidanpaige (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 PsychoticInq (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Ashirwad Gogoi (talk) 12:55, 26 March (UTC) I'm a 14 year-old member with great interest in this subject. Nkgal (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC) User:CitizenQZen (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC) DuchessofNewTown (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) User:Katarighe (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) User:beaconmike (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Wineville Chicken Coop Murders Theanonymous3 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Crr4 (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC) cyoung530 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Rice University Student working on under-represented articles as a semester long project for class. Meanie (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I recently stumbled upon a Notorious Death Row Serial Killer - He is pretty notorious in New Mexico area - I am looking for help in determining if he is relevant enough for Wikipedia. Robert Ray Fry hózhǫ́ni (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Because of ""AfD no consensus"" Fry was deleted. Moved to my * Sandbox. Can an admin or seasoned biographer here help me salvage this serial killer stub? Daniellam91 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Stanleyipkiss32 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC) === Featured Articles === The following crime related articles are featured articles and contain significant contributions from project members: === Good Articles === The following crime-related articles are Good articles and contain significant contributions from project members; with some additional work they can be improved to Featured Article status. === A-Class Reviews === An A-Class review is a project-intern quality review similar to that of a featured article review or good article review; however it is conducted independently within the remit of a specific project among the project members themselves. It aims to be a rigorous quality assurance that nevertheless is a simple and self-contained process. For more on this project's A-Class review see this page here. === DYK? === The following articles were featured as part of Wikipedia's Did you know? program. === Assessment Table === List of all subpages of this pageCategory:Mafia Category:History of the Italian Mafia Category:Antimafia Category:Murdered Mafiosi Category:Pentiti Category:People murdered by the Italian Mafia Category:Sicilian Mafiosi Category:Murdered Mafiosi Category:Pentiti Category:Mafia groups Category:Mafia crime families Category: Chicago Outfit Category:Chicago Outfit mobsters Category:Al Capone associates Category: Chicago Outfit bosses Category:Cleveland crime family Category:DeCavalcante crime family Category:Detroit Partnership Category:Fictional Mafia crime families Category:Five Families Category:Bosses of the Five Families Category:Acting bosses of the Five Families Category:Bosses of the Bonanno crime family Category:Bosses of the Colombo crime family Category:Bosses of the Gambino crime family Category:Bosses of the Genovese crime family Category:Bosses of the Lucchese crime family Category:Bonanno crime family Category:Bosses of the Bonanno crime family Category:Colombo crime family Category:Bosses of the Colombo crime family Category:Gambino crime family Category:Bosses of the Bonanno crime family Category:DeMeo Crew Category:DeMeo Crew victims Category:Genovese crime family Category:Bosses of the Genovese crime family Category:Lucchese crime family Category:Bosses of the Lucchese crime family Category:Lufthansa heist Category:Kansas City crime family Category:Los Angeles crime family Category:Patriarca crime family Category:Mafia gangs === Sub-projects === WikiProject Organized crime Serial Killer task force Transport industry organized crime === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Australian crime WikiProject Biography WikiProject British crime Deletion sorting: Crime WikiProject Irish Republicanism WikiProject Law (see WikiProject Australian law and WikiProject Canadian law) WikiProject Law Enforcement WikiProject Organized crime WikiProject Piracy WikiProject Terrorism === Bibliography === Gottesman, Ronald and Richard Maxwell Brown. Violence in America: An Encyclopedia. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999. ISBN 0-684-80487-5 Haines, Max. True Crime Stories: 50 Headline-Grabbing Murders from Around the World. Barnes & Noble Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-7607-6258-9 Wilson, Colin. The Mammoth Book of True Crime. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-7867-0536-1 The Library of Congress: Chronicling America The New York Times: Archive Search Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Crime" 179 180 391 WP:DSPOL Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics 179 "This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page. Adding a new AfD discussion Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps: Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace ""PageName"" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread. Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier. Removing a closed AfD discussion Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot. Other types of discussions You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. Further information For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination. Related deletion sorting Conservatism Libertarianism === List of Joe Biden gaffes === List of Joe Biden gaffes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX, this is not an appropriate WP:NPOV article. While Veracity of statements by Donald Trump provides substantial commentary and analysis of his outright fabrication and extensive lies, this is merely a list of times Joe Biden has made misstatements in speeches, with such mundane points as billionaires paying 3% in taxes rather than 8% or that prescription drug caps he passed had taken effect already rather than in two years. Is today's addition that he accidentally called a gun by the wrong name really such a purposeful blunder? There's a wide difference between a running list of fact-checks (in the latter case, the editor simply sourcing to a transcript and a separate news article rather than something calling it a gaffe) and actual encyclopedic discussion of a pattern of lying, so I don't believe this warrants a stand-alone article or list. Reywas92Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Reywas92Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Plenty of coverage of these mistakes. Whether he did it on purpose or not is irrelevant. When he was younger he was caught lying as well. The article mentions things he lied about back in the 1970s. Click the reference search at the top of the AFD and check for ""Joe Biden Gaffes"" and you get ample results. [1] Dream Focus 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) An honest politician? Wow, I've got a deal on swampland in Florida for you... Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete The top sources I see are Fox News (do I really need to explain why that’s a bad source) Bustle (not a reliable source, let alone a reliable political one) and a satirical book about his flubs. They’re famous enough in popular political culture to deserve maybe a section on his article or something similar but any kind of “list of failures of X” is inherently biased and BLP violating. The Trump article is about an overall subject (Trump’s habitual extreme dishonesty) where as this is a WP:SYNTH collection of inaccurate, not-completely-honest, or outright false statements— which all politicians make. Plus the title is terrible, insulting and sounds like something off of Conservapedia. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Comment On the fence about this one, we have similar lists for Donald Trump, this feels like an attack article. To keep it neutral, I'd remove the less trustworthy sources (Newsweek sure isn't). I'd prefer a more critical discussion around these foibles than just a list of xyz silly things a person has done. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) remark: i have removed the Newsweek source per the concerns raised here. as for the remaining 59 refs, only five of them are from Fox News and i have no reason to doubt their reliability, but ymmv. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) See WP:FOXNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === Reuben Solomon === Reuben Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Passing mentions are not enough for WP:NBIO. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, United Kingdom, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia === Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, my googling seems to indicate there is little coverage of this organisation Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === Ben Padarath === Ben Padarath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCRIME. They weren't elected, so they wouldn't meet the SNG for NPOL. I haven't seen anything in my BEFORE that would indicate adequate WP:GNG coverage that could be used to write a more typical biography. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and Oceania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC) === The future of Iran’s democracy movement === The future of Iran’s democracy movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV are the problems with this article, which is about a meeting that had no sustained coverage (far from WP:GNG). ParadaJulio (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC) No Thanks. Delete it. Gharouni Talk 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete, we don't need this. BenzoAid (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This is the most powerful reasoning to delete an article. ""We"" don't need ""this"". Gharouni Talk 09:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete or draftify – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC) On what grounds? Gharouni Talk 09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC) KEEP as an article about the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, for the reason's stated here: Talk:The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement#Requested_move_17_March_2023, among others. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. I'm not going to participate directly in this AfD discussion, as it might be seen inappropriate in circumstances where I'm involved in a dispute with one of the participants in regard to another article, but I would like to suggest that Jaredscribe's hand-waving at talk-page discussions elsewhere is contrary to the process laid out in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a closer to read though material elsewhere in the hope of figuring out exactly what the 'reasons stated' are. Policy-based arguments for a 'keep' are generally simple to make (e.g. through demonstrating that sufficient third-party sources exist etc), and should be stated directly in the AfD discussion, where they can be assessed by all, and responded to if appropriate. If Jaredscribe wants his arguments for keeping the article to be taken into consideration, he should state them explicitly here. And if he isn't prepared to do that, the closer will, in my opinion, be entirely justified in simply ignoring them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Hi. At least his/her reasons are more reasonable in comparison to other two users that have requested to delete the article. It is even more reasonable in comparison to the reasons that the user who has nominated the article for AFD. This article is about some important current events and as it was requested the title change is now necessary. This article will need to be completed and more information added to it gradually as they happen. I requested speedy deletion as creator of this article (it was declined as there are other users involved) because I was sure this article would never be nominated for any reasons, to be deleted, except for some other reasons that I can not say. Thanks for your comment. Gharouni Talk 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Changing the topic of the article with forbidden synthesis is not a valid argument to keep the article. Jaredscribe also tried to do this in another recent AfD with a similar topic, which obviously ended up being deleted. AndyTheGrump is correct that Jaredscribe's approach here goes against policy. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === 2023 Carmel mayoral election === 2023 Carmel mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Election is of negligible importance. Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb, none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they. There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects. If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead? The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city. South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry. And even then, only three mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Amala Ekpunobi === Amala Ekpunobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Non-notable individual, all coverage found is from social medial links. Perhaps too early in her career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I would argue the page on Amala should stay, and be developed. Amala has a YouTube channel with 952k subscribers, and all of this has been done since January 2022. This is quite impressive, and I for one would like to know more about her background. 82.34.171.120 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) For reference, I am the person who made the reply 20th March 2023 @ 17:55. or 83.34.171.120 Cobblars (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Amala needs coverage in reliable sources, has she been featured in any magazines or newspapers? Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is some stuff at: https://www.studlife.com/forum/2023/03/08/sympathy-for-the-devil-amala-ekpunobi-and-the-free-speech-dilemma https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/amala-ekpunobi-interview-prager-u/ And Google Books CT55555(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Student newspapers aren't generally a very good source. Second one seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC) you can buy subcribers, so youtube numbers aren't a good indicator. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Delete I agree this is probably a case of ""too soon"". I don't see sufficient coverage from outlets independent of PragerU. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Insult of officials and the state === Insult of officials and the state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails WP:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep If the existing sources aren't enough to convince you, you can easily search and find additional ones. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/23/fact-check-legal-experts-say-swearing-president-not-illegal/5785903001/ https://time.com/5813215/presidential-insult-history/ for example. Dream Focus 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list. Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Search for the name of any nation listed and ""insult law"" and you can find results. A website hopefully exist somewhere where you can search for the laws in each country. Sourcing everything is going to be time consuming. The article's creator did reference all the information they got to https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf Dream Focus 10:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. The first two references by Dream Focus above are useless as for establishing list notability. The third is better, but it's restricted to Europe. You'd either need a pared-down list for that, or more widespread coverage. It's also a bit moot at this point...essentially nothing in the article is sourced, and it's complete OR at the moment...you'd have to cut it down to basically nothing, leaving no article to keep. Moreover, trying to compile this information into a table is ultimately futile due to all the different nuances in the laws of every country. At best, you might be able to construct an article that actually goes into some detail for each country, but as a simple list, this fails on its face. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using ""insult"" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars tc 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) ""an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself"". This article is about ""Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries."" No daylight between the two.Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === List of Los Angeles municipal election returns === List of Los Angeles municipal election returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST; list of election returns which doesn't have much notability about the list itself nor has an explanation of the elections. Most of the sources are mainly from the Los Angeles Times and are just the election returns that happen every election. I feel like if the data were to be used somehow, it could be spun off into separate articles (e.g. 2022 Los Angeles elections), be put into the politician's articles (under ""Electoral history""), or be put into the district articles (under ""Electoral results"", much like Congressional articles). reppoptalk 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. reppoptalk 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom, this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Ajf773 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International === Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)No refs on the page and I can't find anything which would be sufficient for basic verification of the facts on the page JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Comment @JMWt: per WP:NEXIST and the discussion at the 2011 nomination; what justifies a change in consensus? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Previous AfD seemed to focus more on factors other than sourcing. However, the issue here seems to be a lack of available sourcing. The ultimate issue is the organization/group fails Wikipedia:GNG, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Article contains no references and my own search turned up nothing of significance including in Google Scholar and in Wikipedia Library. Plain Google mostly turned up Wikipedia clones and one or two non-RS sites. At the end of the day, if we can’t establish notability, we can’t establish it. Unless somebody turns up some in depth reliable sources I’ve missed, I’m for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC) === Liberalism and centrism in Iceland === Liberalism and centrism in Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)It's WP:OR and personal opinion. No refs on the page for many years, surely time now to WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iceland. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Unreferenced and looks like original research. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Liberalism in Iceland. It seems that several ""liberalism in"" articles have been given strange names with ""liberalism and centrism in"" and ""liberalism and radicalism in"". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC) === Kali Kumar Tongchangya === Kali Kumar Tongchangya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, ""Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability."". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia. (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable)​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament. See dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL. Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. ADCs have ""less power than states but more than local governments"", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression ""that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government"". There are also ""structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government"", and the councils have only a ""paucity of resources"" and ""solely depend on the state government for grants"". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning ""the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters"", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established. This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence. In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote. There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power. I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Kenneth Charles Brown === Kenneth Charles Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The one source provided could be considered primary. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Ben Muller === Ben Muller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails GNG and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Even less notable than Piet van der Merwe! Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - Athel cb - There's no need to say something like that.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Delete fails WP:GNG. ABHammad (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === List of mayors of Pekin, Illinois === List of mayors of Pekin, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails LISTN. Long list of nn names. Souces in article are primary, no other sources show this meets LISTN discussing this as a group. LISTCRUFT // Timothy :: talk 10:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Though a small handful may be notable via service in the legislature, most are not. Fails WP:NLIST. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Sooppy Narikkatteri === Sooppy Narikkatteri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Non-notable politician/political person. Not meeting GNG, being the president of some local clubs or associations isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:GNG per nom. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: Fails WP:GNG as stated in nomination. In addition to this, the article is poorly written, and an extremely large image is present resulting in me having to scroll to see it. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === Brian Worrell === Brian Worrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Would have restored the redirect, but that was contested, and due to discussions at ANI, that is no longer an option. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: It's been often held at AfD that city councilmen of cities of the size and international scope of Boston do indeed meet NPOL. Obviously the article needs better sourcing, but with over 270 G News hits [2], I've a hard time imagining that there aren't at least a couple providing significant coverage to the subject; what measures did the nom take for assurance that there aren't any? Also, would the nom care to link to any ANI discussion referencing this article? Ravenswing 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - I improved the article some, but it needs more work. Despite that, as it stands now, notability is shown with the existing sources. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. The individual and the sources show notability. All other existing members of the Boston City Council have existing Wikipedia pages. Therefore, this individual is no different. FranDoe16 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Ben Padarath === Ben Padarath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCRIME. They weren't elected, so they wouldn't meet the SNG for NPOL. I haven't seen anything in my BEFORE that would indicate adequate WP:GNG coverage that could be used to write a more typical biography. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and Oceania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC) === Cyrille S. Oguin === Cyrille S. Oguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Despite being ambassador to United States for 13 years, there is a complete lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Agree with LibStar, article would need additional notability contributions under WP:BIO MetricMaster (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked. Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC) === 2023 Carmel mayoral election === 2023 Carmel mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Election is of negligible importance. Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb, none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they. There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects. If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead? The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city. South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry. And even then, only three mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === John Lawrence Paynter === John Lawrence Paynter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Ping me if sources with extensive coverage are found. Article is currently unsourced. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing, BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Matthew Levin (diplomat) === Matthew Levin (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Since the last AfD, community consensus is clear that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete considering the post he held there is shockingly little news coverage, I see one mention regarding a specific Canadian aid move that mentions him and an article confirming his appointment. Fails WP:BIO despite his posting. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, Colombia, and Cuba. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Abdul Qavi === Abdul Qavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)The subject is a cleric who is known for having affairs -- mostly one-sided -- with female models and affiliation with a political party. Except for one single source The News, all other available sources are just tabloid-like stories and gossipy news pieces without any in-depth coverage of their life as a cleric or politician. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: There's a part of me that could see a rationale for most of the information in this article being incorporated into other ones, but Qavi is notable enough on his own for this article to hold. I did some searches here, but my sources are going to be inherently biased towards US-coverage unfortunately -- I do think it's worth noting that the articles, although short, are about Abdul and the fallout of his decisions, and that he meets WP:NPOL's secondary criterion of receiving significant coverage. Some sources to add/that I found quickly include an AP story that I found in both The Boston Globe and some other papers from 2006 which talks about his photos with Qandeel Baloch that led to her 'honor killing' (sad story). [8], and an article in Dawn is about his family stripping the title of Mufti from him, and he's clearly the center of it. [9]. Another article from Dawn talks about his suspension from his committees and the political fallout from his decision. [10]. Nomader (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The source [11] is not primarily about the subject. [12] and [13] are just dramatic routine news coverage. Yes, they are the center of all the tabloid news, but this is not the kind of significant coverage required for a biography. Insight 3 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) To be clear, agree with the first source note (the Newspapers.com one) -- wanted to show that a search of US news sources didn't come up with much. But on the whole, there is a large range of coverage from across a large number of articles (both the Dawn articles I pulled here and in the article itself) along with the profile that you cited in your nomination that makes me inclined to !vote ""keep"". I think that although some of these articles are ""tabloidy"", they document a number of separate incidents and events (like him losing his place on a committee, him losing his party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals and gossip that's generally rumor-filled or unconfirmed. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Valerie Raymond === Valerie Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, New Zealand, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as director general of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute, as well as having an important diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Being head of a government agency does not satisfy WP:NPOL. An ""important diplomatic career"" does not automatically mean a notable career. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC) The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) This applies to elected politicians and judges not public servants who head government agencies. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Nothing in the policy establishes that this is limited to elected public officials. This is specially the case with judges, who in many cases are not elected to their positions. The same applies to politicians such as ministers, cabinet positions appointed by the executive branch and not elected by the public. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC) it applies to politicians and judges, not ambassadors or heads of government agencies. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) And Canadian judges aren't elected, they're appointed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Name is too common to find anything about this person; there's a doctor in Nunavik, a student and many others with this same name. No coverage found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Heidi Hulan === Heidi Hulan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambasdadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 2 provided sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Austria, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Keep the article has clear sourcing issues, with primary sources being used to establish notability in contravention to policy. However, my very own very cursory search turned up enough mentions in relation to her various fairly significant postings that I must object to deletion over revision. While no single source I found clearly establishes notability on its own, the combined picture was of an individual who is fairly notable in international relations. For example, a recent newspaper reporting on her statements regarding the Russia/Ukraine for lift suggests ongoing coverage https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html, she gets quoted in random third party country media https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html, we can confirm she’s spoken before the UN general assembly (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf) she’s also on the IAEA board of governors (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected) etc. Far more failed sourcing effort is needed before I’ll support deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for fixing articles. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This article is not indepth coverage and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for Hulan. This one is also not indepth coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. It merely quotes her in an article quoting many others. The fact she has spoken at the UN General Assembly or been on the IAEA board does not confer automatic notability. The IAEA source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source. We need indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Keep. I do agree with the above. We need to be talking about how notable the person actually is, not making decisions based on the state of the article. WP:DINC seems relevant here.The Toronto Star article above helps establish notability. A few sentences about her appear in Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. United States: Oxford University Press, USA. She is interviewed in Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. There are brief mentions in Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. and in the Spectator link above seem to be enough to conclude that WP:BASIC is met. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having a position such as Minister Counsellor and head of political section at Canada's UN Mission, as well as a notesworthy diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - first, let's be clear, they do not meet WP:NPOL. Second, there is nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The only in-depth coverage is from primary sources. Libstar's analysis of the 4 additional sources above is spot on.Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Insult of officials and the state === Insult of officials and the state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails WP:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep If the existing sources aren't enough to convince you, you can easily search and find additional ones. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/23/fact-check-legal-experts-say-swearing-president-not-illegal/5785903001/ https://time.com/5813215/presidential-insult-history/ for example. Dream Focus 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list. Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Search for the name of any nation listed and ""insult law"" and you can find results. A website hopefully exist somewhere where you can search for the laws in each country. Sourcing everything is going to be time consuming. The article's creator did reference all the information they got to https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf Dream Focus 10:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. The first two references by Dream Focus above are useless as for establishing list notability. The third is better, but it's restricted to Europe. You'd either need a pared-down list for that, or more widespread coverage. It's also a bit moot at this point...essentially nothing in the article is sourced, and it's complete OR at the moment...you'd have to cut it down to basically nothing, leaving no article to keep. Moreover, trying to compile this information into a table is ultimately futile due to all the different nuances in the laws of every country. At best, you might be able to construct an article that actually goes into some detail for each country, but as a simple list, this fails on its face. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using ""insult"" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars tc 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) ""an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself"". This article is about ""Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries."" No daylight between the two.Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === Gil Peñalosa === Gil Peñalosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)article not meet WP:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Debatable if the subject meets WP:GNG (I'm leaning on probably), but my problem is that this has been brought as a draft a number of times and declined a number of times. This is an even poorer version of the article than what has existed in draftspace and would need significant improvements, like adding citations to be included in mainspace. —WildComet talk 20:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in municipal elections they haven't won, but that's the only notability claim being attempted here — and having reviewed several of the prior draft submissions, people have consistently failed to follow the direction, given more than once, that the key to making him notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to show proper reliable source coverage demonstrating preexisting notability as an urbanist before running as a candidate. And I'll point out, further, that this is not an ""I dislike the guy"" argument at all — I voted for the guy in the October municipal election, and depending on who the final candidates are in June it's not out of the question that I might vote for him again. But my personal views on the local politics of my own city are quite independent of how Wikipedia works, and how Wikipedia works is that politicians have to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to become accepted as notable politicians, and otherwise get articles only if they already qualified for articles on other inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - a Google search shows multiple articles profiling or highlighting Penalosa[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.103 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Mayoral candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just because local campaign coverage exists in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor — every candidate for any political office can always show some campaign coverage in their local media, so WP:NPOL would be inherently meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt candidates from it, because that would mean that no candidate was ever subject to NPOL at all anymore since campaign coverage never fails to exist. So no, the existence of campaign coverage does not make a candidate keepable in and of itself: what we would need to see is pre-candidacy coverage in the context of his work as an urbanist, the very thing people keep failing to show that he ever had. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Penalosa meets the Basic Criteria under WP:NPOL having ""received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"". Bearcat's additional criteria above does not appear in the policy. While certain politicians are also ""presumed to be notable"" even if they don't meet the Basic Criteria,there is nothing in the policy that includes Bearcats exclusions or requires his conditions to be met or that states that there is a higher standard to be met above and beyond the Basic Criteria. Bearcat's statement is a personal opinion of what he believes to be notable rather than a statement of Wikipedia policy. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I am not expressing any personal opinions of any sort. Wikipedia has an established consensus around how notability is actually assessed when unelected candidates for political office are brought up for discussion, which is that run of the mill (which, note, contains a section specifically devoted to ""political candidates"") campaign coverage is not sufficient to establish the permanent notability of a candidate just for being a candidate — because every candidate in every election always has some degree of campaign coverage, our consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles would be meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate in any election would ever fail to earn that exemption.So unelected candidates aren't automatically notable enough just because campaign coverage exists, and are notable enough for inclusion only if they can be shown as some kind of special case — the notability of a candidate is established only if either (a) there's sufficient prior coverage to properly establish that he was already notable enough to keep a Wikipedia article independently of being a candidate for anything, or (b) the candidacy coverage nationalizes well beyond what's merely expected to exist, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never does another noteworthy thing for as long as he lives, his campaign itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring national or international significance anyway. We're not writing news here, and it isn't our job to maintain an article about every single person whose name happens to be present in the current news cycle — our job is to look past the current news cycle, and separate what's newsy from what's of enduring and permanent significance, and unelected candidacies very rarely meet the ""enduring significance"" test at all.Not because I said so, either, but because thousands of past AFD discussions on unelected candidates established a consensus that that's how the notability of unelected candidates works.Even NPOL #2 is not for candidates: it's for actual holders of offices at the local level, such as actual mayors and actual city councillors, who have sufficient analytical coverage of their work in office to establish a reason why it will still be of enduring significance 20 or 50 or 100 years after they die. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) You have not provided a single quote from policy. Please quote where the policy says any of what you are inferring above. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Not a single word of what I said was incorrect at all, and Wikipedia does not have any rule that participants in AFD discussions have to directly ""quote from"" policy verbatim, and somehow aren't allowed to just summarize policies and guidelines and consensus in their own words. But at any rate, if you really insist on links, then WP:NPOL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:MILL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:10YT (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, and even WP:GNG isn't just ""count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number"": it tests the footnotes for the enduring significance of the context of what they're covering the person for, so hits that exist in non-notable contexts (like unelected candidacies for political office) don't count for a whole lot in terms of establishing permanent notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Bearcat is correct in how our community usually treats unsuccessful (or current) candidates for political office. There is nothing that suggests that the subject would meet WP:GNG outside the context of the election and there is no expectation that Wikipedia is a repository of campaign brochures or a complete collection of candidates for public office. I am ok with a delete and redirect to 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election. --Enos733 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. There is coverage of Penalosa's work as an urbanist before his first electoral campaign is borderline WP:GNG compliant. [22][23][24]. He has also been covered in multiple books on urbanism. [25][26][27] Combined with the coverage that he has received. In any case, if this is redirected, it should probably be to his brother, Enrique Peñalosa, under whom he held office beforehand, since he ran in both the 2018 and 2023 mayoral elections, coming second in the former, which he may not repeat in the latter. I'm going to try and flesh out the article in the next bit, which might change my mind on this though. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)After rewriting the article (WP:HEYMANN), I'm actually surprised at how much academic content there is on Penalosa, since going into this I thought a lot would be the typical puffery of political candidates. Many books have multiple pages on his work in Bogota, there's an entire chapter devoted to criticizing one of his biking theories, and many other urban design books mention him in shorter sections at sufficient detail to meet WP:BASIC. What currently stands is almost exclusively from sources before Penalosa first stood for election in 2022, with the ones post-candidacy mainly being used to flesh out the timeline before his candidacy. I have also not gone beyond what was already present in the article in terms of coverage for his two Toronto mayoral campaigns, which is unsurprisingly, quite in-depth (e.g. [28][29]). There are also quite a few scholarly articles, books, and other publications that look promising from Google search snippets for his name + ""Bogota"" that I don't have access to, but should factor in per WP:NEXIST (e.g. [30][31][32][33][34][35]) I think this obviously fails WP:NPOL, but clearly meets WP:GNG, even without the Toronto mayoral stuff, and have struck parts of my above !vote accordingly.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: so that notability can be discussed in the light of the sources provided by Patar knightPlease add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete I still don't think he's notable other than being a guy that runs in the Toronto municipal elections. He's never been notable as an urban planner. The sources given are only local and related to him running for mayor. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Toronto is the largest city in Canada and as such during the upcoming mayoral race he will get significant media attention, not just local. This media attention will be greater than the previous race as well as during the previous race he placed second against the incumbent, this upcoming election is an open election which means he could be seen as a frontrunner which increases his notability. That is in addition to his academic works and time as parks commissioner. I acknowledge that should he go on to lose the upcoming mayoral election then he may not be notable enough for a page, however I think that this discussion should probably be had after the election and not now, as it would be premature to have the page deleted and undeleted in a few months should he win. Furthermore, although this is a less significant point, during the election campaign some may use the page as an information resource to learn more about the candidate running in the election, with that page being a useful information source for voters. Elijah B4 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections at the municipal level, not even in big cities. The inclusion tests are either (a) he wins the election, or (b) it can be shown that he had sufficient preexisting coverage in other contexts to be deemed notable for that reason regardless of whether he wins or loses the election, and ""is a candidate"" does not add up to permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Keep – Patar knight has re-written the article with expanded sourcing, and has made a solid case that, although WP:NPOL is not passed, the subject passes WP:GNG separate from being a political candidate. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Irving G. Cheslaw === Irving G. Cheslaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Cheslaw was an army officer, university lecturer, and State Department official who rose to be US Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago for two years. None of these accomplishments are inherently notable (including being ambassador). Primary sources mark each step: listing him among graduates from UCLA and among second louies commissioned, briefly noting his nomination and confirmation as ambassador, etc. There is a 125 word obituary that reads as if it was written by the family, and a passing mention in the review of a book. He may have been a fine, hard working fellow, but none of this adds up to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him, so he does not meet WP:GNG and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, and United States of America. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Jamaica. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Efraín Saavedra === Efraín Saavedra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Google books comes up with 1 line mentions nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) === James Clelland Britton === James Clelland Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, Thailand, and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Newspaper coverage includes this contemporary article specifically about him from The Windsor Star, which says in part, ""one-time Queen's University football star who later helped export ice hockey to Africa and Asia... a sporting career that made him on of Canada's outstanding athletes in the 1920s."" Seems like fairly significant coverage with good notability claims. Dekimasuよ! 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! Noise! 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Oon Yung === Oon Yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) Oon Yung (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) 온영 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) Fails WP:BIO. The only source provided is a dead link. Could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Archive.org is freely available. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks. The article only contains a small mention of Oon Yung. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. It is worthwhile to search for his name in Korean script, 온영. I don't read Korean. My initial search for the Korean name didn't find any hits for the diplomat, but several for ""World on Yonge"", a condominium complex in Canada that sounds like his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Glen Buick === Glen Buick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Chile. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. A Google web search returns Wikipedia mirrors, and Buick dealers in towns named ""Glen"". Book search (and the refs in the article) only give trivial mentions of him. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Key-sung Cho === Key-sung Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also I don't think his academic career meets WP:PROF. Fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, Argentina, Guatemala, and Peru. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: I think I've now seen dozens of these AFDs about ambassadors. It used to be articles about football players and then ghost towns in Arizona and now it's cleaning house of ambassador articles.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: I've been able to find several mentions of his career as an ambassador through a Google Books search; it seems that he played a fairly important role in encouraging South Korean investment in Guatemala while he was ambassador there in the late 1980s. I don't have time to add the sources right now, but I'll work on improving the article as soon as I can. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Eric John Bergbusch === Eric John Bergbusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Tanzania, Germany, Poland, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Nothing in my article or my BEFORE suggests he meets NBIO/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm from LibStar for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. Moonraker (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES, where are the sources you refer to? LibStar (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep and improve sourcing. I see sources that make me lean towards notability. I also see he remained relevant a decade after office, being published in an article about Canada leaving NATO (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203276). The article has sourcing issues, but I refuse to believe there are no outstanding print sources for the Canadian ambassador to East Germany in office towards the end of the Cold War. Not ripe for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - neither of the keep !votes above is actually based in policy. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. The only ""source"" in the article is not about the subject. Jo7hs2 BEFORE showed the only a single primary nothing else worth reporting, other Keep showed nothing. My BEFORE showed nothing, Keep voters haven't offerred anything other than a single primary, article itself is unsourced since the ref isn't about the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Julia Bentley === Julia Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: we have now got to the very odd point where more biographies of ambassadors are currently proposed for deletion than any other human activity. While an ambassador can be non-notable, as noted at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence — articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. The response to this should simply be to tag for better references. Moonraker (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Where are the third party sources to establish notability? This is WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Moonraker. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC) WP:PERX. Moonraker provided no sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Keith Bezanson === Keith Bezanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Canada, Bolivia, and Peru. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: It is more than a little absurd to say ""Ambassadors are not inherently notable"" when the subject of this page has had so many significant roles, not only as an ambassador. The page should surely be tagged as needing better references, not deleted, to join the long list bizarrely celebrating the deletion of diplomatic articles on the nominator's user page. Moonraker (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ADHOM. Where are the sources that would make this person notable? LibStar (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Renata Wielgosz === Renata Wielgosz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The first source is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Little sign of notability, but sources exist, and in my experience most Canadian ambassadors do prove to be notable, when someone takes the time to dig out the sources. On LibStar's user page we can see a strange obsession with getting biographies of ambassadors deleted, but I am not seeing any involvement with this page, such as a challenge to add citations, or any sign of efforts to improve the page, or any of the others. They are all just drive-by Afds and are not the best way to deal with under-referenced articles. Moonraker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Where are the sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You can't just say keep without demonstration of sources. WP:ADHOM applies too. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, Greece, and Venezuela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep for having a notesworthy career: she has been an ambassador in more than one country: in Venezuela, in Greece and in Cyprus. I also have to agree with Moonraker per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Being an ambassador to more than 1 country is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Per WP:NPOL, [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador. She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States, meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador. Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability, many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Dominic Schroeder === Dominic Schroeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. The other 2 are not indepth coverage of Schroeder and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: another drive-by Afd. The sources were all right, but a little thin, I have improved on them. There are other good sources available, as we would expect. Schroeder's part in the removal of Craig Murray is not his finest hour, but it does show the usefulness of having good coverage of senior diplomats here on Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete but actually with a heavy heart because the article actually reads well and does a great job of making a case for Schroeder's notability but there are guidelines and yes, ambassadors aren't inherently notable and no, diplomatic or civil service posts also confer no notability. Interviews are not considered as contributing to WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately, a spat in Uzbekistan and another in Europe don't add up to a clear pass of WP:GNG and that's where we are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Notable diplomat. Along with the current sources in the article there's a substantial feature on the Ambassador in Børsen 15 October 2019 (cover & pages 22-25) Piecesofuk (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Catherine Evans === Catherine Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: there is no shortage of good sources to comply with WP:GNG, but most appear to be in French. I have found and added a few. Clearly a significant international career with a long way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker (talk • contribs) Comment Let's look at some of the added sources. This one is a 1 line mention in an article about 4 ambassadors. This one is just a 1 line mention and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. This one is again a 1 line mention again and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. This one is just a primary source. This one is another 1 line mention in a list of names and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.LibStar (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep- ambassadors are inherently notable as they are the representatives of their countries in the host country. They serve as the eyes and ears of their country. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC) No, they are not inherently notable. Many have been deleted and there is no notability guideline granting them automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC) ""Note-worthy in the outside world, not notable in Wikipedia"" unless properly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Fails WP:GNG. Search throws up nothing and as nom correctly points out, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Just because many ambassador articles were deleted in the past means they were valid deletions. I have seen articles saved from deletion where the content amounts to little more than 19 year old Michel Henderson plays goalie for the Strikers FC. AND Henderson is considered notable yet a former ambassador with 30+ years of diplomacy is not. As far as I am concerned, some people have their priorities upside down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs) Ya got to give sources, doesn't matter what the subject is. She is notable, but we need sources that can be used for wikipedia's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as Director of European Operations and African Outreach, besides her positions as ambassador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) WP:NPOL does not apply to being a director of a government agency. There is no automatic notability conferred from being an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Christopher Yvon === Christopher Yvon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: WP:BIO says ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."" A quick glance at the hits in Google Books supports that, and there is also other good coverage on the Council of Europe's web site and elsewhere. A significant career, sadly cut short. Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Any hits on JSTOR? LibStar (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)I do not have access where I am now. It wouldn't surprise me, you may wish to check. It would be constructive if you would also spend a little time improving this article, before you move on to finding yet another British ambassador to challenge. Moonraker (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) One of the added sources is just a 1 line mention and not about Yvon as the subject so fails WP:SIRS. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Sure, that is not ""in depth"" but it supports the fact it cites. There are many other sources, a pity your only input here is to find fault with those who add content. Did you check JSTOR? Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) What are the ""many other sources' that meet WP:SIRS? LibStar (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)If you were to look for yourself, you would find them with no difficulty. Moonraker (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The onus is on keep voters to demonstrate existence of sources. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC) The Google Books hits mostly look like one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Fails WP:SIRS. No evidence of independent in-depth sources. --TadejM my talk 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) === Kali Kumar Tongchangya === Kali Kumar Tongchangya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, ""Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability."". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia. (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable)​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament. See dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL. Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. ADCs have ""less power than states but more than local governments"", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression ""that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government"". There are also ""structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government"", and the councils have only a ""paucity of resources"" and ""solely depend on the state government for grants"". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning ""the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters"", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established. This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence. In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote. There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power. I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Open discussions === === Recently-closed discussions ===" 180 181 394 WP:ARCHIVE Help:Archiving a talk page 180 "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive. Regular articles are not archived because previous versions may be seen in the page history; the practice of archiving is unique to talk pages and noticeboards, which often swell to great length. Archiving one's own user talk page is optional; some users simply blank the page, as the history is kept available for future reference, but this is not considered the best practice (as it makes things more difficult to find and link). For this specific case, the use of ""permalinks"" can provide an easy way to display an archived view of a talk page at a given moment, though there's no control on thread organization or presentation. The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. There may be circumstances where it would be useful to keep older discussions present on a talk page, to avoid the same issues being repeatedly raised. However, this situation can be better addressed by use of the {{FAQ}} template. The preferred method for archiving a talk page is to copy the older sections to a series of subpages, and remove the sections from the original page. This can be performed either by hand or automatically by a bot. There are two common methods of naming archive pages. The most common, and easiest, is sequentially numbered archives. Archive pages should be named as follows: take the name of the talk page, and add ""/Archive #"", where ""#"" is the number of the archive. Note that the word Archive has a capital A, there is a space before the number, and there are no leading zeros. Templates like {{Archive list}} rely on this naming convention to automatically find the archive pages. For example: The 20th archive of Talk:Earth would be named Talk:Earth/Archive 20 The first archive of User talk:Example would be named User talk:Example/Archive 1The second common method of naming archive pages is by year and month. With this method archive pages are typically named Talk:YourPage/Archives/2013/June, Talk:YourPage/Archives/2013/July, etc. Some things are more complex with this method of naming. When using this naming scheme the subpages should use /Archives/ not /Archive/ as some of the navigation templates rely on Archives being plural. Remember to use the correct namespace – the part before the colon (:) – when archiving your own user talk page. It should start with ""User talk:"", not ""Talk:"". Most of the methods here rely on checking if any archived talk pages already exist, and placing the new sections to be archived either into the most recent archive, or in a new archive numerically sequenced one above the existing archive. There is a search to check if any subpages exist under a talk page (and archived pages are usually placed in subpages of the existing talk page). In the search bar type: Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:PagenameFor example Special:PrefixIndex/Help talk:Archiving a talk page will display the talk page to this help page and all its archives. === Cut and paste procedure === Edit the talk page, copying material you wish to archive to your computer's clipboard. Create a new archive page at Talk:Example page/Archive N, where N is the lowest number for which no archive exists. (You can create the page by searching for the desired title and clicking the red link in the search results, or by editing the URL bar to point to the desired location then clicking the ""Create"" button.) Alternatively, you may occasionally wish to create a topical archive, in which case the archive should be named according to the topic. For example Talk:Example page/Place of birth debate. Paste the clipboard contents into this archive and add {{Talk archive}} (or {{Automatic archive navigator}} to enable navigation between archives) to the top of the code. Publish the new archive. Delete copied material from main talk page with edit summary mentioning the name of the new archive. If an archive box doesn't already exist on the main talk page, add the line {{Archives}} below the WikiProject tags and publish. (This will not be necessary if the main talk page already contains the line {{Talk header}}, since this template automatically contains a list of archives if they are named in the standard way.) If there is already an archive box on the relevant talk page, you may want to add to it the link to the new archive.For a more detailed set of instructions, see /Manual archiving. === Semi-automated cut and paste procedure === OneClickArchiver and Archy McArchface are userscripts designed to simplify the above manual procedure. Instead of manually copying and pasting the text, these scripts allow you to simply check which sections you wish to archive and specify a page to archive the selected sections to. Factotum is not a dedicated archiver script but can move a section to another specified page, which can be a talk page archive. === Other manual procedures === Other manual procedures were once considered equal alternatives with the cut and paste procedure described above. Over time both methods fell out of use and are generally not used. If you have used the page move procedure those pages do not qualify for speedy deletion by user request. ClueBot III and lowercase sigmabot III can automatically create archives for any discussion page (one that has ""talk"" in the namespace), by moving sections to a subpage when the section has received no comments for a specified period of time. Both bots can archive sections into simple sequentially numbered archives (e.g. YourPage/Archive 1, YourPage/Archive 2, ...), or archive according to date (e.g. YourPage/Archives/2013/June, YourPage/Archives/2013/July, ...). See the ClueBot III page and the lowercase sigmabot III page for detailed instructions on setting up these bots. Those pages explain each of the parameters used, such as archiveheader, minthreadsleft, etc. The examples below are also available for use. All of the examples here are intended for you to be able to copy them while viewing this page and paste them into the edit box on your target page without requiring any modification to have a working configuration. === Choosing a bot === ClueBot III and lowercase sigmabot III, the two bots in current use for automated archiving, are similar in their behaviour, but have some differences in terms of features they implement and limitations on their use: The following are example configurations to set up automatic archiving of an article talk page or user talk page. These configuration templates do not produce any visible output, so you should generally also include a template such as {{Archives}} to provide readers with links to search and navigate the archives. These templates may also be configured with the parameters bot and age to include a message notifying readers that automatic archiving is taking place. For example: {{Archives|age=90|bot=ClueBot III}}. === Sequentially numbered archives === Both of the above examples will create archive pages, as needed, starting with TalkPage/Archive 1 and continuing with TalkPage/Archive 2, etc., when the current archive page grows to more than 75,000 bytes. Only sections with dates that are older than 90 days (2,160 hours) will be archived, although the five sections with the most recent contributions will be retained on the talk page no matter how long ago the last contribution was added. If archives for the page already exist, then set the counter/numberstart parameter to the next archive number in the series. Warning: the magic word {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}} is replaced by the talk page name when the template is saved to a talk page. However some punctuation characters that can appear in a page name (""&') are replaced by HTML character codes that are not recognised by the bots (see mediawikiwiki:Manual:PAGENAMEE encoding#PAGENAME for details about these and other characters). For example ' is replaced with ' (so if the bot is to work then ' must be replaced with '). This can be circumvented by using {{SUBST:#titleparts:{{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}}} to automatically sort the encoding. === Archives by year and month === === Bot and config details === The configuration template for lowercase sigmabot III is still named {{User:MiszaBot/config}} even though the original bots, MiszaBot I, MiszaBot II, and MiszaBot III, are no longer active. The best age for threads to be archived will vary, depending on talk page activity. The purpose of archiving article talk pages should be to remove stale discussions, not to stifle discussion. Article talk page threads should not typically be archived in less than 30 days except for very busy talk pages. The maxarchivesize/maxarchsize parameter determines how large each archive is allowed to grow before a new archive is started. Keeping this value larger than a typical talk page allows the archives to be browsed more easily, but increases page load times. Each individual archive should not be larger than 512kB, because this may cause accessibility problems for some devices. Because a large batch of threads can ""overshoot"" the maxarch[ive]size parameter, the parameter should always be set lower than the maximum acceptable archive size. === Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage === One limitation of the way automatic archival instructions are set up is how page moves will easily break the functionality. For several reasons, the bots will generally only archive to subpages; that is, the archive must reside as one or more subpages to the talk page in question. When a page is renamed (moved) and the user forgets to also update the bot instructions, this means that no further archiving will take place (until the bot instructions are updated manually). To facilitate identifying cases where archiving is interrupted, the Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage was created. If your talk page isn't archiving properly, you might want to check this category. If your page is included, this indicates that the specified archive pages are incorrect. === For archive pages === A template should be placed at the top of each archive page indicating that it is an archive. The simplest such template is {{Talk archive}}. If the page is using sequentially numbered archives, you can instead use {{Automatic archive navigator}} which will add navigation links to earlier and later archives (example). ClueBot III and Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically place {{Talk archive}} on archive pages they create. They can be configured to use other templates using the header and archiveheader parameters, respectively. For example (for ClueBot III), |header={{Automatic archive navigator}}. === For talk pages === There are many templates that can be placed on talk pages to make the page's archives visible and accessible to editors. These can be broadly divided into ""boxes"" (which generally appear floating to the right of the table of contents), and banners. Some pages use one or the other, and some use both. Templates dedicated to archiving should generally be placed last, after all other talk templates, but before the discussions proper. ==== Archive link boxes ==== On regularly archived talk pages, it is useful to have an ""archive box"" template. Common usage is to place the archive box below other header templates and before the first section heading so that the box appears to the right of the table of contents. If the page already has a manual archive box, add the link to the new archive page to it. If there is no archive box yet, you may want to set one up. The most common archive box template is {{Archives}}. It has a significant number of options. The auto option causes the box to automatically find your archive page list. If auto=yes or auto=short the links are shown as ""1, 2, 3"". If auto=long the links are shown as ""Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3""). If the archives do not follow the standard naming scheme (/Archive #), or date labels are desired a manual list can be inputted in the first unnamed parameter as seen in example 2 below. There are also options which show a search field, permit the box to collapse/expand, start the box collapsed/expanded, etc. Many of these are shown in example 4 and all of them are explained in more detail at Template:Archive/doc. Example 1For a box with an automatically generated archive list with a search bar. {{Archives}} can be used without any extra parameters. Example 2For a box with a manual archive list and a search bar {{Archives|List of archives}} can be used. For the box to the right the code is: {{Archives| *[[Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_1|2003–2006]] *[[Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_2|2006–2007]] *[[Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_3|2007–2009]] *[[Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_4|2008–2014]] *[[Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_5|2014–2019]]}} Example 3For a box with both an automatic and manual list {{Archives|List of archives}} can be used. The example below for Template talk:Archives where the archives for the old {{archive box}} template are shown use the following code: {{Archives|auto=long|'''Archive box archives''':
      [[Template talk:Archive box/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Template talk:Archive box/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}} Example 4This template just demonstrate a lot of the parameters. Most of them are quite self explanatory. {{archives | auto = short | search = no | root = Help talk:Archiving a talk page | collapsible = yes | collapsed = yes | style = background-color:#FFAAAA; width:140px | title = These are the archives! | image = File:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png | image-size = 60px | bot = Lowercase sigmabot III | age = 1 | units = year }} ==== Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives ==== Automatic archive boxes for Year/Month archives are a bit more complicated. The most common method is by using the {{Archives by months}} template to generate links to your existing archives. It produces a live link for each existing archive month within a year. It is commonly used in something similar to: The above code produces the archive box to the above right. The example here has no month names which are links because there are no archive files for this page. You can, of course, delete the lines for the years you don't want. The default for the {{Archives by months}} template is that archive page names are in the format YourPage/Archives/2013/June, YourPage/Archives/2013/July, etc. However, {{Archives by months}} allows you to specify various naming conventions for your archives. Archives can have an arbitrary prefix by using the archprefix parameter (e.g. archprefix=Archive/ instead of Archives/). Months can be in four formats: A) the default uses January, February, March, etc.; B) abbrev3=yes months are Jan, Feb, Mar, etc.; C) numbers=yes months are 1, 2, 3, ... 12; D) numbers0=yes months are 01, 02, 03, ... 12. If you are using ClueBot III, it has a couple of additional options for creating an archive box. These involve the use of either the archivebox or the index parameters. See the ClueBot III page for more information. ==== Archive link banner ==== Instead of putting the archive links in a box that floats to the right or left, some prefer the links in a banner like {{Talk header}}. Yearly and alphabetic archives are automatically detected in addition to regular sequential archives. A search box is by default included and if the page is archived by bots an auto archiving notice can be included by specifying |archive_age= in days. {{Talk header}} The archive links show up in a row at the bottom of the above banner. For a real world example see Talk:Proxima Centauri. Having an archive index makes finding old discussions on a given topic easier, particularly in pages with many archives, or when the archives are of considerable size. An archive index, when one exists, is typically stored on the page Talk:YourPage/Archive index. While it is possible to generate an index by hand, the /Archive index page is normally generated automatically. There are two bots which automatically create indexes: Legobot and ClueBot III. Legobot, formerly HBC Archive Indexerbot, can create an archive index page based on a set of archives. See the bot's instructions for details on how to set up archive indexing. Legobot generated archive indexes are the most commonly available type of index. To set up Legobot archiving you have to create your Talk:YourPage/Archive index page and need to place: on top of the index page. The following is a Legobot configuration that works with numbered archives which you can place on the page you are archiving: ClueBot III automatically creates an archive index when archiving. ClueBot III stores the archive indexes it creates on unique pages in its user space. The archive index for the page you are archiving can be transcluded onto your Talk:YourPage/Archive index page by putting the following text in that page:{{User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{NAMESPACE}}: {{BASEPAGENAME}}}} If there are several archives, it is easy to search them all at once using the optional search parameter prefix. For example, suppose we want to begin a discussion about adding a security section to the Linux article. Before bringing up the topic we can do the following search: security prefix:Talk:Linux/. This will look in all the subpages of the Linux article in its Talk namespace. The templates {{Archives}}, {{Archive box}}, and {{Talk header}} have a parameter search=yes which provides a helpful search box on the talk page to automate searching, as do independent search templates such as {{search archives}}. It is recommended that when a page is archived, such a template be put on the surviving talk page to simplify access to past discussions. If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. Here are actual discussion pages on Wikipedia where you can study the code to see how archive pages were created. Talk:Psychokinesis has a simple archive box with a search field. Talk:Jesus has a mixture of numbered and topical archives. It also includes a summary of recently archived discussions. Talk:Main Page has many numbered archives. The archives are listed on a separate subpage and transcluded. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) Help:Using talk pages Wikipedia:Closing discussions Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages Module:Archive list is the Lua code that drives Archive templates Pages that need archiving Category Archive requests is populated by the {{Archiveme}} template." 181 182 395 WP:WRITERS Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? 181 "You do. Yes, anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles on Wikipedia come from many countries, with individuals who all bring something different with them, but most importantly a willingness to help in building a free encyclopedia of reliable information. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a ""Wikipedian"", or, more formally, an ""editor"" of the encyclopedia. Almost all Wikipedians are volunteers. Other categories of Wikipedians have emerged as well. The English Wikipedia currently has 45,277,750 users who have registered a username. Only a minority of users contribute regularly (129,706 have edited in the last 30 days), and only a minority of those contributors participate in community discussions. An unknown but relatively large number of unregistered Wikipedians also contribute to the site. The type of people who were drawn to writing an encyclopedia for fun tend to be pretty smart people. Contributions come from diverse demographic and ethnographic segments: Mid-20s males and retired males are the largest demographics. See Gender database reports. 10–20% women of various ages, significant underrepresentation acknowledged by Gender bias on Wikipedia and Gender gap Students (e.g., in the context of a course) Enthusiasts (e.g., people with interest in a particular subject, like butterflies) Insiders (e.g., people who work for an organization, such as the Sierra Club) Dabblers (e.g., people who see some problem with an article and want to help) Scholars (e.g., researchers who want to use Wikipedia as an additional dissemination platform) Archivists (e.g., people who work or volunteer at a museum, archive, or library wanting to contribute artifacts, like 18th-century paintings) Marketers (e.g., individuals, staff, members, or a PR firm seeking to promote a product, service, or brand) Evil-doers (e.g., spammers, vandals)Many people in the Wikipedia community are conscious that the demographics of editors has systemic bias in the content of the site and there are efforts being done to remedy these biases. The content of any particular article is subject to editorial discretion developed via consensus. Wikipedia is not paper, which means we can write almost an unlimited amount on any topic. Still, there are limits on what we ought to include, and especially how we ought to write it. When an article is incomplete or inaccurate, you can edit the article to be more accurate and/or useful. Someone may place a notice at the top of the article indicating that it needs to be cleaned up. It is also possible to create a new article to share information that is not yet in Wikipedia. The way to decide whether a particular statement is accurate is to find independent reliable sources to affirm that statement, such as books, magazine articles, television news stories, trade journals, or other websites. For more guidance on evaluating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, see researching with Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia's policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable and not original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Detailed citations allow readers of the article to easily verify the content in question. When a large group of people work to compile information on a given topic, disputes may arise. A useful feature of Wikipedia is the ability to tag an article, or a section of the article, as subject of a dispute about a neutral point of view. This feature is especially popular for controversial topics, topics subject to changing current events or other topics where divergent opinions exist. To resolve the dispute, the interested editors will share their points of view on the article's talk page. They will attempt to reach consensus so that all valid perspectives can be fairly represented. This allows Wikipedia to be a place not only of information, but of collaboration. Many users of Wikipedia consult the page history of an article in order to assess the number, and the perspective, of people who contributed to the article. You may also consult the talk page of any article to see what other readers and editors have to say about it. Wikipedia's best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted ""featured"" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors and users. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.) Administration – discusses how Wikipedia requires a certain amount of administration in order to further the project's goals. Core content policies – a brief summary and background on Wikipedia's core content policies. Editor integrity – discusses how editors have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and respect intellectual property rights of the sources they draw upon when they create and improve encyclopedia pages. Five pillars – describes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia summarized in five ""pillars"". Purpose – describes Wikipedia's motive for being by its founders. The essence of Wikipedia – describes how Wikipedia is the harnessing of the collective intelligence and collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing points of view, in an attempt to preserve all serious contributions which are reliably sourced. Wikipedia is a volunteer service – discusses how editors on Wikipedia are mainly volunteers. Editors can contribute as much as they want, and however long as they desire." 182 183 396 WP:CATSCAN Wikipedia:PetScan 182 "PetScan (previously CatScan) is an external tool that searches an article category (and its subcategories) according to specified criteria to find articles, stubs, images, and categories. It can also be used for finding all articles that belong to two specified categories (the intersection). CatScan was developed by the German Wikipedian Duesentrieb and is run on Cloud VPS, as part of Wikimedia Foundation's cloud computing environment. The tool has been rewritten three times by Magnus Manske, first in PHP, then in C++, finally in Rust. Instructions Issues Grafana metrics m:User:Duesentrieb/CatScan - About page Template:PetScan - ""Scan"" template that automatically generates a link to a PetScan search. A few examples of how the English Wikipedia uses PetScan: finding articles for deletion sorting, example finding articles for an educational project (class): search for stubs within a category corresponding to the class subject finding certain articles with a certain template, e.g. featured articles containing the template {{citation needed}} (see box below) Wikipedia:Category intersection Wikipedia:Categorization Help:Category" 183 184 405 WP:RAP Wikipedia:The rules are principles 183 "Wikipedia rules are principles, not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some common sense and discretion. The rules are guidance on those principles. They help editors understand those ideals in a concrete fashion. We should neither restrict our discretion, nor disregard policies and guidelines. Finding an appropriate balance is not always an easy task, and should be done in the context of the principles supporting them and the improvement of the encyclopedia. The principles, and accompanying rules, on Wikipedia are solely intended towards creating and distributing a free, quality encyclopedia to everyone. The requirements of verifiability, reliable sourcing and other content rules seem the ""most obvious"" to many contributors. However, all the principles are equally central to this goal. The principle underlying the behavioral rules allows us to work towards a healthy collaborative environment for contributors. The principle underlying our non-free content criteria is intended to ensure we protect the mission of a free encyclopedia. The rules exist to support Wikipedia's mission and should be interpreted in that context. Jimbo Wales once spoke these wise words: Each individual case will have its own context. While the rules are useful for the most common circumstances, often there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied. For example, whether a small press publication can be considered a reliable source depends on a number of factors. Does the publishing house have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a notable or respected expert in relation to the subject of the work? There are many other factors that could be considered. We cannot absolutely determine whether such small publishers (as a single group) are reliable or unreliable, so it is unlikely that the rules will specifically address such a group. Context and editorial discretion are essential in such judgments. All the rules must be taken in context. Each of them provides context to the others. For example, examine the core content rules. Verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, reliable sources and citing sources should be considered as a whole. Each of them provides context and reinforcement to the others. Original research can be avoided by citing claims to reliable sources that can be verified by other editors, for example. Editors must also consider the rules in the broader context of the wiki editorial process and the goal of improving Wikipedia. We are encouraged to use some common sense and discretion. It is impossible to make hard rules that cover every context. We must use some rational thought and judgment in our decisions, rather than slavishly following the wording of policy without thought. Why isn't ""use common sense"" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best. In the same spirit, the letter of policy will always fall short of completely encompassing the spirit of policy. We should feel free to do whatever is most faithful to the spirit of the policy, whether or not the specific circumstance is spelled out in the policy. Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem you can fix, do so. Consensus is a fundamental part of the wiki process. The principles explained in the various policies and guidelines are generally backed by a very broad consensus. While the wording of the various rules may come under dispute, or change in the course of the normal wiki process, the basic principles underlying those policies are rarely disputed. How those principles apply to individual cases is best determined by forming a consensus among the involved editors – registered or unregistered. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus, and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with civility and assume good faith on the part of others. Edit warring (repeatedly overriding or reimplementing contributions) is highly discouraged. In cases where a consensus is not forthcoming, it may be helpful to seek some assistance in reaching an agreement. A cordial atmosphere is essential to consensus-building. Editors should be respectful and kind in order to foster a calm collaborative environment. Many negative behaviors are not explicitly covered by the rules, but are frowned upon and essentially discouraged by the rules. Baiting and rude comments may not reach the ""threshold"" of personal attacks, but they are just as harmful and disruptive. The principles of disallowing personal attacks and preventing disruption similarly discourage comments made with the same negative intent and impact. Sometimes editors will erroneously place a strong focus on the exact wording of policy. This is commonly referred to as ""WikiLawyering"". Contributors should assume good faith and explain to someone making legalistic arguments of policy that the spirit of the rules is what is most important. Very often, new editors are used to environments and online activities where the rules are very exacting. Experienced editors should take the time to explain the principles at the core of the rules to help new editors learn and adjust. Sometimes editors may attempt to manipulate situations by relying on a very strict reading of the wording of a policy. A common example is an editor making exactly three reverts and waiting for another day before making three reverts again. This is an attempt to ""game"" the three revert rule. However, the rule itself notes that the 3RR limit is an ""electric fence"". That is, it is a hard limit rather than an entitlement, and revert warring may be considered disruption regardless whether that limit has been reached. For example, breaking the 3RR limit over a 25- or even 36-hour period instead of the ""standard"" 24 may still be judged an infraction. The principle behind 3RR is avoiding disruptive edit warring, and that is more important than an exact count of reversions. Wikipedia:Administration Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control Wikipedia:Principles Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief" 184 185 406 WP:RENOM Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion 184 "In that deletion discussion, do you really believe that the participants as a collective group simply misunderstood and got it wrong? Are you tempted to renominate the page for deletion? Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider nominating at “deletion review”. Deletion Review considers only cases where the closer was in error in evaluating the arguments, not those where the close was reasonable in view of the arguments presented, however much you disagree with those arguments. Closes of ""no-consensus"" are rarely overturned at Deletion Review --in such cases it is better to wait and then bring another AfD. If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them. In the case of no-consensus, where the reason for no-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation, the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus in a discussion involving additional people, instead of just repeating the disagreement. In case of no-consensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comments. The following recommendations are arbitrary, but seem reasonable: If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. If the XfD discussion was closed for procedural reasons unrelated to the topic or content of the page, you can generally renominate the page immediately. If the XfD discussion was closed as “delete”, do not nominate the page to be undeleted for at least one month, unless you know and can prove you satisfied the objections. Instead, spend a month gathering more independent reliable sources so that you can improve and change the article upon undeletion. If it was not a blatant copyright violation or personal attack, you may request the article be userfied so that you can work on it. If it was something that was deemed un-restorable for whatever reason, you may create a new article on the topic as a {{Userspace draft}} or using the article creation wizard. Even if re-creation is blocked, an admin can decide on the basis of the new draft. ""We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"" When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time. Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion. WP:RELIST – guideline on immediate relisting Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive" 185 186 408 WP:BDPLACE Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places in Bangladesh) 185 This guideline is derived from WP:PLACE to explain some localized nuances in Wikipedia's coverage of locations in Bangladesh and the transliteration of Bangla language to English. Geographic places of Bangladesh include (1) geo-political territories (divisions, districts, upazilas, thanas) and (2) localities (cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods, islands, etc). The page names in the English Wikipedia, and place names used in the text, should be widely accepted modern English spellings. Hence, [[Sylhet]] but not [[Silet]], Dhaka, not [[Dacca]]. Alternative and local names, including historical names and spellings can be mentioned in the lede. Redirects (see Wikipedia:Redirect) should be created for these alternative and local names, and for alternative spellings, whether they are mentioned in Wikipedia or not. When multiple spellings exist, choose the page name according to Bangladesh government portal. Next place to check is Banglapedia (www.banglapedia.org). Note that, government portal takes precedence, and that the government portal and Banglapedia use different transliterations in many cases. Usually proper names of administrative territories, such as divisions, districts, upazilas, wards, unions include these words as part of their names. In contrast, names of localities do not. Hence, [[Dhaka]] but not [[Dhaka city]] while [[Dhaka Division]] and [[Dhaka District]]. Similarly, [[Dhanmondi]] and [[Jigatola]] are two neighborhoods within [[Dhanmondi Thana]].Words: district, division, upazila, thana are generally part of proper name and thus capitalized. Hence, Dhanmondi Thana but not [[Dhanmondi thana]].Often a locality can be governed by several different types of local governments. In such cases administrative bodies and branches may have their distinct articles. For example, municipal duties of Dhaka is primarily attributed to Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation. Civil policing is done by Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) through several thanas including [[Badda Thana]], [[Gulshan Thana]] etc. Special administrative divisions will have the type name in parentheses; e.g. [[Gulshan (DNCC Zone)]].Special places of interest and regions without political definitions can be handled similarly as localities. Whenever possible, articles on places in Bangladesh go under [[placename]]. Note that Dhaka, Dhaka District and Dhaka Division are different place names. When disambiguation is needed, a comma convention is used: For cities, district headquarter towns: [[placename, Bangladesh]] For divisions and districts: [[placename, Bangladesh]] For places within cities and towns: [[placename, cityname]] For places and territories within districts, but not in a city: [[placename, district]]. Here, district name would drop the part District from name for sake of brevity. e.g. [[Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur]] but not [[Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur District]]. When one level of disambiguation is not sufficient, use the disambiguated name of parent place: [[placename, A, B]]. 186 187 413 WP:ASSESS Wikipedia:Content assessment 186 "The following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors. The quality assessments are mainly performed by participants in WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a log and statistics. For more information, see Using the bot. (Note that when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article.) The WP:1.0 team is planning to set things up to use a second bot to select articles, based on the assessments performed by WikiProjects. Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects. GAs are generally reviewed by a single editor, and FA by several editors. Candidates are nominated by listing them at WP:Good article nominations and WP:Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at WP:Good article criteria and WP:Featured article criteria, and the results are listed at WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. It is vital that editors not take these assessments of their contributions personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. More active WikiProjects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment. At present this assessment system is in use in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and in several hundred WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. As of November 2022, over seven million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof. Note: Some WikiProjects omit some of the standard classes, most often A-class, especially when they lack an assessment team. Some WikiProjects use other assessments for mainspace content that do not fit into the above scale: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment which utilises a parallel scheme of ""CL-Class"", ""BL-Class"" and ""AL-Class"" for list articles. === Non-mainspace content === Further grades are commonly used by WikiProjects to categorise relevant pages in other namespaces. The precise application of these grades may vary depending on their usage by individual WikiProjects. Note that some WikiProjects deal exclusively with non-mainspace content and may use their own customised assessment schemes tailored to a specific purpose: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment for one such example. For an index of all WikiProject assessment pages, see Category:WikiProject assessments. This clickable imagemap, using the article ""Atom"" as an example, demonstrates the typical profile for an article's development through the levels. Hold the mouse over a number to see key events, and click on a number to see that version of the article. Please note that until 2008, a C-class rating did not exist on the project, and as such this grading is retroactive. Also, in 2006 references were much less used, and inline references were quite rare; a barely-B-Class article today would typically have many more references than this article did in late 2006. There is a separate scale for rating articles for importance or priority, which is unrelated to the quality scale outlined here. Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope. See also the template {{importance scheme}}. The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace. === Purpose === What is the purpose of article assessments? The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Are these ratings official? Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole. === Assessing articles === Who can assess articles? In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as ""A-Class"" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the ""GA"" and ""FA"" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes. How do I assess an article? Consult the quality scale above; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting ""Class"" from the end). For example, to rate an article as ""B-Class"", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the ""FA"" and ""GA"" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such. Tools in the See also section can help with the assessment process. How can I ask for an article to be assessed? To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. === Common concerns === Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope. What should I do? Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging for more information. What if I don't agree with a rating? Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating. Aren't the ratings subjective? Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know! Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? Due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments. Wikipedia:Article assessment (historical), the previous version superseded by this version. Wikipedia:Assessing articles, an essay on the criteria and purpose of article assessments Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, a script (and gadget) that finds articles' assessment information from the talk page and puts it in the article's header. User:Evad37/rater, a currently maintained tool that helps fill in assessments and other parameters for WikiProject banners. A complete remake of User:Kephir/gadgets/rater, a script for tagging articles' talk pages with assessment information. User:N8wilson/AQFetcher, a script that stylizes links on Wikipedia according to the assessed quality of the target article. mw:Article feedback, an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage Wikimedia readers in the assessment of article quality, one of the five priorities defined in the strategic plan Wikipedia:Data mining Wikipedia, a potential use of WikiProject assessments Category:Articles by quality - List of articles by their quality" 187 188 414 WP:FAF Wikipedia:Forgive and forget 187 "I have a funky idea for dispute resolution. It's called ""forgive and forget"". How does it work? It's very simple. Instead of assuming the worst of people and subjecting them to unnecessary criticism or false accusations deficient in evidence while building up your weapon supplies with paranoid Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or at pages like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, you decide to forgive people for their perceived slights. Everyone else apologizes, and the incident fades into nonexistence. Should all parties subscribe to this effort, the number of escalating quarrels will diminish and all existing conflicts, will, hopefully, be resolved in a matter of days (toute suite). Very simple. The traditional dispute resolution process stipulates that if you can't avoid the situation, then people should attempt to engage in a productive discussion (i.e. talk it out). Unfortunately, many disputes move onto other pages, where it is highly stressful. This ultimately causes people to leave Wikipedia. This method is very disruptive; it scares away encyclopedia editors and it wastes far too much time. Often, people will stoop to insult and will try to and ensure the other is punished for their mistakes. This is counter-productive and vindictive; there is no place for this on Wikipedia. In order to put ""forgive and forget"" into practice, we must assume there is much brawling going on on the talk page or any applicable area. Improve relations with the other editors by apologizing for your actions, offer forgiveness for their actions, and do your best to resolve all disputes with anyone involved. Once everyone has calmed down, editors can continue contributing to the community. We would like to foster a supportive environment, where constructive criticism is accepted and differing views are respected (provided all edits meet our standards), and we would like to do our best to avoid becoming unpleasant. Wikipedia:Do not use edit history to escalate the conflict Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Wikipedia:Mutual withdrawal Wikipedia:Truce Wikipedia:What would Jack do? Meatball:ForgiveAndForget" 188 189 416 WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party 188 Cite WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY when so many people are engrossed in heated discussion that a nice cup of tea and a sit down seems quite inadequate. It's worth bearing in mind that while it's true that the Boston Tea Party involved a lot of people and a lot of tea, unfortunately it didn't help calm conflict too much. Perhaps they should have drank the tea, rather than thrown it overboard. Those directed here are reminded that a revolution is unlikely to be a desirable outcome of your current problem. 189 190 417 WP:AVOID Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid 189 "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid may refer to: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in music-related discussions Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in place and transportation related deletion discussions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, formerly titled ""Words to avoid"" Wikipedia:Fallacy of the revelation of policy, outlining several more arguments to avoid" 190 191 420 WP:APRIL Wikipedia:April Fools 190 Every year on April Fools' Day, some editors decide to pull a few pranks on Wikipedia. April Fools' Day 2004 April Fools' Day 2005 April Fools' Day 2006 April Fools' Day 2007 April Fools' Day 2008 April Fools' Day 2009 April Fools' Day 2010 April Fools' Day 2011 April Fools' Day 2012 April Fools' Day 2013 April Fools' Day 2014 April Fools' Day 2015 April Fools' Day 2016 April Fools' Day 2017 April Fools' Day 2018 April Fools' Day 2019 (Great Edit War) April Fools' Day 2020 (Second Great Edit War) April Fools' Day 2021 April Fools' Day 2022 April Fools' Day 2023 April Fools' Day 2024 Deletion review Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page Wikipedia:Rules for Fools Arbcom case arising from 2016 April Fools activities {{AprilFoolsNotice}} {{April Fools AfD}} {{Not April Fools}} 191 192 422 WP:NSOFTWARE Wikipedia:Notability (software) 191 "The purpose of this essay is to provide commentary on the notability of software by measuring its technical or commercial achievements. For the purpose of this essay, ""software"" includes all computer programs running on not only personal computers but any digital device such as appliances and video game consoles. This essay does not restrict article content. Rather, the purpose of this notability essay is to provide guidance for deciding when a topic warrants a page of its own. This essay assumes the reader knows the meaning of ""computer program"", ""app"", and ""software"", as well as their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic implications. Computer programs are creative works. A copy of a program that is offered for sale or hire is a product or service; therefore, their articles fall under the Wikipedia notability guideline for products and services and criteria on advertisement. Thus, promotional wording like peacock terms and weasel words should be avoided. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content. Self-published citations, including press releases, product listings, and other non reliable sources may not be used to establish notability. It is long established that Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where primary source documentation for software packages is hosted. Wikipedia is also not a directory of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed. Articles falling under these categories should be deleted or transferred off Wikipedia. A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria: It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information. It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction. It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability. Common sense and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for an app is in fact reliable and significant. Factors that may impact on the evaluation of sources include: The history of computing and the history of personal computers. Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms. The way the app is distributed. An app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article. The state of the field in which the app operates. Wikipedia is not a directory of all apps that can be confirmed to exist. An app that is just another entry in a crowded field needs more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd. Notability of one app does not automatically mean that each of its competitors are notable as well. The state of the app itself. Apps in closed beta testing stages need citations that show interest and development for an article prior to release. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and notability cannot be assumed. On the other hand, software with significant historical or technical importance (e.g. Visicalc) are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution.Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage. The depth of coverage in the sources should be significant and directly about the software. Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated. Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage. Notability is not temporary. Similarly, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable. Stories on software as products of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope. Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, be sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search for the app in question if relevant. Simply stating ""non notable"" and ""unreferenced"" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Also keep in mind that the number of Google hits itself do not impart notability, it is the quality of each source (or breadth of a search) that influences such numbers. Any proposed deletion or AfD nomination of a software product should mention the sort of product it is, if that can be intelligibly derived from the article. If you are unfamiliar with the subject at hand, consider using {{notability}} tag, informing the relevant WikiProject or starting a talk page discussion. Remember to follow best practices when nominating articles for deletion, such as notifying contributing editors, and considering alternatives to deletion. As with other essays (or guidelines), this essay is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Go ahead and tag that article for deletion or present reasons to keep an article. An ideal article on an app should include: A short overview An assertion of notability A {{infobox software}} with information on version number, developer, etc. An appropriate comparison or timeline of significant versions (see below).Articles should not have: Lists (release logs) of every released version. Timelines and comparisons of versions are allowed in an article if multiple versions exist. However, they should not be overly detailed as to resemble a change log. Your comparison or timeline should only have major, significant versions. While this may be presented in a table, you do not need to use one. Prose and charts can be just as illustrative and you should use your best judgement when deciding how to display the information. Having the major versions, release dates, and a short summary of significant changes or differences is sufficient for most articles. Trivia sections Wikipedia:Software notability Wikipedia:99 Bottles of Beer test – a quick test of the notability of a programming language" 192 194 427 WP:WIAA Wikipedia:What is an article? 192 "A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article: identifies a notable topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, is written in an encyclopedic style of language, has been well copyedited, contains references to reliable sources, and contains wikilinks to and is linked to by other articles or article sections about related topics.Most articles consist of paragraphs and images (perhaps with other types of audiovisual media). However, articles may also be formatted as stand-alone lists or tables (not to be confused with disambiguation pages, which are purely navigation aids). These lists or tables are also considered articles for Wikipedia's purposes and are included in the Main/Article namespace, the one without a title prefix followed by a colon (:). The following items are not counted as articles (see also Wikipedia:Administration § Data structure and development): disambiguation pages, redirect pages, templates, including navboxes (aka navigation boxes), user pages, drafts, portals, talk pages (aka discussion pages), file pages for media such as images, category pages, help pages, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines pages (along with everything else in the Wikipedia: namespace). See Wikipedia:Article titles to learn how we title articles. Each article has a scope, which is what the article covers. The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say. Articles range greatly in quality, from as high as featured articles to as low as candidates for speedy deletion. Some articles are quite lengthy and rich in content while others are shorter (possibly stubs) or of lesser quality. ""Articles"" belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages (also called ""article namespace"" or simply ""mainspace""). The main namespace, article namespace, or mainspace is the namespace of Wikipedia that contains the encyclopedia proper—that is, where ""live"" Wikipedia articles reside, as opposed to Sandbox pages. The main namespace is the default namespace and does not use a prefix in article page names. This is distinct from other namespaces, where page names are always prefixed by an indicator of the particular namespace in which the page resides. For example, all user pages are prefixed by ""User:"", their talk pages by ""User talk:"" templates by ""Template:"" and various types of internal administrative pages by ""Wikipedia:"" (such as this page). Thus, any page created without such a prefix will automatically be placed in the article namespace. The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be (for example, Talk:Mathematics) the Wikipedia namespace, for material about meta subjects related to Wikipedia and is where policies and guidelines, essays, information, and process pages reside, as well as other ""meta"" topics about editing Wikipedia (examples, WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia:Statistics); the Wikipedia talk namespace, for discussing what the content of pages in Wikipedia space should be, and interpretations of them (for example, Wikipedia talk:VERIFY and Wikipedia talk:Statistics); the special namespace, whose pages are created by the software on demand (see Help:Special page); the user namespace for pages that are used by individual Wikipedia writers (example, User:Example). the file namespace which is used for describing and attributing images (example, File:Great Horned Owl.USFWS.jpg) the MediaWiki namespace, which is used to define shortcuts and other text strings used around Wikipedia (example MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning)But not all pages in the article namespace are considered by all to be articles. Pages in mainspace that are not usually considered articles-proper are: the Main Page (a WP:Portal) thousands of disambiguation pages, which are used to resolve naming conflicts; many millions of redirect pages, including soft redirects, which are used to re-route one page to another page;Every page in the main namespace can have a companion talk page, and these belong to the ""Talk"" namespace, i.e., the page names start with the prefix ""Talk:"", followed by the name of the page in the main namespace. For example, ""Talk:Wikipedia"" is the talk page for Wikipedia's article on itself. Special:AllPages has a list of all pages in the article namespace and Wikipedia:Statistics for statistics on Wikipedia and its growth. The automatic definition used by the software at Special:Statistics is: any page that is in the article namespace, is not a redirect page and contains at least one wiki link. The statistics software currently has no method of detecting disambiguation pages, however; nor does it disregard stubs (but in any case, many articles tagged as stubs are quite substantial) or stub lists (lists templates with little or no content). Wikipedia:Administration Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia Wikipedia:Subpages Wikipedia:Featured article criteria What counts as an Article (from English Wikipedia's newsletter, The Signpost) Special:Statistics (current article count) More detailed (but less current) statistics" 193 195 428 WP:GAZ Wikipedia:Gazetteer 193 "Wikipedia is, amongst other things, a gazetteer; a type of specialised reference work that contains a list of geographic places and information about them. Wikipedia is ""the free encyclopedia"". But because encyclopedias are a wide-ranging genre, this founding statement allows considerable room for ambiguity and disagreement. The first of our five pillars offers a little more insight into what it means for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia: [it] combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Beyond that, the community have historically found it easier to agree on what Wikipedia is not than what it is. Notably, it is not a dictionary, directory, or ""indiscriminate collection of information"" (i.e. a database). The general-purpose gazetteer is one genre of reference work that is widely considered to be part of what Wikipedia is. Historically, a gazetteer was not just an index of place names, but came with a short entry on each place, like an encyclopedia. A gazetteer is therefore not a dictionary, because its subject matter is the places themselves, not their names; nor is a directory, because it should include encyclopedic context. A gazetteer could fall afoul of the consensus that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and indeed some other online gazetteers, like the GEOnet Names Server, have this quality. It is therefore important to clarify that Wikipedia is not a comprehensive gazetteer of all places, but one with defined criteria for inclusion. Wikipedians began incorporating features of a gazetteer early in the history of the project. Many of the first 100 pages were articles about or lists of countries. This page itself was initially created in 2006 as an outline of articles on places, a predecessor to our geography and places portals. In 2005, it was noted that the convention at Votes for Deletion (the predecessor to articles for deletion) was that ""[cities] are notable, regardless of size"". By 2008, the idea that ""places are inherently notable"" was well-established (if not universally agreed upon) and an inclusive essay on the notability of geographic features was created. Since 2008, the first of our five pillars has described Wikipedia as, amongst other things, a gazetteer. In 2012, a more restrictive notability guideline was adopted which stated that ""geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable"". This guideline also set the current standard that ""populated, legally-recognized places are considered notable, even if their population is very low"" and ""populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG"". Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), a guideline, also used to state that Wikipedia ""functions as a gazetteer."" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (counter-essay)" 194 196 429 WP:RDEL Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons 194 "=== Reasons for deleting === The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for ""New Articles"", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for ""Articles"", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if ""Adam B. Smith"" was redirected to ""Andrew B. Smith"", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" to ""Joe Bloggs"" (unless ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" is legitimately discussed in the article), or ""Joe Bloggs"" to ""Loser"". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.) The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting ""Apple"" to ""Orange"". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.) It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. ""MOS:"" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.) If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.) If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. === Reasons for not deleting === They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the ""Keystone State"" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form. === Neutrality of redirects === Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons: Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression ""Attorneygate"" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes." 195 197 430 WP:VOA Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account 195 "A vandalism-only account is a single-purpose registered account that is used only to vandalize Wikipedia. Most vandalism on Wikipedia is done by anonymous users. Such edits can be identified by the IP address in the page history. Repeated vandalism can eventually lead to being blocked. Administrators use WHOIS and geolocation to track vandals and perform range blocks. Generally, schools and other problematic organizations are blocked for a longer period (see § IP addresses). As the IP address of a registered editor is not visible in edit histories, many vandals create an account and vandalize Wikipedia. This can allow editing via an IP address or range that has been blocked to anonymous users. Vandals may also create accounts to vandalize Wikipedia in ways that cannot be done by unregistered users, such as on protected pages or by page-move vandalism. This is one reason for requiring that an account be autoconfirmed to perform these edits. While page protection is one method of mitigation, such vandalism still occurs from new accounts, resulting in the general consensus that they should be blocked as soon as possible (see below). If you notice any suspicious edits from a user (particularly one who has only recently registered), the account is possibly intended to be used only for vandalism. A user talk page might not have been created (i.e. appears as a red link), may consist of warning messages only, or be blanked by the vandal. Usernames of disruptive accounts also tend to violate Wikipedia's username policy. Should you notice such activity from registered users, revert the edit(s) if not already done, and check the user's contributions to verify whether the other edits are vandalism. If so, the account can be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism as a ""vandalism-only account"". Vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely, sometimes without warning. The latter is typically the case if the vandal's username violates the username policy. Occasionally, the first block implemented may be temporary, depending on the severity of the vandalism. If vandalism resumes after a temporary block expires, it is extremely rare for the second block to be temporary. Cross-wiki vandals should also be reported to meta:Steward requests/Global‎‎ #Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding, especially accounts seemingly operated by long-time abusers. === IP addresses === IP addresses cannot be considered vandalism-only accounts, as IP addresses are sometimes shared by many users (by way of network address translation or a proxy server), and many are reassigned to another computer after a period of time. However, if an IP address has been used only or mostly for vandalism over a long period of time, it may be subject to a very long block, up to a year and occasionally even longer, but is almost never blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia:Blocking policy Wikipedia:Open proxies" 196 198 432 WP:AWARD Wikipedia:Awards 196 "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. – Napoleon The Wikipedia Awards comprise the honour system of Wikipedia. Many of them are considered part of the Kindness Campaign and are meant to promote Civility and WikiLove throughout Wikipedia. Traditionally, those considered of the highest esteem are those bestowed honoris causa personally by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. Ordered by number of inductees, these are the Order of the Day (5), founded in 2001, followed by Wikimedian of the Year (7), founded in 2011. Participators of the Wikipedia community may reward vigorous Wikipedia contributors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them a fitting barnstar, or other award. In addition to these virtual awards honour system, editors may nominate someone to receive a gift in the mail as Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways from the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have questions, WikiProject Wikipedia Awards is a group of volunteers who help guide these pages. === Order of the Day === The Order of the Day, founded in 2001, may be awarded to a Wikimedia developer or technical person for exceptional service to the community. It is seldom awarded and may only be bestowed by Jimbo. === Wikimedian of the Year === Wikimedian of the Year (formerly known as Wikipedian of the Year) is an annual award established in 2011 by Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, traditionally presented at Wikimania to highlight major achievements for Wikipedia by an individual Wikipedian. In addition to the main award, ""Honorable mentions"" has been conferred to selected Wikipedians. === Editor of the Week === Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week is a recognition award to thank editors for excellent work, established by the Wikipedia community in 2013. The Editor of the Week recognition is intended to demonstrate appreciation of an editor's positive behaviours and collaborative spirit. === Barnstars === Barnstars are used on Wikipedia to reward users who make outstanding contributions in a particular area. To give someone an award, all you have to do, is copy the code from the table onto the talk page of the person you want to give the award to, and tell them why you have given it to them. There are many types of barnstars to choose from; if you are sure your choice is appropriate — don't be shy! === Service awards === Service awards may be self-awarded dependent upon number of contributions and the length of service. === WikiProject awards === A WikiProject award is awarded for substantial contributions towards a particular WikiProject. === Other related awards === Other related awards In addition to barnstars, there are several other awards as well. While barnstars are generally reserved for a long-standing pattern of excellence, the following awards are more often given to honor specific actions or events. === Personal user awards === In the Personal user awards, there is a wide range of awards to choose from, from the ""Golden Wiki"" award, for users who have made outstanding contributions, to the ""Son of Jimbo"" award, for users with the last name ""Wales"". So the next time you think a user has made a significant contribution, or basically anything else, why don't you give them a reward to show your gratitude? === User-sponsored awards === The WikiCup is an annual competition where points are awarded for contributions to Wikipedia. The Triple Crown Awards recognize editors who have excelled in WP:FA, WP:GA, and WP:DYK. The Four Award is awarded to those that work on the same article, all the way from its humble beginnings as a new article to its days of glory as a Featured Article. The Golden W Award is awarded to those that have content they worked on featured in every area of the Main Page: Today's featured article, In the news..., Did you know..., On this day..., and Today's featured picture. Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign Help:Notifications/Thanks === Utilities === Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards Wikipedia:Award templates === Essays === Wikipedia:WikiLove Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down === Other === Wikipedia:Reward board Wikipedia Did you know awards Trivializing and misuse of awards ('Declined award' userbox)Recognition given to all Wikipedians: 2006 Time Person of the Year (Userbox) 2015 Erasmus Prize (Userbox) === Merchandise giveaways === Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways is bestowed by the Wikimedia Foundation upon request by the Wikipedia community: ""In addition to sending WikiLove or Barnstars, you can now nominate an editor to receive an extra special gift in the mail to thank them for their spectacular contributions and help them show off their love of the projects to those around them.""" 197 199 433 WP:PDAB Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names 197 "An ambiguous title is an article title that applies to more than one topic described on Wikipedia. Sometimes one of those topics is considered the primary topic for that ambiguous title, and the article for that use is placed at the plain base name title (e.g., Paris is an article about the capital city of France), or if another title is preferred for the article, the plain base name is made to redirect to the preferred title (e.g., Hurricane redirects to Tropical cyclone). In other cases there is no primary topic, and a disambiguation page is placed at the title (e.g., Thriller is a disambiguation page). Normally the other non-primary uses are placed at titles that are disambiguated naturally (see WP:NATURALDIS), or with a comma (e.g., Paris, Texas), or parenthetically (e.g., Mercury (planet)). Sometimes titles with a commonly used qualifier remain at least somewhat ambiguous. For example, there are 9 different albums and an EP named Thriller that are discussed on Wikipedia, so the name Thriller (album) is somewhat ambiguous. Some editors call these partially disambiguated titles (PDABs), or incompletely disambiguated titles (WP:INCDAB or WP:INCOMPDAB). The main question about PDABs is whether a PDAB itself can have a primary topic. In the example of Thriller (album), there is one album that is very well known and is considered much more highly notable than the others. A request for comments concluded on 3 September 2019 that PDABs can have primary topics, but that ""the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator"". The Wikipedia guideline section known as WP:INCDAB or WP:INCOMPDAB was modified to reflect this. WP:INCDAB was previously less specific about this issue. For example, as of December 2017, it said only that ""When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it). This aids navigation, and helps editors to avoid creating new articles under the ambiguous title by accident. Such redirects should be marked with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}."" Further back in time, there was a period of a few months in 2013 when the wording of the guidelines included a stronger discouragement of PDABs having primary topics – e.g., at one point it directly said that ""Only non-disambiguated terms are eligible to have primary topics."" Central to disagreements about PDABs is whether the principle of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to incompletely disambiguated titles. The quintessential example is whether Thriller (album) should lead to the Michael Jackson album named Thriller or to the disambiguation page at Thriller. As of this writing, it is an article about the Michael Jackson album, which some editors say indicates that the album is recognized by the community to be the primary topic for the term ""Thriller (album)"". There is also the point that any phrase which can be the title of a dab page could also be a potential candidate for having a primary topic, and does have a primary topic if one of the uses on that page meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for that title relative to the other uses on that page. Others feel that since the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section does not specifically reference incompletely disambiguated titles like Thriller (album), the concept of ""primary topic"" doesn't apply to such titles, and so the Michael Jackson album cannot be said to be a proper ""primary topic"" for this term. The fundamental question is whether a given PDAB title should be used as the title of an article (or should be a redirect to one specific article) in cases where there is one topic that is arguably the ""primary topic"" for the PDAB title. If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to PDABs, how do we decide whether a PDAB title in question should be the title of a specific article (or a redirect to such an article) or a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page)? Former WP:Disambiguation guideline content on this issue was established by this May 2013 Village pump policy discussion, which concluded that only non-disambiguated terms should be eligible to have primary topics. However, its wording or inclusion in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation editing guideline was disputed. Concurrently with a September 2013 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, that conclusion was removed from the guideline, for lack of consensus. See also: The shortcut's redirect for discussion. Additionally, following a Request for Comment discussion, it was concluded in June 2016 that PDABs should sometimes be used for song and album articles when there are no other standalone articles sharing the same song or album name. Films are treated differently from songs and albums. The WP:PRIMARYFILM guideline says not to use ""(film)"" as partial disambiguation. Partially disambiguated titles: Only non-disambiguated terms are eligible to have primary topics. Parenthetically disambiguated titles that remain ambiguous are not considered to have a primary topic on Wikipedia. For example, Party (album) can refer to Party (Iggy Pop album), Party (Nick Swardson album), and Party (Pet Shop Boys album), therefore Party (album) redirects to Party (disambiguation); neither article should be considered the primary topic for ""Party (album)"" because that title employs parenthetical disambiguation. While a partially disambiguated term should not serve as the title of an article, it can redirect to an article in cases when such redirection does not introduce additional ambiguity. For example, New York (city) redirects to New York City, which is only one of several cities called ""New York""; however, the term ""New York City"" does not employ parenthetical disambiguation and that title can itself refer to all the other cities called ""New York"" as well, therefore no additional ambiguity is introduced by New York (city) redirecting there. Partially disambiguated page names: If a page name containing a parenthetical qualifier is still ambiguous, it might not be a suitable article title. In such an instance, a more precise qualifier should be used. For example, Party (album) is insufficiently precise because Party (Iggy Pop album), Party (Nick Swardson album), and Party (Pet Shop Boys album) exist. Therefore, Party (album) has no primary topic and serves as a redirect to Party (disambiguation), tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. With some naming conventions, it is appropriate to redirect a partially disambiguated term to an article. If so, a hatnote directing readers to other possible targets (or a disambiguation page) should be used. The following is a manually updated list of article titles with parenthetical partial disambiguation on the English language Wikipedia. Note that about half of these are WP:TWODABS situations, as the threshold for a topic to be considered primary in such a situation may be somewhat lower than when there are more than two candidate topics. (actor) or (actress) Rahman (actor), an Indian actor – also Rahman (Bengali actor) (see also WP:TWODABS, RM closed as not moved 30 October 2022, page view ratio more than 200:1) David Ross (actor), a British actor – also David Ross (actor, born 1728) (see also WP:TWODABS, no record of article title discussion, 180:1 pageview ratio) Jane Seymour (actress) (an English-American actress) – also Jane Seymour (Canadian actress) (second actress identified as Canadian although most of her life and all of her career were in the U.S., see also WP:TWODABS, RM discussion closed as not moved 24 January 2023, more than 100:1 pageview ratio) Robert Shaw (actor), a British actor – also Robert Gottschall, a relatively obscure American actor who was sometimes, although not consistently, called Robert Shaw (see also WP:TWODABS, RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 23 August 2017 noting the obscurity and inconsistent crediting of the American actor, proposal to move to simply Robert Shaw failed 6 May 2021 due to lack of clearly greater notability than all the 33 other Robert Shaw topics combined, pageview ratio more than 500:1)(album) Born This Way (album) (by Lady Gaga) – also Born This Way (Cookie Crew album) and Born This Way: The Remix Graduation (album) (by Kanye West) – also Graduation (Deen album) and Graduation: Singles (RM closed as not moved 19 October 2022) My Generation (album) (by The Who) – also My Generation: The Very Best of The Who and Sakura Gakuin 2012 Nendo: My Generation in the Sakura Gakuin discography (title never discussed, the Best of topic is clearly derivative and both other topics are only a partial title match) Reputation (album) (by Taylor Swift) – also Reputation (Dusty Springfield album) (see also WP:TWODABS, RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 21 December 2021, not moved 20 October 2022 after another RM, 56:1 pageview ratio) Thriller (album) (by Michael Jackson) – also eight other albums and one EP named Thriller (and an album named Thr!!!er) listed at Thriller § Music (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 13 November 2019 after seven RM discussions that were all about whether partial disambiguation was preferred or not)(band) Alabama (band) (an American band) – also Alabama (Canadian band) (see also WP:TWODABS; RM closed as not moved 26 March 2019, 100:1 pageview ratio) Bond (band) (an Australian/British string quartet) – also Bond (Canadian band) (see also WP:TWODABS; no discussion since the other article was created, 62:1 pageview ratio) Caravan (band) (an English band) – also Caravan (Thai band) (see also WP:TWODABS, RM closed 30 October 2022 with no consensus, 39:1 pageview ratio) Eagles (band) (an American band) – also a fictional band called Eagles in Love Forever (film) and a similarly named American group The Eagles (rhythm and blues group) and a similarly named UK group The Eagles (British band) (the only other one that is an exact title match being barely mentioned and not having an article) Exodus (band) (an American band) – see also Exodus (Polish band) (see also WP:TWODABS; more than 100:1 pageview ratio; RM closed as moved to the partially disambiguated name 20 October 2022) Fox (band) (an English band) – also an Australian band that recorded the album What the Hell Is Going On? (see also WP:TWODABS) Free (band) (an English band) – three other bands with similar or identical names at Free (disambiguation) (more than 10:1 pageview ratio over the others combinded, which are primarily known by somewhat different names, RM closed as not moved 16 August 2022) Genesis (band) (an English band) – also Génesis (band) and the original name of Vixen (band) (see also WP:TWODABS; the accent is a distinguishing feature, and Vixen may not have been notable when they were called Genesis, 440:1 pageview ratio between the non-accented and accented bands) Hanson (band) (an American band) – also Hanson (British band) (see also WP:TWODABS; no RM discussion history, unstable but high pageview ratio) Kiss (band) (an American band) – also Kiss (South Korean group) (see also WP:TWODABS; RM closed as not moved 13 January 2016, the South Korean group was not exactly a band, 85:1 pageview ratio) Kingdom Come (band) (an American/German band) – also Kingdom Come (British band) (see also WP:TWODABS; no RM discussion history, 6:1 pageview ratio) Nirvana (band) (an American band) – also Nirvana (British band) and Nirvana 2002 (RM closed as not moved 15 May 2013 and again 6 November 2018, 53:1 pageview ratio relative to the other two combined) Oasis (band) (a 1990s English band) – also Oasis (American band) and Oasis (1980s band) (another English band) (no discussion of the PDAB issue is evident, more than 100:1 pageview ratio versus the other two combined) Scooter (band) (a German techno music group) – also Scooter (Belgian band) (see also WP:TWODABS; no RM discussion history, 99:1 pageview ratio) The Bees (band) (an English band) – also The Bees (American band) (see also WP:TWODABS; no RM discussion history, 22:1 pageview ratio)(cricketer) Steve Smith (cricketer) (an Australian cricketer born in 1989) – also Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1961) and Stephen Smith (cricketer) (RM closed as no consensus 23 July 2019; 88:1 pageview ratio versus the other two combined) James Anderson (cricketer) (an English cricketer born in 1982) – also James Anderson (Australian cricketer) and Duncan Anderson, an Australian cricketer who was also known as James Anderson (RM closed as not moved 16 September 2022)(film) This is contrary to WP:PRIMARYFILM. Rustin (film) (an upcoming film produced by Barack and Michelle Obama's production company to be shown on Netflix) – also the name of a 2001 film that starred Rick Johnson (quarterback) (see also WP:TWODABS; the other film is only a subtopic and doesn't seem very notable, although some famous people were involved in it, RM closed as moved to the PDAB name 23 October 2022) Willow (film) (a 1988 American film) – also Willow (2019 film) (see also WP:TWODABS; RM discussion closed 11 December 2022 with no consensus to move) Yogi (2009 film) (an Indian Tamil-language film) – also Yogi (2009 Kannada film) (RM discussion closed 30 August 2022 with no consensus to move)(magazine) People (magazine) (an American magazine) – also People (Australian magazine) (see also WP:TWODABS, 84:1 pageview ratio) Vanity Fair (magazine) – four other magazines at Vanity Fair (disambiguation) and an article about the family at Vanity Fair (magazines) (21:1 pageview ratio between the current magazine and the family of magazines) Punch (magazine) – also Punch (Danish magazine), Adelaide Punch, Melbourne Punch and Sydney Punch (no discussion of the title evident)(opera) Faust (opera) (by Gounod) – also Faust (Spohr) (see also WP:TWODABS; 37:1 pageview ratio) Lohengrin (opera) (by Wagner) – also Lohengrin (Sciarrino) (see also WP:TWODABS; 100:1 pageview ratio) Macbeth (opera) (by Verdi) – also Macbeth (Bloch) (see also WP:TWODABS; 28:1 pageview ratio)(song) ""Poker Face"" (song) (by Lady Gaga) – also ""Poker Face"" (Ayumi Hamasaki song) and two other songs listed at Poker face (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title on 10 November 2021; 37:1 pageview ratio) ""Respect"" (song) (written and originally recorded by Otis Redding, popularized by Aretha Franklin) – also ""Respect"" (Alliance Ethnik song), ""Respect"" (Joel Turner song) and others at Respect (disambiguation) (no discussion of the title evident) ""Rio"" (song) (by Duran Duran) – also ""Rio"" (Ledri Vula song) and three other songs at Rio (disambiguation)#Songs (no discussion of the title evident; more than 100:1 pageview ratio between the two song articles) ""Shattered"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – also ""Shattered (Turn the Car Around)"" (by O.A.R.) and five other songs listed at Shattered (RM discussion closed 24 January 2019 with no consensus to move, noting that the other song with an article is not an exact match for the complete title, 3:1 pageview ratio between the two song articles) ""Stormy Weather"" (song) (written by Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler, sung by various artists) – also ""Stormy Weather"" (Echo & the Bunnymen song) and at least three other songs at Stormy Weather (62:1 pageview ratio between the two articles) ""What's Going On"" (song) (by Marvin Gaye) – also ""What's Going On"" (Casey Donovan song), ""What's Going On"" (Taste song) and other songs at What's Going On (disambiguation) (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 22 June 2022; 30:1 pageview ratio over those other two combined)Comma disambiguation (note this does not include places in the US, Australia and Canada, where comma disambiguation is considered somewhat part of the name) Newport, Wales (a city in Wales) and Newport, Pembrokeshire (a town in Wales). This name was used partly due to the fact that a suitable alternative qualifier, such as Newport, Gwent or Newport, South Wales, was problematic (a 12:1 pageview ratio). Fleet, Hampshire (in Hart) and Fleet, Hayling Island (which is also in Hampshire) (more than 100:1 pageview ratio) Tunstall, Staffordshire (in Stoke-on-Trent) and Tunstall, Stafford (which also in Staffordshire) (both infrequently read topics, 37:1 pageview ratio)Other Asuka (wrestler) (Japanese professional wrestler signed to WWE) – also Asuka (wrestler, born 1998) (see also WP:TWODABS, PDAB aspect never discussed, 12:1 pageview ratio) Willie Brown (American football) (Hall of Fame cornerback) – also Willie Brown (American football, born 1942) (RM closed as no consensus 1 January 2020, 27:1 pageview ratio) Donkey Kong (video game) (1981 arcade game) – also Donkey Kong (1994 video game) FX (TV channel) (American TV channel) – also FX (Asian TV channel), FX (Australian TV channel), FX (Canadian TV channel), FX (Greek TV channel), FX (Indian TV channel), FX (Italian TV channel), FX (Latin American TV channel); see also FX (international) Imperial (automobile) (marque used by Chrysler Corporation) – also Imperial (British automobile) (see also WP:TWODABS, no record of article title discussion, more than 200:1 pageview ratio) Joker (character) (by DC Comics) – also the name of video game characters Joker (Persona) and Joker (Mass Effect) (long RM history, most recently not moved 15 November 2021) Lys (river) (a river in France and Belgium) – also Lys (Dora Baltea) (see also WP:TWODABS, RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 11 August 2017, 12:1 pageview ratio) Maple Leaf (train) (a New York-Toronto service 1981-present) – also Maple Leaf (GTW train) and Maple Leaf (LV train) New York Giants (baseball) (a team in the National League, later moved to San Francisco) – also New York Giants (Players' League) (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 16 May 2022) One Piece (TV series) (a Japanese anime series) – also One Piece (2023 TV series) (RM closed as not moved 14 January 2023) Portal (video game) (a 2007 game by Valve) – also Portal (1986 video game) Joe Smith (pitcher), a 2010s Major League pitcher – also Joe Smith (1910s pitcher), who played five games in the Negro leagues (RM closed as not moved 23 November 2021) Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) – also Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) (also released in 1991, a result from a tricky RM on 14 December 2019, a subsequent RM was closed as not moved 22 February 2021, see also WP:TWODABS, 6:1 pageview ratio) The Boys (TV series) (Amazon Prime Video series debuting in 2019) – also The Boys (1993 TV series) (RM closed as moved 24 January 2022; 1000:1 pageview ratio) The Office (American TV series) (NBC sitcom from 2005 to 2013) – also The Office (1995 TV series) (see also WP:TWODABS; 60:1 pageview ratio) The Running Man (novel) (by Richard Bachman, alias of Stephen King) – also The Running Man (Bauer novel) (see also WP:TWODABS, 54:1 pageview ratio) Venom (character) (by Marvel Comics) – also the name of minor characters in Zookeeper, The Guild, Rounin, American Gladiators, and Guilty Gear. === Song and album articles with no other standalone article === Following a Request for Comment discussion, it was concluded in June 2016 that when a song or album is the only song or album that has a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, the article title of the song or album that has a standalone article should not include the artist name. This conclusion has since been included in a footnote of the guideline at WP:ALBUMDAB. The following is a manually updated list of such instances: Addendum (album) (by John Maus) – also one other album at Addendum (disambiguation) (by Assemblage 23) Anti (album) (by Rihanna) – also Anti EP and another album listed at Anti ""Blackstar"" (song) (by David Bowie) – ten other songs at Black Star ""Bitches"" (song) (by Tove Lo) – three other songs called ""Bitches"" at Bitch ""Cardigan"" (song) (by Taylor Swift) – also another song on Heaven or Hell (Don Toliver album) ""Chandelier"" (song) (by Sia) – two other songs at Chandelier (disambiguation) ""Chlorine"" (song) (by Twenty One Pilots) – two other songs at Chlorine (disambiguation) (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 29 April 2021) ""Civil War"" (song) (by Guns N' Roses) – also a song on Captain America: Civil War (soundtrack) Cycle (album) (by the Paul Horn Quintet) – two other albums at Cycle (disambiguation), and various albums called Cycles' ""Dandelion"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – three other songs at Dandelion (disambiguation) Firepower (album) (by Judas Priest) – two other albums at Firepower (disambiguation) (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title 20 December 2018) ""Flower Power"" (song) (by Girls' Generation) – four other songs at Flower power (disambiguation) (RM closed as not moved 9 December 2013) ""Greedy"" (song) (by Ariana Grande) – five other songs at Greedy (disambiguation) Hello Hello (song) (by Superfly), nine other songs at Hello Hello with similar or identical titles ""Helter Skelter"" (song) (written by Paul McCartney, recorded by The Beatles) – at least five other songs at Helter Skelter ""Highwire"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – also a song by Gin Blossoms on the 1996 album Congratulations I'm Sorry ""Homegrown"" (song) (by the Zac Brown Band) – also a Neil Young song on American Stars 'n Bars and as the title track of Homegrown (Neil Young album) Hot Dog (album) (by Lou Donaldson) – one other album at Hot dog (disambiguation) ""I Am Waiting"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – eight other songs at I Am Waiting (disambiguation) ""It's a Jungle Out There"" (song) (by Randy Newman – also a song by Three Dog Night on the album It's a Jungle) ""It's Time"" (song) (by Imagine Dragons) – five other songs listed at It's Time, including the most popular song on an Elvis Costello album (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title on 28 July 2016) ""Jolene"" (song) (by Dolly Parton) – at least five other songs at Jolene Just in Time (album) (by Larry Willis) – two other albums listed at Just in Time Kids in Love (album) (by Kygo) – also another album at Kids in Love (by The Mowgli's) ""Lady Jane"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – also two other songs at Lady Jane Mr. Saturday Night (album) (by Jon Pardi) – also an album by Julian Velard ""Piano Man"" (song) (by Billy Joel) – three other songs listed at Piano Man ""Pillowtalk"" (song) (by Zayn) – three other ""Pillowtalk"" songs and five ""Pillow Talk"" songs at Pillow talk (disambiguation) ""Pillow Talk"" (song) (by Sylvia Robinson) – four other ""Pillow Talk"" songs and four ""Pillowtalk"" songs at Pillow talk (disambiguation) ""Poison Ivy"" (song) (by the Coasters) – also a song by the same name by Faster Pussycat on Wake Me When It's Over Proof (album) (by BTS) – two other albums listed at Proof Proof Positive (album) (by J. J. Johnson) – also an album by the same name by Steve Roach ""Rocket Man"" (song) (by Elton John) – two other songs listed at Rocket Man (RM closed as moved to the PDAB title on 17 December 2013) ""Spinning"" (song) (by No Rome, Charli XCX and The 1975 song) – three other songs by the same name at Spin ""Sucker Punch"" (song) (by Sigrid) – seven other songs listed at Sucker punch (disambiguation) ""The Outside"" (song) (by Twenty One Pilots) – also a song on Taylor Swift (album) ""The Spider and the Fly"" (song) (by the Rolling Stones) – also a song by Myra Taylor (singer) ""Thriller"" (song) (by Michael Jackson) – also a song on Thriller (Lambchop album) Twister (album) (by Unrest) – two other albums listed at Twister ""Umbrella"" (song) (by Rihanna) – six other songs listed at Umbrella (disambiguation) ""Whenever"" (song) (by Kris Kross Amsterdam and The Boy Next Door) – three other songs listed at Whenever ""Willow"" (song) (by Taylor Swift) – At least 5 other songs with the same title at Willow (disambiguation)The template {{Incomplete disambiguation}} should not be used in such articles. That template is intended for use only on disambiguation pages. Among the options for how to categorize partially disambiguated article redirects are (multiple categories may be appropriate): If the destination of the redirect is a disambiguation page, {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguation; If the destination of the redirect is not a disambiguation page: {{R from other disambiguation}}, Category:Redirects from other disambiguation If the destination of the redirect is a longer name, {{R from short name}}, Category:Redirects from short names If mentioned in a hatnote of the target article, {{R mentioned in hatnote}} If the redirect resulted from a renaming, {{R from move}}, Category:Redirects from movesThe following is a manually updated list of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT article redirects with parenthetical partial disambiguation on the English language Wikipedia. (album) (band) The Eagles (band) – redirects to Eagles (band) – see also The Eagles (UK band) and The Eagles (rhythm and blues group) and the fictional band called Eagles in Love Forever (film) – note that The Eagles also redirects to Eagles (band) (more than 100:1 pageview ratio relative to the two other band articles)(film) (song) (TV series) Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Incomplete disambiguations" 198 200 434 WP:ES Help:Edit summary 198 "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). The Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. To add a summary, type in the text entry field in the Edit summary box located near the bottom of the Editing page. The box looks like this: It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. In appropriate circumstances, a summary can be quite brief (""ce"" and ""rvv"" for example). Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; good editors may simply have forgotten, or a confusing edit summary may have been the result of an autofill mishap. (If the edit summary itself violates privacy or other policies, see the Fixing section below.) However, realistically, when a major edit (e.g., addition or deletion of a substantial amount of article text, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, some busy editors might not assume good faith and revert the change without evaluating it properly. Providing an edit summary helps prevent that kind of error. Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like ""fixed spelling"" is helpful even then. To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, registered editors can select ""Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"" on the Editing tab of the user preferences. Summarize. Summarize the change, even if only briefly; even a short summary is better than no summary. Explain. Give reasons for the change, if you think other editors may be unclear as to why you made it. If you believe a Wikipedia policy or guideline justifies the change then you may include a link to it in your explanation. Abbreviations. Abbreviations should be used with care. They can be confusing for new contributors. For an explanation of some commonly used abbreviations, see this edit summary legend. Expand on important information. Readers who see only the summary might not get the entire picture. Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, post a comment to the article's talk page to give more information, and include ""see talk"" or ""see discussion page"" in the edit summary. If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. Talk pages. When editing talk pages, consider reflecting the gist of your comment in the edit summary; this allows users to check Recent changes, Page history and User contributions (see below) very efficiently. === What to avoid in edit summaries === Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. You could add something like ""and misc."" to cover the other changes. Avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to ""I made some changes"" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all. Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about ""the truth"", or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page. Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary ""don'ts"" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.Warning: be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints. This applies particularly to uncivil and deliberately misleading edit summaries. === Use of edit summaries in disputes === Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert (""rv"") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example: reverted edits by User:Example, see talk for rationaleAs with any other Wikipedia space, do not express opinions of other users in edit summaries. === Fixing === After you publish the page, you cannot change the edit summary, so be careful with it, particularly if you are in a heated content dispute – do not write things you will regret. If you make an important omission or error in an edit summary, you can correct this by making a dummy edit (a change in the page with no visible effects), and adding further information in the dummy edit's summary. In the extreme case of an edit summary containing certain kinds of harmful content, the summary can be deleted on request. They may be removed from public view by administrators using revision deletion; such edit summaries remain visible to administrators. In even more limited circumstances, the entire edit may be oversighted, leaving it and its edit summary visible only to the handful of users with the Oversight permission. Limited to 500 characters. The edit summary box can hold one line of approximately 500 characters. If you attempt to type or paste more, only the first 500 will be displayed – the rest will be discarded. For example, attempting to add 10 new characters (at the end or in between) to a summary already containing 495 characters may result in the first 5 new characters being inserted and the final 5 being disregarded. Show preview. The ""Show preview"" button also provides a preview of the edit summary to facilitate checking links. Can't be changed after saving. After you publish the page, you cannot change the edit summary (see bugs 10105 and 13937). Doesn't appear in searches. The built-in search function cannot search edit summaries, and they are not indexed by external search engines. Wikilinks always rendered; other wikitext coding ignored. Edit summaries render internal links, including piped links, and interwiki links, even when enclosed within ... tags. Therefore, copying wikitext in the edit summary box may be preferable to copying text from the preview, except when one wants to save space. Other wikitext coding is not interpreted. Although URLs do not produce clickable links, a wikilink with Special:Diff/ can make clickable diffs, and Special:PermaLink/ can make permanent links. ~~~~ has no effect, so do not sign edit summaries. You can mention (or ""ping"") a user in your edit summary. To mention the user ""Example"" you need to type: [[User:Example]] anywhere in the edit summary. === Places where the edit summary appears === The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places: Page history – list of changes to the page you edited User contributions – list of all your edits Watchlist – list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only) Diff page – shows the difference between two edits Permanent link – shows an old version of a page Recent changes – list of all recent edits Wikipedia IRC channels – real-time list of all edits Related changes – list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited List of new pages – shows the edit summary of the creation.The source text of the edit summary can be seen at en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&rvprop=comment&revids=id, where id is the revision number. For example, [1] says diff=845523983 in the url so revids=845523983 shows the edit summary source. The link uses mw:API:Revisions, which is mainly intended for programs. ==== Notes ==== === Section editing === When adding a new section to a discussion page with the ""new section"" button, the section title is used as the edit summary. When editing an existing section, the section title is inserted at the beginning of the edit summary, enclosed with /* and */ marks, for example /* External links */. Details of the edit should be added after this text. When viewing such an edit summary, the section name will appear in blue, with a small arrow next to it: →External links. Click the arrow or section name to view the section (if the section no longer exists, the link will simply take you to the top of the page). If you create a new section before or after an existing section by clicking a section ""edit"" link, delete the text between /* and */ marks (or change it to the new section title) to avoid confusion.Note: Tools that track edit summary usage by a user (such as XTools) do not consider the auto-added part as a summary; that's any part within /* and */. You're encouraged to provide real edit summary, whether the editbox contains such auto-summary or not. === Automatic summaries === In certain circumstances, an automatic summary is generated when an edit is published without one. This is slightly different from the summary added when editing a section, as that can be modified by the user before saving. Except for the automatic summary when creating a redirect, which usually says all that needs to be said, these are not a substitute for a proper edit summary – you should always leave a meaningful summary, even in the above cases. They are, however, useful in providing some context for edits made by inexperienced users who are not aware of the importance of edit summaries, and for spotting vandalism. When starting a new thread on a talk page by using the ""New section"" tab, the text you type into the ""subject/headline"" field becomes both the heading of your discussion topic, and the edit summary for that edit. ==== Tags ==== Tags (i.e., edit tags) are brief messages that the software automatically places next to certain edits in histories, recent changes and other special pages. They are implemented by the edit filter to help assist vandalism patrollers and other page watchers. They cannot be added or removed manually. There are standard templates for warning editors who delete content without providing an edit summary: {{Uw-delete1}} (which assumes good faith) and {{Uw-delete2}} (which doesn't). {{Uw-editsummary}} is available for notifying users who have not provided an edit summary for other types of edit; {{Summary2}} works better for more experienced users who need to be reminded rather than taught. These are available via Twinkle. When editors run for adminship, their RfA pages include statistics about how often they have provided edit summaries in the past. A user's edit summary usage can be checked with this tool.(example)If you are a registered user and want to show your commitment to always leaving edit summaries, which will remind other users of the importance of doing so, you can use any of the following userboxes: === The 500-character limit === The limit of 500 characters is an approximation. The actual limit is 500 Unicode codepoints. Most characters occupy one codepoint, but some characters like those with diacritics or emojis may consist of more than one codepoint. The limit of 500 codepoints includes the section title marker (and the associated /* */) and also any wiki markup that may be present. For editors who have JavaScript enabled, there is a script included with the page that monitors the codepoint-length of the summary and prevents entering summaries longer than 500 codepoints (both in ""Edit source"" and in Visual editor). A count is displayed at the right-hand end of the text entry field, showing the number of unused codepoints. When JavaScript is disabled, this safeguard can't function and the only protection is the browser's limit of 500 characters, which may overflow the 500-codepoint limit as a result of any characters that are represented by more than one codepoint. When the edit is done by a bot, through an external tool (such as WP:AWB) or through some user script or gadget, it's the responsibility of the tool or script to safeguard against overflowing this limit. In any situation where more than 500 codepoints are entered for the edit summary, the summary is truncated to 500 codepoints when the page is published. Wikipedia:Edit summary legend – commonly used edit summary abbreviations Wikipedia:Added or removed characters Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries Wikipedia:What does ""per"" mean? Help:Deletion summary How to respond to a ""no consensus"" edit summary User Edit Summary Search This tool will search through a user's edit summaries and return edits with a partial match as a .CGI file." 199 201 438 WP:CAUGHTUP Wikipedia:Reverting 199 "Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it. A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the ""undo"" button on the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text. A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions. Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version. Number of times Alice has made a reversion: Zero. Number of times you reverted Alice's edits: Two. Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit that is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. If an edit summary violates the privacy policy or otherwise qualifies for oversighting or deletion, then see Help:Edit summary § Fixing. Otherwise, ignore it. In the case of a bad username, see WP:BADNAME. === Avoid reverting during discussion === To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes. Exceptions to this recommendation include the following: living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious. external links – Always remove disputed links from the ==External links== section until there is a consensus to include them. copyright violations – Always remove copyright violations. Err on the side of removing suspected copyright violations. Ask for help if you need it. libel – Always remove libelous or defamatory material. Err on the side of removing suspected libel.Edit warring to maintain a ""status quo version"" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it's especially helpful if you avoid reverting to a different version. Nobody can be compelled to follow the advice in this essay. However, favoring the status quo while discussion is taking place is one way to prevent edit warring. Because it protects the wrong version, it should not be used for any other purpose. See, for example, Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing (presumed consensus exists only in the absence of a dispute) and Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling (editors favoring an older version should provide substantive reasons). Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change. But in practice, editors often bundle multiple changes into a single edit, such as adding a new section while also fixing a copy error elsewhere on the page. If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone. The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in a revert. It is often difficult for an editor to restore an uncontroversial portion of their edit without seeming like they are edit warring. If you do feel that all parts of a multi-part edit warrant reversion, it is good practice to note so in your edit summary for clarity. When you have decided to revert, please consider whether you will use the undo link in the page history, or revert manually. If you use the undo link, the editors whose edits you revert will receive a notification (if they have requested notification of reversions). If you revert by manually changing the text to the old version, they will not receive a notification, which some editors appreciate. If the edits you revert are clearly disruptive or vandalism, it may be better not to notify the disruptor or vandal of your correction, by reverting manually. Note that when intermediate edits have been made, it is sometimes not possible to use the undo link. Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor, and greater harmony. In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current. If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page. === Reasons === Edit wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons: Edit wars destabilize the article in question and may be off-putting to the observant and wary editors who would otherwise contribute stabilizing improvements to it. Edit wars tend to cause ill-will and probably delay editor development and reduce editor retention. An editor can feel a revert is ""a slap in the face"" – ""I worked hard and someone reverted it!"" Edit wars do waste space in the database, make the page history less useful, and flood recent-change lists and watchlists. Edit wars are often myopic, occurring while neither participant is familiar with the big picture. The editors involved tend to focus on only one part of an article without considering other sections of the article or other articles linked dependently to the area in question, resulting in inconsistencies with the big picture concerning the content in question. The noticeboard is part of the big picture too. ==== Resolutions ==== Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution. === Three-revert rule === As a means to limit edit wars, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state that one may not revert any article more than three times in the same 24-hour period. This is a hard limit, not a given right. Attempts to circumvent the three-revert rule, such as making a fourth revert just after 24 hours, are strongly discouraged and may trigger the need for remedies, such as an editing block on one's account. === Exceptions === Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule. These include reverts of obvious vandalism, reverts of banned users, and removal of potentially libelous text. Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of the three-revert rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party, blocking or investigation by the Arbitration Committee. === Policies === Wikipedia:Edit warring § The three-revert rule Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems (policy) Wikipedia:Vandalism § Template and CSS vandalism (policy) – if the edits don't appear in the page's edit history, or the history and edit tabs are obscured === How-to === Help:Reversion === Essays === Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Wikipedia:Monroe's law" 200 202 442 WP:SF Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction 200 """WP:SF"" redirects here. For the meta page on StringFunctions, see m:StringFunctions. You may also be looking for WP:Signature forgery. This is the page for the Science Fiction WikiProject (or if you prefer, ""sf"" or ""speculative fiction""). If you would like to participate, add your name to list of participants below. Be sure to check out the discussion page as well. This project focuses on creating and improving content related to science fiction and coordinating the creation of guidelines and best practices related to science fiction, SF fandom, speculative fiction, science fiction studies, etc. While there are many specific WikiProjects oriented around film and television franchises, this project is intended to deal with Wikipedia's science fiction coverage in general, as well as coordinate work on science fiction literature, on science fiction history and criticism, and on science fiction fandom. Closely related projects: WikiProject Film WikiProject Literature WikiProject Media franchises WikiProject Novels WikiProject Television This project will aim to improve the quality and breadth of articles in the science fiction category and its subcategories using an assessment process. Project members are urged to take an active role in reviewing and identifying articles about science fiction. The main To Do item for the Assessment division of this project is to assess the articles that are currently unassessed. It is also important to regularly check that the assessments of assessed articles are still appropriate, and to attend to requests for re-assessment posted to the main WikiProject Science Fiction/Assessment page. === Using the metadata script to display article assessment === If you would like to participate in assessment activities, you may find it helpful to turn on a metadata script that displays an article's assessment when you are viewing any article. In order to do that, click on your ""My preferences"" link at the top of the page, then the Gadgets category, and check the box under Appearance for ""Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article."" === Milestones === Project created: 12 December 2006. WikiProject is added to the ""Articles by quality"" Index: 16 January 2007. === To do === Develop this project Improve this page Review Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Assessment assessment process.Invite active editors who write for science fiction-related articles to join the project.Rewrite the science fiction main page to make it a good article. Reorganization: done New sections: done Summarization (WP:SIZE): done Sources: done Peer review: to be doneMake sure all of the images used by articles in this project comply with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy.Create requested articles. Add sources to Unreferenced BLPs. === Article alerts === [Subscribe] === Featured articles === === Former featured articles === === Featured article candidates === === Featured lists === === Former featured lists === === A-Class articles === === Good articles === === Former good articles === === Good article nominees === === Featured topics === === Good topics === === Former featured topics === === Featured portals === === Featured pictures === === Former featured pictures === === Did you know? articles === === Main page featured articles === === Main page featured lists === === In the News articles === === Picture of the day pictures === === B-Class articles === === C-Class articles === === Level 3 vital articles === === Level 4 vital articles === === Level 5 vital articles === Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Concourse for more information. {{User WP SF}} -- WikiProject Science Fiction userbox; project members may include this on their user pages {{SciFi Barnstar}} -- The Science Fiction barnstar; can be awarded for exceptional workThere is also an alternate version, {{SciFi Barnstar|alt}} {{WikiProject Science Fiction}} -- project banner for talk pages of related articles, categories and templates. Adding this template informs readers about this project and allows us to receive alerts.{{WikiProject Science Fiction |class = |importance = |listas = }} {{Infobox writer}} -- infobox for science fiction writers {{Biography}} -- sample layout for biographical articles {{Science fiction}} -- navbox to be placed at bottom of most SF articles Manual of Style (writing about fiction) Notability (fiction) Main : Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/References This is a list of sites which contain useful information and references which can be used. Feel free to add more. The Catalog of Copyright Entries - useful for determining if a work has gone out of copyright (good for covers of books, magazines, etc.) Science fiction Definitions of science fiction List of science fiction genres Hard science fiction Soft science fiction Social science fiction Military science fiction Space opera Feminist science fiction Science fiction comics Science fiction film Science fiction on television History of science fiction Scientific romance Golden Age of Science Fiction New Wave (science fiction) Cyberpunk Science fiction fandom Science fiction conventions List of science fiction conventions Science fiction studies === Film and television === WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam WikiProject Babylon 5 WikiProject Battlestar Galactica WikiProject Doctor Who WikiProject Firefly WikiProject Heroes WikiProject Lost WikiProject Men in Black WikiProject Red Dwarf WikiProject Star Trek WikiProject Star Wars WikiProject Stargate WikiProject Transformers === Literature === WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy aarontay (talk · contribs) Ambrose73 (talk · contribs) AndonicO (talk · contribs) Andrew_Sullivan_Cant (talk · contribs) joined 26 February 2007 Antepenultimate (talk · contribs) Antiqueight (talk · contribs)applejuicefool (talk · contribs) Apragopolis (talk · contribs) joined January 2015 AtrHarOrd (talk · contribs) Avt_tor (talk · contribs) Bearian (talk · contribs) joined 20 April 2007 Beckminster (talk · contribs) joined 1 May 2013 Behemothing (talk · contribs) Ben_the_Bos (talk · contribs) Bharathprime (talk · contribs) BloodDoll (talk · contribs) joined 30 August 2010 Booksellergirl (talk · contribs) joined 15 March 2008 Bosque Bill (talk · contribs) Braincricket (talk · contribs) joined January 2011 Bulldog123 (talk · contribs) joined 15 August 2007 capricornis (talk · contribs) Carapowers (talk · contribs) Carmegenon (talk · contribs) Cephenrene (talk · contribs) Cheeesemonger (talk · contribs) joined 17 April 2007 Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) joined 6 February 2008 Ciaracat (talk · contribs) Cinemaniac (talk · contribs) Clarityfiend (talk · contribs) Coldmachine (talk · contribs) joined 25 March 2007 CorundumCat (talk · contribs) joined 11 July 2022 Danjel (talk · contribs) Davidjwilliams (talk · contribs) joined 13 May 2008 Davidkevin (talk · contribs) DeanBaetz (talk · contribs) joined 3 November 2011 Dennyneanderthal (talk · contribs) joined 4 March 2019 Doomsdayer520 (talk · contribs) joined 26 October 2009 DriftingLeaf (talk · contribs) joined 1 February 2010 Doctorxgc (talk · contribs) joined 4 September 2012 DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Dennyneanderthal (talk · contribs) joined 30 August 2018 Elizium23 (talk · contribs) joined 6 November 2010 ErikTheBikeMan (talk · contribs) Euchrid (talk · contribs) exprexxo (talk · contribs) joined 29 February 2012 Fixuture (talk · contribs) joined February 2015 FortitudineVincimus (talk · contribs) joined January 2016 Garbolia (talk · contribs) joined 19 September 2009 geeklizzard (talk · contribs) GLKeeney (talk · contribs) joined 11 September 2007 GoodDamon (talk · contribs) GoShow (talk · contribs) joined 14 March 2012 Gothicfilm (talk · contribs) Grandpafootsoldier (talk · contribs) joined 15 March 2007 Greybeard_Rich (talk · contribs) Halmstad (talk · contribs) joined 1 July 2008 HarrisonSteam (talk · contribs) Harshael (talk · contribs) Holzman-tweed (talk · contribs) HullIntegrity (talk · contribs) joined 2 September 2012 humbleradio (talk · contribs) Hyrum Graff (talk · contribs) joined 19 May 2013 IzzyVanHalen (talk · contribs) JC713 (talk · contribs) JediActor1998 (talk · contribs) joined 21 March 2010 Jimbob271 (talk · contribs) JimDunning (talk · contribs) Johncdraper (talk · contribs) talk) Jseipel (talk · contribs) joined 16 March 2008 Julius177 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Julle (talk · contribs) joined 25 September 2009 Junius49 (talk · contribs) Kathleen.wright5 (talk · contribs) joined 12 September 2007 KatProsodi (talk · contribs) 17:35:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC) KiefKief (talk · contribs) joined 11 July 2013 Klingon83 (talk · contribs) joined 24 November 2008 Lisapollison (talk · contribs) Kworker (talk · contribs) joined 21 June 2012 Lmv4321 (talk · contribs) joined 23 August 2008 Lstanley1979 (talk · contribs) Lquilter (talk · contribs) Lucamauri (talk · contribs) joined 26 April 2007 LunaDove (talk · contribs) joined 15 Dec 2021 Luneart (talk · contribs) - added graphic reading guide in Skolian Empire section of Catherine Asaro. newbie - what can I do to help the page out of stub? Mark Miller (talk · contribs) Martarius (talk · contribs) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) joined 16 January 2007 MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) Mediran (talk · contribs) joined 23 December 2014 Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) joined 10 November 2011 MichelleFerry (talk · contribs) joined 15 September 2012 Millahnna (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Mirokado (talk · contribs) joined 6 November 2011 Mlabar (talk · contribs) joined 3 January 2008 Morwen (talk · contribs) Ms. Anthropic (talk · contribs) joined April 2016 Neil S Walker (talk · contribs) Netmouse (talk · contribs) Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) OrionAnderson (talk · contribs) Orangemike (talk · contribs) Pariah (talk · contribs) joined 22 March 2008 Peter cohen (talk · contribs) Piotrus (talk · contribs) joined 23 February 2007 Pistachio13 (talk · contribs) joined 15 March, 2012 PKM (talk · contribs) Pleasantville (talk · contribs) PoizonMyst (talk · contribs) punkrocker1991 (talk · contribs) PWilkinson (talk · contribs) joined March 2011 Putham (talk · contribs) joined March 2015 Q Original (talk · contribs) joined 28 February 2007 Quinblz (talk · contribs) joined 29 May 2009 QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs) joined 10 March 2007 Ragesoss (talk · contribs) Redwellie14 (talk · contribs) joined 20 June 2013 Revolving Bugbear (talk · contribs) Richard BB (talk · contribs) Riverpa (talk · contribs) Robina Fox (talk · contribs) joined 27 January 2015 Rodparkes (talk · contribs) joined 12 September 2007 Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) - focused on Fringe articles samwaltz (talk · contribs) Sangrolu (talk · contribs) joined 12 April 2011 SatyrTN (talk · contribs) Schizombie (talk · contribs) SciFiDragon (talk · contribs) scope_creep (talk · contribs) joined 11 June 2008 Sean (talk · contribs) Scribolt (talk · contribs) SeanNovack (talk · contribs) joined 9 May 2011 Seoulseeker (talk · contribs) 09:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Shsilver (talk · contribs) Simmaren (talk · contribs) joined 25 March 2007 Sindinero (talk · contribs) joined 14 April 2011 Sinistersnowman (talk · contribs) joined 25 June 2017 Sjones23 (talk · contribs) Someone another (talk · contribs) 10 February 2012 Stefan Timothy (talk · contribs) Swampfire (talk · contribs) joined 2 August 2008 Swamp Witch of Mars (talk · contribs) Taxs1 (talk · contribs) tdh5609 (talk · contribs) Templarsci (talk · contribs) Terraflorin (talk · contribs) Thecrew2008 (talk · contribs) Theinterior (talk · contribs) Thejadefalcon (talk · contribs) TheSpaceWarlock5 (talk · contribs) Tillman (talk · contribs) joined 13 August 2007 Timdpr (talk · contribs) joined 14 June 2008 TootsMojo (talk · contribs) torchwoodwho (talk · contribs) joined 25 August 2007 Tovojolo (talk · contribs) Transcendentalist01 (talk · contribs) joined 15 March 2014 Trekphiler (talk · contribs) joined 30 June 2008 Twooars (talk · contribs) Unak78 (talk · contribs) joined 23 August 2009 - Performed major revisions on List of Honorverse characters back in 2006; Revisions that appear to still be in the article but are no longer shown in the history somehow???!!! But at least I still have the Barnstar for it. :) Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) Vernajast (talk · contribs) 10 March 2010 VJDocherty (talk · contribs) Vwwally (talk · contribs) joined 06 March 2015 W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Wikimafiacapo (talk · contribs) joined 19 Jul 2012 World Cinema Writer (talk · contribs) Writtenonsand (talk · contribs) joined 18 Jan 2008 Wrmeeker (talk · contribs) XapApp (talk · contribs) Xizao (talk · contribs) joined 13 Aug 2010 Xtgyal (talk · contribs) Yobmod (talk · contribs) Yoda317 (talk · contribs) joined 31 August 2007 ZarhanFastfire (talk · contribs) Zepheus (talk · contribs) Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk · contribs) AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Cambridge UpWriter (talk · contribs) Chribue (talk · contribs) LoganP25 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC) List of all subpages of this page" 201 203 445 WP:MINORS Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent 201 If a person is below the age of majority in their nation or locality or has been adjudged to be incompetent, editing about that person should be done with even greater care than in an ordinary biography of a living person, because in many jurisdictions, privacy and publicity rights require even greater protection than they do for competent adults. These people typically have less ability to protect their own rights, so we need to be more careful. This is not about editors who are considered by other editors or by the Wikimedia Foundation to be incompetent to edit. This is about persons who might be legally incompetent or minors who are written about (or might be written about) by us in the encyclopedia. This is not about persons whom someone believes to be incompetent by any standard, no matter how authoritatively, except that it is about persons who have been adjudged by lawful authority (for example, a court authorized to make such decisions) to be incompetent generally to manage their major personal decisions without supervision. This applies to, for example, a notable individual who is the main subject of an article. An example is biographies of child actors. Edit what is said about the person so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing. This applies to someone who is incidental to an article, but significant enough to mention even without identifying them, such as the minor children of celebrities. Do not name or otherwise identify the person, even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice. Be careful of partial identifications, as a reader might assemble only a few facts and thereby use your information to identify the person who should not be identified, or might even misidentify someone else. === Worldwide === A person who is a national or citizen of one nation but located or residing in another may be subject to either nation's set of laws. A person who holds nationality or citizenship of more than one nation may be subject to either nation's set of laws. Likewise, a person who is domiciled in one nation but located or residing in another may be subject to either nation's set of laws. Within a single nation, similar differences can govern a person who has a permanent residence at one address but is temporarily at another. Where the laws applicable to a person might be those of two or more jurisdictions, apply the law that gives the person the most protection. For example, if the person is a minor until age 18 under one set of laws but 21 under the other and the person is age 20, assume they're still a minor for purposes of Wikipedia. === United States === Whether someone is incompetent is generally decided by a state court authorized by state law to make such determinations, typically a probate or family court. A person is presumed competent unless a court has formally deemed them incompetent. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Presumption in favor of privacy (guideline) Commons essay on personality rights (right of publicity) Wikipedia:Competence is required (essay on editing) Wikipedia:Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability (essay) 202 204 446 WP:LOCK WP:LOCK 202 Wikipedia:LOCK may refer to: Wikipedia:Edit locks on pages Wikipedia:Global locks on user accounts Wikipedia:Protection policy 203 205 447 WP:SAINTS Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints 203 Not to be confused with MOS:SAINTS. 204 206 455 WP:DTITE User:Mscuthbert/Does this improve the encyclopedia? 204 "Wikipedia is the ""free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"" (emphasis added). To best achieve this definition, Wikipedia has five pillars that are the principles at its core and a small number of policies. Because policies are often too general to provide specific recommendations of best practices in individual cases, Wikipedia also has a somewhat larger number of guidelines which are largely distilled from experiences that editors (including but not exclusive to administrators) have had in being contributing members of the Wikipedia community. The guidelines let editors point to precedent in guiding discussions and making judgments and to a comfortingly high degree agree with common sense about what building an encyclopedia of reliable knowledge requires. Occasionally, however, the precedent in guidelines conflicts with an editor's common sense about the choice of action that will be most useful for readers and for Wikipedia's core mission. Where guidelines and precedent seem to contradict common sense, look at the material again, then ask yourself the question, ""Does this improve the encyclopedia?"" If the answer is yes, try to keep it. If the answer is no, get rid of it. Wikipedia policies of ""Ignore all rules"" and ""Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"" are on your side. This essay is not an invitation to blissfully contradict core precedents. Answers that seem to do so are usually contrary to a pillar. (For instance, including a copyrighted image without fair use might seem to improve the total amount of content in the encyclopedia but it makes it far less free to use. Its inclusion would not improve the encyclopedia.) But guidelines, essays, and uninscribed precedent often have gray areas on all sides. == When to apply DTITE == Consider, as an example, two biography articles that might be up for deletion. One is of a researcher without tenure, with significant contributions but which fall slightly below the usual standards for academic notability. The other is of a researcher just beyond tenure whose contributions to the field might be slightly above those standards. Generally, the first article would be deleted while the second would be retained. The first article, however, is a masterpiece of clear writing, without any sense of promotion or conflict of interest. All statements are backed up by clear citations from reliable sources. Every edit since the initial creation has improved the article and its development has advanced without the need for cleanup from volunteer editors. The subject's career trajectory is also documented to be proceeding towards clear notability. Furthermore, she works in a field (say dance history) with extreme holes in coverage and that the community has already identified as hurt by systematic bias by the editing community. The second article, on the other hand, is and always has been a mess of puffery, clear advertising, and uncited assertions. Sockpuppets of blocked editors continually add wild statements that need to be reverted by other editors. Web searches do confirm that reliable sources exist which corroborate the basic outline of a notable career. But no information appears in the article that cannot also be found in a dozen other free, online sources. The subject might work in field, say, computer science, with many, many existing articles of far higher quality on much more prominent figures. The notability guideline states that, ""Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article..no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content can make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."" These are very good guidelines for cases such as a well-written but uncited article about your roommate's hamster vs. a terribly written article about Mother Theresa. Even if it's no bother to keep the first and a huge pain to maintain the second, keeping the rodent and dumping the saint would contradict Wikipedia's claim to being an encyclopedia. The most difficult decisions on Wikipedia, however, do not fall neatly into one side or another of policy or guidelines. In the case of the dance historian and the computer scientist, the general guideline might be read as saying to ignore the article content, ignore the fact that the first article is already great and the second article will always be a mess, ignore the frustration and editor loss that would come from defending the second article, and ignore the inspiration that readers with underrepresented interests might get from the first article. But there's a conflict between this guideline and the pillars that Wikipedia is not a Bureauacracy and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The times when such conflicts arise will be few, but when they do, it is absolutely appropriate to Ignore all rules and use common sense as to which choice will best help the encyclopedia. == See also == User:Antandrus/IAR -- User essay by Antandrus interpreting Ignore all Rules." 205 207 458 WP:INTS Wikipedia:WikiProject Telangana 205 Some Wikipedians have formed a project to improve organisation and standardised look and feel of articles related to the Indian state of Telangana. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there. === Active members === To join WikiProject Telangana, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of members. Members should also place member identification on their user page. Roshanshaik5555 (talk · contribs) - Contributes primarily to Politics of Telangana State Duckhunter44 (talk · contribs) - Contributes primarily to sports, educational institutions, and people Vin09 (talk · contribs) Rizwanmahai (talk · contribs) haseeb1608 (talk · contribs) JohnnyBlaze007 (talk · contribs) Arshad.mohammed18 (talk · contribs) Smadhavichandra (talk · contribs) Ramcrk (talk · contribs) trmwikifa (talk · contribs) Praneeth kannegolla (talk · contribs) Vikas Konaparthi (talk · contribs) Warangalite (talk · contribs) Imahesh3847 (talk · contribs) Abrahmad111 (talk · contribs) Omer123hussain (talk · contribs) Sakura6977 (talk · contribs) Anirudh.palakurthi (talk · contribs) SaiP (talk · contribs) 10:52:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC) - Contributes anything related to State of Telangana Abhijithn207 (talk · contribs) 08:43:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) SrihariThalla (talk · contribs) 12:46:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) - Contributes primarily about geography Kasyap (talk · contribs) Mohammad Liyaqat (talk · contribs) - Contributes mostly on films of India Peddaboinapradeep (talk · contribs) 09:32:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC) - Contributes to Tollywood 456legend (talk · contribs) === Former members === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. Buaidh (talk · contribs) 19:37:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC) – WikiProject templates and categories. === Member identification === Members of WikiProject Telangana should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject Telangana members. For other Telangana user templates, see Category:Telangana user templates. The scope of this article fundamentally is loosely defined as all articles and sections relating to Telangana. Almost all of these will be (eventually) categorised under Category:Telangana and Category:India === Goals === Creation of a generally standard look and feel for all Telangana-related articles. To produce as many Featured Articles as possible related to Telangana. To improve Wikipedia coverage of Telangana related articles by adding, expanding and improving. === Parentage === Wikipedia:WikiProject India Indian states === Descendant WikiProjects === No descendant WikiProjects have been defined. === Similar WikiProjects === WikiProject Andhra Pradesh Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telangana === Commons === Most of the Telangana articles related needs pictures to support them. We would like to encourage contributions to commons so that the articles will be more comprehensive. Telangana Commons Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telangana === Naming conventions === Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) === Structure === Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_states#Sections for state articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_districts#Sections for district articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Sections for city articles === WikiProject Telangana notice === Place this WikiProject notice Template:WP India at the top of an article's Talk page to direct editors to the WikiProject Telangana for guidelines. To use it, place {{WP India|telangana=yes}} at the top of an article's Talk page. It will produce: === Stubs === For Telangana related stubs use the {{Telangana-stub}} template. If it is about the geography of Telangana, including any place or building, the {{Telangana-geo-stub}} should be used instead. The article will go into the Category:Telangana stubs category and Category:Telangana geography stubs respectively. Similarly, articles on politicians or schools should be tagged with {{Telangana-politician-stub}} or {{Telangana-school-stub}}. === Templates === {{Telangana}} {{Telangana-stub}} {{Telangana-geo-stub}} {{History of Telangana}} This is a list of Featured articles related to Telangana: Hyderabad Kakatiya Empire Nizam of Hyderabad === Featured lists === === Articles for Improvement and Expansion === === Articles currently in FAC === === Articles currently in PR === Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. 206 208 459 WP:LOMJQ Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals/Queue 206 "This page is a work-bench for missing journals. Please add entries here rather than editing missing journals. Discussions in various places have led towards articles for open access journals being created first, initially from the DOAJ repository. A first pass at automatically creating a list of missing open access journals is available, however the page takes 2 or 3 minutes to load: Wikipedia:List of missing journals/DOAJ. === Afds === The following journals are being nominated for deletion: Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 2007-02-12 result was Keep. === Need work === The following journals have been created, but need to be reviewed and expanded on to avoid deletion. () (wp:8), sub-stub () (wp:114), stub claiming ""most prestigious journal in physics"" () () (wp:a few) () (wp:1) (), sub stub () (wp:22), has an infobox () (wp:~20) () (wp:1) (), extensive list of editors, but most appear to be notable (or needing dab work) () (wp:3), sub stub () (wp:3),redirects to a general article that mentions the periodical. ISSN 0020-7829 () (wp:5), reasonable article, needs touching up () (wp:7), sub stub () (wp:7), cover image but missing an infobox () (wp:20+), missing an infobox () (wp:50), sub stub () (wp:30), missing an infobox () (wp:40), missing an infobox () (wp:30), ""world's leading carcinology journal"" () (wp:7), a syntactical mess () (wp:7), looks reasonable () (wp:5), missing an infobox () (wp:4), missing an infobox () (wp:45), sub stub () (wp:40), looks reasonable () (wp:5), a few syntax issue and missing an infobox () (wp:15), sub stub () (wp:170), missing an infobox () (wp:70), missing an infobox () (wp:130), image but no infobox () (wp:7), no infobox or issn () (wp:17), no infobox or issn () (wp:20), no infobox or issn () (wp:10), sub stub () (wp:60), sub stub () (wp:3), no infobox (), {{primarysources}} problems () (wp:45), no infobox or issn () (wp:0), needs a cleanup () (wp:15), no infobox or issn () (wp:50), barely a stub () (wp:1), missing an infobox () (wp:7), unsourced facts () (wp:1), needs wikify (), no infobox or issn; rename to PAJ (journal) to make way for {{3CC}} () (wp:160), needs work () (wp:3), no infobox or issn () (wp:1), image but no infobox () (wp:4), image but no infobox () (wp:5) () () () (wp:1), tagged with {{spam}} () (wp:15) () (wp:3), rename to George Washington Law Review ? () (wp:7) () (wp:10) () (wp:1) () (wp:0) () (wp:1) () (wp:2) Please add new entries here: Publisher: Baltzer Science Publishers() : 0 () : 1 () : 0() : 0Identifier: ISSN 1040-2446 Website: http://www.academicmedicine.org Found on Medical school and id:Sekolah kedokteran() : 8Identifier: ISSN 0025-2611() : 16Identifier: ISSN 0179-5376() (wp:2; g:27; gs:6)Identifier: ISSN 0973-0397 [1] Publisher: Indian Association for Medical Informatics Note: ISSN and Journal name do not appear in WorldCat Strange. Must not be held by major libraries. ISSN check digit is OK, according to [2] This 2004 paper is available online (in Ind J Med Inform): [3] === Zeitschrift für Kristallographie === () : (wp:2; g:127,000; gs:6,350) (28 Nov 2006) Identifiers: ISSN 0044-2968 OCLC 4734421; also OCLC 1770487; ISSN 0930-486X OCLC 72781037. English: Magazine for crystallography History: 1921-1946, 1954-presentA worldcat search for the first ISSN [4] opens up a screen with seven alternatives that appear to have separate OCLC numbers. The librarians clearly have their work cut out for them. There is at least a real paper edition and an electronic edition. Plus some kind of reprint edition based in New York. The Harvard catalog shows that the journal was first published in 1921 and changed its title in 1978. Publication was suspended from 1946 to 1954. The subtitle varied. More research needed. I doubt we can be more thorough than the Harvard catalog [5]EdJohnston 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Ed, as you can see I've re-arrange things a little. I wasnt expecting this section to include research findings, but it makes sense to add details whilst the entry is still in ""Unsort"", so discussion can determine what should happen with the journal. Your analysis of this journal is enlightening; it demonstrates that entries may need to hang around in Unsorted for a while, and that ISSN/OCLCs are not sufficient to identify a journal. I have proposed, on the talk page, a few new templates that we should consider in order to record a journals details whilst they are being investigated, so that they can assist us jump to the offsite records easily. I have found 127,000 google results for this journal, and 6,350 on google scholar (which we should include in the Template:Missing journal). As it has been around for quite a while resulting in an interesting history, and appears to be cited outside of WP, I think it would be a good idea to keep working on this one, in order that we can determine how much of the work should be done here before a stub is created. In the very least, I think it is important that the stub list all of the OCLCs and ISSNs in a usable manner. IMO, to not do so is essentially misleading the reader. Also, one issue you have brought home is that existing databases already record the nuts and bolts of the journal publication details (publisher, format, etc) -- if we are to do this well, the WP entry for the journal needs to be an orthoganal resource to DOI and OCLC entries -- by joining multiple ""publications"" of a journal that are primarily linked by ethos rather than publisher, then the WP article adds value rather than duplicating existing information. John Vandenberg 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) === Le Bulletin de la Société Sciences Nat === () : wp:7 Identifiers: ISSN 0249-5805I've created a new article Sciences Nat for a publisher of some very specific books (which I had lots of fun trying (unsuccessfully) to find ISBNs for; see Special:Whatlinkshere/Sciences Nat). The research that I have done this evening leads me to think that it was as much a society as a publisher, and may have actually actually published the journal itself, rather than merely contributing to is (which is all that I am bold enough to state on the article at this stage). John Vandenberg 13:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC) === Ulam Quarterly === User:Jayvdb/Ulam_Quarterly : google: 21,300 The article for this journals Editor-in-Chief, ""Piotr Blass"" has been repeatedly put up for Afd; the third is currently underway (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination)). I'm not keen on the article/person/whatever, but I was rather interested in this journal because it is a very minor journal, and many of the papers are by the journal staff, etc. etc. This made me wonder, is it notable? Until today, I haven't really considered how the notability criteria would apply to journals, as they are usually well cited. In this case, the journal was mostly online, so WP:WEB could apply but the way that guideline reads makes it hard to use for this purpose. John Vandenberg 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)MathSciNet (run by the American Mathematical Society) shows a grand total of 18 citations from their indexed journals to the Ulam Quarterly. This compares to 6,100 citations to the Journal of the American Statistical Association, as an example. I figure this implies that the Ulam Quarterly is not notable. Do you know what the notability criterion is for journals? I would more likely consider this as a scientific journal and try to quantify its impact, rather than apply WP:WEB. EdJohnston 04:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Im quite sure that Ulam Quarterly is not notable from a perspective of being scientific, but I dont think there is an accepted specific notability criteria for journals (or sources of content of any sort for that matter). My reason for looking into this further is that it is a ""source"" that was distributed independently; i.e. even if the content was not notable, maybe because it was distributed widely (see [6], [7] and [8]) means that it warrants a page on Wikipedia to objectively cover the source and content it carried. It looks like WP:SCI may be taking it under its wing; just now I see there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)#Scientific journals. John Vandenberg 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) This continues the question you and I once discussed of whether WP articles on journals are important. Since I tend to believe that articles are important if influential (usually correlated with being widely cited) then it doesn't matter where they appear. One case where an article on a journal might be informative to WP readers is where the journal is marginal or flaky. Then the readers could be put on notice that something isn't a 'real journal'. This has been suggested about the Journal of Scientific Exploration, mentioned at [9]. I am pleased to see JSE included in a category called Category:Fringe science journals, though I imagine some people would criticize the existence of such a category. EdJohnston 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) This 'journal' certainly appears to be marginal (low citations) and flaky. Is there a term used to describe journals that are created primarily as a way for the editors to publish their own work? If so, we could look for others like it and create a category for them. John Vandenberg 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) There are many titles in the general category of professional magazines that are less than formal journals, but still noteworthy in particular ways. There is a very inadequate page on them: Science magazine. I have intended to expand the article for some time and i will do so shortly. There is a very incomplete list there, and at some point it should be much expanded. There is, of course, no clear distinction: the best known title in this category is Chemical and Engineering News, and it is as authoritative as any peer-reviewed journal. DGG 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) I noticed many moons ago that {{cite magazine}} redirects to {{cite journal}} in order to allow magazines to be used in the same way as journal sources. I wouldnt be surprised if the WP:LOMJ list contains a few magazines as well. John Vandenberg 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Occurrences of these journals are hard to pin down because they use common phrases. These will be used to fine tune the template in order to assist eliminate the phrase in normal usage. (): ~8Identifier: ISSN 1361-2042. Note that a misspelled version of this ISSN, 1316-2042, was found in Kathleen Ollerenshaw (just corrected it -- EdJ) The journal is also listed on the web site of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, [10](): ~0Identifier: ISSN 1544-824X The following journal names are used on Wikipedia yet do not match a single journal. Either it is really a journal it its own right, or more likely each instance needs to be clarified to refer to a journal with a similar name. === Comptes Rendus === (): 590Comptes rendus is a series of titles containing the proceedings of the Academie Francais. This has been published at various times in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 different subject sections, for about 200 years. Most of the sections have changed their titles and subject coverage, usually 2 or 3 times. All of them have also changed their titles from one form of the French title to another several times, and then also changed them to English. For finding particular articles, or tracing the history of the titles, the assistance of an expert librarian is recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 December 2006the article Les Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences (frwiki) says it is published by French Academy of Sciences as opposed to Académie française. I'd put my money on DGG being right and the article being wrong. John Vandenberg 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)I have renamed this as Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences, without the initial article, to match the French title--the usual rule is not to use the article unless the journal uses it very consistently and conspicuously. I think I've cleaned up any double redirects. I'll get back to work on the others eventuallyDGG (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Comptes rendus des séances de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie is used on Prefix notation.Society: Société des sciences et des lettres de Varsovie One of many periodicals by the society: OCLC 72770440Comptes-Rendus de l'Académie Bulgare des Sciences (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) is used on Vladimir Damgov Comptes Rendus du I congrès de Mathématiciens des Pays Slaves is used on Presburger arithmeticSociety: Congrès des mathématiciens des pays slaves Identifier: OCLC 73208816Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres is used on Kindites and EnkomiSociety: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres ISSN 0065-0536Comptes Rendus (Doklady) Acad. Sci. USSR is used on Ivan YefremovSociety: Russian Academy of Sciences ? Identifier: OCLC 7161900Comptes rendus of the Paris Academy is used on William Spottiswoode Comptes rendus des séances de la Société de biologie et ses filiales, Paris is used on Nicolas Maurice Arthus and Arthus reactionSociety: Société de biologie Identifier: OCLC 8096207Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaire des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences is used on Polynesian sandpiperSociety: Académie des Sciences Identifier: ISSN 0151-0525Comptes rendus de la Société de biologie is used on Brown-Séquard syndrome Comptes Rendus des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie is used on Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pyloriSociety: Société de biologie Identifier: OCLC 8096229Comptes Rendus de Seances de la Societe de Biologie is used on Magnesium in biological systemsSociety: Société de biologie Identifier: OCLC 8096213Comptes-Rendus de l'Académie de Paris is used on Adolf Lieben Academie des Sciences Paris Comptes Rendus is used on Steviol glycoside Comptes rendus des travaux du laboratoire Carlsberg is used on Carlsberg Laboratory and CyclolSociety: Carlsberg laboratoriet Identifier: ISSN 0366-8096Comptes Rendus du Second Congrès Ornithologique International is used on ProardeaPossible match: Second congrès ornithologique international tenu à Budapest en mai 1891. OCLC 64043738Comptes Rendus Palevol is used on Geosaurus, Dracopelta, Tazoudasaurus, Thililua and ArchaeopteryxStrange match: OCLC 67030401: Elsevier Science, 2002-Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d'études Chamito-Sémitiques is used on Aramaic of HatraBy GLECS: Groupe linguistique d'études chamito-sémitiques. 2003, ISBN 2858311420I think that Comptes Rendus & Comptes rendus should be a dab page so people know that they to be more precise when linking to the journal. John Vandenberg 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC) === Journal of Educational Research === () : 10Identifier: ISSN 0022-0671 Most common usage: International Journal of Educational Research ISSN 0883-0355 SNU Journal of Educational Research is used on Jeong-Kyu Lee Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research is used on sv:Empati ISSN 0031-3831 The following journals are often cited on Wikipedia: === 100+ === ==== Journal of the Royal Statistical Society ==== () : 104Identifier: ISSN 0035-9246 Publisher: Royal Statistical Society History: Journal of the Statistical Society of London (1838-1886) ISSN 0959-5341 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (1887-1947) ISSN 0952-8385 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) (1948-1987) ISSN 00359238 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) (1997 - current): ISSN 0964-1998 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology) (1997 - current): ISSN 1369-7412 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (1997 - current): ISSN 0035-9254 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (1997 - 2003): ISSN 0039-0526 === 50+ === () : 58Identifier: ISSN 0080-4606 === 20+ === () : 26Identifier: ISSN 0002-9246() : 21Identifier: ISSN 0003-1488() : 33Identifier: ISSN 0141-0768 Website: http://www.jrsm.org/ === <20 === (), (): 3Publisher: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Identifier: ISSN 0861-1459 These journals are mentioned in the article text of Wikipedia articles (i.e. not citations) === Elsevier schisms === ==== Journal of Logic Programming ==== () : 10Identifier:ISSN 0743-1066 Society: Association for Logic Programming (1984-2000) Publisher: Elsevier() : 2Identifier: ISSN 1475-3081 ISSN 1471-0684 Publisher: Cambridge University Press (2001-)() : 3Identifier:ISSN 1567-8326 Publisher: Elsevier (2001-) ==== Journal of Algorithms ==== () : 9Publisher: Academic Press. Identifier: ISSN 0196-6774() : 3Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery (2005-) Identifier: ISSN 1549-6325 1549-6333 The following journal names are used on Wikipedia but are not listed on missing journals. === 20+ === Please move these up to the Priority creation queue if they are important journals. () : 24Identifier: ISSN 0096-9753() : 23Identifier: ISSN 0015-0517 === 10+ === ==== Canadian Journal of Mathematics ==== () : (wp:16; g:86,600; gs:2,110) Alt Title: () : (wp:0; g:22,300; gs:25) Website: http://journals.cms.math.ca/CJM/ ISSN 0008-414X (Print - exists on WorldCat) ISSN 1496-4279 from website; not available on WorldCat Comment: Most of the google results are to bibliography sites; as a result I am surprised that this journal has 16 WP results using the Template:Missing article gwp link. If I remove all articles that contain ""List of "" [11], the results drops down to 5 unique pages. However that could have removed a few cases where the name was used as a citation. === <10 === () : 1 - Ham sandwich theorem OCLC 8872061 Latin for () ""A reference is made to the pre-World War II journal Mathesis Polska (Latin for ""Polish Mathematics""). This journal is not easy to locate. It was finally located in the mathematics library of the University of Illinois, which seems to be the only library in the United States having the complete journal."" [12] NOTE (by EdJohnston): This journal ceased publication in 1938, before the era of ISSNs. It can be found on worldcat only under its OCLC number. The list of missing journals may have entries that are not journal names, or are not notable. Please discuss them here in sub-sections. === Journal of Economics === () : 302 A journal by this name is not listed on List of scholarly journals in economics. This journal name is predominately used prefixed e.g.: () : 188Identifier: ISSN 0033-5533 JSTOR ISSN page: http://www.jstor.org/journals/00335533.html Added Infobox; several parameters missing() : 29Identifier: ISSN 0002-9246() : 17Identifier: ISSN 1464-3545() : 17Identifier: ISSN 0008-4085() : :*Identifier: ISSN 0315-4890 | Y added () : 14 :*Identifier: ISSN 0361-915X | Y added (a predecessor to RAND) () : 13Identifier: ISSN 0741-6261() : 2Identifier: ISSN 1062-9408() : 2Identifier: ISSN 0039-7318Without those journals I can trim the list down to 43 items: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:wikipedia.org+%22Journal+of+Economics%22-%22Quarterly+Journal+of+Economics%22-%22Swedish+Journal+of+Economics%22-%22Cambridge+Journal+of+Economics%22-%22American+Journal+of+Economics+and+Sociology%22-%22Canadian+Journal+of+Economics%22-%22North+American+Journal%22-%22RAND+Journal%22&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N John Vandenberg 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC) === 0602-6098 === ISSN 0602-6098 gs fails the validity check, yet it is listed on the Nautical Archaeology Society website: http://www.nasportsmouth.org.uk/about/index.php and on Salcombe Cannon Wreck. Note that their websites indicates that this is their ""members' newsletter of events"", and is not International Journal of Nautical Archaeologywc. John Vandenberg 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) This has been dealt with via Jayvdb's creation of {{Listed Invalid ISSN|0602-6098}}. Keesiewonder talk 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC) This is an interesting one; Zviad Gamsakhurdia has this citation: (in English)/(in Georgian) ""Gushagi"" (Journal of Georgian political emigrés), Paris, No 1/31, 1994. ISSN 0763-7247The link checker [13] says the ISSN is invalid, yet WorldCat finds a record [14], and then doesn't display the ISSN on the main record [15]. I'm not sure what to do with this one; two possible explanations: The ISSN validity checker we are using isn't 100% accurate WorldCat stores invalid ISSNs when they are in common usageJohn Vandenberg 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I've the feeling that Worldcat is being coy. Actually Amazon.com still does this. They used to just hand over the record for a book when you searched with an invalid ISBN, if it was published that way. These days they tell you that they can't find anything, but if you go and search for the book the old-fashioned way it shows up, with no ISBN listed. The policy of http://booksinprint.com and http://abebooks.com is more clear-cut, because they refuse to search for an invalid ISBN, and they tell you right up front that it's invalid. I think it's more useful to the customer for the seller to report promptly that the id number being used is invalid. Otherwise the customer may go on searching and searching, just believing that it happens to be out of stock at each place.Since Wikipedia is a major informational resource, I think that we ourselves would not be doing good service if we keep around invalid ISSNs in our articles. Worldcat, if it keeps the bad ones around, ought to flag them as such, which is hard to do when you never even tell the searcher that their number is invalid. LOC tries to keep around invalid ISBNs, suitably flagged, but the records of this are so fragmentary it's not very useful. EdJohnston 03:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)I've replaced the invalid ISSN 0763-7247 with the OCLC 54453360. As an aside on the invalid ISSNs that are being recorded -- the loc.gov tagged record for ""Gushagi"" shows022 $y0763-7247 while ""Zeitschrift für Kristallographie"" shows022 $a0044-2968 and ""Journal of the Royal Statistical Society"" shows022 $a0035-9246 I'm thinking that $y is used to denote that the entry is invalid. John Vandenberg 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)$y does indicate the ISSN is invalid.[16] John Vandenberg 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Glad you tracked that down! EdJohnston 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" 207 209 461 WP:TABLE Wikipedia:Tables 207 Wikipedia:Tables may refer to: Help:Table Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables 208 210 466 WP:MAC Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc. 208 Welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.! This is the central hub to coordinate all improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of Apple, the Mac, iOS products, and related topics. If you need any help, head to the talk page! 2.1% List-Class 26.5% Stub-Class 38% Start-Class 23.8% C-Class 7% B-Class 1.3% GA-Class 0.2% FA-Class 1.1% remaining Proposed deletions 28 Mar 2023 – Singapore's iPhone film festival (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by DFlhb (t · c): Can't find sources that would help this meet WP:GNG, and it seems there was only ever one festival (in 2011), so that's unlikely to ever change. 27 Mar 2023 – Blued (macOS) (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by DFlhb (t · c): Sadly not notable; very little can be said about it, and I find no WP:SIGCOVGood article nominees 04 Oct 2022 – Mac (computer) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DFlhb (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 27 Mar 2023 – List of iPhone models (placeholder) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to List of iPhone models by Theknine2 (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (7th generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (6th generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (5th generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (4th generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (3rd generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (2nd generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 19 Jan 2023 – IPod Touch (1st generation) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to iPod Touch by DFlhb (t · c); see discussion 27 Dec 2022 – Logic Express (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Logic Pro by Kvng (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 11 Mar 2023 – Draft:MacDirtyCow (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by QNESDCVA26378173 (t · c) 30 Dec 2022 – Draft:Janneke Parrish (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Quaoarian (t · c) These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 29 March 2023 by HotArticlesBot. See most popular articles. See our assessment criteria. A watchlist of the project's talk pages, and a watchlist of the project's articles, are available. The watchlist of project articles is based on this list of articles, which must be manually kept up to date. Relevant categories: Category:Apple Inc. and Category:WikiProject Apple Inc. articles Feeling lost? Feel free to ask for help on the project's talk page. First, if you want to start small, you may want to start with easier things, like finding citations or copyediting. For help on how to do those things, check out Help:Introduction. If you're feeling more ambitious, feel free to check out the project's list of Vital articles. Currently, 64 Apple-related articles are considered vital encyclopedic content. Please help us improve those articles! You're also welcome to help bring any article to Good article status! Review and clean up our categories Add RCATS to redirects (especially printworthy redirects) Clean up iOS version history Harmonize our version history tables across all articles (see macOS and iOS). Figure out what to do with the iTunes Originals/exclusives permastubs Merge non-notable Mac malware into macOS malware === Evergreen todos === Keep software versions up to date: macOS release, beta iOS release, beta iPadOS release, beta watchOS release, beta tvOS release, beta audioOS Safari (Wikidata) Version history tables: macOS Ventura, iOS 16, iPadOS 16, audioOS, watchOS, and any applicable others What's the relation between the subjects of the following articles? Should be clarified? QuickTime Graphics Apple Video iFrame (video format) Our main user box is: {{User WikiProject Apple Inc.}} For Wikipedia's page on tools, see: Wikipedia:ToolsreFill - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Cleanup listing - A list of Apple-related articles marked for cleanup User:Evad37/rater — a tool that helps easily rate article importance and classUseful bots you can invoke: Citation Bot - Fixes common citation formatting errors, and adds citation identifiers (DOI, PMIDs, ISBNs) Internet Archive Bot - Fixes link rot, adds archive links, tags dead links.The following page also lists useful tools and scripts: Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Tools All articles related to Apple products, software, and services All articles related to Apple Inc., including Apple executives and employees All articles related to companies that are significant to Apple history. This includes: Companies that made Apple-exclusive software/hardware, like The Omni Group, Panic Inc., and Ambrosia Software Companies that had notable ties to Apple like Adobe Inc., Akamai Technologies, and Microsoft. For third-party apps (not games) for the Mac, iOS, or other Apple platforms: Apps that are, or were, exclusive to Apple platforms, like OmniFocus, BBEdit, and Carbon Copy Cloner, are in scope. Non-exclusive apps that are significant to Mac history, like Internet Explorer 5 and CodeWarrior, are also in scope. Not in scope: cross-platform apps that lack direct relevance to Apple history. If there's no Apple-related information we can add to an article, tagging us is pointless. No video games! Tag those with WP:WikiProject Video games instead. Only exception: games and consoles made or published by Apple, like Apple Pippin and Vortex (iPod game). Parent project: WikiProject Computing Related projects: WikiProject Companies • WikiProject Software‎ • WikiProject Video games • WikiProject Apps • WikiProject Internet • WikiProject Retailing • WikiProject Technology • WikiProject Telecommunications 209 211 468 WP:USSTATION Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) 209 "This is a standard naming convention for transit stations – including intercity rail, commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail, and bus rapid transit – in the United States. The guideline is related to naming conventions for stations in Canada (WP:CANSTATION), Ireland (WP:IRLSTATION), Poland (WP:PLSTATION), and the United Kingdom (WP:UKSTATION). The guidelines eliminate some features of the previous unwritten conventions: they eliminate preemptive parenthetical disambiguation and encourage the inclusion of the term ""station"" when it is part of the common name. Generally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by ""station"" if not already part of the name. In cases where the word ""Station"" is part of the proper name, it should be capitalized. This often occurs when the station is named after the railroad company or is a named transit center. Examples: Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi) Pennsylvania Station (New York City) Rosa Parks Transit StationIn cases where ""station"" is not part of the proper name, or is not usually capitalized in sources, it should be in written in lower case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Example: Newark Broad Street stationIn some cases, a station has a common name that does not include the word ""station"". In those cases, default to the common name per the Use common names policy. Examples: Kalamazoo Transportation Center Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center Old Town Transit Center William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center Hoboken Terminal Grand Canyon Depot === Official names === The main naming conventions discourage the use of official names when other names are more common and available. In cases where the official name differs from the common name, the official name should be included in the lead, but not the article title. In some cases, an official name may serve as appropriate natural disambiguation to distinguish from other articles if the common name is ambiguous. Regardless, any alternative names for a station should redirect to the station article. === Slashes === Where a station includes a slash in its name, such as Delta Park/Vanport station, do not include spaces around the slash. Thus Delta Park/Vanport station is preferable to Delta Park / Vanport station. In cases where stations have ambiguous names, disambiguate them according to the disambiguation policy and guideline. Use natural disambiguation if available (e.g. Chicago Union Station, which uses a common alternative name to distinguish Chicago's ""Union Station""). Otherwise add a distinguishing term in parentheses. Context will determine the most suitable distinguishing term. Examples: Disambiguation by state: This option may be appropriate for stations serving Amtrak and other intercity rail, especially when there are stations in multiple cities that have the same name. For example, the Amtrak stations in Birmingham, Alabama and Birmingham, Michigan are distinguished as Birmingham station (Alabama) and Birmingham station (Michigan). Disambiguation by city: This option is especially appropriate for stations that serve more than one system or mode of transit. For example, Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi) distinguishes the subject from other articles called Union Station, four others of which are in Mississippi. It is also appropriate for systems that are located entirely within an easily recognizable city, for instance 7th Street station (Charlotte) in Charlotte, North Carolina, but note that in many major cities, transit systems reach out into suburbs that may not be recognizable. For city names, generally follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) § United States. Disambiguation by system: This option is appropriate when there are ambiguously named stations serving different systems, especially those located in the same state or city. For example, Passaic station (NJ Transit) distinguishes the article from Passaic station (Erie Railroad), both located in Passaic, New Jersey. This may also be a good option when the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city, such as when a major metropolitan area's transit system has stops in outlying communities. For example, the Washington Metro is more recognizable than the suburban county Fairfax County, Virginia in distinguishing Vienna station (Washington Metro). Disambiguation by line: This option distinguishes stations with ambiguous names in the same system. For instance, Western station (CTA Orange Line) and Western station (CTA Brown Line) are both stations of the Chicago ""L"".In determining the distinguishing term in the parentheses, it is necessary to keep in mind what the article must be distinguished from. The decision may be affected by ambiguously titled stations in other countries, former stations, and unrelated items that happen to share a name. Wherever necessary, make sure that all ambiguous articles are included on a disambiguation page. For example, Newark station should disambiguate between Newark Penn Station, Newark Broad Street station and Newark station (Delaware) and other articles of this title. === Examples === Per a 2016 RfC and the Manual of Style's first sentence guideline, in general, the station's name in the lead sentence should be the same as the article title (minus the parenthetical disambiguation if present). For example, the Culver City station article should begin: Culver City station is an elevated light rail station in the Los Angeles Metro Rail system in Culver City, California. Use of the article ""the"" preceding the station name is optional. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)" 210 212 470 WP:EXTORT User talk:AjaxSmack/Essays/Progress by Extortion 210 The article for Koor, Indonesia et al. were created as stubs. Koor, Indonesia was created in June 2010 and tagged with {{Notability}} in December of the same year. An ensuing discussion at WikiProject Indonesia included vague calls for that and other articles' deletion. No doubt spurred by these comments, the Koor, Indonesia article's creator expanded the stub to a nearly 7k multi-section article. Such progress, though admirable should ideally not be extorted by the threat of a AfD request or other administrative action. Stubs are helpful for several reasons. They provide confirmation to users that such places exist and allow for at least their general location and/or administrative position and the spelling of their name to be ascertained. They give an opportunity for non-registered users to contribute in an area where their expertise might be useful. As User:Rich Farmbrough has noted, an early list of stubs points to examples such as Anton Chekov which started as meager stubs. — AjaxSmack 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia WP:PERMASTUB WP:BIAS 211 213 474 WP:NOVSTY Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels 211 "This is the style guidelines department of the Novels WikiProject. Its goal is to assist editors improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles on novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. For Wikipedia guidelines regarding how to write about fiction in general, see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. The word ""novel"" in these guidelines may be replaced with ""novella"", ""novelette"" or ""short story"". If a non-novel article already exists with the name of the novel that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (novel) in the title: Novel Title (novel). If a novel article already exists with the name of the novel that you are trying to create an article for, and the two novels are by different authors, use (AUTHORNAME novel) in the title: Novel Title (AUTHORNAME novel). Rename the already existing article's title and change it to Novel Title (AUTHORNAME novel) also. Because of Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements, it's important to make sure that there is substantial research to support your work on the Wikipedia article. General notability requirements for Wikipedia require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources with a reputation for editorial control. Novels need this in particular: most readers of a novel can write a plot summary about the work, but without the contributions of outside experts, there is little opportunity to discuss topics like themes, style and reception – which are the substantive real-world issues for these works. (For advice on writing sections on these topics, see the discussion below.) === Places to start === If you have been active on Wikipedia for six months and have 500 edits, we recommend the following databases available through The Wikipedia Library (and many public libraries and university libraries): WP:JSTOR (full-text articles on literature and history) WP:Project MUSE (full-text articles on literature and history) WP:EBSCO (assortment of academic and periodical literature) WP:Gale (assortment of academic and periodical literature)Other useful database/sources of research, that may be available through your local library: MLA Bibliography (cites publications on literature and languages) For more for a ""classic"" author, the Cambridge Companion, or if it's a ""classic"" work, a Norton Critical Edition for that work. Both series have a number of volumes, and provide extensive introductions to the authors and works within their fields. ProQuest's Literature OnlineIf your local library doesn't have these works available, we suggest using the process documented at Wikipedia:Find your source to find the source. === Tips for finding criticism about less reviewed or studied works === For so-called ""popular"" texts, you should exhaust all of the methods above first because scholars have written a lot on popular culture in the last two decades (for example, there are many articles and even some books on Stephen King). If you find nothing, try these methods: Scholarly sources on the genre itself. The sources may not be entirely focused on that particular novel; you can still mention that the novel is part of a larger literary tradition, such as the mystery novel or the romance novel. Book reviews written by respectable publications in the novel's genre. The point is to try to find sources who are experts in the field of that particular novel. Sometimes you can find this information in a general search with the novel's title in Kirkus Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, USA Today, The New York Times or other newspaper review. Some newspapers have their reviews behind a paywall, so perform the search at a public library to avoid the need for a subscription to every newspaper with good book reviews. For some genres, like mysteries or historical fiction, you can find more specialized reviews that would be more interesting to read and have more nuanced opinions, for example in mystery writer or science fiction magazines. It's important to be careful about choosing and using reviews: there is often a money trail that leads straight back to the publishers themselves (many blog reviewers are commissioned for their reviews). When using reviews make sure to not only emphasize praise which may be in part motivated by this financial incentives, but look for more complex reflections on themes, topics, style and the publishing context. Comments by other writers, particularly in the same genre. These opinions also have to be used carefully because these other authors may have personal or financial links to the writer, or may be competitors, and may have personal ""issues"" you know nothing about. Sales figures from journals and magazines who track that sort of thing, not from the publishers themselves. Publishers have an investment in boosting their numbers. One should always try to find independent verification of numbers like that (in this sense, you have to think like a journalist – you need two independent sources).Finally, if there are very few sources (less than three substantial sources), you might consider not writing a page on the novel itself; instead, consider writing a page on the author or a series, especially if that author has written many novels in a single genre. The following are the standard components of Wikipedia novel articles. An infobox can be placed at the head of a novel article; for more details on the content and style of the box, see below. === Lead section === The lead should summarize the article as a whole (WP:LEAD), thus the structure and content of your article should be reflected in the lead of the article. Leads tend to average between 2–4 paragraphs, depending on the size of the article. === Plot === Plot summaries should be concise and an integral part of the article. 400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries. A plot summary should avoid reproducing the work being discussed. Instead, it should summarise the work, touching on plot, important events, character developments, etc. In a longer work, every conversation and event does not need to be mentioned. Size of the plot summary should be roughly proportional to the size of the plot. This is not always equivalent to the length of the work, since some plots are complex and dense while others are simple and straightforward. A novel is a primary source for its own plot summary. Citing the novel explicitly in a plot summary section is not necessary provided that the summary is verifiable directly from the plot of the novel itself, that the novel is publicly available, and that its publication details are included within the article, for example in an infobox. Any part of the summary that is not purely descriptive, such as interpretation or explanatory remarks, requires a secondary source. Plot summaries very often contain spoilers. That is quite normal, and is in line with the spoiler content guidelines and Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. === Characters === If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader. === Major themes === In many ways this is the most important section of the page because it details the ""meat"" of the novel. The plot of a novel carries the themes and it is the themes that are often the most interesting. A small example will illustrate this. A plot summary of the story of the Fall might run like this: ""Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and therefore God banished them from Paradise and cursed them with mortality."" One of the themes of this little tale is ""sin leads to death."" It is more important that readers are made aware of the theme of ""sin"" than all of the details about the bits of fruit. This example also illustrates why an overly detailed plot summary will only confuse readers. Details about who ate the fruit first and who tempted whom are irrelevant to the larger issues—sin and death. At least in a Protestant reading. And that brings us to a very important point. In order to write a comprehensive ""Themes"" section, you must do research. You cannot present your own opinion of what the novel's themes are (WP:OR). You must present the consensus of literary scholars and historians. For so-called ""classic"" texts, this is easy, but time-consuming (it may involve months of research). You can use the Google Scholar to find citations for these publications online. Sometimes you won't be able to find a full-text version of a source through Google Scholar, but you may be able to find a citation that you can dig deeper into using the strategies listed at ""Wikipedia:Find your source"". If you cannot find a source for your section on themes, do not write the section. === Style === Like the ""Themes"" section, this section should be based on as much research as you can do and should rely on the same sorts of sources – literary critics and historians, if possible, and book reviews and other writers' comments if not. This section should lay out the writing styles employed by the author. For example, if the novel is an epistolary novel, there should be an explanation of that style and how it works specifically in the novel being discussed on the page. Also, any notable features of the writer's style should be spelled out. The following is a list of examples of the kind of stylistic elements that have been extensively discussed by scholars and necessitate an inclusion on any page about these author's novels: Virginia Woolf's unique narrative voice, Thomas Pynchon's postmodernist tendencies, and Jane Austen's use of free indirect discourse. === Background === Include here a history of the novel's writing and development. For example, did the author use a 'real life' story to shape the plot? Did the author model a character on a 'real life' person? Did the author use another novel as a model? Is this novel in some sense a sequel to a previous work? None of these can be speculative. The 'background' section must report the writings of significant and reliable sources. For an example of Featured articles with a 'background' section see The Halo Graphic Novel or The World Without Us. 'Background' should not be confused with ""Setting""; think in terms of the real world context and / or origins of the novel. === Publication history === Relying on research (see below), you should briefly outline the publication history of the novel ONLY if there is interesting information to relate. For example, some novels, such as William Godwin's Caleb Williams, were published with two different endings. Some novels were first published serially and then later published as bound books; this is the case with many of Charles Dickens' novels, for example. Maria Edgeworth altered significant elements of one of the marriage plots of her novel Belinda in response to criticism after the first edition was published. Other novels have been censored or altered by later editors. If there are no particularly interesting details to relate, try to work the basic facts of the novel's first publication into the article at some point. If both sections are short, it may be appropriate to merge Background and Publication history. === Reception === Understanding the novel's position in its own society and in later literary and cultural traditions is crucial; this material should be presented in a ""Reception"" section (clearly, a modern novel can't have much of a legacy yet). You should analyze how the novel was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known reviewers at the time that the novel was published, and not comments from members of the public. (Quotes from users on Amazon.com and blogs do not count, as these are self-published.) Comments from influential opinion-makers are acceptable, however; for example, it may well be interesting what Queen Victoria said about a particular Victorian novel. Your research will tell you what is important and what is not. Relying on your research, you should also indicate what the public reaction to the novel was. Sales figures can help indicate this, but do not rely exclusively on reviews and sales figures for this section. Since reading habits were different in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is helpful to include descriptions of readers' responses to the novel as well as descriptions of how the novel was read. For a good example of this, see the ""Style"" section of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which explains the ""sentimental"" style of the novel and how readers responded at the time. Such descriptions help the reader understand the novel within its historical and social context. If the novel is a cult novel, an explanation of how the ""cult"" label developed would also be appropriate (again, all of this information would come from your research). === Adaptations === The adaptation section should detail any notable information about the novel's adaption into dramatic media, including films, TV miniseries, Broadway shows, etc. If this information is extensive, consider creating an entirely separate article for this information, such as ""[Novel] in popular culture"". Be careful that such sections or articles do not degenerate into trivia, perhaps by ensuring that every entry has at least one reliable source confirming the link between the novel and the adaptation such that it conforms to minimal notability standards. If multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources can be found, the adaptation may be sufficiently notable to be worthy of an article to itself. === Footnotes and references === All Wikipedia article content must be verifiable. This usually means citing sources. A variety of methods to present your references is available at Citing sources:Style and how-to as well as an inline citations/footnoting system at Help:Footnotes. If you are unsure of how to use internet links as references, simply inserting the URL into square brackets at the end of the corresponding text (e.g. [http://www.loc.gov/] becomes [1]) is an adequate form of referencing the web; you must also provide the date on which you accessed the site so that should the information disappear from that site or the link cease to function (a danger in using web sources), a user wanting to use the Wayback Machine to verify your information can do so. === Infobox === Note that including an infobox is advisable; include one if sufficient information is available. The table to the right is the Infobox book template for Desolation Island. Note that the image has been removed, as Wikipedia fair use policy prohibits the use of fair use images outside the article namespace. Clicking edit on the right will enable you to view and copy the source text to use on novel articles. If you have any questions or problems with this table, you can discuss them at Template talk:Infobox book. The parameters for the infobox can be found at Template:Infobox book. A companion infobox for ""novelettes"" and ""short stories"" can be found at Template:Infobox short story. ==== Images ==== The image presented in the table should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. For example, sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the ""preferred"" edition. The most important factor in choosing an illustration for your infobox is knowledge and reasoning: do you know why you are choosing that image and can you justify it? Remember also, that still copyrighted images can only be uploaded as non-free content, which means that you have to give a rationale for why the cover is being used. Finding and uploading an image Covers can be found at various sites, including Amazon.com ([2]) and Amazon.co.uk ([3]). Novels published during the seventeenth century in Britain can be found at Early English Books Online (EEBO – by subscription only) and novels published during the eighteenth century in English can be found at Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO – by subscription only). Many images can also be found at google images for older texts. Once you have found a suitable image: Save it to your hard drive as a JPEG or PNG file. See preparing images for upload. Upload it to the wiki at Special:Upload. See uploading images. On the file's description page, add a short description of the image (e.g. ""A book cover for NovelTitle.""), and an image copyright tag: {{Non-free book cover}} for such novels, novellas, novelettes or short stories. On the image line of the template, insert the image's filename. A short description can be included in the field image caption. The image size in the infobox is currently set to 200 pixels.e.g. sample input – vary text used to suit image used image = NovelTitle.jpg image_caption = First edition cover ==== Genre ==== Choose a genre from the list available to link to which can be found on the main project page. You are not required to fill in the genre field. Genres are often debatable and can lead to anachronistic labeling. For example, labeling Robinson Crusoe a novel is highly suspect, for (it can be argued) the genre of the novel itself had not fully formed at that point, and Daniel Defoe would not have identified his text as a novel. You may consider leaving this field blank if no suitable genre is among the choices listed. ==== Publication dates ==== The novel's earliest release, or publication in book form; if it was previously serialized, do not give the date of serialization. If not formally published, use the date written; this would be highly unusual for writing of notability. Use the release date in the country of origin for the novel. If the novel has been translated from a non-English language (and only then!), add the english_pub_date for date of first translated publication.Do not include the following in infoboxes (although they can be included in a separate section in the main body of the article): Release dates for every country in the world. ==== Media type ==== Record only the media types in which the novel was originally available. For example, eighteenth-century novels were never published in ""hardback and paperback"" nor in audiobook so it is inappropriate to list those print subtypes. Print sub-types (Hardback, Paperback, Periodical) AudioBook sub-types (Audio CD, Cassette) e-Book sub-types ==== Preceded and followed by ==== These fields should be included only for the novels that are written as part of a series or sequence. Then the titles of the novel prior and the novel subsequent in the series should be placed in each parameter. Otherwise they should be left blank, in all cases. Note, It is not essential to complete all fields in the infobox. This is especially true if scant information on the novel is available. === Trivia === Trivia sections should be dealt with in accordance with WP:TRIVIA. They create a sense of a ""fan site"" in what might otherwise be a respectable encyclopedia entry. As such, information that might be placed in a Trivia section should be integrated into the body of the article. === Lists === Once an article has been created for a novel, it can be entered into a number of lists to allow easier browsing for viewers. All novels should be included in the Lists of books article. Each novel can be included in lists based on the alphabet, year, language, genre, country, etc. that a novel can be included in. === Categories === The article should include categories at the bottom. At a minimum, year, country and genre categories should be included. It is best to keep them in alphabetical order for easier browsing. For example, you would add the following to the bottom of a page for an American comedy novel that came out in 2007: Category:2007 novels Category:American novels Category:Comedy novelsFor the novels of more significant novelists you could add the appropriate ""Novels by AuthorName"" category: Category:Novels by Charles Dickens Category:Short stories by Isaac Asimov Category:Short story collections by Philip K. Dick Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction" 212 214 477 WP:WPINWA Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom 212 "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia by the Wikimedia Foundation that anyone can edit. Fandom/Wikia is a free service for hosting wikis that anyone can create and edit. It uses the same underlying MediaWiki software as Wikipedia does. However, it serves a completely different purpose. Wikipedia is a place where factual articles of educative value are created and maintained, i.e. like an encyclopedia (hence the name Wikipedia). Fandom's free hosting service can be used for anything from fan wikis for communities to in-depth information on conspiracy theories. Both were founded by Jimmy Wales, but they are not affiliated. As a result, some things acceptable on Wikipedia are not accepted on Fandom, and vice versa. Some of the differences between Wikipedia and Fandom include: Wikipedia is a place where advertisements do not belong. In contrast, Fandom is itself plastered with advertising. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject must meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Articles whose subjects fail to meet this requirement will be merged, redirected, or even deleted. Articles must have citations, and content must be verifiable. Fandom, on the other hand, allows content on just about anything; exceptions can probably be counted on one hand. There is no one site-wide set of rules or standards on Fandom: each community on Fandom has its own rules and standards on what's acceptable and what isn't (some even have their own ""notability"" guidelines just like Wikipedia does).There are also many similarities between them (e.g. copyright violations are just as unacceptable on Fandom as they are on Wikipedia, although Wikipedia's rules on non-free content are stricter than Fandom's). While the CC-BY-SA-3.0 copyright license is used by default at Fandom, individual Fandom wikis can also set their own copyright license which may or may not be a compatible license for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you find sourced information on Fandom that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, please double check the license and follow the steps at WP:COPYPASTE. Per WP:FREECOPYING, attribution is always required (see Template:Fandom content). Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia" 213 215 478 WP:INCLUSIONIST WP:INCLUSIONIST 213 meta:InclusionismThis page is a soft redirect. 214 216 481 WP:A Wikipedia:Attribution 214 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—that is, a comprehensive compendium of knowledge. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Wikipedia's core content policies are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. === Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources === Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is the process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. === Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought === Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. Note the difference between unsourced material and original research: Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed but may be attributable. Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable.The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. === Primary and secondary sources === Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident and the White House's official text of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution on Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. === Using questionable or self-published sources === Some sources pose special difficulties: A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable.Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions: 1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.2. Professional self-published sources When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.3. Carefully selected temporary links with regard to developing current events ""In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article."" See the ArbCom recommendation: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Use of blogs. === Exceptional claims require exceptional sources === Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. === Citing yourself === You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page. === Language === Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves. === What is original research? === Material counts as original research if it: introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea; defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms; introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. ==== Unpublished synthesis of published material ==== Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. ""A and B, therefore C"" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones: Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material: If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule ""plagiarism."" Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. The whole point of this paragraph is the conclusion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. This is the editor's opinion; it is original research. If the paragraph attributed the opinion to a reliable source that specifically commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and made the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism, it would comply with this policy. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. === What is not original research? === Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast for each candidate in an election, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand. Citation exemptions have also been extended to plot summaries of novels, films, and related media. As Wikipedia's Manual of Style says, ""The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."" Citations are, of course, still encouraged, and any interpretations, quotations, and secondary sources used must be cited in the article. ==== Original images ==== Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL, or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role. A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be neutral. Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space. Further information and examples: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citations quick referenceAny reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable. Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found—except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article is unsourced, you can use the {{unreferenced}} template; for sections requiring sourcing, {{unreferenced section}} is available. Absurd unsourced claims and original research should be deleted rather than tagged or moved to a talk page. Wikipedia:Merge and delete, attribution within Wikipedia in relation to its licensing terms Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, maintenance tags that notify of a dispute Wales, Jimmy. Crackpot articles, July 12, 2003 Wales, Jimmy. ""Original research"", December 3, 2004 Wales, Jimmy. ""Original research"", December 6, 2004. Academic Publishing Wiki – a wiki welcoming original research Wikiresearch, a proposal for a wiki for original research." 215 217 482 WP:BOT Wikipedia:Bots 215 "A bot (a common nickname for software robot) is an automated tool that carries out repetitive and mundane tasks to maintain the 57,853,879 pages of the English Wikipedia. Bots are able to make edits very rapidly, but can disrupt Wikipedia if they are incorrectly designed or operated. For these reasons, a bot policy has been developed. There are currently 2,625 bot tasks approved for use on the English Wikipedia; however, not all approved tasks involve actively carrying out edits. Bots will leave messages on user talk pages if the action that the bot has carried out is of interest to that editor. Some bots can be excluded from leaving these messages by using the {{bots}} tags. There are 206 exclusion-compliant bots, which are listed in this category. There are 312 bots flagged with the ""bot"" flag right now (and over 400 former bots). There is also a range of tools that allow semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. Bots have been used in the past to create large numbers of articles that were uploaded to Wikipedia within a short timeframe. Some technical problems were experienced and this led to the formulation of a bot policy, as well as a restriction on the automated, large-scale, creation of articles. Wikipedia policy requires that bots be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly. The Bot Approvals Group (BAG) supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective on behalf of the English Wikipedia community. On the English Wikipedia, the right to flag a bot is limited to bureaucrats. Running an automated bot on a separate account requires approval, which may be requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Some programming experience generally is needed to create a bot, and knowledge of regular expressions is useful for many editing tasks. However, some of the more user-friendly tools, such as AutoWikiBrowser or JavaScript Wiki Browser, can be used for some tasks. The Chicken Scheme, Common Lisp, Haskell, Java, Microsoft .NET, Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby programming languages all have libraries available for creating bots. Pywikibot is a commonly used Python package developed specifically for creating MediaWiki bots. If you have noticed a problem with a bot, have a complaint, or have a suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator directly via their user talk page (or via the bot account's talk page). Bot operators are expected to be responsive to the community's concerns and suggestions, but please assume good faith and don't panic. Bugs and mistakes happen, and we're all here to build an encyclopedia. If the bot is causing a significant problem, or the bot operator has not responded and the bot is still causing issues, several mechanisms are available to prevent further disruption. Many bots provide a stop button or means to disable the problematic task on their bot user page. This should be tried first, followed by a discussion of the issue with the bot operator. If no such mechanism is available (or if urgent action is needed), leave a message at the administrators' noticeboard requesting a block for a malfunctioning bot. Per the noticeboard's guideline, you are required to notify the bot operator of the discussion taking place at the noticeboard. If you are concerned that a bot is operating outside the established consensus for its task, discuss the issue with the bot operator first, or try other forms of dispute resolution (BAG members can act as neutral mediators on such matters). If you are concerned that a bot no longer has consensus for its task, you may formally appeal or ask for re-examination of a bot's approval. While it is easy to hide all bots from your watchlist, there is no way of hiding specific bots through user preferences or default watchlist settings. However, it is possible with a user script by following these steps. Main steps Go to your Special:MyPage/common.js page (or your Special:MyPage/skin.js), and add the following line (diff): importScript('User:UncleDouggie/smart_watchlist.js'); // Backlink: [[User:UncleDouggie/smart_watchlist]] Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc, check both the 'Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist' and 'Use non-JavaScript interface' boxes, and click 'Save'. Remember to bypass your browser's cache. Go to your watchlist. There should be a box with several options. Tick the 'Enable hide user buttons' box. This will let you hide specific bots (and users) from your watchlist. Note: You might want to untick the 'Enable hide user buttons' box after you ignore a bot to ensure that you don't accidentally click 'hide user' when browsing your watchlist.Optional steps If you find the 'Enable hide user buttons' box annoying, go to your Special:MyPage/common.css page (or Special:MyPage/skin.css) and add the following line (diff): #SmartWatchlistOptions {display:none !important;} Remember to bypass your browser's cache. If you want to show the box again, for example to reset your ignore list, go to your Special:MyPage/common.css page and remove the line you added in optional step #1 (remembering to again bypass your browser's cache). Redoing optional steps #1 and #2 will hide the box again.While you are completely free to ignore any bots (or users) you want, it is a good idea to only ignore bots with well-defined tasks, which you trust to not make any mistakes. There is no way of hiding AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) edits through user preferences or default watchlist settings. However, it is possible with a user script by following these steps: Steps Go to your Special:MyPage/common.js page (or your Special:MyPage/skin.js), and add the following two lines (diff): Bypass your browser's cache.Any edit with ""AWB"" in its edit summary will now default to hidden for you. You may reveal them by clicking on the ""show AWB"" tab at the top of your watchlist (next to ""Special page"" for Monobook skin, or in the ""More"" dropdown for Vector skin). Notes: If you leave out var awbHiddenByDefault = true;, AWB edits will be shown by default, but you will have the option of hiding AWB edits by clicking on the ""hide AWB"" tab at the top of your watchlist. While you are completely free to ignore AWB edits, remember that many of them will contain substantial changes from human editors, not just minor edits from bots or meatbots. When hiding edits with a script, earlier edits can be forced to appear. Using the Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent preference option is necessary to see other non-hidden watchlist hits for a page. It's rare that a mainspace article needs to not be edited by a specific bot. No article needs to stop all bots from editing, since antivandal bots such as ClueBot NG need to be able to edit all mainspace articles. The template {{bots}} can stop a bot from editing an article under the rare circumstance it's needed. Some examples of bots are: User:AAlertBot – delivering article alerts to WikiProjects about ongoing discussions. User:AnomieBOT – large variety of tasks, most well known for adding dates to amboxes. User:ClueBot NG – reverts possible vandalism. User:Citation bot – Adds PMIDs, ISBNs, etc. to pages. User:CommonsDelinker – removes links to files deleted at Wikimedia Commons due to policy infractions. User:DatBot – patrols the edit filters and resizes non-free images. User:DumbBOT – often removes protection templates from recently unprotected pages. User:InternetArchiveBot – retrieves archived copies of dead links. User:ListeriaBot – Experimental bot by Magnus Manske. It generates and updates lists on Wikipedia. User:Lowercase sigmabot III – archives talk pages. User:ST47ProxyBot – automatically blocks proxies due to the local policy against open proxies. User:SineBot – signs comments left on talk pages. User:WP 1.0 bot – works with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Articles Internet bot Wikipedia botsCategories Wikipedia bots Wikipedia bot requests for approvalMeta meta:bot meta:Bot policy meta:Countervandalism Network/BotsBarnstar {{The Bot Creator Barnstar|put your message here. ~~~~}} – Awarded to an editor for creating a bot. {{Bot operator's barnstar|put your message here. ~~~~}} – Bot operator's barnstar, Coders need love too.Userbox and top icon {{User bot owner}} – a userbox template to indicate you own and run a bot. {{Bot topicon}} – a top icon template to indicate you have own and run a bot – adds a category to page automatically." 216 218 483 WP:CRYBLP "Wikipedia:Crying ""BLP!""" 216 "While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute. This essay attempts to outline good and bad uses of invoking BLP as a justification for an edit. ""Contentious"" should be narrowly construed Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject. There are plenty of facts or phrasings in editorial dispute that will not rise to the level of ""Person X is a child molester"" or ""Person Y is addicted to controlled substances"". The more tenuous and disputed the actual harm should be, the less weight a BLP argument holds, and the less community support there will tend to be for using extraordinary measures (ignoring 3RR or summarily blocking an editor) to ""enforce"" such BLP considerations.Facts are facts If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject.Assuming Good Faith applies. ... especially to edits introduced by other editors who have extensive and collaborative edit histories. For example, drive-by editors who assert sexual orientation without support should not be extended the same benefit of the doubt that might otherwise be extended to an editor in good standing who made a similar assertion that wasn't based on an independent, reliable source. In any case, the problematic material should be removed from the article immediately.Use the least disruptive means to solve the problem. Notify users of the perceived issue and revert as appropriate. Explicitly state that a BLP issue applies when making a second or subsequent reversion. If an administrator, prefer page protection before blocking in most cases. If an editor inserts clearly inappropriate material in multiple places, blocking is entirely appropriate, but content disputes between editors familiar with (though perhaps having differing perspectives on) Wikipedia policies should rarely escalate to such a level. Just because you are making content comply with the BLP policy does not give you the right to be incivil to someone who disagrees with you in good faith.Egregiousness must exceed involvement for involved administrator action. It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing The Washington Post in a manner with which you disagree.If you think it's a valid BLP issue, raise the issue without threatening an edit war If the community, via local or global consensus, disagrees with the claim that your reversions were justified by the BLP policy's exception to the edit warring policy for the removal of deficiently sourced ""contentious"" material, you may be blocked for edit warring. In borderline cases, this is unlikely, as long as the community can assume good faith that you sincerely thought you were following BLP's guidance. Take special care that all prongs of the BLP policy, as currently written, are met before invoking its powers to ignore 3RR: if an objectionable statement has a reliable source, it cannot be removed repeatedly without regard to the edit warring policy.Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors. Editors who cry ""BLP!"" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply. Referencing this essay in a discussion may be taken as an easy method of dismissing another editor's concerns. Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor's view before responding with a link here." 217 219 485 WP:TRIV Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections 217 "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as ""Trivia"", ""Facts"", ""Miscellanea"", ""Other information"" and ""Notes"" (not to be confused with ""Notes"" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10, 2005. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation: they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, editors encountering such lists may feel encouraged to add to them indiscriminately, and these lists may then end up becoming trivia magnets which are increasingly disorganized, unwieldy, and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, a list, or a table. Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if the trivia section contains sources for a particular aspect of the subject of the article, and then consider using the section items as a basis for a different article discussing that aspect. Items that duplicate material elsewhere in the article, have no support from reliable sources, or lack real importance can be removed in most cases. Research may be necessary to give each fact some context or to add references. Any speculative or factually incorrect entries should be removed, entries outside the scope of the article should be moved to other articles, and entries such as ""how-to"" material as well as tangential or irrelevant facts may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether. This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. In this guideline, the term ""trivia section"" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and ""unselective"" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Trivia sections found in other publications outside Wikipedia (such as IMDb) may contain speculation, rumor, invented ""facts"", or even libel. However, trivia sections (and others) in Wikipedia articles must not contain those, and their content must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research. It is always best to cite sources when adding new facts to a trivia section, or any other section. Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. Articles often include material about cultural references to the subject of the article. Sometimes this content is in its own section (""in popular culture"" is common, but also ""in the media"", ""cultural references"", ""in fiction"" etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose. When not effectively curated, such material can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view. As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears. Such prose might give a logically presented overview (chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences. Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any in-depth coverage of the subject of the article. Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included. Other guidance: See WP:No original research for why and how to avoid engaging in your own novel analysis of this coverage. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources for referencing standards. See WP:Neutral point of view for principles to apply in balancing Wikipedia treatment of cultural references to the subject. WP:IINFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (a Wikipedia policy) WP:""In popular culture"" content (an essay) Category:Articles with trivia sections Template:In popular culture Template:Trivia List of Wikipedia articles with trivia sections" 218 220 486 WP:KNOTS Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots 218 "WikiProject Knots The Constrictor knot article is the sample of this project. It should set the standard for how a knot article can look. To continue refinement of the standard template for how knots are documented. To bring knot up articles to a common standard. To categorize knots with respect to type and usage. Main article: Knot Knot categories: Category:Knots Knot components - (See talk page on proposed naming change from (knot) to (knot component))Started: Bight (knot), Turn (knot) Stubs: Loop (knot) Needed: Working part (knot), Standing part (knot)Ropework articles (Whipping, lashing, etc.) Classes of knots Individual knot articles Refine the template, see Template talk:Knot-details Refine categorisation of knots, see ongoing exchange in Category talk:Knots Concentrate on correcting errors in current knotting articles Adding proper references to all knotting articles currently lacking them. Check the image on the bight page, it seems there's an image showing ""An open loop (ABoK #31) of rope, narrower than a bight:"" but not one of a bight, itself. And after seeing that photo, which shows something that looks just like the bight in the bottom photo, I'm left wondering what the difference is between an ""open loop"" and a bight. === The value of personal experience === Personal experience with knots, while indisputably valuable to the project, is not a substitute for reliable published sources. The contributor's understanding of a given knot should inform the direction and focus of an article, but the factual content needs to be backed-up by verifiable sources. There are many examples in knotting literature of an echo chamber effect where the same information is repeated again and again in different works, giving the appearance of consensus and authority when in fact the original source is questionable or possibly downright wrong. In these cases it is the deeper knowledge of the expert editors that will facilitate an explanation of the conflicting information while still maintaining a neutral point of view. === The name is not the knot === People sometimes get overly attached to the name they learned for a knot. Contributors should remember that the article is about the knot itself; the name is not the knot. Since the same knot has often been discovered by multiple people, who speak different languages, at different times, the various names for many knots will need to be explained in a ""Naming"" or ""History"" section of the article. Names in languages other than English should only be included if they represent the source for the English name or otherwise figure prominently in the history of the knot. Of course the article itself must have a title and it should be chosen to represent the currently most recognizable name. The choice of titles holds special difficulty for knotting articles due to the historic vagaries of knot naming. Compared to most other significant areas of study, knot taxonomy (for non-mathematical purposes) has never satisfactorily been dealt with. === Defer to ABOK, but be willing to question it === Clifford W. Ashley gave us the closest thing we have to a proper knot taxonomy with his 1944 work The Ashley Book of Knots (ABOK). It is recommended his names be used when current common usage doesn't clearly indicate the proper choice. Ashley suffered health problems soon after his magnum opus was published and died a few years later. He was never able to oversee a second edition. Revisions were made by the International Guild of Knot Tyers in 1991, but errors remain. The work also continues to age, showing gaps as new knots and knotting materials are developed. For instance, on the subject of climbing knots, as they are currently used, ABOK is particularly weak. That said, ABOK remains an invaluable resource for the discussion of knots and dissemination of knotting knowledge. If you are going to be making serious contributions to knotting pages on Wikipedia you really should have access to a copy of this reference work. It is an expensive book, but if you have an interest in the subject of knotting it is well-worth the price. Also many public libraries have circulating copies which represent a viable, and cheaper, alternative. PDFs of the book are available on archive.org. , as well as many other sources. Ashley provides both a source for semi-canonical naming as well as unambiguous identification using the knot reference numbers. When confusion threatens, do not be afraid to resort of the use of Ashley's reference numbers. If you do so, it is helpful to provide an image with captions of the referenced knots including their Ashley names and numbers to help readers follow the discussion. Examples of articles making extensive use of ABOK reference numbers include Taut-line hitch, Rolling hitch, and Miller's knot. The case of the taut-line hitch may be instructive: the names for the adjustable loop form of the various rolling hitch variations are incredibly confusing and inconsistent. For the combined article on those variations a more modern name is used. It is reasonably well-known and it nicely descriptive, besides (arguably) having less association with a particular variation than the more ""traditional"" names. In cases where more recent works supersede, contradict, correct, or clarify Ashley, due weight should be given to reasonable and verifiable claims. Because ABOK is so widely known even erroneous information, clearly flagged as such, should be considered for mention. Other editors are likely to include it again in good faith as comprehensive errata information for ABOK is not generally available. Mr. Ashley himself describes a time setting of anything under 1"" was 'small stuff' and therefore a 'knot'. The Natural fibers gave more frictions, and held half as much; so more friction and surface area to hold the same load as Nylon/Polyester (to start). Somethings can use an extra Turn now to be as worthy etc.!Thetreespyder (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) === Scope of articles === Since Wikipedia is not inherently space constrained, the articles should contain as much useful information as possible about a given knot and its variations. Beyond just a simple description of the knot, sections on Naming or History, Usage, Tying, Variations, and Security are useful if good references can be cited. If multiple variations of a knot are shown or discussed but one is considered more secure, preferred in special cases, or easier to tie, be sure to note this clearly in the article. Always be sure to cite your sources on the critical subject of knot security. Remember to add {{WikiProject Knots}} template to the talk pages of new articles. While particular articles may have additional sections specific to a given knot, these are the recommended sections and ordering for non-stub knot articles: Infobox Template:Knot-detailsname= Canonical name (i.e. article title) names= Alternate names, comma separated image= Image, preferably showing the completed knot caption= Optional caption for image type= knot category, lower case (e.g. bend, binding, coil, hitch, stopper, etc.) type2= secondary type, optional, only for multi-purpose knots strength= Percent efficiency (Use discouraged due to difficulty assign values) origin= (Use discouraged, true origin of knots is notoriously difficult to establish.) related= Links to articles of related knots, comma separated releasing= jamming, non-jamming, other explanations optional uses= General statement about usage of knot, keep very brief caveat= Any warnings or unusual behavior regarding the knot abok_number= List of ABoK numbers referring to knot, in form ""#1234', bold major entriesLead History or Naming - Section name based on focus of content, if both fully covered use History Tying Variations (optional) Usage Releasing (optional) Security Standard appendices and descriptions === Creating images for knot articles === Given the difficulty in verbally describing the forms of knots and tying methods, the inclusion of images, diagrams, or other illustrations in knotting articles is strongly encouraged. Above all, make absolutely certain your illustrations are correct. Knotting literature is rife with examples of incorrect diagrams and pictures. Having no image for an article is better than including an incorrect one. When creating graphical depictions of knots, tying methods, or usage examples, it is important to avoid potential visual ambiguities. Make sure that all crossings of the knot can clearly be seen in the graphics, in some cases this will mean spreading the knot out artificially when making the image or diagram. Adhering to certain visual conventions can help make your images more useful to the reader. Be careful to keep end(s) of the rope within the frame when picturing knots which rely on the end being threaded while tying. This helps differentiate the standing part from the working part. Likewise, the standing part should be shown exiting the frame. For knots tied in the bight, both ends should exit the frame. These conventions may need to be broken in particular cases, but keep them in mind. When taking photographs of knots it is best to use solid colored rope, plain neutral backgrounds, and plenty of lighting that highlights the three dimensional relationship between the parts of the knot. Avoid using white or black rope in your knot images. And more generally, avoid excessive contrast between the foreground and background, as this can present exposure difficulties for digital cameras. === Writing about methods and usage === Practical knots are functional constructs and descriptions of their usage and method of formation are integral to comprehensive encyclopedia articles about them. Due to possible conflicts with WP:NOT#IINFO, ""4. Instruction manuals"", contributors should make every effort to maintain a purely descriptive tone when writing about the usage and tying of knots. The use of verifiable and reliable sources is critical to avoid NPOV issues, especially regarding the ""best"" ways to tie or use a knot, one knot's superiority over another, and other potentially subjective claims. === Consolidation of closely related knots and variations === The impulse to separate every single distinct knot onto its own page has the undesired side effect of fragmenting the discussion of how knots are related. It also makes comparisons between variations more cumbersome for the user. Obviously a line does need to be drawn somewhere, else we'd end up with a single article containing every conceivable knot! However in cases where there's close historical, taxonomic, or structural similarity between multiple knots, having redirects pointing to a common page makes a lot of sense. ==== Examples ==== The Slipped buntline hitch should redirect to Buntline hitch since it is a trivial but important variation which is best be illustrated on the Buntline hitch page. As a counter-example, the Water bowline should not be redirected to Bowline as its structure and behavior are quite distinct from the basic Bowline. More complex situations might require different strategies. In the case of the Rolling hitch and Taut-line hitch several names have historically been used to refer to a number of similar but distinct knots in confusing and conflicting ways. The solution here was to divide the set of knots into two functional groups, hitches directly around an object and adjustable loops where the hitch is made around the standing part. The variations of each are discussed these two pages with appropriate cross references. If each distinct variation had its own page there would be up to 6 articles with either redundant information, incomplete articles, or a mire of cross-references. When a knot has two (or more) well established names which are consistently found in entirely separate contexts it may be reasonable to maintain distinct articles for each of the names with appropriate cross-references between them. For example the four-in-hand knot used to fasten neckties is technically exactly the same as a buntline hitch. With so much history behind both names there seems little likelihood sailors would ever refer to ""their"" hitch as a four-in-hand or haberdashers to a buntline hitch. Although this contradicts ""the name is not the knot"", it would seem there are cases where common sense should prevail. No parent of this WikiProject has been defined. No descendant WikiProjects have been defined. Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts (WP:TA) Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing (WP:CLIMB) Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing vessels and rigging (WP:SAIL) samw OJW Smack (talk) Johan Andersson Dfred dddstone User:WikipedianYknOK Bu_b0y2007 talk Tylerp9p User talk:Tylerp9p - BSA Eagle Scout / Knot Efficienato Nodurosul Knotaholic ForemastJack Arbitrarily0 (talk) John Cross AAshortfin Rabbitflyer (talk) Buz11 (talk) The {{WikiProject Knots}} Template is used on the talk pages. The {{User Wikiproject Knots}} Template is used on a member's user page. For more detail about the recommended structure of knot articles, please see discussion above in the Guidelines section. /General Wikipedia:WikiProject_Knots/Watchlist, triggered off of Category:Knots I've seen wikipedia entries that are how-to articles get edited out because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be how-to. I've long felt that was too doctrinaire. Knots are a nice place to include step by step instructions. It's so nice to show people how to make the knots, perhaps allowing individual to make the knot and work it while reading about the knot. I hope the excellent illustrative photographs or drawings are kept. Kd4ttc (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)" 219 221 488 WP:CBTF Wikipedia:WikiProject Community 219 "Welcome to the Community WikiProject! Home of the Community Builders TaskForce and all things Community! • Communicate • join This project's primary purpose is to build and manage Portal:Community (Wikipedia Community Reference) - a guide to articles that deal with the definitions of community and community development in general. The secondary purpose is to apply what we learn from that reference to the Wikipedia Community itself. Stepfather: WikiProject Sociology Possible real dad: WikiProject Wikidemia Mother: The Wikipedia Community m:BabyWikipedia - a local context version of the Wikipedia for towns, counties, regions and cities Wikipedia:WikiProject_Keywords - A tool for handling metadata from a userland perspective Wikipedia:WikiProject_Culture - a project for aggregating articles about Culture and helping to manage Portal:Culture Wikiversity - a free on-line learning community where self-expression is allowed and originality is encouraged Similar WikiProjects are: WikiProject Family and relationships WikiProject Ecology WikiProject Ecoregions WikiProject Urban studies and planning This project Community falls under The Social sciences as an Academic discipline in Sociology relating to Community, Community studies, Community development and other branches of Science such as Communications and Computational sociology. The project scope branches and interfaces hierarchically to: Anthropology <- Cultural anthropology Psychology <- Community psychology Technology <- Communications Geography <- Social geography === Primary (encyclopedic) Project Goals === To apply higher standards for Wikipedia - the encyclopediaWikipedia:Version 1.0 Wikipedia:Peer ReviewTo develop a uniform reference for curriculum in community studies - the Wikipedia Community Reference To help in the Categorization of various kinds of Communities and Community-related topics To identify and promote articles that may serve to improve:Internet standards relating to Virtual community Community standards relating to Citizenship === Secondary (applied) Project Goals === To help catylize positive work on Projects within Wikipedia - the Community To help facilitate a tighter community with Wikipedia sister projects To improve interpersonal relationships between Netizens in general - Sense of community To invoke the Spirit of Community in the context of a free global Internet.See /Communitas! Community has been nominated as a ""Good article"". It is was on COTF. Portal:Community is also in the process of being aligned with the main article to provide easy navigation along the pathways of community topics. The List of community topics provides a classification of much Wikipedia content related to community and is this project's tool for keeping things organised and handy. === Featured article candidates === These aren't nominated anywhere but here (so far): Sense of community well written citing numerous sources. Community of practice fairly well developed Virtual community well developed and of great interest Intentional community topically interesting and relevant === Good article nominees === Community - Core topic === Needing attention === Virtual community - important article Open source intelligence === Key articles === These articles are (or will be ) referred to in sections and subsections of the main Community article and (or) the Community Portal: Community (disambiguation) Community studies Sense of community International community Community psychology Community development Virtual community Intentional community ... === Related articles === List of community topics: Community (disambiguation), Organizational learning, Community development, Community building, Community organizing, Meritocracy, Computational sociology, Communitarianism, Organizational Development, Ecovillage, Global Ecovillage Network, Cooperative, Collectivism, Collective, Commune, Sense of community, Network of practice, Communication, Plenary, Gathering place, Affinity, Group, Community Boards, Community garden, Global Village, Global village, World Community, World community, Gathering place, The Well, The Farm, ... ==== Types of communities ==== Category:Types of communities: Community of action Community of circumstance Community of interest Community of place Community of position Community of purpose Community of practice Intentional community Virtual community Learning community Professional Learning Community ==== Types of cooperatives ==== Cooperatives: Housing cooperative Retailers' cooperative Supermarket cooperative Utility cooperative Worker cooperative === Pages listed for deletion === Night soil man (via WP:PROD) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Community building Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Community Justice The Social Capital Foundation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Social Capital Foundation (16 October 2007 – 21 October 2007) Keep === Portals === Portal:Community - The Community reference - is under construction. /Portal - Queue and archiveAn outline of things to include can be found here. Instructions for editing a portal can be found here ==== Related Portals ==== Wikipedia:Community_Portal (for Wikipedians) Portal:Sociology (proposed) Portal:Society Portal:Culture This box shows a summary of Community articles by quality. The following sections outline the process we're using to gather and cite sources, rewrite and refine community-related articles, and develop topically arranged navigational aids for our readers and editors. We are continually in need of participants, whether they join this project or not. WikiProject Community is designed to be a community of practice akin to those who produce professional academic journals. We take the subject very seriously as Wikipedians interested in sociology, and are taking the tools ""up one level"" to support WikiProject Sociology. These tools were first used by WikiProject Chemistry. WikiProject The Beatles and many other WikiProjects have been instrumental in improving them. This project also extends to Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikia and other Wiki sites through the /Communitas! program. === Classification === The current classification of Wikipedia articles relating to community can be found at the List of community topics. This list is mirrored here in the Community WikiProject space on /Organization from which the following /Assessment subpage is built. The goal of this subpage is to organise all of the content, comprehensively, according to its importance and relevance. Once we finish that task, we will produce another subpage, /Classification. === Assessment === We're working with the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team to begin the process of pulling all community related articles up toward featured or at least good article status. The /Assessment page will contain Community articles by importance and Community articles by quality. We will be using the List of community topics and the main Community article as structural guides with a long-term goal of bringing Portal:Community up to Featured portal status. See Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects for more information. === Outreach === The local encyclopedic portal has counterparts on other sites: Community Studies at Wikiversity b:Community studies at Wikibooks community.wikia.com m:Communitas at Meta ... ==== Newsletter ==== /Newsletter • Sent out mainly when something significant is going on. === Infoboxes === WikiProject Community for talk pages of community-related articles: {{WikiProject Community}} Community User Box for WikiProject Community and TaskForce members: {{User Community}} - discussClicking on What links here reveals all articles linked to this WikiProject in this way. To discuss which Articles to add to (or remove from) the Articles list, please use our project's talk page. Please Don't place this infobox on an article page! To learn more about WikiProject management, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Best_practices See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Adding_to_the_lists_of_subjects to see how to help set up the bot for the /Assessment tools See Wikipedia:Userboxes === Tags === {{socio-stub}}: The socio-stub tag can be used on articles you'd like to ""pull into"" this project at the parent level. Consider our lineage: Social sciences Sociology Community These Categories yield articles that relate to Community, Communities and Community topics: === Community === Community • Top-level Category Category:Communities • actual communities of many types Category:Types of communities • about those types Category:Intentional communities • examples of type Category:Virtual communities • examples of type Category:Community development • formal, institutional and other ways to improve communities Category:Community-building organizations • some of these are activist - some not Category:Community building • less formal and less activist-oriented Category:Community organizing • less formal and more activist-oriented Category:Community organizers • notable community organizers Category:Community and social services occupations === Sociology === Category:Sociology: Category:Social philosophy Category:Social sciences Category:Behavioural sciences Category:Organizations Category:Organizational_studies_and_human_resource_management === Psychology === Category:Psychology Category:Social psychology === About Categorization === Category:Community — a Subcategory of Category:Sociology is the main category for this WikiProject. Our intent is to conform to the suggestions and guidelines of WikiProject Categories to create logical and complete category schemes without too much redundancy. Please participate in the discussions here and / or here after reading some things like this. Welcome to the Community Builders Task Force ""Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."" -- Jimmy Wales Notes on Community and Catalysis --lilo @ freenode Bootcamp: An IRC-enhanced training program for new Wikipedians. WikiProject: A set of project management workspaces for groups working on related articles and shared interests. === Applied community development at Wikipedia === A community builder is a person that is committed to getting in and learning how a community is organized, who's who, what's what, where things are and how things are done. Our focus areas are User categorisation, Classification and Wikipedia Version 1.0. Our approach is to build a sense of community upon our sense of place, our shared interests and our common work methods. Our goal is to initiate a community building culture that we call Communitas — the spirit of community. We have put into place a structure of meaning that we believe is shared by a substantial number of Wikipedians. This structure is best seen by looking at the topics at Top-importance community articles. We are going to set up a massive collaboration effort in a program we call /Communitas! The purpose of this project is to produce a professional quality community development journal focused from within online communities called Communitas! ==== Main table ==== WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology Wikipedia:WikiProject CommunityThe table below identifies some logical starting points from a WP:CBTF perspective. Feel free to add it to your User page and work with it. discuss === Elsewhere on the Web === About the Wikimedia project: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/Wikia: http://community.wikia.com http://collaboration.wikia.com http://nyc.wikia.com http://kentucky.wikia.com Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. Welcome to the Community community! To join: Register/Login to Wikipedia, [ edit source ], find a proper place of your username in the alphabetical order below, start a new line with *, three tildes ~~~, and an optional short note about yourself, Show Preview, Save Page, then scroll down to Now what? Thanks! Bellagio99 Interested in community as social networks. I will lurk for a while to learn as this is my first Wikiproject. CassDroid User:ComputerGuy890100 Computerjoe's talk Cormaggio Covington CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] Ermeyers Homecommunity (talk) Interested in urban farming and sustainable food systems/hubs in low-income communities, especially re: food entrepreneurship Jamesrnorwood I'm new to the project but will help out anywhere I can. Kentuckay Khecaji Internet is providing people across the globe with new possibilities to share and evolve common interests - that's fascinating. Especially interested in how knowledge workers are using the new possibilities. matt.9.johnson (talk) mennonot - I'm especially interested in classification of various kinds of Communities. Has anyone started on this? Mr.Bip Quinobi a.k.a. CQ Peaceray (talk) Sean (talk || contribs) ShabbyHoose ShaunMacPherson +sj + TBCRogers Interested in coming together in partnership with various community leaders, developers, and organizers, who want to spread the message of expanding programs/services to those who need them the most nationally and internationally. Tractor (implement) User:Sm8900 I'd be very interested to get this WikiProject up and running again. please feel free to ping me if interested! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Go out and play, stay and play, and/or/and both. Job #1: have fun. Job #2: while doing that, try to improve the quality of articles that relate to the community stuff we do. For example (f.e): Improve the Community article - this is the main one - Needs Improvement. As of 11.29.15, I'd give it an F for Funny. [that's LeoRomero snarking. NB: No snarking on Wikipedia. Also, no pretending to be Roman by using NB, e.g., i.e, etc. Plain English versions: N!, f.e, t.i, a.so. (PS: PS is still PS)] Improve any article in our Template (that box on the right); apply the template to the article you fixed (if it's not already there) by typing {{Community}} where it belongs in the article you improved Improve the template: this will be the Table of Contents to The Encyclopedia of Community on Wikipedia Improve this Community Project Page Improve the Outline Improve Community portal Spellcheck, copyedit, dejargonificize - clear and simple as the truth Talk among yourselves Kick back and watch Community come to life Do whatever you like" 220 222 489 WP:MMANOT Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability 220 "MMA notability, also known as WP:MMANOT, is an essay to give some guidance on points to consider when discussing the notability of the subjects of mixed martial arts (MMA) articles. It is a specific supplement to the overall policy of Wikipedia:Notability relating to mixed martial arts and in no way supersedes it. These guidelines were created by WikiProject Mixed martial arts to help assess the notability of the subjects of articles. Feel free to discuss improvements on the project talk page or the discussion area for this page (WT:MMANOT). Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organization under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a title, the organization which sanctioned the event would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion. Google and other search engines are a useful tool for finding sources, and may sometimes be persuasive (very high or very low result counts), but is not proof of whether or not something is notable (see WP:Google test). Using quotes around the search (""mixed martial art fighter"") will look for only exact matches and using -Wikipedia at the end will remove self references. The methodology used to establish the list of notable organizations is given in the section listing notable organizations. Criteria supporting notability Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.Criteria supporting deletion Has only promoted a single event. Short history as an organization. Few notable fighters fight in their events. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies. Amateur MMA fighters are not considered notable (unless they can pass WP:GNG under other criteria). Criteria supporting notability Been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (Sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (FightMatrix.com).Criteria supporting deletion Only amateur bouts Few fights for top-tier organizations Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event. Should an event be evaluated as lacking in individual notability, alternatives to deletion (such as merging) should be preferred over outright deletion in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. This list is subject to change as organizations grow, merge, or go out of business. Changes in this list should be made by consensus after discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. The list is divided into two tiers. The top tier is the highest level. The organizations in this list were determined by looking at independent world rankings of male MMA fighters in June, 2010, and the Unified Women's Mixed Martial Arts world rankings of female MMA fighters in October, 2012. Active organizations with multiple male fighters ranked in the top 10 in any of the 9 weight classes, or at least three female fighters ranked in the top 5 (regardless of weight class), were placed in the top tier. Organizations with two female fighters ranked in the top 5 were placed in the second tier. Defunct and other active organizations were placed based on consensus agreement. The last consensus agreement on this topic was to change the required number of ranked fighters to six for a top tier organization (see here-1). Bellator men and women added to top tier from 2022 and 2021 respectively based on consensus agreement (see here-2)" 221 223 490 WP:ARBAP2 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 221 "Case opened on 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Case closed on 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Case amended by motion on 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. === Involved parties === Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ==== Added by motion ==== A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Konveyor Belt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) LM2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) === Prior dispute resolution === March 17, 2015: Collect's talk page March 17, 2015: ANI March 16, 2015: ANI March 15, 2015: MrX's talk page February 15, 2015: Collect's talk page December 31, 2014: MrX's talk page May 18, 2009: Declined Arcom case April 15, 2009: RFC/U === Filing by MrX === MrX filed a request for arbitration with regards to Collect. That request resulted in the opening of two cases, this one regarding the American politics topic area, and a separate one regarding Collect. MrX's statment does not relate to the American politics topic area and so they have been removed as a party from this case at their request and their statement moved to the talk page. It remains as part of the ""Collect and others"" case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Collect === OK -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush Which is the actual sum total of the actual complaint here. See whether my position appears to be supported by consensus or whether the position of the complainants on that issue have been supported by community consensus. Note the amount of support for SYNTH and/or BLP issues being clear. Note that I have been subjected to multiple AN/I threads - all having the same basic complaints and all having the same basic population. Note that I had an SPI complaint - involving some of the same basic population. Note that I have been Harassed repeatedly - including a ""new section"" on my user talk page: Is Florida a ""fringe"" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas? I am getting rather tired of all this stuff, the overt repeated attacks on me, and the absurd SPI complaint, etc. I provide no evidence - the evidence is around you - look at the remarks pasted concerning me by the same small group of editors. I make no complaint here about them - such statements as they make will likely duplicate statements made over and over in the belief of ""proof by iteration"" alas. But when a single editor posts over 40K of ""complaints"" about me personally in under three weeks, I think I should be terse indeed. See [1] with the close: Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) JzG Followed by a demand for a ban -- and this response: Oppose this sanction, support application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) and multiple agreements on that. This current action is ""vexatious litigation"" and possibly harassment to boot. Kindly deal as needed. Collect (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Oh -- for the claim I accused others of McCarthyism - the only salient quote of mine I could find was[2] To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be ""merged"" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. It is noted that personal anecdotes have no relationship to policy, and at least one editor interprets this as attacking him personally, even though it was given only to show my personal state of mind about such SYNTH usage Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (emended to make clear the personal issue I have was historical, and not a personal accusation in any way, shape or form, about any editor on Wikipedia using such WP:SYNTH as such) Collect (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) MrX seems to think my reasonable animus to what happened to a friend of a relative is in any way an attack on current editors. It is not, and was not, such. Collect (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)By the way, I shall limit my entire participation to my comments above in the belief that any further engagement on the PNAC BLP/SYNTH is not salubrious for Wikipedia. Let the AfD be settled, and let everyone abide by that result in peace. Collect (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Um -- Viriditas is the precise person who proposed calling Florida a ""fringe state"" and otherwise harassed me - and had been instructed to not do so in future. For him or her to assert he or she is ""uninvolved"" is a long stretch indeed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Harassment.2C_hounding_and_baiting_by_Viriditas_at_User_talk:Collect closed all of 9 days ago - which I suspect is telling about the harassment problem. Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I ask each ""essay"" be examined and discussed individually. Also that the claims that my positions are politically biased be checked by actual examination of edits in context and not by ""diffs"", and examination of all the BLPs I have edited, and not by measuring repetition of accusations. Again, I specifically decline to participate in a witch-hunt, and ask that the arbitrators examine all of my essays de novo, and not based on iterated opinions but on the original evidence. I feel I have been a net asset to Wikipedia, and that my removal will not in any way benefit the project, but that is my personal opinion only. If you feel that the project benefits from my departure, then that is the right of the committee. For form's sake, I specifically ask that the committee examine the Editor Interaction tool results to see whether I have been ""chasing"" anyone at all over four thousand and more pages, and whether any editors providing comments have been, instead, chasing me. Also I suggest a general CU to ensure that all participants are, indeed, separate individuals as a matter of form rather than as any accusation of multiple personas. I ask that my list of blocks presented on my talk page be examined, with findings made on each block, as that appears to be one issue at hand. Any improper or marginal blocks should be then discounted. I ask that the partial list of articles edited from my user page be examined to see how widespread any problems actually are out of several thousand articles. Again I trust my requests will be met as otherwise there is to be no evidence at all to be presented by me, other than the words I have already written and my deeds already done. I have been through this sort of witch hunt before when Ikip front-loaded an RFC/U with fourteen CANVASSed editors, and I do not care - just ask that the process be based on full and complete examination of my edits. I am currently beset on multiple sides - and some Arbs already do have possession of the Harassment evidence. These should not be onerous requests as otherwise I shall be mute. As such is the case, I am done with this case, come what will. Here I stand. Collect (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Volunteer Marek === Broadly speaking I'm uninvolved here, although of course being active on Wikipedia I've ran across a few of the people listed above. With respect to MrX's statement about Collect, frankly, I think it is ridiculous to single out some essays someone has written (and AFAICT, misrepresent them) as a basis for an ArbCom case request. Even without reading further into MrX's statement that right there raises red flags about MrX's good faith. THAT kind of manipulative behavior is an example of battleground mentality, not the mere fact that someone wrote some essay that someone else doesn't like. I also think that the accusation that Collect ""insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP"" is... an unintentional compliment. We probably need more of that not less. The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Wikipedia style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were ""teh worst thing ever!!!!"". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request. With respect to Dear ODear ODear's statement above, I roughly agree. My interactions with Ubikwit have been unpleasant to say the least, and I do think that user has a serious problem when it comes to, at least, Kagan and Nuland (as I'm not really active in Israel-Palestine topics, I can't comment more broadly), and yes, they do dance right on, if not over the BLP line. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by MastCell === I think that there is a long-term, ongoing behavioral issue with Collect which warrants review by ArbCom. Briefly, by way of background: Collect has racked up 8 blocks for edit-warring, each time on a politically charged and ideologically divisive topic. (One of these was overturned by consensus, and on many other occasions he was unblocked early with a promise to behave). His block log understates the degree of edit-warring, as he has been let off with warnings for additional 3RR violations and instances of unrepentant edit-warring (e.g. here). In the Tea Party case, Collect was identified as being excessively dismissive and inflammatory in his interactions with other editors, and was topic-banned for 6 months as a result. Since the expiration of his topic ban, Collect's edit-warring has ramped up, most recently leading to a week-long block this month. Swarm (talk · contribs), the admin who placed the most recent edit-warring block on Collect, wrote:... you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except ""letting him have plenty of rope"". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring. ([3]) ... which I view as a good summary of Collect's pattern of problematic behavior and which, I think, will be detailed if or when a case is opened.Collect's approach to content disputes is fundamentally maddening and uncollaborative. He habitually misrepresents sources, refuses to engage other editors' arguments, employs strawmen, and stonewalls rather than admit error. Collect presents himself as a stalwart defender of WP:BLP. I think he misuses this policy opportunistically to excuse his own edit-warring and applies it thoughtlessly and carelessly. I will also (if this case is accepted) present at least 2 egregious BLP violations committed by Collect, which I cleaned up, and for which he refused to take responsibility. In general, I think he lacks an understanding of the letter and the spirit of BLP and his focus on this policy, while not always misguided, has done more harm than good.At a minimum, I think there is evidence here to suggest that this is an editor with a history of suboptimal behavior (as identified and sanctioned previously by ArbCom) and a long-standing and escalating habit of edit-warring on ideologically charged topics. I think a case should be opened, because there is no other venue to deal with disruptive behavior from long-term, established editors. As should be evident from the statements here, this dispute is quite heated and involves a number of established editors. If not addressed, it will continue to fester and harm the encyclopedia. I think the charge of ""forum-shopping"" is sort of ridiculous, since with the closure of WP:RFC/U, there is no other forum to address such issues. MastCell Talk 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by MONGO === Collect has been the object of attention by those that disagree with his politics for some time now and it is high time the witch hunt, baiting, harassment and personal attacks against him are put to an end. I have limited time to provide evidence for several days but will add at least one additional party to this case at that time.--MONGO 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Diff showing complaint about Viriditas harassing Collect--MONGO 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) personal attack against me by Viriditas Viriditas warning to cease hounding me which happened in this thread MrX badgering JzG about closing a complaint about Collect in section ""Your ANI close"" MrX accuses Collect of forum shopping then proceeds to say he's taking further action (aka forum shopping) and finishes by insulting me after I advise him and others to disengage. Here, while successful, it should be noted that MrX has just recently asked for sanctions against another editor that is not liberal. MrX defends an editor with a similar political outlook to his own, even though that editor was using less then sensational references to support a sensational claim on a BLP. That same editor that MrX was defending has been blocked five times in the last year. Why is MrX so happy to defend what appears to be nothing more than a troublesome editor, but wants to come after Collect, over and over. Its really pretty easy to see the issue here if anyone looks at it with NPOV and justice in mind. In this discussion Collect is questioning the supporting evidence for labelling a BLP subject as a neoconservative or neocon. As I stated in the subsection that follows, liberals like to toss that label around like an epithet. Collect recognizes that as well and is in disagreement with Ubikwit who is searching for more evidence to support that label. Point is, since Ubikwit is liberal and liberals toss that label around like an epithet, the issue is that it becomes a BLP violation in the context it is being used. The talkpage is bogged down with liberals trying to figure out a way to discredit the BLP subject and little or no discussion about how to improve the rest of the article. I resent Ubikwit's commentary that I was trolling him as he makes below. I queried him why he, a liberal, is interested in only adding negative information to a BLP on a conservative. The entire talk page on that article is littered with repeated efforts by Ubikwit to find ways to disparage that subject. It's actually very ugly that he has no other apparent interest in that article. I referenced this in my last comment. Why does the website allow this misuse of BLP to stand. He has no business behaving in this manner on any BLP, and his block log seems to indicate this.I expect this case to be accepted and will resume adding diffs of named parties during the evidence stage.--MONGO Ubikwit has resorted to once again labeling my sincerely questioning as ""trolling"". An injunction may be needed in this matter.Courcelles, my argument is that Collect has been hounded, baited and harassed by multiple editors, which are named. There are likely others, so while it may appear to be about politics, its about harassment by a clique that want to eliminate Collect because he makes it more difficult for them to violate BLP and misuse this website to POV push.--MONGO 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) The case should be about Collect and those that have been in disagreements with him. If we have had two other arbcom cases then no reason for a third if DS can be implemented. Why is arbcom creating more work for everyone?--MONGO 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Still cannot understand why the need for an American Politics case overall. Especially difficult to grasp why we toss in Tea Party and Gun Control...why not also include Climate Change, alledged Police Militarization, the Occupy Movement and every other hit button topic. If you want a secondary case, then make it about BLP, and use it to implement BLP bans on editors that edit BLPs of persons they disagree with and filibuster adding only negative stuff to those articles.--MONGO 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Ubikwit === I'm going to keep this brief by incorporating the pertinent matter from a recently declined request I filed here involving Collect.[4]@Courcelles: I agree with Floquenbeam and NE Ent regarding the scope of the case. I also think that the preventative measures implemented should include the imposition of discretionary sanctions across the entirety of American politics. The current status of only have recourse to AN/I seems to be too permissive and some editors take that as a license for abuse, and groups can game that system. In addition to the mention I made at the recently closed An\N/I of Collect's complaining about my edits at the PNAC article to Swarm, including the expected unsubstantiated claims of BLP violations, etc: PNAC ""PNAC: FGS do something"" ""PNAC: and yes - he keeps on!""Only one other editor commented in that thread“Yup”He also tried to provoke me at another article to which he followed my edits, and then complained to Callanecc here. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Even with this request under consideration, MONGO has tried to trollbait and provoke me with personal attacks, etc.,[5][6] at a page he's not been active on before[7]. Note that I do not recall having interacted with MONGO significantly on any article on Wikipedia. Accordingly, while I think that the central issue of the case should be Collect's conduct, the question as to the scope of the case may require some deliberation so as not to be overly constrained, yet not unwieldy. Incorporating ""Neoconservativism"", as per EvergreenFir's suggestion might accommodate that. Perhaps something along the lines of ""American Politics III, User:Collect and Neoconservativism, broadly construed"". I understand that the scope of Collect's misconduct would thereby be constrained, but there is no doubt sufficient misconduct there to keep the Committee busy for a month or two.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Just a note that I've seen the statement of LM2000, and would reiterate that many of the RfC's started by Collect at various venues have been pointy diversions from the task of drafting wording corresponding to reliably sourced statements and the positions described thereby. I believe that the misrepresentations of my edits by LM2000's statement have been adequately addressed in other threads, including (Sam Harris AN/I 2), so I won't go through that again here. Suffice it to say, that insofar as the political implications of the writings and public statements of Sam Harris have resulted in his being described as espousing right-wing, neoconservative views, etc., the material falls under the scope of American politics.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Note on scope If two cases are to be opened and one is to be on American politics, broadly construed, then it would seem that practically the entirety of the case I requested with respect to the problems on the Sam Harris article should be addressed. Aside from adding LM2000 as a party, others would certainly include Xenophrenic, etc. It would have been preventative to have dealt with the issues then, but here we are again with an even bigger problem. Although this request was filed against Collect, a couple of editors are trying to make a scapegoat of me, diverting from the egregious misconduct of Collect. Accordingly, there would seem to be further issues regarding delimiting the parties of the second case that the Committee has to deliberate. Aside from Mongo's personal attacks and inflammatory remarkstrolling, Capitalismojo has also appeared out of the blue at a couple of articles/talk pages and edited in a disruptive manner. I should note that he was also a party to the Tea Party case, but dropped out of sight during the case, and avoided sanctions. [8] After I reply “WP:NOTBATTLE”, he thanked me and deleted offending material, then I thanked him.Then, he shows up at another article he'd never edited, as follows. first ever edit here, no participation in discussion/RfC at Talk, but moves sentence from lead, questions whether it is due at all apparently hasn’t read the sources and doesn’t even understand that the letter was not a personal letter, yet claims text is pointy and tendentious, after acknowledging that the sentence inserted by Collect “looks inane”, and doesn't respond to replies by JBH and me. Lastly, @Courcelles: If Collect is not to be named as a party in the second case, that might save work for him, but will probably result in increasing the burden on me, and my conduct is not the subject of this request, though many of Collect's partisan collaborators are trying to make it one. That would result in a patently an unacceptable demand on my time.And I repeat, I am not the subject of this request. Therefore, I'm going to have to insist that my concerns be taken into consideration as well.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC) OK, I've added the diffs, and submit that the editing of Mongo and Capitalismojo (most of it after this request was underway) is representative of a group dynamic among partisans that edit paying no attention to the sources in a manner focused on ""the opponent"" and attempting to obstruct the introduction of all sourced content that they find negative with respect to their ideology and associated figures.And one other point, though I haven't been around here long enough to have the perspective of Cla68, among the administrators here, the use of the tools by MastCell could use scrutiny, particularly with respect to User:Is not a/User:Dear ODear ODear, whom was indeffed as a result of this AN/I I filed[9]. MastCell revealed his partisan sympathies with this comment Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. There was an open RfC on one link and the claim of edit warring questionableas I described here in reply, and that was closed in favor of restoring the link, a tertiary source without a single objectionable source linked in it. There was nothing ""extremely dubious"" about that link, or the other one, for that matter. I don't care what MastCell's politics are, only that they maintain their bias(pov) within NPOV an in relation to the sources, like everyone else, and not denigrate (in this case, a form of misrepresentation as ""not RS"") sources they don't agree with when making an administrative statement.It would seem to me that such act facilitated the continual disruption at the same articles/topics, when a topic ban proposal would seem to have been in order, because it is not clear why he would acknowledge misconduct but then state, in a manner such as to preempt even the pursuit of a topic ban, etc., ""the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics""(same diff). Moreover, the account under which the user resumed editing has few edits, while the editor earlier demonstrated substantial Wikipedia knowledge, and had refused to respond to a question I posed at his UT page as to the existence of a possible COI. I understand that there is a disclosure system regarding alternative accounts so as to protect privacy, but that seems subject to being abused/gamed. In this case, it resulted in a second SPI being filed against the same user, wasting everybody's time, basically, yet MastCell was not around to perform any preemptive administrative action to prevent that in relation to the user that had apparently pre-disclosed to him. In short, I'm not sure whether he abused the tools, but his actions as an administrator in that case--as well as in at least one other mentioned in the request for arbitration I filed (he closed an AN/I thread on Collect prematurely, perhaps)--bears scrutiny.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Note, I am aware that my statement exceeds the limit, but there seems to be no alternative in addressing the proposed scope of the(se) cases due to the obvious extenuating circumstances, including the request I filed a short while ago that was declined but is now being reintroduced in conjunction with the extraordinary suggestion of opening two overlapping, related cases in parallel, etc. Of course, I will reduce the text upon request by the Committee.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by mostly uninvolved Gaijin42 === Only involvement was commenting at the AFD. Somethign to criticize all around, but this does seem a bit like forum shopping in the face of a fairly strong consensus against the filing party's argument, especially in light of the multiple other venues that have been tried recently by various participants. I suggest that this case should be declined and the PNAC and related articles be placed under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. The continued issues (if any) could then be dealt with swiftly by normal admin processes or WP:AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by uninvolved A1candidate === I consider myself to be uninvolved in this particular dispute, but I note the following points: 1) Administrator JzG closed the ANI thread before the community had much of a chance to participate [10] 2) Administrator JzG contributed to the inflammatory environment by demanding ""application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party"" [11]""; this statement is likely to further offend the filing party. 3) When asked to clarify his actions, administrator JzG bluntly dismissed the filing party's case as ""a rallying cry to attract supporters"" [12] This administrator has shown similar patterns of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in many other disputes. He also uses abusive language [13] and invokes his admin status to silence other editors [14]. He bites the newcomers [15][16], attacks other editors by labelling them ""apologist"" in the edit summary [17] and accuses them of being ""quackery supporters"" [18]. I think it is time for the Committee to take action. === Statement by Cla68 === There has been ongoing battle between two loosely associated groups of editors in WP for years. One side appears to favor left-wing/liberal, environmental, anti-religion, dogmatic western science/medicine activism, and the other is more right-wing/conservative/libertarian, pro-free market capitalism, religion, and theistic science. Several of the names listed above are heavily involved in one side or the other, including several admins who really don't hide very well that they are trying to support one of group of editors using their admin privileges. If the ArbCom and all the editors involved are up to it, why not get this all out in the open now and get this area cleaned up? The constant conflicts and POV-pushing by these groups of editors, many of them long-time, heavily involved participants here, is one of the main reasons, IMO, that WP has had such a hard time recruiting new volunteers the last few years. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by mostly uninvolved RightCowLeftCoast === While there is WP:STRAIGHT, I have to mostly agree with the above statement. What I have seen is an effort to, through consensus of those opposed to the ""more right-"" side of the political spectrum, achieve negative actions being taken to those editors who aren't in favor of the ""left-wing"" side of issues. Whether it be banning, topic banning, or other things (Example, why has there been an effort (or was an effort) to delete WikiProject Conservatism while there hasn't been an effort to delete other wikiprojects with political scopes). This is just another attempt. If WP:BATTLEGROUND is being argued, that can be argued for many listed here, and myself, and many more not listed here (including a few now on this committee and commenting here). Not that it is true, not that all editors aren't attempting to improve Wikipedia (I am of the view that most editors who are involved with editing political articles, who might come up in this discussion, believe that they are doing the best thing for the article, even if those with opposing political views believe that they are not). But slowly working to remove editors who do not share one's political spectrum, will not lead to a better project, and likely lead to the old issues of non-neutrality, which have since been improved upon (a work in progress IMHO).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) What I disagree with is that this has affected bringing in new editors. I believe it hasn't, and is due to other things.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Found my way here due to an AfD--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by uninvolved Viriditas === I wholeheartedly support Gaijin42's proposal above; please decline this case and place the relevant articles under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. I've actually been discussing this very proposal for several months. It seems that several of the editors named as involved are getting more and more disruptive in the American politics topic area. Collect's behavior on the PNAC articles as described above seems to be very similar to MONGO's on American Sniper (see his talk page contribs), and when MONGO was recently brought to ANI, the closing admin said, ""If there is a long term pattern of abuse, as they seem to allege, it would probably be best dealt with at arbitration."" I would like to suggest that what we need here is strict arbcom enforcement in the American politics topic area, particularly in regards to Collect and MONGO, who seem to be engaging in disruption in this topic area at this time. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC) @Collect: I am very confused about how a reference to a news story breaking that day about how Florida has ""banned"" any discussion of climate change by scientists in their state, amounts to ""harassment"" of your person. And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is ""fringe"",[19] your claim of harassment becomes even more strained. If you're not a senator or the governor of Florida, how can I be ""harassing"" you? Facts may be funny things, but they are not ""harassment"" of any kind. I should point out that according to WP:AOHA, ""making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory...It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment."" Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) @Collect: your notion of ""involved"" is unusual. I am not involved in any of the disputes listed above, nor have I touched any of these articles or their talk pages or the relevant content dispute noticeboards. You falsely claimed I ""harassed"" you during a discussion on your talk page that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC) === Comment by Alanscottwalker === Just to note that the AfD mentioned by Capitalismojo is quite odd, in my experience, with multiple !votes for delete but the same !votes saying the information belongs in another article. That seems to me to be a merge of sorts but as such a thing is odd, it does suggest there is something going on that has nothing to do with the AfD, and if the committee does wish to plumb the depths of what it's ""really"" all about - it won't find it in that AfD, and good luck to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)(as an aside, Captalismojo's count is somewhat off, if that matters) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Cas Liber === I tend to agree that the politics and opinions of alot of editors will impede any debate that takes place on AN/I (or elsewhere) to the point that it will be impossible to gain consensus, especially for long-term tendentious behaviour. Hence a case examining the conduct will be by far the easiest way to determine if sanctions are warranted or not. AN/I will be buried in walls of text, indignance and vitriol. Hence I recommend accepting the case. Just try to make it a quick one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC) PS: Should add that an accusation of misusing sources trumps all edit-warring in seriousness and hence should be examined for truth or discarded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Floq === The original case request focused on Collect; the other parties included were based on their interactions with him. I see people adding parties left and right (ha!), based on the broader chronic ""American politics broadly construed"" battleground. This is a truly excellent way to bog down a case. If the case is accepted, I suggest it be refocused down to Collect and his interactions with others, and the list of parties trimmed accordingly. Unless you want to open a free-wheeling Left vs. Right Battle Royale case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by mostly uninvolved EvergreenFir === Without spending hours scrutinizing every diff and comment, it seems there's an issues that ANI has failed to resolve. It also appears to be spilling over into other pages (e.g., Talk:Robert Kagan). Given this spillover, it would seem the scope is more about neoconservatism in general. For full disclosure, my slight involvement was on Talk:Robert Kagan where I engaged in discussion with a number of folks party to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Requesting a clerk split the vote tallies into the Collect case and the American Politics case for clarity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by LM2000 === I first became involved in the Collect/Ubikwit conflict late last month on Sam Harris (author). A large part of the edit war revolved around Ubikwit's determination in keeping this bit of content in the article, which references the popular atheist's alleged ""tribal affections for the Jewish state"", sourced to the non-notable Theodore Sayeed. An RfC unanimously opposed its inclusion. Despite some editors in the RfC voicing direct opposition to the source in question, Ubikwit reused it elsewhere in the article days later.[20] Ubikwit then sought out the opinions of the most outspoken critics of Harris and pasted their most critical quotes into the BLP, this included their connecting him to neoconservatives despite him being a self-proclaimed liberal. These edits showed no regard to WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and BLP; they turned the article into a WP:COATRACK. A second RfC unsurprisingly found unanimous opposition to these edits. At this point Ubikwit tried to start an Arbcom case, but that was declined and sent to AN/I. It sat on AN/I for days until Ubikwit and Collect were both blocked for edit warring on the PNAC article. Before this, Ubikwit edit warred and attempted to reinsert similar contentious material 16 times. Swarm did suggest an IBAN between Collect and Ubikwit in the AN/I thread after the fact but I think that this puts a band-aid on a geyser. At this point their interactions have spread out across multiple pages, involve several other editors, and such a ban does little to address the long-standing BLP issues here. I think the cases of Sam Harris and the PNAC list are clear in that consensus is on Collect's side. Dear ODear ODear lays out a case that Ubikwit has been labeling subjects as Jews and militant right-wingers for quite some time, in the short time I've interacted with Ubikwit I can also confirm that this has been my experience as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by John Carter === I regret to say that it is getting kinda hard to follow the accept/declines of two different cases below. Maybe having some some of hyphenated numbering in the vote count for the two separate cases will make it easier for the rest of us to keep track of the totals here? John Carter (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) === Presumptuous pseudo-clerking by Short Brigade Harvester Boris === OK, looks like there's a clear majority to accept each case. I'm not sure how you folks are going to handle two complex, highly personalized and divisive cases running simultaneously. But I guess that's why you're paid the big bucks. @Euryalus, apologies for the copy-and-paste error. Corrected. @Seraphimblade, Guerillero, apologies to you as well for mixing up your comments. In fact I'll just make a pre-emptive apology to all arbs, parties and onlookers, along with a promise to order new bifocals. === Statement by OccultZone === Collect is a prolific member. He has been in dispute with many editors, widely because of his topic range that he has selected. While he is correct so many of the times, it is usual for anyone to indulge in some sort of dispute with another editor. I believe that even if this case as been accepted, a lot of misunderstandings would be cleared up. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by jps === It would be helpful if arbcom would address the fact that WP:BLP is often used as an excuse for ignoring editing restrictions by Collect and others who agree with his approach. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Beyond My Ken === I would think it would be most efficient if the committee were to deal with the Collect case before proceeding to the American Politics case. Doing them at the same time seems to me a recipe for overloading the Arbitrators. BMK (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC) All I can say is that you folks are gluttons for punishment. Good luck! BMK (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Per #3A in the motion below, I do not recall having had a dispute with Collect, although it certainly might have happened, and I do not regularly edit U.S. politics-related articles, for perhaps obvious reasons. I doubt it would be helpful to add my name to the list of parties in either case, only to remove it per #3B. BMK (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by AndyTheGrump === Not a statement, but a simple question, and a formal objection. Why is 'gun control' included in the American politics 2 topic? As far as I can see, the subject hasn't come up in discussions, and one of the major issues concerning articles on the subject of firearms regulation that led to the previous gun control arbitration case was the way that what was supposed to be an international topic was dominated by the narrow perspectives of a particular faction within the U.S. It seems to me that by including 'gun control' (itself a loaded term that Wikipedia must seriously consider stop using) within 'American politics', ArbCom is making a fundamental categorical error which serves to enhance the inherent bias resulting (to a large extent) from the demographics of the contributor base. I would like to state for the record that I consider this misappropriation of a global topic to be contrary to the expected standards of ArbCom. If firearms regulation needs to be discussed within this case at all (which appears as yet not to have been demonstrated), it needs to be done in a manner that avoids imposing the very bias that led to the previous ArbCom case - which means narrowing its remit, and describing the subject in a neutral manner which clarifies the scope, and makes it entirely clear that the subject matter is solely restricted to matters directly concerning the United States. As someone heavily involved in the previous 'gun control' case, I will formally state that I will, as a non-U.S. contributor, refuse to participate further in any arbitration which misappropriates a global topic, and reimposes the objectionable bias that has previously plagued the topic, to the great detriment of Wikipedia - and I will advise anyone else in a similar position to do the same. If further arbitration concerning firearms regulation is needed (I'll refrain from exppressing an opinion at this point), it must, if ArbCom is to carry out the role required of it be done in an appropriate and neutral manner - which, I have to suggest, necessitates separating it from this case, making it entirely and unambiguously clear that as an international encyclopaedia, Wikipedia does not define subjects according to the narrow perspectives of one particular country, and accordingly naming the case using appropriate terminology, making the global scope of the topic entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I see that the wording has now been revised to indicate the degree to which 'gun control' is considered within the scope of any arbitration: ""...any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic"". Hopefully ArbCom will bear in mind the international scope of this subject, and not let narrow U.S.-based perspectives cloud their judgement should they make any decisions regarding the issue which might have broader consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Atsme (uninvolved) === I have great respect for Collect's ability for accuracy and strict adherence to BLP policy regardless of his own persuasions. We have had a few minor disagreements in the past, but I learned from them, perhaps because my goal is to keep writing GAs and FAs. In reviewing some of the diffs provided above, my conclusion is that some editors may have lost sight of NPOV, and what should be included in a biography as well as how it should be written. They may need to reevaluate their reasons for initiating this ARBCOM. I am concerned that some editors have become insensitive to BLPs as a result of the information we are finding on the internet including op-eds and blogs that are riddled with COI, partisanship, and other bigotry. I am also seeing what has become a common misconception (to quote the very wise words of TenOfAllTrades) that a source can be declared ""reliable"", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and how it is used. Collect has skillfully managed to stay above the fray with such matters, and has kept contentious material in perspective by adhering to policies with a complete understanding of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, including any narratives in the notes that may accompany the respective policies. Adherence to BLP policy often frustrates opposing editors who are partisan and want only to discredit, the latter of which is often fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. We all have disagreements which brings in behavioral issues, but any editor who has spent time analyzing and studying WP:PAG knows that Collect's argument is on target, and that should be the first and foremost consideration as it relates to his behavior and insistence on following BLP policy. To accuse editors of using policy as a tool to win an argument is a claim that is neither plausible nor substantive. Winning arguments based on policy is a clear indication that policy prevailed, as well it should. Atsme☯Consult 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by The Devil's Advocate === While it has been some time, I have had my own interactions with and observed interactions between several parties to this case, though I am not a party to the instigating dispute. Not sure if my current restrictions cover ArbCom space or if my prior involvement is sufficient to avoid it being a violation either way, but I think I could provide valuable evidence regarding the parties involved in this dispute. Do the Arbs see any issue with my potential participation in this case?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC) === Statement by Konveyor Belt === I find it pretty poor form for the ArbCom to be blocking and removing the statement of one of the parties to the case with no explanation and no discussion on wiki at all. Actions like these undermine the procedure and fairness of the case process. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) === Clerk notes === This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).@Guy Macon and John Carter: The arbitrators are discussing their options on the mailing lists and the case opening will probably be dealt with by motion instead of by vote count below. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @Dear ODear ODear: I've added a
to the place in your section where I thought you wanted it to end. The open blockquote with no close was messing with the indent in all the other sections. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) A reminder: Professional behavior is expected in arbitration, as elsewhere in Wikipedia. Conduct issues during arbitration (incivility, personal attacks) are taken into account by the arbitrators in drafting decisions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC) === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/0> === Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) Accept. There are a heck of a lot of accusations and counter accusations flying backwards and forwards here, including of involved/biased admin actions on ANI threads. I think there is enough here that the claims warrant looking at to determine whether there is any substance to them, and, if there is, what remedies will restore order and prevent re-occurrence. I also think the formal structure of an arbitration case is probably the best way to go about doing that with the minimum drama. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I agree with my colleagues that this is two separate cases, one regarding the behaviour of Collect and the other regarding the American Politics topic area. I'm not sure that one needs to wait for the other though as both are ready for arbitration now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Note Everyone choosing to comment on this request, or participate in a case if one is accepted, should be aware that standards of decorum will be strongly enforced, by blocks if necessary, and that misconduct by anyone is sanctionable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Floquenbeam has a very good point. Do we need a ""Collect"" case, one that would essentially be ""American Politics III"", or nothing? (I'm counting ""Tea Party"" there.) The scope of the request has wildly drifted from one about an editor to one about a massive topic area. Can we get statements focusing on whether we need one, both, or neither of those two distinct cases? Because what will not work is conflating the two different issues into one case. Not decided that we need any case yet, but we absolutely don't need a rolled-together mess. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Accept only as two distinct cases. Courcelles (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)@Begoon: I have begum working on a motion to formally accept this, one of the provisions is that Collect would not be a named party, nor would evidence about him allowed in the American Politics case. Us deciding to split this should not result in more complications for them. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Don't we already have DS in this area anyways? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC) We have the option of DS being asked for, but in practice, that hasn't happened often and has been imposed even less so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept two cases per my colleagues.--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept. American politics is a perennially contentious topic area, and clearly that hasn't stopped since the last case. Things will only heat up more over the next year or two, so I think it's time for another look. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Two cases is fine with me as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC) @Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Also just as a quick note, you reversed Guerillero and my statements, though it doesn't affect the counts and they're essentially saying the same thing anyway. Thank you for compiling those, it's not presumptuous, it's just helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Accept Collect case about that editor's behavioral issues. Postpone American Politics III, to be about behavioral issues on that topic generally, mainly to consider if we need to update of change topic sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)interpretation: Accept, focusing on Collect. Decline American Politics at this time. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Accept mostly per my learned colleague, Seraphimblade. Roger Davies talk 05:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Comment: I'm fine with this as two cases. One focusing on Collect; the other on American Politics, Roger Davies talk 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept, assuming that the scope can be clarified somewhat, per Courcelles. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC) To clarify, I would accept either a case on Collect, a case on American Politics, or both, but not a single case dealing with both topics. Somewhat ironic that my call for clarification required clarification... Yunshui 雲水 12:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept with caveat Sorry, that's not a standard vote, but at the moment I think this is best handled as two cases. I note that of the other 5 accepts, one states ""Accept Collect case"", which I don't think means the case as described so far, and an ""Accept"" from Yunshui which calls for a clarification of the scope. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept as two distinct cases. I agree that trying to combine the two topics here into one case is a terrible idea, but I think there are sufficient issues with both to warrant two cases instead of just a narrowing of scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Accept a case on conduct issues surrounding Collect and those editors he is in regular dispute with, without prejudice to either ""side."" Decline a wider American Politics case. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)@Begoon:, good point, and one reason why I think we should only pursue one case. @Short Brigade Harvester Boris:, thanks for the impromptu clerking which is a helpful tally. However, while you record my votes right, the quote on the right is incorrect.-- Euryalus2 (talk) Inconsequential additions - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (great name by the way), thanks for the correction but you have forgotten to include GorillaWarfare in the table. Courcelles, you have a begum working on the motion? :) Dear ODear ODear, your explanation for the emails remains unclear. Can you expand on it at all? --Euryalus (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)@Dear ODear ODear: What was the intent on sending those emails in the first place, and am I missing any context? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Accept two separate cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Accept to examine Collect's conduct only. Decline in relation to American Politics. AGK [•] 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) === Motion: Collect request === The case request of 18 March 2015 is accepted. As it consists of two distinct yet related issues, it will be handled as two cases, namely: 1. Collect and others This case is focused on individuals and will examine allegations of misconduct by Collect and those who interact with him, irrespective of topic. 2. American politics 2 This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic. While Collect may participate in this case, no allegations concerning him may be made within it, nor any proposed findings or remedies posted. 3. Procedures a. All people making statements in the present request will be initially added to the lists of parties for both cases and all statements added to both cases. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. b. As the cases proceed, the drafters will (i) prune the lists of parties to remove uninvolved participants and (ii) delete non-relevant statements from the case main pages. c. Both cases will broadly follow the standard timetable but with the American politics 2 case having three weeks for the evidence phase instead of the usual two. d. Arbitrators and Arbitration clerks may at their absolute discretion copy or move material from one case to the other. e. Arbitration clerks are instructed to adopt a zero tolerance approach to disruptive or inappropriate conduct of whatever nature on case pages. Any clerk or arbitrator, may, at their sole discretion, impose blocks, bans from participating further in the case, or any other reasonable measure to enforce proper decorum in these cases. f. The standard evidence lengths will apply and be strictly enforced. For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.Enacted --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Support Roger Davies talk 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Still unconvinced re the need for the second case or the inclusion of Gun Control, even if limited to a US context. However, procedural support for this motion as a good way of running the two cases concurrently. I note in passing that there may well be additonal overlap between the cases - we cannot assume that an examination of conduct issues involving Collect cannot lead to FOF and remedies involving other people as well or instead. This is not ""Collect: guilty or not?"" It's ""Recent history involving Collect: what are the causes of any current and intractable editor conduct problems by anyone involved?"" -- Euryalus (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Also echo Euryalus' last part of their comment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Like Euryalus, my support for some parts of this proposal is procedural. AGK [•] 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Oppose Abstain Comments I might suggest modifying the wording to ""includes the Tea Party topic and overlaps with the Gun Control topic as it pertains to the United States."" Gun control in other countries political systems isn't within scope of this case at all, might as well make that specific. But gun control, as a political and second amendment flashpoint in US political discourse, very much is. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Duly added. Arbitrators: please revert if you disagree, Roger Davies talk 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Please all note the word limits for evidence. To avoid walls of text, the word limits will be enforced by a) a reminder, b) another reminder, and c) our friendly case clerks simply snipping your evidence off at the point the word limit is reached. The Committee may grant word limit extensions, but unless one is granted it will be necessary to stay within the posted restrictions. This piece of casepage bureaucracy brought to you by Euryalus2 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC).@Everyone: a slight expansion on this here. I'll post this on the evidence talkpages as well, when we get to them. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Also duly added. Arbitrators: please revert if you disagree, Roger Davies talk 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC) === Temporary injunction (none) === = Final decision = All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available. === Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee === 1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the American Politics case. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Purpose of Wikipedia === 2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Role of the Arbitration Committee === 3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Consensus === 4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Behavioral standards === 5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Neutrality and sources === 6) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other ""original research"", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Edit warring === 7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Locus of the dispute === 1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to political and/or social issues in the United States. This area has been the subject of numerous arbitration cases. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Background === 2) In the American Politics case, the Arbitration Committee stated ""Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."" and created a fast-track way of placing topics under discretionary sanctions. These sanctions have been ineffective in controlling the disruption, as the disruption has continued but they have not been used. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Ubikwit === 3) Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warred (LM200's evidence) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([21][22][23][24]). Ubikwit has been previously sanctioned in the Tea Party movement case for similar conduct. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === MONGO === 4) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ([25][26][27]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([28][29][30]). Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. === Contentious topic designation === 1.2) Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) === Ubikwit: Topic Ban (III) === 2.5) Ubikwit is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption. Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === MONGO: Admonished === 3.3) MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area. Passed 9 to 3 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) === Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) (January 2021) === Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions by motion at 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC) === Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022) === Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) === Enforcement of restrictions === 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote. === Appeals and modifications === In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote. Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here." 222 224 496 WP:POPUPS Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups 222 "Navigation popups is an opt-in Wikipedia feature (gadget) that offers easy access to article previews and several Wikipedia functions in popup windows which appear when you hover the cursor over links. It should not be confused with the default Page Previews and Reference Tooltips, which are more reader-focused popups seen by all anonymous and new users. Installation: Enter Special:Preferences and click ""Gadgets""; under the ""Browsing"" section, check the box to enable ""Navigation popups: article previews and editing functions pop up when hovering over links"", then click save. Follow the instructions on the page to bypass your browser's cache.If you're having trouble, you may like to peruse some frequently asked questions. Mouseover tooltips on articles (including user pages): Preview the first part of the article text when mousing over a link to an article Preview the first image in the article If there is an infobox with an image, and it is not a Wikidata-powered infobox, the image in the infobox will be taken as the first image. The image shown in the preview can be controlled by adding an image hint to the article, in the form of an invisible HTML comment: . Preview selected user information [user/user talk namespace]: pronoun preference, user groups, edit count, account registration date, date of most recent edit Preview selected page information: size, number of links, number of images, number of categories and page age Tells you about redirects, stubs and disambiguation pages One click access to edit page, page history, most recent edit, edits by most recent contributor, changes since my edit, move page, what links here, related changes, watch or unwatch, protect or unprotect (for administrators), talk page, edit talk page and start new topic in talk page Mouseover on image links: Preview images Preview file descriptions Preview file links Tells you if the image is on Commons Mouseover on user links: One-click access to user page, user space, user talk, edit user talk, new section in user talk, e-mail user, contributions and contributions tree, (for administrators) deleted user contributions, user log, (for administrators) block user, edit counter (User Analysis Tool), block log Mouseover on footnotes: Preview contents of footnotes Mouseover on any wikilink: Clear pop-up cache Enable/disable previews Enable/disable pop-ups Preview diffs and access both revisions in watchlist, history and related changes Preview selected wikilinks when editing (use the mouse to select one wikilink) One-click revert of vandalism from history browser (see image) Shortcut keys (optional) Automatically fix links to bypass redirects and disambiguation pages (optional) Should work on all Wikimedia wikis You must have a user account to install and use the Navigation popups feature. If you do not have an account, you will need to create one and log in. Go to Preferences → Gadgets → Browsing → Navigation popups: article previews and editing functions pop up when hovering over links === Other wikis or global.js === Add the following to your user script file (common.js or global.js): After saving the page, clear your browser's cache (on Internet Explorer Ctrl+F5; on Mozilla Firefox ⇧ Shift+Ctrl+R; on Opera F5). Assuming that you have not disabled JavaScript in your browser, a popup should appear whenever you hover your mouse over an internal link in Wikipedia. If you use more than one web browser, or more than one PC, you may need to clear the caches for each so that the popup appears. To install the script on the Commons or Wiktionary, repeat this procedure on those wikis. To uninstall the script, delete the above lines from the same page and clear your browser's cache. This tool generates ""popup hints"" when you hover the mouse pointer over active links and images. These popups provide information about the link's target and give quick access to a number of relevant actions. If you hold the shift key then you can drag the popup around. Popups depend on the type of link: Links to ordinary articles: popup provides a preview of the first paragraph and image of the article; the Actions menu allows to view the History and Talk page of the article, to edit and watch the article etc. In the edit box: Highlight a [[wiki link]] to get an article popup. Diff links: On history or watchlist pages, hover over diff links like ""(cur)"" or ""(prev)"" to get a summary of the difference; the Actions menu allows you to revert or undo the edit. User: links: information about the status of the user; User menu gives access to Talk page, recent contributions etc. Image links: information from image's description page In popups: most of the links in popup windows will open new popups when hovered over. There are dozens of configurable settings that add or remove various powerful features, explained in depth below. === Seven optional structures === There are seven built-in style variations: shortmenus (default), menus, lite, original, nostalgia, fancy, fancy2. To change your selection, see the two popupStructure bits in the #Options just below. For more specific details on each, see /Structure examples. === Changing the appearance of your popups === By editing your user CSS file, you can change the appearance of the popups. Your user CSS file has exactly the same name as the JavaScript file, but with ""css"" instead of ""js"" at the end. So you should edit your current skin's .css page. Here is an example that makes the text a bit bigger. Here is an example which gives an orange-flavoured popup with a border and changes the font used. This makes the popups look pretty silly, but it shows the sort of thing you can do if you feel like it. === Options === There are some options that you can set. To do so, edit your user JavaScript file and add a line of the form window.option = value; where option and value are chosen from the table below. For example, to turn on extensive menus and turn on admin links, you need to add something like this in your JavaScript file: More options may be added, and requests for more configurability are welcome. === Advanced customization === ==== Adding filters ==== You can define custom filters for articles. These are JavaScript functions which are run after the page statistics are generated, and their output is appended (as HTML) to that part of the popup. (Note that if simplePopups is true or popupSummaryData is false, then nothing will be displayed.) The way to set this up is to write a filter function which accepts a string (the wikitext of the article) as input, and returns a fragment of HTML. Repeat for as many filters as you want, and then create an array extraPopupFilters which contains all of the functions, in the order in which you want them to be run. For example, let's say you want to be told whenever the wikitext of an article contains a table written using HTML tags rather than wiki markup. One way to do this is to add the following to your user JavaScript file: Then when a popup is generated for a page containing an HTML table, you should see in the popup. (It may also appear for other pages, such as this page. Correcting this defect is left as an exercise for the reader.) ==== Other examples ==== If you want to enable popupRedlinkRemoval, popupFixRedirs and popupFixDabs features in all pages except the special ones, histories and previews (where those features are obviously useless) you can add these lines to your user JavaScript file: Please see this page for translations of the script interface and of this page into other languages. You'll also find instructions for creating a translation yourself. === Firefox === If a user on Firefox with the Adblock Plus extension installed cannot see the popup, only the normal tooltip, Adblock Plus may be blocking the operation of navigational popups. This can be solved by adding an exception to the filtering rules – go to the Main Page, click the icon in the browser toolbar, and turn off [Block ads on] This website: en.wikipedia.org. This tool should not be affected by any browser popup blocking settings. There is also a Navigation popups topicon. {{Navigation popups topicon}}. Please see Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups, or the associated Phabricator project (for implementation-related discussion). This tool was primarily written by Lupin, who is currently no longer active on Wikipedia. It depends on some other people's work: User:Pilaf/InstaView (née Live Preview) by Pilaf for article previewing a JavaScript MD5 hash function by Paul Johnston and others, available here domdrag by Aaron Boodman An implementation of a diff algorithm by John ResigOlder versions of the tool used overlib by Erik Bosrup. === Contributors === Lupin – original development, has not been active on Wikipedia since 2009. Brian0918 – a little code and lots of inspiration Eddideigel – translation work IceKarma – aborting download code, making much better use of bandwidth Mike Dillon – the page age code Yurik – with his fantastic MediaWiki BotQuery extension Zocky – the menus Zyxw – preview enhancements TheDJ – conversion from BotQuery to API. ...and many more with helpful suggestions, comments and bug reports" 223 225 498 WP:JERK WP:JERK 223 Meta:Don't be a jerkThis page is a soft redirect. 224 226 499 WP:AURDNAME Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) 224 "Below are formal conventions for the listings of Australian roads. These guidelines largely formalise pre-existing conventions in regards to Australian roads. As always use common sense when applying these guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. ==== Roads ==== Roadways are named by their current public official name as listed in the appropriate government gazette [preferred], or as otherwise used for general administrative purposes, and not their common name, or their internal name according to the relevant government department. For example: Princes Motorway, as opposed to F6, Southern Freeway, Freeway 6, Freeway Route 6, National Route 1 (Waterfall — Yallah), M1 (Waterfall — Yallah), Main Road 6006, etc. Sometimes the signposted name may also be preferable if the official name has no non-administrative usage: Karrinyup Road and Morley Drive are officially known as the Karrinyup–Morley Highway Airport Drive and Warrigal Road are officially known as Airport Connection Road and Warrigal Highway respectivelyThese circumstances are generally rare, and would likely require discussion to gauge what name would be best ==== Routes ==== Articles are generally not created for routes containing notable roads, excluding Highway 1 (Australia). Routes which consist of a majority of non-notable roads are named by secondary name [preferred] (if one exists), or by a route number. Former Metroad 10, is now A8 (Sydney), as the route is notable as a whole, but most of its component roads are not. M1/A1 through Sydney, is made up of notable roads which have their own articles. Former Metroad 7 (previous to the M7), is made up of largely unnotable roads, but had the secondary name ""Cumberland Highway"", which is preferred to ""A28 (Sydney)"" ==== State / Territory Gazettes and other sources ==== ACT - http://www.gazettes.act.gov.au/ NSW - http://www.nsw.gov.au/gazette NT - http://www.nt.gov.au/ntg/gazette.shtml QLD - http://publications.qld.gov.au/ SA - http://www.governmentgazette.sa.gov.au/ TAS - http://www.gazette.tas.gov.au/ VIC - http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/ WA - http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/gazette.nsfOlder gazette editions generally aren't available from the above websites. They may be available from Trove or any of the various state and national libraries and archives in either hardcopy or electronic form. This information may also be found on the websites for the applicable names board or land and planning authority in each state. The following apply only when an article needs to be disambiguated: Roads are to be named "" ()"" or "" ()"" for roads entirely within a city or town. Roads are to be named "" ()"" in other areas. Interstate roads are to be named "" (Australia)"". Split roads with separately notable sections are to be named as "" ( – )"". ""road_name"" is the article title, excluding disambiguation. If the road is a notable split road, then the disambiguation should be included) All common names are to be included in ""road_name2"" and separated by "" / "", this includes both public common names and those used in reputable sources. (Soft limit of 3 common names based on approximate popularity) Any other road names may still be mentioned elsewhere in the article if inclusion is appropriate. All common names are to be included in the lead, this includes both public common names and those used in reputable sources. (Soft limit of 3 common names based on approximate popularity) Any other road names may still be mentioned elsewhere in the article if inclusion is appropriate." 225 227 500 WP:MINIMUM Wikipedia:Bare notability 225 "Bare notability, that can also be referred to as Semi-notability, refers to when an article seemingly just minimally meets Wikipedia's notability standards. This may be the case when: The article is presented with very few references and few can be found; The article has plenty of references, but the references do not support the subject itself but rather pertain only trivially to the subject, or The ""references"" provided are not considered valid sources for establishing notability (e.g., they are Facebook pages, blog pages, or promotional websites).Articles that fit one or more of these descriptions may be in danger of deletion. Though the creator or a major contributor may feel they did a good enough job of writing the article and providing sources, others may feel differently. Wikipedia's policies collectively are quite complicated, and therefore, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. So a subject being barely notable leaves more room for the deletionists' actions. Any registered user has the right to propose an article for deletion using the deletion process, and even a non-registered user can place a PROD tag on an unprotected article. It only takes one person to propose an article for deletion. One who is capable of giving good arguments in favor of an article's deletion can be responsible for getting an article deleted, even if the creator feels it should be kept on the basis of the sources provided. The best ways to prevent an article on a subject with bare notability is to improve it so its notability seems more obvious. A good approach would be to ask yourself, why would anyone want to read about this subject? Or what makes this subject important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Notability must be asserted bluntly and definitively. The best way to accomplish this is to back up your assertions with reliable sources: Search the web for more sources on the subject: If a plain Google search does not seem to provide enough websites that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, try using other forms of searching, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. It can be exhausting trying to search through hundreds of thousands of GHits for something that may meet these criteria, but narrowing your search can help. For example, if you are looking for references for an article on jazz saxophones from the 1930s, Google will find more targeted websites if you search for ""jazz saxophone"" +""swing era"" or ""jazz saxophone"" +""big band"" (in each case, use both sets of terms in quotes). If you are searching and not finding enough hits, try changing to a variant term for your search. For example, if you are looking for references for an article on bluegrass double bass, but you are not finding any good sources, if you use variant search terms like ""bluegrass upright bass"" OR ""bluegrass bass fiddle"", you might get different results. Look off the web: Using books you already own or visiting your local library can produce additional information. A library might hold useful books or periodicals, or be staffed by professionals willing to assist in researching subjects. Many local libraries provide access to online resources such as JSTOR and Project MUSE which require a paid-for licence and so would otherwise be unavailable to users at home. Sources found on the web are often more easily verifiable because they are accessible to anyone with access to the internet, so when an off-web source is used, use references that provide as much bibliographical information as possible. Look for an expert: Place the {{expert}} tag on top of the page. This helps in the search for someone who can provide more reliable sources. The stumbling block in this scheme, then, is the precise definition of ""significant coverage"". How much coverage does a topic need, and in how many sources, before this coverage reaches the level of ""significant""? Here, too, we may consider the needs of a potential article: if we must create an article using the material extracted from this ""significant coverage"", then we may define ""significant"" as ""sufficient to serve as the basis for a good encyclopedic article"". In this way, the concept of notability becomes entirely a practical one: we include topics on which we can create legitimate articles, and exclude topics on which we cannot. Not all topics need an article of their own, however. Suppose that we have some topic, X, which has a small amount of reliable secondary coverage; we can, for example, extract only three sentences of usable material from it. Should X have an article? Probably not; an article that remains a three-sentence stub forever is not a particularly good idea. Should X be omitted from Wikipedia entirely? Perhaps not; we do have some legitimate material about it, after all. A neater solution would be to include mention of X in some broader article or list; if all we want to write about X is three sentences, then a source which only allows for that is perfectly suitable for our purposes. We may thus define our terms as follows: Non-notable A topic is ""non-notable"" if there is no usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Semi-notable A topic is ""semi-notable"" if there is some usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but not a sufficient amount to write a good encyclopedic article. Notable A topic is ""notable"" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to write a good encyclopedic article.In this system, notable topics would get their own articles, semi-notable ones would be mentioned in other articles, and non-notable ones wouldn't be mentioned at all. Our ""notability guideline"" would then become: === Why notability? === The notability guideline is among the more contentious ones in Wikipedia: But what is the purpose of turning to the concept of notability in the first place? Notability is not a goal in and of itself; rather, it's a shorthand term that covers the availability of sources for an article on a topic. If a topic has no coverage in ""reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"", it will be virtually impossible to write an encyclopedic article regarding it, since it is the material from such sources which must form the core of any article. There is no practical difference between ""bare notability"" and other cases. An article that satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirement simply is notable, even if the level of coverage does not exceed the minimum level required. Such an article cannot be validly deleted on the grounds that it is not notable due to lack of coverage (because deleting a notable topic for non-notability would be a paradox). Such an article is in possible danger of being deleted unless editors ignore the actual notability rules (in which case the grounds for deletion would be Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, not non-notability; and any editor proposing deletion on such grounds should expect to meet some resistance). Regardless, notability needs to be satisfied for an article to be retained. An article does not need to assert the notability of its subject. Wikipedia:NEXIST says that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their immediate citation. It is, of course, desirable for an article to indicate why its subject is notable, but failure to do so is not a grounds for deletion. However, the notability of an article may be tested if an article is at deletion discussion. The ""assertion of notability"" thing is a misunderstanding: an article of a certain kind may be speedily deleted if it does not provide an indication of importance, also known as a credible claim of significance; this is a lower standard than notability, and only provides surety against speedy deletion, not examination at WP:Articles for deletion. This criterion only applies to an article about a real person, individual animal, organization, Web content, or organized event. It does not mean ""insert a sentence stating 'This subject is important and significant because ..."". It means write and source the article in a way that makes it clear why this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic. (For tips on how to do this, see WP:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground.) Since editors are encouraged to be bold, and since such articles are generally harmless, there is no reason, except possible later deletion, to generally be cautious about creating topics that seem to be on the borderline of notability or that seem arguably notable (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be an exception, see below). A possible approach is not to refrain from creating an article unless you are sure it will be kept, but, rather, to go ahead and create it unless you are sure it should not be kept. Generally, self-censorship is unhelpful as you are depriving the community of the opportunity to decide whether they want to keep the article; but on the other hand, creating an article that later gets deleted results in burdening editors with wasted time and effort in an Wikipedia:Article for deletion. Some editors are of the opinion that barely notable is still notable for most topics, but that Wikipedia's policy on living persons indicates that increased caution should be exercised when dealing with living or recently deceased persons. Barely notable living persons present an issue with sourcing, especially with self-published sources, either by others (which is to be avoided) or by the topic themself. Barely notable living persons are rarely if ever public figures, and therefore secondary sources are of the essence, something such persons might lack. They might also be notable for only one event, in which case Wikipedia should not have an article on them. Although this is not a valid argument in of itself, articles on such persons might also not be watched or maintained very often, allowing policy violations to creep in with lower chance of detection and violating the spirit of BLP. There is a policy that administrators may (but need not) delete an article on a relatively unknown living person when the person requests the article's deletion and there's no firm consensus against it. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability Wikipedia:Fart Wikipedia:Why should I care? Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing" 226 228 504 WP:TYPO Wikipedia:Typo Team 226 "The Wikipedia Typo Team is dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia by correcting typos and misspellings. If you see any typos (even minor ones), please correct them. This kind of editing is a never-ending job, so we could use your help! Please consider joining our team. All you need to do is start correcting typos. We have a userbox; simply add {{User Typo Team}} to your userpage to proudly display your association. Also, consider adding to our pledges page to announce your new enlistment. Our project was created on November 22, 2003, and the first corrections were fixes of ""and and"". What will your contributions be? Add some of them at the works completed page so we know what our members are doing! Except for articles with strong national ties, the English Wikipedia has no preference for American, British, or other forms of English as long as usage is consistent throughout the article. In most cases, articles should stay in the dialect that currently predominates and should not be converted just for the sake of conversion. Any inter-dialect conversion therefore requires glancing at the whole article to be able to determine if, for instance, flavor, color, meter, or defense (or flavour, colour, metre, or defence) should be converted. Another approach is to try to avoid dialects by using words that are English universals. Caution is needed when changing dialects and it takes some experience to avoid pitfalls. It is easy to make over- or under-generalizations. For instance, the endings ""-ize"" and ""-ization"" are acceptable in both British and American English. So although the suffix ""-ise"" is more common in Commonwealth usage than ""-ize"", both spellings are correct. Regardless, the use of ""-ize""/""-ise"" should remain consistent throughout a page. More information about dialects can be found in the following links: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English American and British English spelling differences WP:EngvarB Typo team members make many edits. It is always a good idea to give an edit summary after each of your edits, describing the change you made (see Help:Edit summary). If you made many fixes, you might say ""spelling fixes"" or ""spelling cleanup"". If the number of edits was small, you might list the exact words you fixed, such as ""spelling Mississippi"". You can also specify the exact change you made as with ""spelling: lense → lens"". Spelling fixes are generally marked as minor edits. Additionally, you could simultaneously promote our project in the edit summary with a small reference like ""typo corrections [[Wikipedia:Typo Team]]"" or ""spelling Monday [[WP:TYPO]]"". The shortcut WP:TYPO links to this project page. Edit summaries are important and other editors value them when scanning the article history. Edit summary histories are also sometimes considered during user requests for Wikipedia adminship; so, making valuable edit summaries is a good habit to form. Not all typos on Wikipedia need to be (or should be) corrected: Spelling errors on talk pages generally should not be fixed. It is a guideline that comments, especially of others, should not be edited. Roughly this is because it can be disruptive to the communicative process, as others may have already quoted the material. Also, talk pages are not considered part of the encyclopedia proper so there is no need to bring them up to a publishable standard. On the other hand, if you were the last to post to a talk page and made a spelling or grammatical error, there's no reason not to fix it. In quotes, the material being quoted may contain a typo or have archaic spelling. For typos, MOS:PLC says: ""insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)."" Archaic spelling, however, should be retained: ""In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization"" (this is quoted from the MOS page linked above). To indicate to other editors and bots that something that appears to be an error is faithfully copied from the original, after verifying the original, put the word or phrase in either {{sic}} or {{Not a typo}}. Examples: ""{{sic|truple}} threat"" renders as ""truple [sic] threat"" and indicates to the reader that editors have verified the error is in the original, not Wikipedia. ""{{not a typo|ye old bakke shoppe}}"" renders as ""ye old bakke shoppe"" and it is assumed the reader will know the spelling is archaic. Bots will not try to spell-check this text. Proper names might contain apparently misspelt words that are actually correct when used as a name. For example, ""Johnny Hazzard"" is a correctly spelt proper name, even though it looks similar to the word ""hazard"", and Australia's ""Mackerel Beach"", named after the type of fish, is sometimes referred to as ""Mackeral Beach"" in official documents. Some foreign words look like misspellings of English words, but are correctly spelt for that language. For example, the Dutch word for ""foundation"" is ""stichting"", not ""stitching"". But non-English words should be wrapped in {{lang}} or {{transl}}. Constructions may be considered valid in some dictionaries and style guides (without being labelled colloquial, obsolete, local, or otherwise substandard), yet be deprecated in other such publications. Unless Wikipedia's own WP:Manual of Style (or one of its sub-guidelines) addresses the matter specifically, such cases are covered by the principles at MOS:ENGVAR: If challenged, discuss a desired change on the talk page, and if consensus cannot be reached, default to the usage of the first major contributor. Especially, do not continue to make the same correction to other articles, if such a challenge has not been resolved, as this is liable to be deemed disruptive. Be alert to passages where the typos suggest that the text has been processed by an optical character recognition (OCR) program. For instance, these programs sometimes substitute numbers for letters, like ""1"" for ""l"", an error that a human would be unlikely to make. OCRed text is likely to be a copyright violation and may need to be deleted rather than fixed. See Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101. Spelling mistakes in filenames in [[File:...]] and [[Image:...]] links must not be corrected, as this will break the link. You could request that the file be renamed and then correct any links to it once the rename has been performed. News headlines imported from Wikinews, typically in ""Wikinews"" pages in ""Portal"" pages, cannot be corrected, as the importer bot will simply re-import the bad spelling. Instead, go to the talk page of the Wikinews story and request a rename using {{edit protected}}. Lists generated directly from Wikidata, for example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#By occupation from Wikidata, cannot be corrected, as the importer bot will simply re-import the bad spelling. Instead, go to Wikidata and edit the description there. It is a truism of Wikipedia that vandals often spell things incorrectly. If the sentence in which you find a typo is unsourced or implausible it is worth checking the article history. Often there will be a recent edit that can simply be reverted. === From a list of articles with detected typos === Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss#Likely misspellings by article (main listing), a very active project currently spell-checking the entire encyclopedia AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) with User:Uziel302/AWB cleanup. AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) with the TypoScan plugin Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click Lupin's Anti-vandal tool, which includes a live spell checker that checks for common typos in all newly updated articles. Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit has many articles rife with typos (maintained by our friends at the Guild of Copy Editors) Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors === From a list of common typos === Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss#Likely misspellings by frequency (a-m) or Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss#Likely misspellings by frequency (n-z) has lists of the misspellings it thinks actually appear most commonly in English Wikipedia. Links to articles and ""find all"" searches. Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings Find a misspelling on one of these lists, and then find English Wikipedia articles to edit using the built-in search engine at Special:Search. Commonly misspelled English words (selective) Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings (comprehensive, and you can mark specific misspellings as ""done"" as of a today's date, to help other editors pick good typos) Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words, though there will be many false positives (so using a grammar checker on a specific article or database dump might be more useful) Doubled words are common, so you can make up your own phrases like ""the the"" and ""of of"". Wikipedia:Adopt-a-typo – you can become the caretaker of a specific typo and declare this on your user page === In a specific article === ==== Browser spell checking ==== Recent versions of all major web browsers, including Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer, Opera, and Konqueror have built-in spell-checking. If you have a mouse with multiple buttons, usually a right-click over a misspelled word will offer suggested corrections. Remember that suggestions and the flagging of words as misspelled are not always accurate, and you'll need to read the context carefully. For Firefox, additional spell-check dictionaries, such as British, American, Canadian, and Australian English, are easily installed via ""Add Ons"" or via a right-click ""Languages"" in an HTML form. You can also search the page (including the edit window) for specific text, usually with Ctrl+f (⌘+f on Mac) or from the Edit menu. ==== Browser usage and grammar checking ==== Several browser extensions are available to check usage and grammar. Be aware that these extensions typically send the text you are editing to an external web site, which has privacy implications, especially if you use the same browser for sites other than Wikipedia. Some of these also have web demos you can copy-and-paste text into, if you don't want to install a browser extension. LanguageTool – free and open source (seems to work best with short texts – use on one section at a time) Grammarly – proprietary but free Ginger from Ginger Software – limited preview, proprietary subscription software Scribens ==== Utilities/scripts ==== AutoWikiBrowser has RegExTypoFix built in The in-browser text editor wikEd can be customized to use RegExTypoFix. ==== External text editor ==== It is possible to select text in the edit box (up to a whole article), then copy and paste it into a local program, edit it, and copy and paste back again. For example, this may simplify alphabetical sorting of list items. However, this depends upon the character set being supported; for example, copying into a standard installation of LibreOffice Writer is likely to be successful, but Windows Notepad is likely to corrupt characters, particularly non-English ones. This will not cause trouble so long as you preview and/or compare the pasted-back text with the original before saving. A quick once-and-for-all check that an editing program is suitable is to copy a page with, say, Chinese characters to the local application, maybe change one letter, save locally and re-open, copy back to the WP edit page, and check changes. The following online tools can be used if you are unsure of how a word is spelled. SpellCheck.net Spell Checker === Userbox === There is a userbox to show that you are a member of the Typo Team: Add {{User Typo Team}} to show the project userbox on your user page. Note the bold ""Wikipedia Typo Team"" in the userbox above will be a link to this project page when used on your user page. The original userbox was designed by Galaxiaad and may still be used using the old {{User:Galaxiaad/typo}}. There are also userboxes for those who have adopted a typo, which can be found here. === Pledges === If you want, you can make a typo correction pledge on the pledges page. === Work completed === You can show your support by discussing your work completed at the works completed page. === Barnstars === If you feel like someone has done exceptional work, you can reward them with one of these. === Banner ads === There are also some ""ad""-style banner images to promote the Typo Team located at Wikipedia:Typo Team/ads. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-typo Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click Wikipedia:How to copy-edit Wikipedia:Maintenance Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings Wikipedia:List of redirects from misspellings—obsolete Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes—includes misspelled words Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Pay attention to spelling Common Errors in English Usage" 227 229 505 WP:WPE Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment 227 "Article alerts Did you know 31 Jan 2023 – Blue Marine Foundation (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Paul2520 (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 22 Mar 2023 – EcoCheyenne (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants) 19 Mar 2023 – Tom Lee Osborn (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by US-Verified (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Norma De Saint Picman (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Lemonaka (t · c) was closed as delete by Courcelles (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023; see discussion (7 participants)Redirects for discussion 17 Mar 2023 – Life before Earth (talk · edit · hist) →Abiogenesis was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 21 Mar 2023 – Land (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cdjp1 (t · c); start discussion 07 Mar 2023 – Carbon accounting (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dtetta (t · c); start discussion 06 Jan 2023 – 2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by JJonahJackalope (t · c); start discussion 16 Nov 2022 – 2021–2022 Serbian environmental protests (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Vacant0 (t · c); start discussionGood article reassessments 19 Mar 2023 – Urban heat island (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Chidgk1 (t · c) was closed; see discussionRequests for comments 24 Mar 2023 – Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Binksternet (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 16 Mar 2023 – Willow project (talk · edit · hist) move request to Willow Project by XtraJovial (t · c) was withdrawn; see discussionArticles to be merged 15 Mar 2023 – Clean technology (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Environmental technology by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Carbon credit (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to carbon offset by EMsmile (t · c); see discussion 08 Mar 2023 – Beneficiation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Mineral processing by Quercus solaris (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2023 – Ford Think City (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Think City by Vossanova (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2023 – Ford TH!NK (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Think Global by Vossanova (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Stream (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 27 Nov 2022 – Environmentalism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Environmental movement by Hanif Al Husaini (t · c); see discussion 14 Oct 2022 – Ecotage (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Eco-terrorism by Geysirhead (t · c); see discussion 03 Oct 2022 – Environmental movement (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Environmentalism by FatalSubjectivities (t · c); see discussion 23 Aug 2022 – Ecological imperialism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ecological Imperialism (book) by Geysirhead (t · c); see discussion(1 more...)Articles to be split 13 Feb 2023 – Enhanced geothermal system (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Garthgirl8888 (t · c); see discussion 27 Nov 2022 – Habitat fragmentation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Sietecolores (t · c); see discussion 09 Mar 2022 – Neutron radiation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rod57 (t · c); see discussion 19 Mar 2021 – Personal transporter (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 162.208.168.92 (t · c); see discussion 08 Nov 2020 – Castle Bravo (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rod57 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 28 Mar 2023 – Draft:Annette Gough (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Billyboybliss (t · c) 28 Mar 2023 – Draft:David Purves (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Sandy Fortingal (t · c) 27 Mar 2023 – Draft:Conservation History Association of Texas (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Smstarck (t · c) 26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Our Youth Social Community (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Lakshmijourno (t · c) 23 Mar 2023 – Draft:Continental Rally (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Psiconexion (t · c) 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Sustainable Rocket Propulsion (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Joseph Webster 1994 (t · c) 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Digital Cleanup Day (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MagikCombi (t · c) 19 Mar 2023 – Draft:Bob Purvey (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Creative Instructor (t · c) 14 Mar 2023 – Draft:Jayant Biswas (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 14 Mar 2023 – Draft:Ameer Shahul (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 43.247.158.78 (t · c)(40 more...) New articles Please feel free to improve these new environment-related articles, listed here from AlexNewArtBot/EnvironmentSearchResult. Wikipedia:Pages needing attention listings are no longer being updated. For by-topic listings of articles that need attention, see: Category:Articles needing attention WikiProject Cleanup ListingsTo flag an article for attention, add a cleanup template to the article or talk page. See Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup for a listing. All previously listed articles have either been fixed or tagged. Further information: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Environment/Archive 1 – Hierarchy definitionTopics in the Natural environment category are occasionally ambiguously-defined and multi-disciplinary, and it may be difficult to create a categorical hierarchy based upon consensus. The ""Environment"" covers a wide range of academic disciplines but the major parent WikiProjects could be considered as: WikiProject Science WikiProject Politics WikiProject SociologyThe descendants of this WikiProject are: WikiProject Climate change WikiProject Pollution WikiProject Protected areas WikiProject Superfund Related WikiProjects: Related Task Forces: Environmental Record Task Force Toxicology task force – works on articles related to toxic chemicals and effects on human health WikiProject Lights Camera Wiki – Parks WikiProject Lights Camera Wiki – WildlifeOutside Wikipedia: Appropedia – a wiki for issues related to Development and Sustainability, for material which is not suitable for Wikipedia. This includes original research, personal experience, and ideas. Areas covered include sustainability, sustainable development, appropriate technologies, and sustainable technologies and practices. Other green wikis – such as Greenlivingpedia and Envirowiki are listed at Appropedia: Green wikis and development wikis, some on more specific areas (such as the Coastal wiki). Main tool page: toolserver.orgAutoEd – A user script that helps to automatically make clean-up changes in articles, and it also allows for easy design, use, and customization of user scripts related to automated article cleanup. reFill – Edits bare url references: adds title, dates, publisher, etc. Checklinks – Edit and repair external links Dab solver – Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer – Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles." 228 230 506 WP:SILENCE Wikipedia:Silence and consensus 228 "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree)Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting, editing, or stating disagreement on a relevant talk page). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible. A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so. In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits (disapproval comes with a further edit, a statement of disapproval on the page's talk page or your talk page, or at times a revert). No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit, sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus. Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. Lacking any objections on talk pages, you can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is. The maxim is ""Qui tacet consentit"": the maxim of the law is ""Silence gives consent"". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented. When two editors reach an impasse, one or both may think that repeating and reiterating the same arguments is the only alternative to consent by silence. This is not the case. Either editor may withdraw from the discussion by stating that (a) the discussion has reached an impasse, (b) they will not continue it, and (c) the other editor is free to pursue the options offered at WP:Dispute resolution requests. If an editor withdraws without comment the other editor should, before assuming consent, {{ping}} the silent editor and alert them that their silence will be construed as agreement. That said, in the face of vandals and trolls a good faith editor may employ silence without first seeking consensus. See WP:Deny recognition. Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it. This so because, as illustrated by Warnock's dilemma, a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent. Wikipedia is huge and our editors' time is limited. At any given time, there are many open discussions on many different topics across the project. We encourage our editors to be bold and it is highly likely that you will eventually find yourself affected by the outcome of some decision that you didn't know about, or didn't have the chance to join. Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change. Apply the rule of silence and consensus only when a weak consensus would suffice. Silence and consensus does not apply when a mandatory discussion is required. When real people are affected by a decision, such as blocking users, or using material covered by the biographies of living persons policy, positive confirmation is preferred. Even in these cases, however, dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus. Essays on silence Meta:Don't vote on everythingRelated policies Wikipedia:What is consensus? Wikipedia:Consensus § Level of consensus Wikipedia:Be bold Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycleArticles Consensus decision-making Groupthink meatball:SilentAgreement" 229 231 512 WP:HUMAN Wikipedia:IP editors are human too 229 "Many users believe that unregistered users' sole contributions to Wikipedia are to cause disruption to articles and that they have fewer rights as editors compared with registered users. Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that although most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia. Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users may be mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects. When dealing with unregistered contributors, the rule to remember is: IPs are human too. You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia, you hid your IP address behind a username. While unregistered users were often called anonymous editors, in fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you who is more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.) Remember this when dealing with unregistered users. They are not a lower category of users. They are not a special subset that we tolerate. They are not locust swarms intent on destroying your article. They are individuals, the same as you. Why does it matter that they have not registered for an account? Just as you deserve to be treated with civility and good faith, the edits of unregistered users deserve civility and good faith from you. As your contributions to talk pages deserve to be heard and counted when forming consensus, so too do the contributions of unregistered users. === Our readers are IPs too === Our readers are IPs too. Virtually none of our readers are registered users. When an unregistered user makes an edit to an article or posts a comment on a talk page, these are the views of one of our readers. That doesn't necessarily mean that their view should be given greater weight; it simply means that we should not discriminate against their view just because they don't have an account. Some IPs add quality edits to Wikipedia. Many users believe that policies and guidelines only apply to registered users. Not so. Policies and guidelines affect all users, registered and unregistered, equally. Comments by unregistered users on talk pages don't count: Yes, they do. The purpose of talk page discussion is to build consensus. Contributions from unregistered users are just as important in determining consensus as contributions from registered users. Unregistered users edit here too. Almost all of our readers are unregistered users. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Never disregard a contribution just because it was made by someone who has not registered for an account. Remember, don't be a jerk. Unregistered users are more likely to vandalise articles: This is true; however, the greater proportion of their contributions are non-vandalism edits. In a February 2007 study of 248 edits, 80.2% of vandalism was done by unregistered editors. But 81.9% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. Non-vandalism edits by unregistered users accounted for 29.4% of all article edits. Of the article edits, only 6.5% were vandalism by unregistered users; in contrast, unregistered users reverted over a quarter (28.5%) of all vandalism. 91.9% of the edits to Wikipedia articles were constructive and unregistered users accounted for nearly a third of those. Another study carried out by IBM found ""no clear connection between anonymity and vandalism""; in addition, the research group found anonymous users provide significant and substantial positive contributions. Unregistered users are more likely to be sockpuppets: Sockpuppetry is the use of multiple IPs to evade blocks or bans, or create the appearance of a greater weight of opinion than really exists (see ballot stuffing). That can include the registration of multiple named accounts, logging out of a named account and commenting anonymously or by connecting through multiple anonymous IP addresses. Nevertheless, assume good faith unless you see signs of sockpuppetry. Do not assume all IP-editors are sockpuppets. Unregistered users don't know or understand policy: Maybe – and registered users often don't know/understand policy, either. An unregistered user may be a one-off contributor or a first-time editor (it's just more difficult to tell). Bear that in mind and remember: don't be a jerk and don't bite the newcomer. Policies and guidelines don't apply to unregistered users (e.g. assume good faith): Policies and guidelines apply to you. You need to assume good faith. You need to behave in a civil fashion. You need to engage in discussion. It doesn't matter whether you are dealing with an unregistered user or not. It is you that needs to follow policy. They should register for an account (e.g. if they want to participate): No. You need to accept their contributions, heed their suggestions and participate in consensus building with them. There is no requirement for anyone to register for an account before they can participate in the building of this encyclopedia. There is always the requirement that you behave. IP ""hopping"" is always done to try and deceive: While this is a tactic sometimes used to evade blocks, it is not in and of itself indicative of any intent to deceive and the contributor may not even be aware of it. Depending on where and how a user is contributing, their IP may change, sometimes between nearly every edit. The same thing happens with registered users, it simply doesn't show up the same way because they have an account. As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can. Unregistered users may edit articles, participate in talk page discussions, contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do. There are some specific restrictions on what unregistered editors can directly do without the assistance of an admin or a registered-and-autoconfirmed editor. Directly create articles: Unregistered users may not create articles with a single click. This restriction was placed on unregistered users in response to the Seigenthaler incident. Unregistered users may indirectly create an article. The most common way is to submit an article at Articles for creation, so it can be created by any registered user. Though less common, it is also possible to create content for an article in a sandbox or user talkpage, and then ask a registered user to create the actual (initially blank) article, after which the information can be copied over. Similarly, they are able to fully participate in deletion discussions, and have been since 2005. Directly edit semi-protected pages: Some articles (particularly biographies of living persons or seasonal articles, such as Christmas) attract vandalism or persistent breaches of policy from infrequent editors, be they registered or unregistered. To deal with this, articles can be placed under semi-protection. Semi-protection is not a means to prevent vandalism from unregistered users but from users registered for less than four days and with fewer than 10 edits. Since there is no way to determine the length of time during which an unregistered person has been contributing (time-of-first-edit cannot be used because many different people may be sharing the same IP address), semi-protection consequently affects unregistered users in addition to newly-registered accounts. This doesn't mean that unregistered users are equated with novice users or that they are considered less trustworthy. As with the indirect creation of articles, anybody can suggest changes on the article talkpage, for addition to the article in mainspace by an editor who can bypass semi-protection. Edit from a blocked IP address or range: Registered users who persist in vandalism or disruptive editing can be blocked from editing by an administrator. Unregistered users who persist in vandalism or disruption can similarly be prevented from editing by the similar measure of blocking contributions from their IP address or range. If you see a block notice on an unregistered user's user page, remember that the person contributing today from that IP address may not be the same person who received the block. (Also, sometimes accidents happen, and the block was by mistake.) Similarly, innocent users (registered and unregistered) may be blocked from contributing because of a block placed on an IP address or range. Directly upload images or rename pages: Like semi-protection, newly-registered users, and consequently unregistered users too, may not upload new files or rename articles directly. Unregistered users and users not yet confirmed may submit file upload requests here or request moves here. Outside official channels, they can also just ask someone they are already working with, or already familiar with, to perform the task. WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:HELPDESK are also useful places to get speedy help. Directly use admin-tools, or become an admin-level contributor: This restriction applies in practice to 98% of registered users (as of 2013), as well as to 100% of unregistered users. Wikipedia withholds certain ""buttons"" from most users. These ""buttons"" are, for example, the ability to delete an article or block a user. In nearly all cases, it is the Wikipedia community that decides who may have access to these ""buttons"". The community decides whether a user can have these privileges based on evidence that they are trustworthy and exercise good judgement. Since many people may contribute from the same IP address, if these rights were given to an unregistered user there would be no way to guarantee that only that user would have access to the ""buttons"". For the same reason, unregistered users cannot be elected to a committee, such as the arbitration committee. As with the other categories, unregistered editors can always ask for assistance, from the nearest admin (or even the nearest ArbCom member). There are tens of thousands of active registered editors, but only a few hundred active admins (as of 2013 there were 80k of the former and 600 of the latter), so this restriction is not at all specific to unregistered editors. Vote as distinct from the essential comment: On the few occasions when decisions (usually not content-related) on Wikipedia are decided by democracy (e.g. request for adminship, elections to the arbitration committee) unregistered users may not vote; they may participate in the discussions. Rather than being evidence of the untrustworthiness of unregistered users, this is in fact because of the untrustworthiness of registered users. If unregistered users were allowed to vote, disreputable registered users could log out of their accounts to vote twice (or, with use of an anonymizing proxy service, tens or hundreds of times). See also WP:SOCKPUPPET, which is a type of abuse where one human registers more than one username; detecting their underlying IP addresses often reveals such schemes.In addition to these restrictions, there are some specific advantages to becoming a registered user, such as watchlists. There are also some other, lesser used, limitations placed on newly-registered users that consequently affect unregistered users. Wikipedia:Why create an account? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous Perennial proposals: Prohibit anonymous users from editing Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle" 230 232 513 WP:NOFASH Wikipedia:No Nazis 230 "It is a common perception – based on our claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit – that Wikipedia welcomes all editors. There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist editor upon learning of their public self-identification. Because of this, many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This belief is false. Nazis (and other inappropriate discriminatory groups) are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia; they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki. The core beliefs uniting various types of Nazis are: That white people are more intelligent than non-whites. That white people are more industrious than non-whites. That white people are more physically adept or attractive than non-whites. That white people are morally and ethically superior to non-whites. That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people. That white people have the right to live in a white-only nation. That in majority-white countries a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites due to genetic factors. That violent, abhorrent or deceptive actions are justified in the pursuit of these beliefs.In addition, there are many more beliefs that are quite common, though not universal among these groups. These include: That Jews present an existential threat. That there exists a massive or even global conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of others. That white people are being systemically killed, out-bred and otherwise forced into a minority status. That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent. That minority groups are seeking to destroy Western culture. That the Holocaust never happened, or historians have inflated the death toll. That the Holocaust was morally justified (or, if they deny it, that it should have happened). That the groups persecuted by the Nazis brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis merely acted in self-defence. That the wrong side won in World War 2. That Adolf Hitler was a great leader for the German people, despite (or even because of) Nazi Germany's innumerable atrocities. That non-whites hold back white progress. That non-whites intend to kill whites. That non-whites should be slaves. That white people are more oppressed than other groups. That non-whites shouldn't have basic human rights. That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism. That groups of people should be wiped off the face of the planet, or systematically repatriated to the lands or continents they supposedly originated from. That Jews are responsible for the creation of Communism and/or Capitalism. That the concept of free speech entails the freedom to post or write race-, gender-, or identity-based slurs, insults, or the promotion and glorification of hate and violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship. That the Globalists are plotting to destroy western civilization. That a Jewish or ""elite"" cabal are behind a variety of uncredible or pseudoscientific conspiracy theories, such as QAnon, the New World Order, the white genocide, or the Great Replacement.These beliefs are – without exception – either demonstrably false, completely unsupported by evidence, or totally unfalsifiable. The very existence of a ""white race"" is a pseudo-scientific idea that has been rejected by the scientific community since the late 1960s – shortly after the discovery of molecular genetics. See Race (human categorization) § Modern scholarship for more on this. Debunking these beliefs is not the purpose of this essay, so they are not addressed here. Suffice it to say that all of these beliefs are considered false or meaningless by experts in the relevant fields. One can verify this with any sufficiently in-depth encyclopedia. There happens to be one close at hand. === Other kinds of racists === As is pointed out in the note in the lede, much of what is written here can be applied to racists of various non-white (or non-Nazi) flavors, as well. All one must do is swap out ""white people"" and ""non-whites"" for the races in question, and if the shoe fits, their behavior is no more excusable than that of any Neo-Nazi or Klansman. The problem with editors who hold these beliefs is that they usually interpret nominally clear information that pertains to those beliefs in a drastically different manner than an objective reader would. This leads to the frequent introduction of errors. It also results in Nazi editors taking wildly different stances on the weight of certain experts and sources who digress from the accepted consensus in their profession. For example, the consensus of geneticists, neurologists and research psychologists is that there is no meaningful correlation between race and intelligence, yet a small number of experts continue to publish work which purports to challenge this consensus. While this work is occasionally quite well done (though instances of poor methodology and even deliberate fraud seem more frequent than with mainstream scholarship), it nonetheless represents a fringe view within the field. Racist editors will almost inevitably attempt to add those views to articles about the subject, and will almost always present them with greater or equal weight to the mainstream view. This means that Nazi editors almost inevitably run afoul of our policies on original research, verifiability and the neutral point of view. Another problem with white supremacist beliefs is that they immediately alienate any non-racist. As soon as a good-faith editor begins to suspect another editor of harboring these beliefs, it becomes all but impossible for them to work together without conflict. Without fail, non-racists find Nazi beliefs to be abhorrent. They fly in the face of the basic decency shared by most non-racists, and even though a Nazi editor may perceive themselves to be moral and objective, to all non-racists this is obviously and horribly untrue. The Nazis of early 20th century Germany set out to build up their nation, to improve the future abilities of all of humanity, and to protect their people from perceived threats. All of those are intentions which, in most contexts, would be highly moral, even laudable. But in the context of racist beliefs, they resulted in possibly the most evil regime to ever exist. It is important to note that Nazism presents a special case, owing to the Holocaust. Even if one is a ""nice"" Nazi who doesn't really believe non-Aryans should be exterminated, or even if one is just ""playing around"" with Nazi slogans, imagery, or ideas, the moment an editor identifies as a Nazi in any way, they are endorsing the Holocaust in the eyes of the vast majority of other editors. Owing to their white supremacists beliefs, far-right extremists often organize edit campaigns on various anonymous channels, believing that they could seize Wikipedia with their racist or fascist propaganda. Such users by nature do not come in good faith, and they will inevitably utilize various civil POV pushing techniques under the remote semblance of civility. This includes, but is not limited to, inserting fringe views from questionable sources, and trying to frustrate and drive away other editors in pages and pages of endless sea-lioning debates. This remains an ever-present threat to this project, as it undermines Wikipedia's reliability and long-standing editing environment, that has given rise to our clean, balanced articles. For the health of this project now and into the future, Wikipedia must stand firm against such disruptions. The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement as a whole are based on the concept that everyone has a right to receive free knowledge, regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, creed, or any other demographic factor, and that everyone has the right to contribute to this sharing of knowledge so long as they act in a way that does not disrupt the ability for others to contribute. Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. This is particularly true of neo-Nazis and other groups with ties to genocidal ideologies. Expressing such views on Wikipedia will always be considered uncivil and, if made against or toward other editors, will always be considered blatant and serious personal attacks as well as unambiguous attempts at gross harassment. Disruption by racists, while often taking place in articles and talk pages, often comes to a flash-point in user space, when a user openly displays iconography from racist groups on their user page or signature. The only way for administrators to recognize this form of disruption is if these individuals make it known on Wikipedia. Declaring oneself to be a racist, or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or Nazi-like imagery, propaganda, or mythologizing - is considered disruptive editing because it sends a message stating (directly or indirectly) that a significant portion of our readers and editors, in one way or another, shouldn't exist at all due to their ethnicity or race. This belief system (and hence any expression in support thereof) is in direct conflict of Wikipedia's five pillars, which outline Wikipedia's founding principles and how each editor is expected to behave and contribute to the project. As a result of this conflict, users can and will be blocked for such disruption. This enforcement is sometimes interpreted and expressed by users as being a form of censorship. This is not correct. As a private website, Wikipedia and its community of editors have the freedom, the right, and the ability to determine and deem certain behaviors and actions as disruptive. In addition, they can also deem that the disruption, immediately upon its creation or presence, is severe enough that it makes contributing in a positive and collaborative environment impossible. When that level of disruption occurs, and when it crosses the line in regards to racism, that person is no longer welcome here as an editor. Additionally, editors who come here to push this point of view within any articles or content, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are also typically blocked as being ""POV pushers"". Casting aspersions of racism (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked. Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources. If you encounter someone you suspect of being a racist or antisemite, check their contributions. Racists on Wikipedia usually try to advance their ideology. If they really are a racist, you should usually see edits promoting a nationalist or racist perspective. Collect relevant diffs and report them to the administrators' incident noticeboard (or arbitration enforcement if applicable). Make sure the diffs do support a charge of racism or antisemitism. If an editor is displaying racist imagery on their user page, report it to WP:ANI as a user displaying racist imagery, not as a ""racist editor"", because there is no room for interpretation in such a case. Sister page Wikipedia:No racistsRelated page Wikipedia:No ConfederatesBackground information Paradox of toleranceEssays Wikipedia:Deny recognition Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Wikipedia:Free speech Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive Wikipedia:Nationalist editing Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity Wikipedia:Zero tolerance User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.Other ""Nazi Punks Fuck Off"", a 1981 precedent for an intentional community taking a stand against racism Template:uw-nonazis Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation task force Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). ""Wikipedia wars: Inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets"". SPLCenter.org. Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019." 231 233 514 WP:NOPE Wikipedia:What notability is not 231 "This essay makes four arguments about things notability is not. If you are new to Wikipedia, you will need to know that ""notable"" does not simply mean ""noteworthy,"" which is a standard way that the term is defined by a dictionary. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject. This essay argues that notability is not objective. Notability is not permanent–it can change. Notability is not judged in isolation. Notability is not a meritocracy. It is sometimes stated on Wikipedia that the primary notability criterion is not a subjective criterion. Nevertheless, the criterion itself contains four subjective words, specifically ""A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject. It is not helpful to simply declare a subject non-notable; an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any relevant policy or guidance offered on Wikipedia. They should also not seek to stifle debate simply by declaring that notability is an objective fact. As the guidance itself states, notability is a presumption; it is an assumption or supposition made with a degree of certainty, not an assertion of certitude. The significance of coverage, reliability of sources and the independence of the sources are all issues which should be explored within a deletion debate, not simply contended by an editor, and it is the debate which decides the notability of a given subject on Wikipedia, not an individual editor. A topic's inclusion in Wikipedia is decided by a consensus of Wikipedians, nothing more and nothing less. Since consensus can change on Wikipedia, Wikipedians should not state that notability (or non-notability) is permanent. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that process includes deciding what is and isn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Those standards are subject to change, as can be seen in a number of deletion debates. Articles which were thought notable and suitable for inclusion earlier in the history of Wikipedia have later been deleted. As well, a topic which was deemed non-notable in 2010, may become notable by 2015, when multiple, independent reliable sources significantly discuss the topic. Therefore it is a fallacy to declare that notability (or non-notability) is permanent. This is not to be confused with Notability is not temporary. Notability of a topic can often carry through to key features of that topic. This is especially obvious in fiction where a fictional place may not be notable on its own, but might be the primary setting or character of a notable work of fiction (e.g. Arrakis is the primary setting in the Dune universe). The best test for this sort of relationship is to ask, ""would a very short summary of the parent topic be expected to include the 'child' topic?"" Even then, typically such subordinate topics are merged into the parent article unless (as noted above) size limitations make this option less ideal. It is a good idea, when writing a stub of a new article, to mention important awards or accomplishments of the subject of the article. Still, it is not a good idea to turn things around and pretend that someone must get awards or pass through some arbitrary set of conditions to ""earn"" a place in Wikipedia. Awards and accomplishments are useful because they don't come from out of the blue; someone who has earned a Grammy or an Academy Award is likely to have already received the required coverage in the press to justify inclusion. But if an actor or musician did get significant, published recognition from film reviewers or music critics, but did not receive awards (or did not receive enough awards), then they may nevertheless qualify for an article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, an article on someone with five awards does not remove space or resources for someone else with 10 awards, so we don't need to be so selective. For even more proof that the concept of notability is not a meritocracy, take this fictional example of two musicians, Bill and Ted. Bill is a rhythm guitar player who has worked as a substitute musician and touring musician with over 20 major metal bands over the last 20 years. He is highly respected by the metal community for his playing style, technique and sound. He is a virtual encyclopedia of metal guitar, too, as he knows a huge amount of the important songs. He is certainly ""notable"" in the regular world's use of the term. However, nothing has ever been written about Bill's music playing in a reliable source, so he probably would not be deemed to be notable to get a Wikipedia article about him. Ted, on the other hand, has been singing and writing songs in an amateur band for the last few months. The band has never played live and they are not signed to any label. After Ted posts a homemade video of one of the band's songs, shot on a cellphone, to YouTube, it becomes the subject of nationwide controversy due to the offensive, disparaging lyrics. Articles about Ted, his song, and the lyrics are published by columnists in a number of major papers. Over the next several months, several major magazines interview Ted to find out more about him and how he developed his extremist views. A music professor even publishes an analysis of the song in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Ted and his music have been the subject of multiple reliable sources, so he would probably qualify for a Wikipedia article. From a policy standpoint, notability is also neither relevance nor reliability. It is also said that notability is not a level playing field, nor simply a matter of opinion. Notability is not eternal (humorous essay)" 232 234 516 WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes 232 "An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, a map, or both. Wikipedia's infoboxes almost always use the template software feature. The templates have parameters; to work properly, the parameter values have to be specified when the template is inserted in the page. This allows each infobox to show information relevant to the article subject, while requiring only a minimal amount of coding within each article. When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in {{Infobox language}} and most of the parameters in {{Chembox}}. Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats. === Overall approach === The recommended process for creating an infobox template is simply to begin, and to gather as many requirements as possible. Test the base format for a new template as a static table first, then once consensus is reached, migrate it into template format. The template should be reviewed before being used extensively in articles in case the template or defined parameters need modification to minimize re-works. If new fields and parameters are added, articles must be updated to reflect the new requirements. If parameters are renamed or removed, many articles will likely be unaffected, since extraneous parameters are ignored. === Style, color and formatting === General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies. The general guidelines WP:NBSP (use of non-breaking spaces), WP:MOSNUM (numbers and dates), and WP:COLOR (use of color) are likely to be particularly relevant. As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility, not appearance; therefore, infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative. === Images === When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used. Infobox templates should implement the InfoboxImage module to help with formatting of images so simply supplying the file name will work. For example, to use File:Image PlaceHolder.png, you can simply use |image=Image PlaceHolder.png. Captions should be specified with the |caption= option. Every infobox is different and the documentation for the infobox in question should be consulted for the proper parameters to match the image and caption. If InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same |alt=, |upright=, |title=, etc., options may be called using Extended image syntax, calling |frameless, not |thumb. (You may wish to add a request to the infobox's talk page that the missing parameters be added.) === Consistency between infoboxes === For consistency the following guidelines apply: Before creating a new infobox template, check first to see whether a suitable infobox already exists. Name the template [[Template:Infobox some subject]] (some subject should be in the singular and capitalized as per normal usage—see Wikipedia:Article titles, e.g., ""Infobox settlement"" or ""Infobox NFL player""). Use {{infobox}} template to create a new infobox. The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with {{PAGENAMEBASE}}) is usually fine. It should not contain a link. Parameters in infoboxes should: be named, not numbered, to provide for future use. use lower-case unless they are proper nouns. be consistent between infoboxes. For example, {{Infobox person}} uses |birth_date=, as do many other biographical infoboxes, so it would be confusing for a new biographical infobox to use, say |date of birth=, rather than reusing the existing parameter name. Use snake case (e.g. |birth_date=). Not camel case (e.g. |birthDate=) or title case (e.g. |BirthDate=) represent spaces using an underscore, e.g. |birth_place= not |birth-place= or |birth place=. Infoboxes using geographical coordinates should use |coordinates= as the parameter name, with the {{coord}} template in the parameter's value. If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined. ==== Causes of inconsistency ==== A number of factors can cause inconsistency in available summary information for a particular type of article: Design inconsistency Infoboxes, particularly infobox forks for the same category of articles, should maintain a consistent appearance with related infoboxes, particularly in relation to layout, colour and structure. For example, readers expect a degree of similarity when viewing the article for London vs New York City. Historical incompleteness Certain desired information may simply have been lost over time. For example, an infobox describing a modern bank may provide certain financial information that would be unavailable for a medieval one. Hierarchical inconsistency Infoboxes that indicate hierarchical relationships may have subtly different requirements depending on where in the hierarchy the subject of the article is located. For example, an infobox for corporations will be different between an article describing a parent company and indicating its subsidiaries and an article describing a subsidiary and indicating its parent. Feature inconsistency Items within a single set may have optional features that would commonly be listed in an infobox. For example, an infobox for an article about a university may include a motto; but not all universities have them. Lack of information Some items in infoboxes may not be readily available or not available at all, such as the producers of an album or film. In these cases it is better to provide available information while concealing fields for which information may not be available. === General design considerations === The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional, nor that large numbers of rarely used fields should be added without regard for the layout and ease-of-use of the infobox template. In some cases, the markup for the field still needs to be downloaded even if it is not displayed. Creating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended. As you design an infobox template, consider the following questions: Is the field of value? How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. Conversely, very common fields may be included – and made optional – even if they are not applicable to a few of the articles in question. How likely is the field to be empty? Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevant. Can the field name be reused from elsewhere? For instance, if adding a field for the date on which the subject died, to a biographical infobox template, use |death_date= from {{Infobox person}}, and not a similar name like |date_of_death= or |died=. Is it for people, places or organisations? If so, include an hCard microformat – see the microformat project Is it for a dated event? (Such as a record release, or sport fixture) If so, include an hCalendar microformat – see the microformat project === Geographical infoboxes === Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted. Where the article title is disambiguated, the plain name can head the infobox, as long as the topic is clear (e.g. São Paulo at São Paulo (state)). Alternative or native names can appear beneath this if beneficial. Extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox, as at Augsburg. === Dynamic templates === In theory, the fields in an infobox should be consistent across every article using it; in practice, however, this is rarely the case, for a number of reasons. Infobox templates should be designed to dynamically adapt themselves to the absence or presence of particular fields. Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format. However, the template technique allows updates of style and of common text from a central place, the template page. While there are several alternatives to dynamic infoboxes, such as using multiple (forked) templates or leaving fields blank, they should be avoided, for a number of reasons: Readers greatly outnumber editors The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks, or ""Unknown""s present an unprofessional appearance. Article editors greatly outnumber template editors The average editor will merely use templates without making changes to them. To make things easier for them, we should aim to minimize the number of different templates they must be familiar with; creating multiple forks of templates is therefore undesirable. === Requirement === Assess the requirement of a new infobox before designing one. A few points should be considered while initiating a new infobox: Sufficient and appropriate distinct parameters Can't be addressed by the existing infoboxes Can't be addressed by creating a wrapper of existing infoboxes Basing a new infobox template on Template:Infobox allows the designer to concentrate on which fields to include. Functionality such as default styling and suppression of rows in an article that has no value for a particular field are taken care of automatically. === Conditional templates === Parser functions can be used to selectively show or hide particular content (such as table rows) within an infobox based on the value of one or more template parameters. For example, a parameter may be designed to display only if another parameter exists. A simplistic test to display a caption only when an image is present could be: === Name-resolved meta-templates === Several sub-templates (and independent templates) have a common name prefix. They are included in an infobox based on the value of a particular parameter, which acts as the name suffix. For example, we create {{Infobox Ship/Military}} and {{Infobox Ship/Civilian}} and use {{Infobox Ship/{{{type}}}}}. Using |type=Military in an article causes {{Infobox Ship/Military}} to be used. === Multi-part infoboxes === Rather than having each field correspond to a parameter on one template, the infobox consists of an individual sub-template for each field; see, for example, Template:Taxobox. Templates can be designed in a modular way, such that various combinations are possible. A combination may even appear on the page as a single infobox. For example, if the WikiProject Saints group wanted to design a template based on their static infobox, they could use Template:Infobox Biography, and design a project-specific template with only additional information, and the pages would render both ""stacked"" together. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox. For example, for a particular infobox type, if one of its fields is called ""weight"", it would be inappropriate to sometimes use this field to denote ""weight at birth"" and other times ""weight at maturity"". Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used. Like navigation templates, infoboxes should avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG. === References in infoboxes === References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. === Ethnicity in infoboxes === The Wikipedia community has decided at this RfC not to allow the use of the |ethnicity= parameter in biography infoboxes. === Nationality and citizenship === Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=. When needed (e.g. due to change of nationality after birth, dual ""citizenship"", or other unusual scenarios), use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate for uncommon legal reasons. Use of nationality and citizenship simultaneously should rarely if ever be necessary (complex cases should be explained in the article prose). Religion or ethnicity should not be placed in either of these fields. Users can have user CSS that hides any infoboxes in their own browsers. To hide all infoboxes, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.css (for all skins, or Special:MyPage/skin.css for just the current skin), on a line by itself: Alternatively, you can add the following code to your common.js or into a browser user script that is executed by an extension like Greasemonkey: Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline. For example, the full taxonomic hierarchy in {{Taxobox}}, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of {{Infobox disease}} are often not found in the main article content. The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article. === List of templates === Wikipedia:List of infoboxes — main listing All pages with titles beginning with Template:Infobox, a freshly generated list of templates starting with ""Infobox ..."" === Other infobox information === Help:Infobox Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup § Infobox needed All pages with titles beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject Infobox, a freshly generated list of relevant WikiProjects Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, an essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, an essay Wikipedia:Law of infobox inclusion, an essay === Other types of templates === Wikipedia:Navigation templates — article footers designed to provide links to several related articles Wikipedia:MediaWiki interface messages — messages displayed in Wikipedia's web interface boxes, reserved for internal system use and only modifiable by administrators Wikipedia:Template index — directory of all templates" 233 235 518 WP:BLPSE Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons 233 "Case Opened on 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Case Closed on 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Case amended by motion at 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Case amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage. Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision. Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification and amendment, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RedSpruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) === Statement by RedSpruce === Reply to FayssalF - I've added links to 2 of the RFCs. I think there was at least one other, but I couldn't find the dif. We haven't tried a third opinion. I'm reasonably sure that another 3rd opinion would make no impression on RAN; other editors have disagreed with him on this point before [1] with no effect. As for myself, it would take a well-reasoned argument to convince me that I'm wrong here. RedSpruce (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Reply to Newyorkbrad - Although RAN has doled out a series of insults to me, I don't care about that, and since he is currently making an honest effort to engage in discussion I have no real complaint about his user conduct as such. Apparently quite a number of people have had complaints about Alansohn's conduct (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn), but that's not my issue here either. When RAN was refusing to discuss edit disputes I opened an ANI about this, but it came to nothing. At best, mediation would convince RAN to stop his dis-improving edits on a single article, and I doubt he would agree to participate in mediation.RedSpruce (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Statement - This Arb Request has to do with a seemingly minor issue of style, but one that is being repeated so often, on so many articles, that the cumulative effect is a notable detriment to Wikipedia. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ('RAN') is an extremely prolific editor with over 47,000 contributiions.[2] A great many of his contributions are in the form of adding references to articles. When he adds reference footnotes, he usually makes use of the ""quote ="" parameter available in citation templates. Unfortunately, in most of these edits, the quote parameter is used for no good purpose; he simply takes a quotation from the source without considering whether that quotation adds information to the article or simply repeats information already in the article. At times his quoted text is completely irrelevant to the footnoted portion of the article. This use of quotations--where the quotation adds no significant and relevant information to the article--is not in keeping with standard citation practice, and to my knowledge it has never been used in an article that has achieved Featured Article status. Since I consider these edits of RAN to be detrimental, and since I have had no success in reasoning with him about this issue (see Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Footnote quotes and User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion for two of many examples), this has been the cause of endless edit wars between us. RAN's contributions are usually to obscure articles, and in my dealings with him it has often been impossible to get anything more than a fleeting and disinterested ""drive by"" comment from outside editors. Here are some illustrative dif.s: Quote is irrelevant to footnoted text: [3], [4], [5]Quote repeats information in the article: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]Quote is irrelevant to footnoted text and repeats information elsewhere in the article: [11], [12], [13] , [14], [15]Given the number of RAN's edits, it would be possible to list literally thousands of examples like this. Each one is only a minor dis-improvement to its article, but taken as a whole, they represent real damage to Wikipedia. Furthermore, this damage is happening because of a single, relatively isolated lack of understanding on RAN's part. If the ArbCom could make a ruling that directs RAN to use quotations in footnotes correctly, then Wikipedia will greatly benefit. Alternatively, if the ArbCom can show me in what way my reasoning about this issue is incorrect, then I'll stop making this objection and a longstanding dispute will be settled. I'm including User: Alansohn as an involved party because he has a pattern of supporting RAN in this and other edit conflicts. He generally does this with little or not participation on an article's Talk page. === Statement by Alansohn === This is a very simple issue. User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to Joseph McCarthy, the Army-McCarthy Hearings. Efforts to expand, improve and source these articles have been met by unexplained reverts and gross incivility. The quote feature is a widely used function within Wikipedia, and is intended to provide documentation of the specific material being cited within the reference. While there is ample room for quibbling about the specific text to be included, there is no argument as to its intended purpose. RedSpruce has turned his own personal battle on content and extended it to beselessly impose his personal preferenece that quotations should never be used under any circumstances. RedSpruce is free to argue what should be included in reference quotations, yet his near exclusive respone has been to remove quotations or references in tehir entirety, regardless of their clear relevance to the points being supported. The only variations on User:RedSpruce's part have been whether abusive statements have been included. The solution here is clear. A content ban should be placed on User:RedSpruce on articles related to the area of Joseph McCarthy and the Army-McCarthy Hearings. Warnings on further incivility on the part of User:RedSpruce should be included with any actions. It may be possible for RedSpruce to make productive edits where his strong personal biases do not manifest themselves as violating WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL when editors stray from his demands. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) === Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/1) === RedSpurce, I see that you both tried the AN/I multiple times but I see no diff related to the several Rfc's you are referring to in your statement. Have you tried to consult a third opinion beforehand? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Before voting, I'd appreciate the parties' thoughts on whether a user-conduct RfC and/or mediation (formal or informal) might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm troubled by some of the allegations here. Alansohn, do you have diffs for the behaviour you mention? Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Moving to accept, per FloNight. I'm not sure everything alleged in the request is accurate but there's enough of a problem for me to conclude that we should look in more detail. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Accept. I think we can help sort out this issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Accept. Kirill (prof) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC) = Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available. === Biographies of living persons === 1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be ""do no harm."" This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Decorum === 2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Role of the Arbitration Committee === 3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. Passed 9 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Compliance === 4) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee. Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Novel approaches === 5) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts. Passed 9 to 1 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Use of quotes in footnotes === 6) In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation. Passed 8 to 1 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Problems with biographies of living persons === 1) There continue to be significant and numerous problems with the implementation of the biographies of living persons policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases. There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear. Passed 10 to 0 at 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Alansohn === 2) Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). Passed 8 to 0 at 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. === Special enforcement on biographies of living persons === 1) Passed 8 to 2 at 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Superseded by motion 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC) === Alansohn restricted === 2) Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Passed 8 to 0 at 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) === Case renamed (January 2015) === Passed 10 to 1 by motion at 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC) === Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022) === Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here." 234 236 519 WP:HITS Wikipedia:Search engine test 234 "A search engine lists web pages on the Internet. This facilitates research by offering an immediate variety of applicable options. Possibly useful items on the results list include the source material or the electronic tools that a web site can provide, such as a dictionary, but the list itself, as a whole, can also indicate important information. However, discerning that information may require insight. Search engine results can help editors retain (what is notable) or delete (what is not verifiable) source material, depending on their reliability. There is a high demand for reliability on Wikipedia. Discerning the reliability of the source material is an especially core skill for using the web, while the wiki itself only facilitates the creation of multiple drafts. As presentations and deletions progress, this variety of choices for input tend to produce the desired objective—a neutral viewpoint. Depending on the type of query and kind of search engine, this variety can open up to a single author. Popularity – See Google's trending tool below. Usage – Identify a term's notability. (See for example Google's ngram tool.) Genuineness – Identify a spurious hoax or an urban legend. Notability – Decide whether a page should be nominated for deletion. Existence – Discover what sources (including websites) actually exist for possible presentation. Information – Review the reliability of facts and citations. Names and terminology – Identify the names used for things (including alternative names and terminology). Copyrighting – Identify whether material is copied, and if so, check the licensing.This page describes both these web search tests and the web search tools that can help develop Wikipedia, and it describes their biases and their limitations. The advantages of a specific search engine can be distinguished by using a variety of common search engines. The distinct advantages of each are their user interface and, less obviously, their algorithms for compiling and searching their own indexes. Because a web crawler can be blocked—specific ones or just in general—different search engines can list different web sites, and there are more web sites available by URL than are indexed in any database. The most common search engines are at Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Specialized search engines exist for medicine, science, news and law amongst others. Several generalized search engines exist. These adapt your query to many search engines. See § Common search engines below. This page mostly uses Google instead of Bing or Yahoo, but aims for generality where it can. For example, it describes Google Groups (usenet groups), Google scholar (academia), Google news, and Google books. If an unsourced addition to an article appears plausible, consider taking a moment to use a suitable search engine to find a reliable source before deciding whether to revert. Depending on the subject matter, and how carefully it is used, a search engine test can be very effective and helpful, or produce misleading or non-useful results. In most cases, a search engine test is a first-pass heuristic or ""rule of thumb"". === What a search test can do, and what it can't === A search engine can index pages and text which others have placed on the internet, just like a big index at the back of a book. Search engines can: Provide information and lead to pages that assist with the above goals Confirm ""who's reported to have said what"" according to sources (useful for neutral citing) Often provide full cited copies of source documents Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is. Note, however, that Google searches may report vastly more hits than will ever be returned to the user, especially for exact quoted expressions. For example, a Google search for ""the green goldfish"", with quotes, in 2021 initially reports around 209,000 results, yet on paging through to the last search results page shows the returned number of hits to be 303. See also here to calculate statistical significance. Search more specifically within certain websites, or for combined and alternative phrases (or excluding certain words and phrases that would otherwise confuse the results).Search engines cannot: Guarantee the results are reliable or ""true"" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false). Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance. Guarantee that the results reflect the uses you mean, rather than other uses. (E.g., a search for a specific John Smith may pick up many ""John Smiths"" who aren't the one meant, many pages containing ""John"" and ""Smith"" separately, and also miss out all the useful references indexed under ""J. Smith"" or, if the term is put in quotes, ""John Michael Smith"" and ""Smith, John"") Guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression. Guarantee that little-mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant. Guarantee that a particular result is the original instance of a piece of text and not a reprint, excerpt, quotation, misquotation, or copyright violation.and search engines often will not: Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects. Be neutral.A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything. === Verifiability === Search engine tests may return results that are fictitious, biased, hoaxes or similar. It is important to consider whether the information used derives from reliable sources before using or citing it. Less reliable sources may be unhelpful, or need their status and basis clarified, so that other readers gain a neutral and informed understanding to judge how reliable the sources are. === Neutrality === Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self-created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity. As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity. (See WP:NPOV § Neutrality and Verifiability for information on balancing the policies on verifiability and neutrality, and WP:NPOV § Article naming on how articles should be named) === Notability === Raw ""hit"" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many ""hits"", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit-count numbers alone can only rarely ""prove"" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. (However, as described below, you can eliminate partial matches by quoting the phrase to be matched): While Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting. To exclude partial matches when Googling for the phrase, quote the phrase to be matched as follows: ""Madonna of the Rocks"". === Search engine expressions (examples and tutorial) === This section explains some search expressions used in Google web search. Similar approaches will work in many other search engines, and other Google searches, but always read their help pages for further information as search engines' capabilities and operation often differ. Note that if you are signed in to a Google account when searching on Google then this may affect the results that you get, based on your search history. Also be sure to check ""Languages for Displaying (Search) Results"" in ""Search Settings"".) The single most useful search engine tool may be the use of quotation marks to find an exact match for a phrase. However, a search engine such as Google has both an easy, and an advanced search with further search options. The advanced search makes it easier to enter advanced options, that may help your searching. The following collapsible sections cover basic examples and help for using search engines with Wikipedia. Specialized search engines such as medical paper archives have their own specialized search structure not covered here. === Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia === Google Trends can allow you to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for, like this (note: sports category) or like this. ""Tidal wave"" vs. ""Tsunami"" example, see also the Google Books example below. Google Books has a pattern of coverage that is in closer accord with traditional encyclopedia content than is the Web, taken as a whole; if it has systemic bias, it is a very different systemic bias from Google Web searches. Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. You can compare usage of terms, such as ""Tidal wave"" vs. ""Tsunami"". Google Book search can locate print-published testimony to the importance of a person, event, or concept. It can also be used to replace an unsourced ""common knowledge"" fact with a print-sourced version of the same fact. Google Groups or other date-stamped media can help establish the timing and context of early references to a word or phrase. Google Groups search. Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy. Google News used to be less susceptible to manipulation by self-promoters, but with the advent of pseudo-news sites designed to collect ad revenues or to promote specific agendas, this test is often no more reliable than others in areas of popular interest, and indexes many ""news"" sources that reflect specific points of view. The news archive goes back many years but may not be free beyond a limited period. News results often include press releases, which are not neutral, independent sources. Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Best for scientific or academic topics. Can include Masters and Doctorate thesis papers, patents, and legal documents. Google Scholar search. Topics alleged to be notable by popular reference can have the type of reference, and popularity, checked. An alleged notable issue that only has a few hundred references on the Internet may not be very notable; truly popular Internet memes can have millions or even tens of millions of references. However note that in some areas, a notable subject may have very few references; for example, one might only expect a handful of references to some archaeological matter, and some matters will not be reflected online at all. Topics alleged to be genuine can be checked to test if they are referenced by reliable independent sources; this is a good test for hoaxes and the like. Copyright violations from websites can often be identified (as described above). Alternative spellings and usages can have their relative frequencies checked (e.g., for a debate which is the more common of two equally neutral and acceptable terms). Google Trends can compare usage in the ""News"" category (""Tidal wave"" vs ""Tsunami"" example), but this may not be reliable for older news. === General === A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. A manageable sample of results found should be opened individually and read, to actually verify their relevance. In the case of Google (and other search engines such as Bing and Yahoo!), the hit count at the top of the page is unreliable and should usually not be reported. The hit count reported on the penultimate (second-to-last) page of results may be slightly more accurate. For searches with few reported hits (less than 1000) the actual count of hits needed to reach the bottom of the last page of results may be more accurate, but even this is not a sure thing. Google returns different search results depending on factors such as your previous search history and on which Google server you happen to hit.Other useful considerations in interpreting results are: Article scope: If narrow, fewer references are required. Try to categorize the point of view, whether it is NPoV, or other; e.g., notice the difference between Ontology and Ontology (computer science). Article subject: If it's about some historical person, one or two mentions in reliable texts might be enough; if it's some Internet neologism or a pop song, it may be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes. === Biases to be aware of === In most cases, search results should be reviewed with an awareness and careful skepticism before relying upon them. Common biases include: ==== General biases ==== General (the Internet or people as a whole): Personal bias – Tendency to be more receptive to beliefs that one is familiar with, agrees with, or are common in one's daily culture, and to discount beliefs and views that contradict one's preferred views. Cultural and computer-usage bias – Biased towards information from Internet-using developed countries and affluent parts of society (internet access). Countries where computer use is not so common will often have lower rates of reference to equally notable material, which may therefore appear (mistakenly) non-notable. Undue weight – May disproportionally represent some matters, especially related to popular culture (some matters may be given far more space and others far less, than fairly represents their standing): popularity is not notability. Sources not readily accessible – Some sources are accessible to all, but many are payment only, or not reported online.General web search engines (Google, Bing web search etc.): Dark net – Search engines exclude a vast number of pages, and this may include systematic bias so that some matters are excluded disproportionately (for example, because they are commonly visible on sites that do not allow Google indexing, or the content for technical reasons cannot be indexed (Flash- or image-based websites etc.) Search engines as promotion tool – An industry exists seeking to influence site position, popularity, and ratings in such searches, or sell advertising space related to searches and search positions. Some subjects, such as pornographic actors, are so dominated by these that searches cannot be reliably used to establish popularity. Review process varies; some sites accept any information, while others have some form of review or checking system in place. Self-mirroring – Sometimes other sites clone Wikipedia content, which is then passed around the Internet, and more pages built up based upon it (and often not cited), meaning that in reality the source of much of the search engine's findings are actually just copies of Wikipedia's own previous text, not genuine sources. Popular usage bias – Popular usage and urban legend is often reported over correctness Examples: A search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. A search for the most common spelling of El Niño will often report it spelt ""El Nino"", without the diacritic. Urban legends are often reported widely, for example hundreds of sites report that the USS Constitution set sail in 1779, although the correct date is 1797. Popular views and perceptions are likely to be more reported. For example, there may be many references to acupuncture and confirming that people are often allergic to animal fur, but it may only be with careful research that it is revealed there are medical peer-reviewed assessments of the former, and that people are usually not allergic to fur, but to the sticky skin and saliva particles (dander) within the fur. Language selection bias – For example, an Arabic speaker searching for information on homosexuality in Arabic will likely find pages which reflect a different bias than an English speaker searching in English on the same subject, since popular and media views and beliefs about homosexuality can differ widely between English-speaking countries (US, UK, Australia, etc.) that tend to include a higher proportion of homosexuality-accepting groups, and Arabic-speaking countries (Middle East) that tend to include a lower proportion.Other: Note that other Google searches, particularly Google Book Search, have a different systemic bias from Google Web searches and give an interesting cross-check and a somewhat independent view. ==== Alexa ratings ==== In some cases, it is helpful to estimate the relative popularity of a website. Alexa Internet is a tool for this (Hitwise and Quantcast are others). To test Alexa's ranking for a particular web site, visit alexa.com and enter the URL. The Alexa measuring system is based on a toolbar that users must choose to install, which can be installed on several browsers including Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, across different operating systems. Sources of bias include both websites whose users disproportionately do not install such toolbars, as well as webmasters who install Alexa Toolbar for the sole purpose of enhancing their ratings. Specifically, Alexa rankings are not part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons: Below a certain level, Alexa rankings are essentially meaningless, because of the limited sample size. Alexa itself says that ranks lower than 100,000 are not reliable. Alexa rankings vary and include significant systematic bias which means the ratings often do not reflect popularity, but only popularity amongst certain groups of users (See Alexa Internet § Concerns). Broadly, Alexa rates based upon measurements by a user-installed toolbar, but this is a highly variable tool, and there are large parts of the Internet user community (especially corporate users, many advanced users, many open-source and non-Windows users) who do not use it and whose Internet reference use is therefore ignored. Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it. A number of unquestionably notable topics have web sites with poor Alexa rankings. ==== Quantcast ratings ==== To obtain statistics, visit http://quantcast.com, enter url, click ""Search."" For entities which subscribe to Quantcast's service, Quantcast declares that their traffic measurements are ""verified."" This may provide better reliability than Alexa results, as it does not depend on user installation of a plugin. For entities which do not subscribe to be ""quantified"", Quantcast declares their traffic measurements to be ""estimates."" The same reliability and notability provisions listed under § Alexa ratings apply here. === Foreign languages, non-Latin scripts, and old names === Often for items of non-English origin, or in non-Latin scripts, a considerably larger number of hits result from searching in the correct script or for various transcriptions—be sure to check ""Languages for Displaying (Search) Results"" in ""Search Settings"". An Arabic name, for instance, needs to be searched for in the original script, which is easily done with Google (provided one knows what to search for), but problems may arise if – for example – English, French and German webpages transcribe the name using different conventions. Even for English-only webpages there may be many variants of the same Arabic or Russian name. Personal names in other languages (Russian, Anglo-Saxon) may have to be searched for both including and excluding the patronymic, and searches for names and other words in strongly inflected languages should take into account that arriving at the total number of hits may require searching for forms with varying case-endings or other grammatical variations not obvious for someone who does not know the language. Names from many cultures are traditionally given together with titles that are considered part of the name, but may also be omitted (as in Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha). Even in Old English, the spelling and rendering of older names may allow dozens of variations for the same person. A simplistic search for one particular variant may underrepresent the web presence by an order of magnitude. A search like this requires a certain linguistic competence which not every individual Wikipedian possesses, but the Wikipedia community as a whole includes many bilingual and multilingual people and it is important for nominators and voters on AfD at least to be aware of their own limitations and not make untoward assumptions when language or transcription bias may be a factor. === Google distinct page count issues === Note also, that the number of search string matches reported by search engines is only an estimate. For example, Google will only calculate the actual number of matches once the user navigates through all result pages, to the last one, and even then it places restrictions on the figure. At times, the ""match"" count estimate can be significantly different (by one or more orders of magnitude) to the total count of results shown on the last results page. A site-specific search may help determine if most of the matches are coming from the same web site; a single web site can account for hundreds of thousands of hits. For search terms that return many results, Google uses a process that eliminates results which are ""very similar"" to other results listed, both by disregarding pages with substantially similar content and by limiting the number of pages that can be returned from any given domain. For example, a search on ""Taco Bell"" will give only a couple of pages from tacobell.com even though many in that domain will certainly match. Further, Google's list of distinct results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of distinct results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, as of 14 December 2010, from the about 742 million pages related to ""Microsoft"", Google was returning 572 ""distinct"" results.. Caution must be used in judging the relative importance of websites yielding well over 1000 search results. Many, probably most, of the publicly available web pages in existence are not indexed. Each search engine captures a different percentage of the total. Nobody can tell exactly what portion is captured. The estimated size of the World Wide Web is at least 11.5 billion pages, but a much deeper (and larger) Web, estimated at over 3 trillion pages, exists within databases whose contents the search engines do not index. These dynamic web pages are formatted by a Web server when a user requests them and as such cannot be indexed by conventional search engines. The United States Patent and Trademark Office website is an example; although a search engine can find its main page, one can only search its database of individual patents by entering queries into the site itself.Google, like all Internet search engines can only find information that has actually been made available on the Internet. There is still a sizable amount of information that is not on the Internet. Google, like all major Web search services, follows the robots.txt protocol and can be blocked by sites that do not wish their content to be indexed or cached by Google. Sites that contain large amounts of copyrighted content (Image galleries, subscription newspapers, webcomics, movies, video, help desks), usually involving membership, will block Google and other search engines. Other sites may also block Google due to the stress or bandwidth concerns on the server hosting the content. Search engines also might not be able to read links or metadata that normally requires a browser plugin, Adobe PDF, or Macromedia Flash, or where a website is displayed as part of an image. Search engines also can not listen to podcasts or other audio streams, or even video mentioning a search term. Similarly, search engines cannot read PDF files consisting of photoscans or look inside compressed (.zip) files. Forums, membership-only and subscription-only sites (since Googlebot does not sign up for site access) and sites that cycle their content are not cached or indexed by any search engine. With more sites moving to AJAX/Web 2.0 designs, this limitation will become more prevalent as search engines only simulate following the links on a web page. AJAX page setups (like Google Maps) dynamically return data based on real-time manipulation of JavaScript. Google has also been the victim of redirection exploits that may cause it to return more results for a specific search term than exist actual content pages. Google and other popular search engines are also a target for search engine ""search result enhancement"", also known as search engine optimizers, so there may also be many results returned that lead to a page that only serves as an advertisement. Sometimes pages contain hundreds of keywords designed specifically to attract search engine users to that page, but in fact serve an advertisement instead of a page with content related to the keyword. Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands. For such common words as to yield several thousand Google hits, freely available text corpora such as the British National Corpus (for British English) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (for American English) can provide a more accurate estimate of the relative frequencies of two words. === Example of the limitations === The Economic Crime Summit site is a rather Google- and Internet Archive-unfriendly site. It is very graphics heavy, providing Google with little to nothing to look for and many missing pages in the Internet Archive version. So while you can bring up the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference, the overview link that would tell you who presented what does not work. The 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference archive is even worse as that was in three places and none of the archived links tells you anything about the papers presented. Via Internet Archive you have proof that some information regarding ""Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing"" existed on the Internet. Yet today Google cannot find that information! A program known to be part of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference and at one time was listed on a website on the Internet currently cannot be found by Google. The most common search engines are Google, Bing, and Yahoo, but the most useful search engine, which depend on a context, may not be the most common ones. Google Scholar works well for fields that are paper-oriented and have an online presence in all (or nearly all) respected venues. This search engine is a good complement for the commercially available Thompson ISI Web of Knowledge, especially in the areas which are not well covered in the latter, including books, conference papers, non-American journals, the general journals in the field of strategy, management, international business, English language education and educational technology. The analysis of the PageRank algorithm utilised by Google Scholar demonstrated that this search engine, as well as its commercial analogs, provides an adequate information about popularity of some concrete source, although that does not automatically reflect the real scientific contribution of concrete publication.MedLine, now part of PubMed, is the original broadly based search engine, originating over four decades ago and indexing even earlier papers. Thus, especially in biology and medicine, PubMed ""associated articles"" is a Google Scholar proxy for older papers with no on-line presence. E.g., The journal Stroke puts papers on-line back through 1970s. For this 1978 paper [2], Google Scholar lists 100 citing articles, while PubMed lists 89 associated articles There are a large number of law libraries online, in many countries, including: Library of Congress, Library of Congress (THOMAS), Indiana Supreme Court, FindLaw (US); Kent University Law Library and sources (UK). See also this list of search engines. Several generalized search engines exist. These adapt your query to many search engines. Web browsers offer a choice of search engines to choose to employ for the search box, and these can be used one at a time to experiment with search results. Meta-search engines use several search engines at once. Ten popular ones from About.com offer reviews. A web browser plugin can add a search engine or a meta-search engine to your list of choices. Wikipedia:Advanced source searching {{Find sources}}, a template designed to help with Google Books, News archive and Scholar searches {{Google}} Meta:Mirror filter, a way to filter sites from Google search to remove sites which mirror Wikimedia content Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers Wikipedia:You can't fix Google through Wikipedia - for addressing errors in Google Knowledge Panels Joe Meert (30 April 2006). ""Argumentum ad Googlum"". Science, AntiScience and Geology.—Meert observes that ""The temptation to find a quick retort means that, many times, people don't bother to check the source carefully."" and that ""people will look for a specific phrase that may be taken out-of-context to support their argument"". He states that it is ""dangerous and irresponsible to think that we can Google away a complex discussion"" and that he has ""learned long ago that there is no substitute for detailed research on a topic"". Rich Turner (29 February 2004). ""Argumentum ad Googlum; Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything"". Grumbles. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016.—Turner points out that ""that something gets hits on Google does not make it correct"" and gives several examples of things that are incorrect that garner thousands of hits on Google search results. Thelwall, M. (2008). Quantitative comparisons of search engine results, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1702–1710. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/SearchEngineComparisons_preprint.doc Thelwall, M. (2008). Extracting accurate and complete results from search engines: Case study Windows Live. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 38–50. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/2007_Accurate_Complete_preprint.doc Gomes, et al. (2000). Detecting query-specific duplicate documents. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=6615209.PN.&OS=pn/6615209&RS=PN/6615209 Thelwall, M. (2008). Quantitative comparisons of search engine results, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1702–1710. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/SearchEngineComparisons_preprint.doc Nakov, Preslav and Hearst, Marti (2005). A Study of Using Search Engine Page Hits as a Proxy for n-gram Frequencies, Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 2005 http://biotext.berkeley.edu/papers/nakov_ranlp2005.pdf Baroni, Marco and Ueyama, Motoko (2006) Building general- and special-purpose corpora by Web crawling, Proceedings of the 13th NIJL International Symposium Language Corpora Their Compilation and Application. http://tokuteicorpus.jp./result/pdf/2006_004.pdf" 235 237 522 WP:NASTHELP Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) 235 This guideline reflects established consensus about the notability of astronomical objects, which is required for them to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. It is a subject-specific supplement to the general notability guideline, developed by Wikiproject Astronomy. This guideline applies to astronomical objects – naturally occurring physical bodies, associations, or structures that exist in outer space. This includes galaxies, nebulae, star clusters, star systems, individual stars, planets, minor planets, asteroids, comets, and moons. It also includes bodies of matter that are held together by masses other than their own, such as circumstellar discs, accretion discs, or zodiacal dust; regions defined by the large-scale structure of the Universe (e.g. galaxy filaments and cosmic voids); and groups that appear solely due to Earth's viewing perspective (e.g. asterisms and optical double stars). It does not cover artificial objects in space (such as artificial satellites or spacecraft); the airspace of Earth; extraterrestrial geologic features (such as craters or mountains); or extraterrestrial material that has been transported to Earth (such as Moon rocks, meteor showers and meteorites). Nor does this guideline apply to fictional objects, such as those that appear in science fiction. Candidate objects or those which are the subject of serious scientific hypothesis are discussed below. On Wikipedia, 'notable' means 'worthy of notice'; it is not synonymous with 'famous' or 'important'. Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources, usually the scientific literature and/or popular media. Famous astronomical objects have readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that indicate notability; however, more obscure objects can still be notable. Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters). Being listed in a database does not make an object notable. Some astronomical databases and surveys, such as the JPL Small-Body Database, SIMBAD or the Gaia catalogue, list millions or billions of objects. Many objects listed in catalogues and databases have little information beyond their basic parameters and discovery circumstances. Wikipedia does not duplicate content in these databases. === No inherent notability === Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources, not whether editors personally believe an astronomical object is important. Just because an astronomical object exists in space does not mean it is necessarily notable i.e. there is no inherent notability without coverage in reliable sources. On Earth, named geographical features are generally notable. This is not true for astronomical objects: the naming of a body in space (such as an asteroid) does not guarantee notability. This is because the likelihood that a general reader would search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is much lower than for a geographic feature on Earth. For example, if a minor planet has received an official name from the Committee for Small Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean that object is notable. If an astronomical object has been named but is not notable, it could still be included in a suitable list of similar objects. === No inherited notability === For the purposes of establishing notability, coverage must be of the astronomical object itself, not other things that may be related to it. Merely being associated with another notable topic does not mean the object itself is notable, i.e. there is no inherited notability. For example, if an object was discovered by a famous astronomer, that does not necessarily make it notable. Nor does being named after something notable make the object itself notable. If the individual object has received insufficient coverage in independent sources, then it is not notable even if similar objects are often notable. If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, it is presumed notable: The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. This includes any star in the HR catalogue. The object is listed in a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. Messier catalogue), or a catalogue of high interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Caldwell catalogue). Being listed in comprehensive databases (e.g. SIMBAD or NED) or surveys (e.g. 2MASS or 2dFGRS) isn't enough for notability. The object has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV. This means independent of the scientist(s) who discovered the object, or others who may have a conflict of interest in promoting it. Sources generated by the discoverers may be used as references for factual information in the article, but they cannot be used to establish notability. See guidance below on finding sources. === Notable for other reasons === If an astronomical object meets none of these criteria, it could still be notable for other non-astronomical reasons e.g. as a literary topic. Such cases should follow the general notability guideline. === Inclusion in another article or list === If an astronomical object is not notable, so cannot have its own article, a few sentences about the object might be useful in another article or it could be included in a list. Appropriate information can be merged into a broader article. Mergers should be proposed and discussed to establish consensus before being implemented. Place a {{merge to}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged, and start a section in the target article's talk page to discuss the proposed merge. If the information is more appropriate to being incorporated into an existing list (see lists of astronomical objects), then a) ensure there is an entry for the object included in the list, adding one if necessary; and b) create a redirect from the name of the object to the list. (For minor planets, see dealing with minor planets below.) If no article or list currently exists into which the astronomical object can be incorporated, consider writing one yourself or submit a request for it. Such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research.Astronomical objects that are part of a hierarchy of objects, such as a planetary system or star system, can often be beneficially merged into the article about the wider system or hosting object. For example, if there are several exoplanets orbiting a single star, they could be discussed in a section of the article on the host star, rather than each planet having a separate article. Content included in a broader article is not subject to the same notability criteria as stand-alone articles; instead it is governed by the principles of due weight and the general content policies. === Deletion === If none of the criteria are met, the object isn't notable for other reasons, and there is no suitable target for a merger, deletion may be necessary. See the deletion policy for further steps. When nominating an article for deletion (via either the PROD or AfD process), please place {{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes}} at the top of its talk page, as well as any other relevant Wikiproject templates (e.g. {{WikiProject Physics}} for an object which is of particular interest to physics). This will notify WikiProject Astronomy via WP:AALERTS that the article is being considered for deletion. If using the AfD process, you can also tag the deletion discussion with {{subst:delsort|Astronomy|~~~~}}, which will list the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy. === Finding sources === Many astronomical objects have more than one valid name or catalogue designation, see astronomical naming conventions. When searching for sources, try using alternative identifiers or standard abbreviations e.g. 'kap Cep' or 'HR 7750' for Kappa Cephei, or 'NGC 2392' for the Eskimo Nebula. There are several astronomy-specific search engines which can be consulted: The Astrophysics Data System (ADS) abstract service lists almost all published papers and preprints in astronomy, and many conference proceedings and textbooks too. Links are provided to the published source and any freely-available version (such as a preprint or scanned version of older sources). Put the name of the object(s) in quotes and place it in the 'abstract/keyword' box. The SIMBAD database provides information on millions of astronomical objects outside the Solar System, including basic properties, alternative designations, and a bibliography. Coverage is best for objects within the Milky Way, with less complete coverage of extragalactic sources. Try a search by identifier, or by coordinates, then click 'display' in the 'references' section. Clicking on any of the entries will provide links to the published paper and/or the relevant ADS entry. The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) contains information on extragalactic objects, for which it is more comprehensive than SIMBAD. Try a search by identifier, or by coordinates, then click on the 'references' tab. You can then either click the 'view references on ADS' button, or click on a specific reference and then 'search ADS' to go to the ADS record.There is no equivalent to SIMBAD or NED for objects within the Solar System. === Mass creation === Per WP:MASSCREATION, the systematic creation of articles on astronomical objects based on information retrieved from various astronomical databases should be discussed at WT:ASTRO first. === Hypothetical objects === Candidate astronomical objects, or those proposed by a serious scientific hypothesis, are notable only if they have received substantial commentary in multiple independent reliable sources, per criterion 3. Any article about the object must explicitly state that it is hypothetical or a candidate, unless/until confirmed by multiple independent reliable sources. Care should be taken with popular media sources based upon a press release issued by the discoverer or proposer, as they might not be independent (see churnalism). Substantial original journalism and/or comments from independent experts are necessary to establish the notability of hypothetical or candidate objects. === Dealing with minor planets === Before 2012, when this notability guideline did not yet exist, approximately 20,000 asteroid stubs were mass-created by bots and human editors. This created a considerable backlog of articles to be cleaned up, redirected, merged, or deleted. To not overly burden the community, editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. By consensus, asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing. For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the article to the corresponding list of minor planets, keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information. For best results, the redirect should use {{NASTRO comment}} and target the specific entry on the list article. For example, suppose you want to create a redirect to the minor-planet entry 57658 Nilrem on the List of minor planets: 57001–58000 article. This minor planet is found at the anchor #658 on the list page. Hence, a redirect can be created with the following content: #REDIRECT [[List of minor planets: 57001–58000#658]] {{NASTRO comment}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Nilrem}} [[Category:Background asteroids|057658]] [[Category:Discoveries by Michel Ory]] [[Category:Minor planets named for people]] [[Category:Named minor planets]] [[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2001|20011017]] The template {{Anchor}} can be used to create a stable anchor point for a redirect. === Examples === ==== Extrasolar planets ==== HAT-P-40 b is a hot Jupiter exoplanet. Its discovery was announced in 2012 by the HATNet Project in a paper on three new discoveries. It has been included in several large catalogues and databases, and included in a list of possible targets for follow-up (where it was given the lowest priority). However, as of 2018, none of those sources provide any significant commentary on this particular exoplanet beyond the initial discovery paper. There have been no observations by other teams of astronomers, nor has there been any coverage in the popular media. The object exists, but does not meet any of the criteria above so does not have an article on Wikipedia; instead it has a one-line entry in the List of exoplanets discovered in 2012. The host star (TYC 3607-1028-1) is not independently notable either, so also doesn't have an article. Gliese 1214 b was discovered in 2009 by the MEarth Project; it was one of the first known super Earth exoplanets. There have been numerous studies by other teams of astronomers devoted to just this object, several of which have been reported in the popular media. It easily passes the third criterion, so is notable and has a stand-alone article. ==== Minor planets ==== The asteroid (182016) 1999 XF255 is listed in the JPL Small-Body Database and by the Minor Planet Center. However, it does not appear in searches for additional references. The asteroid exists, but has received no substantial commentary, or study beyond refining its orbit. Information about this object is therefore included in the corresponding list of minor planets, not a stand-alone article. 532 Herculina is another asteroid. It has received multiple follow-up studies, by teams of astronomers unrelated to the discoverer, including an observation by the Hubble Space Telescope. Independent references provide substantial commentary on its shape and discussion of a possible asteroid moon. It is therefore notable and has a stand-alone article. ==== Objects named after famous individuals or characters ==== The notability of astronomical objects is not inherited from any famous individual or mythological character they may be named after. If a non-notable asteroid is named after a notable person or character, it may be appropriate to include this information in the article about the person or character. For example, the asteroid 165347 Philplait was named after Phil Plait, a notable astronomer, but the asteroid does not meet the criteria above. Instead, 165347 Philplait redirects to List of minor planets: 165001–166000 § 347 and the naming of the asteroid is mentioned at Phil Plait § Awards and honors. The asteroid is also included in the list article meanings of minor planet names. If an object is notable under the criteria above, then the origin of its name should be explained in its article. An example is 45 Eugenia, which is named after the Empress Eugénie de Montijo but is notable for other reasons. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia:Search engine test Wikipedia:Verifiability === Notes === === References === 236 238 525 WP:DONOTBITE Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 236 "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once, and in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions to articles. Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner. Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of substantive edits, i.e. lasting content; while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large number of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content. Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing ""wrong"" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply ""wrong"". If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake, e.g. forgot to put a book title in italics, correct it yourself but do not slam the newcomer. A gentle note on their user page explaining the Wikipedia standard and how to achieve it in the future may prove helpful, as they may be unfamiliar with the norm or merely how to achieve it. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is each person's responsibility to edit and complement, rather than to criticize or supervise others. If you use bad manners or curse at newcomers, they may decide not to contribute again. A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a ""stub"" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize. If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well. Remind newcomers we save everything. When their edits are reverted, they may panic, start an edit war, or leave Wikipedia entirely, mistakenly assuming that hours of work has been irretrievably deleted. Let them know they can negotiate with other editors on talk pages and, if all else fails, they can request undeletion. Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians and being flamed or blocked). Teach them to be bold, but of course, be cautious. While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they ""gain more experience"". This both discourages new editors and deprives Wikipedia of much-needed insights. Let newcomers express their opinion and remember that you can support your argument when the discussion is happening. When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual Wikipedia norm. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision). Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as ""sockpuppet"" or ""meatpuppet"". You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded if it violates basic policies regarding content. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade). Sometimes newcomers forget to sign their talk page posts. Use {{unsigned}} to fix unsigned posts, and use {{uw-tilde}} on the user's talk page to remind the user who forgot. There are some times when users add in new discussions to talk pages, despite the discussions already being ongoing. Often, the newcomers wouldn't be aware that there has already been a discussion on the topic, even if it is very recent, so please guide them with it. Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance! Experience or associated privileges shouldn't be misguidedly interpreted as a reason for default acquiescence from other members, and no Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies. Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. It is polite to point out to newcomers little details about editing on Wikipedia, such as the fact that one can sign one's name on userpages by leaving four of the tilde symbols (~), or pointing out that a wikilink can be achieved by putting double square brackets around a word or phrase. Remember that you too were once a newcomer. Treat others as you were treated (or, probably, wish you had been treated) when you first arrived. Remember: ""Do what's right; don't bite. Being a friend is all right!"" Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a ""biter"". To avoid being accused of biting, try to: Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.) Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.). Moderate your approach and wording. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations. Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting. Strive to respond in a measured manner. Wait, i.e. calm down first. Be gracious. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts. Reciprocate where necessary. Listen actively. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out. Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message. Don't fill the page with maintenance templates or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended. Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion. Remember that it's okay to make mistakes—we're all only human.Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia. The principle ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: ""ignorance of the law does not excuse"") is incompatible with the guidelines of ""do not bite"" and ""assume good faith"". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can or may excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them. Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow—or are simply unaware of—our guidelines from time to time. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected, but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without barnstars and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product. In all cases though, we ought to interact with our fellow editors with gentleness and respect. This is the most important thing to stress. If you have bitten someone, or feel that you have been bitten, considering the following points could help ensure that it doesn't happen again. Choose to learn from the incident. Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user. Consider alternatives to biting that could have achieved a better response. If you encounter a similar situation in the future, choose one of those alternatives instead of repeating history. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled. Be reasonable. Explain why you were offended, but learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the bite. Move on from it! One common error among newcomers is to create an article in mainspace about themselves, their garage band, or about their original hypotheses on a certain topic. One way to deal gently with this is to userfy the article, and leave a note saying why. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for userfying autobiographical articles. The remaining redirect can be flagged for deletion using {{Db-rediruser}}. Userfied articles on bands could be tagged with {{PROD}}, since they tend to hang around. New articles about a person's original research and hypotheses could have a note appended explaining WP:OR. It is sometimes helpful to direct new users to alternative outlets. Another common newbie error is to violate the three revert rule. There is no reason to expect that a newcomer would know about this rule, so it is a good idea to inform them of the rule on their talkpage after their second revert. {{this is a new user}}" 237 239 527 WP:TC Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup 237 "Template messages (maintenance tags, cleanup tags, cleanup messages) may be added to articles needing cleanup. Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article. Unless otherwise noted, cleanup messages should be placed at the top of the page, before other templates, images, or infoboxes, but after hatnotes (see Wikipedia:Hatnote § Placement). Cleanup messages should be placed directly on the article or file, not on its talk page. Certain tags can be placed at the beginning of an individual section, and others can be placed within the text itself (inline). A date parameter is added by a bot, or you can add it yourself with |date=March 2023. Before you tag an article, please remember the following: Don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article. Do some research to attempt to solve the problem before tagging. Don't put the burden of doing so on another editor if you are capable of fixing the problem yourself with a simple search or consulting a reference work. Don't do ""drive-by"" tagging. Tags must be accompanied by either a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in all templates, regardless of whether it appears in the documentation) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. Don't do ""drive-by"" de-tagging. Likewise, please provide a similar rationale for removing a template, unless your preceding edits have clearly fixed the announced problem. See also when not to remove a template. Don't insert tags that are similar or redundant. For example, most articles that read like essays have an inappropriate tone, and in fact they end up being automatically grouped in the same category, so it is unnecessary to tag with both {{tone}} and {{essay-like}}. If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. (See also: Wikipedia:Tag bombing and Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems § Over-tagging) Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work. For example, there is little point in noting grammatical problems for a section that needs to be completely re-written to comply with content policies. Focus on the biggest one, two, or three problems. Before placing templates on a page it is worthwhile to cast a critical eye over the page to determine whether indeed it should be included in Wikipedia. Some articles can be tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. On pages that have received little attention from editors or readers, cleanup templates can be used as a way to call attention to problems that need to be addressed by editors. Editors who want to help address these problems should look through the various cleanup categories such as maintenance and articles with content issues and try to address the problems so that the templates can be removed. Editors who frequently tag articles should also address the backlogs. On pages that are being edited by a number of users, cleanup templates are used to inform readers and editors of ongoing discussions and attempts to fix the problems on the page. Such templates can be used to attract uninvolved users to discussions and cleanup efforts, and they can also serve as a warning to casual readers that the article may have problems and be subject to noticeable changes. In general, an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talk page of the article. If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. For heavily monitored articles, please do not add or remove template messages of this sort without using the talk page. Many of these cleanup tags require you to place |article as the first parameter when you use the tag at the top of an article. When you want the template to refer to just one section, however, you replace |article with |section (where the | is a pipe key | found on most keyboards as a shift-backslash ⇧ Shift+\. See the specific template below to determine if such ""section use"" is supported and appropriate. If too many tags are put at the top of an article, the article can become eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles. Consider consolidating the tags into {{multiple issues}}. === Overarching copyright issues === === Combined message boxes === Do not use this as the only message box on the article or section; it should be used with at least two other message boxes sandwiched inside it. === General cleanup === Use one of these general tags when none of the more specific tags fits. ==== Copy editing ==== Some articles just need someone with a good grasp of editing technique to give them a once-over. === Cleanup of specific subjects === These templates are all ""general cleanup"" templates, but tie into a specific subject matter or WikiProjects. ==== Fiction ==== ==== Inline with article text ==== === Style of writing === === Structure, formatting and sections === ==== Introduction ==== === Potentially unwanted content === ==== Message boxes ==== ==== Inline with article text ==== === Context, statistics and detail === ==== Off-topic ==== Articles occasionally contain content which is otherwise valid, but appears unrelated to the nominal topic of the article. === Expand and add === === Expert needed === === Time-sensitive === ==== Inline with article text ==== === Contradiction and confusion === Note: Templates relevant for when articles are confusing or hard to understand due specifically to translation issues can be found at Wikipedia:Template index/Translation. ==== Inline with article text ==== === Content forks === === Importance and notability === === Neutrality and factual accuracy === ==== Message boxes ==== ==== Inline with superimposed text ==== === Verifiability and sources === ==== Message boxes ==== For quotations used out of context, references to unrelated material, and other misuse of citations. Message boxes may be used at the top of an article, or in a specific section of an article. Individual message boxes may be combined. ===== Individual message boxes: Biographies of living persons ===== ===== Individual message boxes: Issues with citations and sources ===== ===== Individual message boxes: Issues with style or format ===== Note list ==== Tags inline with article text ==== ==== Links for search ==== === Categories === === Images and other media === For tips on requesting images see: Wikipedia:Requested pictures. For template messages related to the clean up of images, see: Wikipedia:Template index/File namespace#Format and quality. === Lists === === Wiki tech === Most of these issues are covered in the main Manual of Style. ==== Infobox needed ==== ==== Infobox cleanup needed ==== There are also tags available for: merging articles; moving articles; splitting articles; and translation of articles. Wikipedia:Responsible tagging Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Wikipedia:Twinkle Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types" 238 240 529 WP:FAITH2 Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith 238 "In heated disputes, users often remind others to ""Assume good faith"" (AGF) whom they perceive to be doing the contrary. However, like bad faith itself, the assumption of bad faith should not be assumed merely because at first glance it might seem to be present. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith. As long as you expect others not to make unwarranted assumptions about you, you should extend the same courtesy to them. While it might occasionally be helpful to inform or remind someone that the Assumption of Good Faith is expected, this should be avoided more often than not. Someone being told to AGF who does not see how they were doing otherwise is likely to feel antagonized, which will only escalate matters because of the clueless situation. In such situations it is recommended the one who reminds AGF be willing to explain why the person is doing so politely with support of policies. But, one who often feels the need to remind others to AGF would instead do well to look inward and consider that those others may not be the whole problem. Even if after thinking it over you remain convinced that someone is assuming bad faith, ask for clarification to avoid being a victim of herd mentality and personally feel bullied. Productive members of the community will consider this and look inward themselves and provide their valid reasons for doubting that good faith is present within the essential principles and guidelines. In cases where you feel that someone definitely needs to be cautioned for interpersonal behavioral issues, rather than actually citing AGF consider citing a policy applicable to the situation, such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, or Wikipedia:Harassment and alternatively approach for administrator attention. It is always better if the person who feels suppressed doesn't act as disruptive as the other person for the Administrator to intervene neutrally and appropriately. Misuse of ""Assume Good Faith"" usually stems from an ignorance or improper understanding of the policies and at times what good and bad faith really are. This may also combine with a certain degree of defensiveness. In order to understand the issue of whether or not someone is truly assuming bad faith, we must go beyond the catchphrase ""assume good faith"", and understand what good and bad faith really are and are not, and thus what an assumption of each really means within the context. === What ""Bad Faith"" Is === A bad faith edit, or a bad faith comment, is an edit or comment made deliberately to disrupt the project. The best example of genuine bad faith is vandalism. While bad faith is not strictly limited to vandalism, the key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive. === What ""Bad Faith"" Is NOT === Thus, any edit that is not deliberately unconstructive was not in ""bad faith"", even if it turns out to be unconstructive. The following things are not ""bad faith"": Honest mistakes Errors A typo or misspelling, even if it changes the meaning of the sentence Not knowing how to format wikitext Not knowing how to cite sources Not knowing how to identify reliable sources Having incomplete information Being the victim of misinformation or disinformation Having trusted someone who told you incorrect information Poor judgement or lapse in judgement Misunderstanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines Not having read the most recent versions of Wikipedia's rules Misunderstanding another editor's comments Getting too emotionally involved in an article or discussion Incorrect grammar Not writing English fluently Having different personal or cultural values (e.g., valuing individualism more than groups, preferences about how gentle or harsh criticism of public figures should be)Therefore, telling someone that they have made an error, or misunderstood a policy, or gotten too emotionally involved in an article or discussion is not assuming bad faith, but creating a collaborative working environment. Telling someone they are mistaken is entirely compatible with assuming good faith. Someone who expresses the opinion that another editor's actions have harmed the project is not assuming bad faith, unless the charge made indicates a deliberate intention to harm. === Example 1 === Bob nominates an article for deletion due to lack of notability. Mary, who wants to keep the article, tells Bob, ""It's plenty notable – please go to Google and do a search on '(search term + search term)'."" Bob replies, ""You are confused; as the person nominating the article for deletion, I am under no burden to dig for coverage to support notability. That burden is on those who wrote the article, and those who want to keep the article, like you."" Mary replies: ""No, not confused at all, please WP:AGF. Nobody asked you to dig for anything, I just demonstrated how easy it was to find coverage."" At this point, Mary has already assumed ""Bad Faith"". Bob said she was confused and made it personal for Mary rather than explaining with policies and taking an effort. Bob very possibly might not have meant to accuse, and the word ""confused"" might have been used as persuasion tactic rather than breaching civility or pointing out on doing something deliberately unconstructive. Bob also misused ""Assume good faith"" by further personalizing it for Mary by grouping her with ""those who want to keep the article"" without evidence. The exchange continues, as Bob says, ""'Assume good faith' has nothing to do with this. You said to me, ""Please go to Google and search,"" but now you say, ""Nobody asked for you to dig for anything"", so you are contradicting yourself. NOW you try to change your story by saying that you were demonstrating how easy it was to find something, yet you didn't demonstrate at that time, you didn't provide anything, you only directed me to do a Google search."" Mary replies, ""Remember, comment on the article not the editor. ‘You are confused' was targeted at me, not the article. This is not assuming good faith on your part. And now I'm contradicting myself and I'm 'changing my story'? Huh? Again for you, please see WP:AGF."" Bob explains to Mary how he feels and Mary retaliates and tries to be go by the rules. There is nothing in the ""assume good faith"" guideline that says anything about commenting on the article, not the editor. She is now emotionally involved and confusing WP:AGF with WP:NPA, a sign of being a newcomer to the Wikipedia project. Also, pointing out that someone has contradicted an earlier statement is in itself a statement of fact, and is not an assumption of any kind. Contradictions can also be unintentional. Most importantly, if one editor points out something another editor has done, which can be seen by other editors, there is no assumption needed to be made, so accusing that person of assumption of bad faith is inappropriate. Both Bob and Mary have thus misused ""Assume Good Faith"" and made a simple conversation right alongside with the proverbial wisdom ""It Takes Two Hands Clapping to Make a Noise"". === Example 2 === Bill sees a Featured Article that he feels does not meet notability requirements, and should have been merged into another article. He starts a section on the article's talk page, wondering if this article is evidence of problems with Wikipedia's process for nominating featured articles. Steve replies ""Please try to assume good faith of other editors; no one is trying to sabotage the wiki."" Steve has misused ""Assume Good Faith"". Bill never accused anyone of any deliberate wrongdoing, just possible lapse in judgment, and a possible problem with a Wikipedia procedure that might need addressing. Not only was Steve failing to assume the assumption of good faith, he also was uncivil when he put words into Bill's mouth by saying ""no one is trying to sabotage the wiki"" when Bill never claimed anyone was trying to sabotage anything and it was an early reply to a content that is without evidences. === Example 3 === Greg tells Randy to stop posting on the user talk page of a third user who has requested the same. Greg says that when someone asks you to stop posting on their user talk page, continuing to do so is discourteous. Randy disagrees, and tells Greg to AGF. Greg replies that he believes that Randy is acting in perfectly good faith, but with poor judgment. Randy says that characterizing his actions as ""discourteous"" assumes bad faith. This is incorrect, as discourtesy does not imply intentional malice. Greg has simply opined that Randy has not shown good judgment in dealing with this user. Ultimately, this essay has been an attempt to provide more detailed guidance to avoid doing what WP:AGF cautions us to avoid doing: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to ""Assume Good Faith"" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others. So stop and think about it before using it. Perspective-taking Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks Wikipedia:Don't assume Wikipedia:Accepting other users Wikipedia:Competence is required Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Wikipedia:Assume good wraith Wikipedia:Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of assuming good faith Carbonite's Law Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF" 239 241 534 WP:FOOT WP:FOOT 239 You may be looking for: Help:Footnotes, for technical assistance with creating references and other footnotes Wikipedia:Citing sources, a guideline on how to organize and format references Wikipedia:Footers, guidance on how to organize the sections at the end of an article Wikipedia:WikiProject Football Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, an essay Wikipedia:Shoot yourself in the foot, a related essay 240 242 535 WP:SOLUTION Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else 240 "On new page patrol and articles for creation, one often comes across pages about companies that provide something called solutions. It might be something like: ""For high volume reusers that currently rely on the Wikimedia Dumps to access our information, we have created a solution to ingest Wikimedia content in near real time without excessive API calls (Structured Content API) or maintaining hooks into our infrastructure (Firehose)."" — Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta-Wiki. Now the Wikipedia article on Solution (chemistry) states, in the first paragraph, that a solution ""is a special type of homogeneous mixture composed of two or more substances. In such a mixture, a solute is a substance dissolved in another substance, known as a solvent."" One may also find solutions as the goal of equation solving. So if one writes an article about a company that provides solutions, the very least the reader expects to know is what solvent is used and what solute gets dissolved in it; or else what kind of equation solving they offer. On newly introduced pages, one usually finds that vital information to be lacking, leading new page patrollers to believe that the page's creator had another definition of ""solution"" in mind, one that warrants considering the entire article promotional and, in the more extreme cases, tagging it for speedy deletion. This latter definition of ""solution"" is public relations slang that should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. A non-notable company that offers ""solutions"" will not be made notable by replacing the word ""solution"" with another word, and may remain a strong candidate for deletion unless its notability is clear and is supported by its references. However, even a well-referenced article can be deleted if its content is considered overly promotional— offering ""solutions"" is a warning word of a promotional tone. Other similar words that warn of promotion are ""platform"" or ""infrastructure"" or other trendy buzzwords. Calling something ""global"" or ""worldwide"" is also often pure promotion: where else would it be? So just removing these words generally conveys the same information. If you would like to move an article away from being promotional and toward neutrality, the word ""solutions"" can sometimes be replaced by ""services"", ""products"", ""systems"" or other words that more accurately describe what the company does or provides to customers. === Software === The phrase ""software solutions"" in Wikipedia articles can often be fixed simply by removing the word ""solutions"" and leaving the word ""software"", like this: Before: ""FooBar Inc. provides engineering software solutions and consulting services to candy manufacturers throughout eastern Slovakia."" After: ""FooBar Inc. provides engineering software and consulting services to candy manufacturers throughout eastern Slovakia."" === Security === Before:""FooSecurity provides security solutions to a number of Western countries, including the US and the UK."" After:""FooSecurity provides ex-soldiers on contract who provide security services, bodyguarding, military advising and combat support for a number of Western countries, including the US and the UK."" === Waste === Before: ""FooWaste Management provides waste management solutions across Canada."" After: ""FooWaste Management provides garbage and sewage disposal services across Canada."" {{solution-inline}}, a template for tagging inappropriate use of word ""solution"", if you are unable or unwilling to fix the article yourself. Solution selling Search of pending AfC submissions; these often contain a lot of ""solutions"" with no solute or solvent listed" 241 243 537 WP:MEXICO Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico 241 "=== Naming conventions === States names Mexican states are located at ""Statename"". See earlier discussion at Talk:States of Mexico. Example: Baja California, Jalisco. If the state name is not the primary topic, then the article name is ""Statename (state)"". Example: Chihuahua (state), Hidalgo (state).Municipalities names Municipalities are at their base name if not ambiguous and merged with their homonymous cities and towns. Example Atizapán de Zaragoza. For municipalities whose homonymous cities and towns are split, it is ""Municipalityname Municipality"" or ""Municipalityname (municipality)"" only if disambiguation is needed. Example: Acapulco (municipality), Zitlala Municipality. If further disambiguation is needed, it is ""Municipalityname (statename), Statename"" or ""Municipalityname Municipality, Statename"". Example: La Paz Municipality, Baja California Sur, Aldama Municipality, Tamaulipas.Cities and town names Cities and town articles are at their base name. Example: Hermosillo, Coatzacoalcos. If disambiguation with another city (Mexican or foreign) is needed, use the ""Cityname, Statename"" format: Nogales, Sonora, Nogales, Veracruz, Nogales, Arizona. If a state and a city share a name, use the ""Cityname (city)"" or ""Cityname City"". Example: Veracruz (city) and Veracruz or San Luis Potosí City and San Luis Potosí. If ambiguity might exist because of other uses within the same state, use ""Townname, Municipalityname"": Buenavista, Tultitlán In the rare event two or more cities or towns are located within a state, use ""Town, Municipality"": Acalmani, Ayutla de los Libres and Acalmani, Igualapa. You can further disambiguate with ""Townname, Municipalityname, Statename"" if there are other uses of that term outside that state.Notes For ease of linking, unnecessary disambiguation links can be created: Aguascalientes (state), Ecatepec, Mexico, etc. A ^ Sometimes cities and municipalities have independent articles (Matamoros, Tamaulipas [city] and Matamoros Municipality, Tamaulipas [municipality]). === Task forces === Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Community Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Mexican cinema task force === Active participants === To join WikiProject Mexico, edit this section and insert the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest into the following list of participants in alphabetical order. Participants with an asterisk (*) are Wikipedia Administrators. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. Buaidh (talk · contribs) 14:29:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC) – WikiProject templates and categories. === Participant identification === WikiProject Mexico participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject Mexico participants. For other Mexico user templates see Category:Mexico user templates. === Version 1.0 Editorial Team === === Recognized content === === New pages related to Mexico === === Alerts === Portal:Mexico Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries Wikipedia:Mexico Collaboration Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week Wikipedia:Mexican radio nonsense campaign Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos Wikipedia:WikiProject North America Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music/Regional Mexican music" 242 244 540 :WP:STUDENT Wikipedia:Student 242 Proceed to wikiedu.org student training modules 243 245 545 WP:NEG Wikipedia:Neglected articles 243 "Low scores are bad; high scores are good. The worst articles come first in the listing. The factors considered in the scoring process, from most important to least important: The number of distinct editors that have touched the page (+1000 points each) If the first edit was by an anonymous contributor (-100 points) If the last edit was by an anonymous contributor (-100 points) The number of revisions (+1 point each) The timestamp of the latest revision (determines the fractional part of the score)Not all pages are included: MediaWiki: pages are excluded, since these are only editable by administrators, and aren't supposed to change much. Category: pages are excluded due to an extremely high number of false positives. In many cases, the only edit for these is to parent them, and this is fine. We have other lists that are designed to detect problems in the category tree. Redirect pages are excluded, since these are often created in a single edit, and generally don't change after they are created. Pick an article, and do some quick triage: These articles are likely to meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please check the article against these criteria, which include blatant copyright violations (which are defined in detail). You can tag them for deletion as instructed, or delete them yourself if you are an administrator. Please report all other actual or potential copyright violations on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. These articles are likely to need cleanup of some kind, to make them sound encyclopedic, to purge falsehoods, and to maintain neutrality. You can either do the cleanup yourself (go you!) or tag the article for attention by other editors, and to let readers know we know there is a problem. Wikipedia:Cleanup resources is an excellent starting place to find the right tag. Quickies: {{POV}} if it is not neutral {{Merge to|TARGET}} for short or redundant pages that can be merged with TARGET {{cleanup|date=March 2023}} for non-specific cleanup (though lots of more-specific tags are available) If the article is quite short (perhaps 3-10 sentences and missing vital information) tag it as a stub. You can either use {{stub}} or, preferably, a topic-specific stub tag (since someone else will just have to come along and find a topic-specific tag anyway). You can find a list of approved stub tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. If the article is longer than a stub, but could be expanded to include additional information of interest to readers, add the tag {{expansion}} to the talk page, and write a short note about what's missing. If an article is uncategorized, consider placing it in a category or adding the {{tl:uncategorized}} tag. See Wikipedia:Categorization for advice. Finding the right category is also helpful in identifying different articles on the same subject that would be good for merging with. For templates, check ""What links here"" (in the toolbox menu on the right-hand side of the page). Templates which aren't really being used, or which are redundant with other templates, should be listed on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Wikipedia: namespace pages that have interesting but out-of-date content on them can be ""archived"" by tagging them {{historical}}.If you either a.) add an attention tag of some kind or b.) edit the article enough so that it's taken care of to your satisfaction, please remove it from the list to avoid duplication of effort. Alternatively, you can move it to the bottom of the page if you think it needs further triage. When the list is next updated, the fact that you edited it will probably push it far enough down in the rankings that it won't appear on this page. If you find a page that is perfectly OK and should not be flagged again in the future, please write a note next to its listing and move it to the bottom of the page, so list updaters will be able to facilitate this. This will also help us improve the flagging algorithm. Planned for the near future: List disambiguation pages separately. Red flag (-500?): Excessively short Red flag (-500?): Long and not wikified (no [[, probable copyvio) Red flag (-50?): Not wikified (no [[) Red flag (-50?): Orphaned (What Links Here < 1 and it's not a self-link)Possible: Rank category description pages based on: The same as other pages Whether or not there is any text other than the link to the parent category foul-language-o-meterProposed: Red flag (-100): no category on page These listings were created from the January 25, 2006 database dump. === Articles with single anon editor, Apr 2005 === ==== Miscellaneous ==== empty list === Non-articles with single anon editor, 2002-2004 === ==== Project space ==== empty list ==== Template space ==== 801.20040829212 Template:Olympic_Games_Polo 801.200408312057 Template:Olympic_Games_Rugby 801.200412150338 Template:HP_unlinked 802.200412100248 Template:Ohio_five 802.200412150331 Template:HP1_linked 802.200412150332 Template:HP2_linked 802.200412150333 Template:HP3_linked 802.200412150333 Template:HP4_linked 802.20041215033 Template:HP_linked 803.200412150334 Template:HP5_linked The neglected articles linked to below have been automatically removed from the above listings. To do this, the update script looks for the text ==Suppressed listings== on this page, and excludes all links below that point. (So please don't change the header for this section without letting Beland know. Thanks!) === Special case for discussion === The following are apparently part of some project - I nominated five for MfD, before realizing that there was an entire structure in place to contain them - this requires a meta solution. 801.200411042351 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Atari 801.200411131831 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Plagiarism 801.200410291626 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Syllabus 801.200410300301 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/System_of_Objects 801.200410300308 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/The_Society_of_Spectacle 801.20041030031 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/The_Language_of_New_Media 801.200411270227 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/William_Yardley 801.200411300618 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/MarthaGraham 801.200412151826 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Internet_Art 801.200412151829 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Rhythm_Science 801.200412151832 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Samuels 801.200412151834 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/The_Interventionists 801.200412152101 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/cohendigital 802.200411042355 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Sega 802.200411270216 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Anne_Thompson 804.200412151821 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/The_Contingent_Object 805.200411042359 Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Open_Source_Culture/Patent_Scope === EB1911 claimed === Someone needs to check that these are from where they claim to be (Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition). Online PNGs and TIFFs of the original book that may be useful: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling801.200501242315 Edmund_Hickeringill - This article is an almost word-for-word copy of the same article in the 1911 Britannica Edition. WVhybrid 02:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 801.200501262227 Paul_Ferrier - The text of this article was copied word-for-word from the article of the same name in the 1911 Britannica Edition. WVhybrid 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 801.200501291411 Isaac_Hollister_Hall - This article was copied word-for-word from the article of the same name in the 1911 Britannica Edition. WVhybrid 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 801.200501301913 Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Hacklander 801.200501122147 Friedrich_von_Spielhagen 801.200501151433 Stephen_Evodius_Assemani 801.200411281753 Timocreon 801.200412031412 Charles_Pierre_Henri_Rieu 801.200412111122 Johannes_Scherr 801.200412120037 Louis_Prosper_Gachard 801.200412182156 Pierre_Gouthière 801.200412201943 John_Ernest_Grabe 801.200412202157 George_Washington_Greene 803.200409041454 Leptines 802.200411141657 John_Henry_Parker 802.200412120108 Hendrik_Jan_Schimmel 802.200501031449 Gottlieb_Sigmund_Gruner 801.200502071454 Christian,_Graf_zu_Stolberg 801.200502102108 Carlo_Alessandro_Guidi 801.200502131412 Jan_August_Hendrik_Leys 801.200502131819 Christopher_Newman_Hall 801.200502191156 Christian_Heinrich_Spiess 801.200502191533 Heracleon - This article, aside from very slight rewriting of the first paragraph, is copied word-for-word from the EB1911. Shorelander 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 801.20050219161 George_Harvey 801.200502271922 Jean-Baptiste_Guimet 802.200502142158 Arnobius_the_Elder 801.200503051512 Antonio_Vivarini 801.200503051538 Himerius 801.200503051738 August_Hahn 801.200503121428 Johann_Gottlieb_Heineccius 801.200503121644 Victor_Henry 801.200503142128 Jehan_de_Waurin 801.200503261117 Benjamin_Heath 801.200503281418 John_Raphael_Smith 801.200503310956 Louis_Petit_de_Julleville 803.20050317232 Carl_Benedict_Hase 807.200503080613 Logographer_(history) 801.200504021147 Hierax 801.200504021649 Jan_Jakob_van_Oosterzee 801.20050403141 William_Simson 801.200504031548 Henry_Goodwin_Smith 801.200504031702 Francis_Sempill 801.200504090838 Heirloom_(law) 801.200504091727 John_Spenser 801.200504161556 Geoffrey_of_Paris 801.200504271958 David_Ames_Wells 801.200504301317 Samuel_Woodward 801.200504241528 Morris_Ketchum_Jesup 802.200504161557 Geoffrey_the_Baker === Articles that have received some attention but may need more === 801.200501071927 Melatonin_(album) and 801.200501071934 Arousal_Disasters Two albums by a artist whose notability is ""unclear""(at least to me). Need someone to check this with the WP:MUSIC guidelines, and possibily delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Minor artist on a minor label in Canada. Might need to {{prod}} the whole thing, methinks.--み使い'''Mitsukai 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Placed for {{prod}} Does not hold a gainful point, poss made with good intentions but doesnt seem to have been give TLC!--Phil Green 13:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 804.200504060045 Joey_Sellers Tags added, but is going to need a bit of TLC.--み使い Mitsukai 04:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Added references/external links. Still a stub. — ERcheck (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Missing references for awards received. Also, external link to ""Sellers biography, Saddleback College"" is defunct.Nomenphile 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)802.200502190404 Fouta and 802.200502190407 Fleuve stubbed both, but they're going to need some extensive work.--み使い Mitsukai 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)801.200504110755 RSDN added {{notability}} tag. This one is really going to need some work, since it's regarding a Russian programming group, something I suspect is not quite commonly known here on the En WP.--み使い Mitsukai 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)801.200504221704 Metapsychiatry stubbed and wikified. Still going to need extensive work.--み使い Mitsukai 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)802.200504270954 GM_Proving_Grounds tags added, but it's going to need some massive work to get the article worthy, otherwise recommend it go up for AFD.--み使い Mitsukai 05:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Redirected to General Motors Proving Grounds. -- Satori Son 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)802.200501291926 Texas_A&M_University_System_Health_Science_Center This article needs serious work. As it stands right now, all it is, is merely a collection of links. If it wasn't for the name, it'd otherwise be deleted.--み使い Mitsukai 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) It looks like this was merged into Texas_A&M_University_System Mishatx 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Texas_A&M_University_System is in need of post-merge help. As Mitsukai said, it's a collection of links.Nomenphile 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)802.200502180348 Norodom_Chakraping_Proloung_Khmer_Party Going to need some extensive editing.--み使い Mitsukai 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)802.200504212045 Ira_Mellman and 802.200504211843 Chalk_Hill Tagged and stubbed, but still going to need some work.--み使い Mitsukai 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Added new information and links; still could use work. User:Ithink72wp 27 March 2023801.20050405205 SUBDUE Not sure what can be done with this article. It's already once been copyvio'd, and I'm not sure anyone else knows what to do about it.--み使い Mitsukai 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)801.20050427033 Roland_Glassl Tagged and stubbed, but still going to need some work.--み使い Mitsukai 22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)802.200502152135 Adolph_Hausrath Stubbed. Seems like a decent stub. Iggle 11:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)801.200502231113 S26_(Berlin) Stubbed. It's a list of train stops on this particular line. --Iggle 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)801.200504141209 Cage aerial I tagged it as a stub, but I don't know if I used the correct stub tag. Foxjwill 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) === Articles that do not need attention, to be excluded from future listings === 801.200503040159 Helen_Hayes_Awards_Non-Resident_Production — looks legit in content & standard in formatting. Probably written by a registered user who forgot to log on. Doops | talk 02:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 801.200503011859 Committee_on_Veterans'_Affairs - Looks good, I can't see anything to fix... 801.200503011921 Reciprocal_innervation- Written by an expert. Don't know if accurate... 801.200408012112 Viscount_Savage - looks ok --Alynna 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 801.200408201503 Risk_Management_Chairman - harmless redirect --Alynna 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 802.200411060659 On_the_Road_(String_Cheese_Incident) - looks fine --Alynna 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 801.200502152344 Orenstein disambiguation page, looks ok ----Melaen 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Melaen 801.200502170442 Eyadéma disambiguation page,---Melaen 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Melaen 801.200412112102 Template:Blanking4, just a redirect... --Werdna648T/C\@ 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)801.200202251551 Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_1 801.200202251551 Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_2 801.200202251551 Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_3 801.200202251551 Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_4 Perfectly fine pages. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 801.200411272025 Charles_Baudin A fine historical bio from the german edition. Looks good to me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)801.200412031345 North_Carolina_Bicycle_Route_2 Fine article, if on a remarkably narrow topic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 801.200412211611 Ferny_Grove - Odd little dab page between a Brisbane railway line and it's station. Not sure what to do with this one... JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)802.200412270236 Franco_Ventriglia - Some of the red links need help, but the article's fine otherwise.--み使い Mitsukai 04:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)802.200410041838 Weißenborn - Some of the red links need help, but the article's fine otherwise.--み使い Mitsukai 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)802.200412250308 Mount_Emily_(disambiguation) 803.200504111033 NBN_(disambiguation) 801.200412231115 Gary_Hall 801.200504051858 Yeongi-Gongju 801.200504212348 Keep_The_Faith_(album) 802.200501300437 Iwaki_Station 802.200502190325 Politics_of_Korea 803.200502151648 Kitahama_Station 803.200502180556 World_Cup_Stadium 801.200503171302 Diana_JonesThese are all disambiguation pages.--み使い Mitsukai 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 802.200503041929 1885_in_organized_crime 803.200504180052 2239These articles aren't going to change anytime soon.--み使い Mitsukai 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 801.200501020536 Media_guide I wikified it, but it's an American specific term, or purports to be, so preferably needs an American to give it the all clear. Hiding talk 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I'm familiar with the term ""Media Guide"" from various sports references. Article seems ok. --Iggle 12:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)802.20050331082 Starvation_(glaciology) - This article seems fine.--み使い Mitsukai 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Dusty articles (no longer in use)" 244 246 546 WP:ATK Wikipedia:Attack page 244 "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages may be removed immediately. Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the {{db-attack}} template, and blank the page as courtesy. Warn the user who created it using the {{subst:uw-attack}} user warning template. Once a page is tagged with the {{db-attack}} template, it will be added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. Attack pages eligible for speedy deletion may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a ""list of enemies"" or ""list of everything bad user:XXX did"" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody. When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. Such an article is still required to comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. When deleting attack pages, it is important that you do not quote any of the content in your deletion summary. If you wish to add any comments in addition to using the ""G10"" option from the dropdown menu, be sure to include only a simple description without the details of the attack. PoliciesWikipedia:Libel Wikipedia:Harassment Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10 Wikipedia:No personal attacks § Removal of personal attacks Wikipedia:POLEMICEssaysWikipedia:WikiBullying Wikipedia:Coatrack articlesArticles containing criticism of individual peopleCategory:Criticism of individuals" 245 247 548 WP:OWB User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior 245 "Some observations on behavior on Wikipedia, interspersed with recommendations on how to deal with it. When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good. Many people leaving the project blame either the project or the people working on it for their departure, rather than recognize that it is normal in life for one's enthusiasm to wane. It does with all things that we once found exciting. This is neither pessimistic nor tragic: one needs always to find new exciting things to do. All things in life change and end, and this includes one's involvement with Wikipedia. ""He who kisses the joy as it flies / lives in eternity's sunrise."" Enjoy it while you are here, and enjoy what you do after you have gone. Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult. People who have the insatiable need to retaliate for perceived wrongs should be removed from the project as quickly, but gently, as possible. Since mid-to-late 2005 there has been an increasing focus by Wikipedians, especially new Wikipedians, on designing pretty user pages, userspace widgets, fancy signatures, and other similar stuff rather than contributing content. This is probably not a good trend, but it is unlikely to change. The best content contributors often neglect these things, and vice versa. Any logged-in user whose first edit is vandalism of a user page, or a nasty personal attack on a talk page, should be immediately and permanently blocked, without comment. If a user's first and second edits are creations of their user and talk pages, devoid of content, their third edit will be vandalism, a personal attack, or another form of trolling. That people spring up to defend these accounts when they are blocked is neither complicity nor malice, but rather just inexperience. Using an anonymous IP or creating a sockpuppet to vandalise a user page or leave a nasty personal attack is a particularly despicable form of cowardice. If you have a problem with someone, work it out in the open. Single-topic editors are rarely, if ever, interested in or capable of NPOV. Additionally, if you look closely you will often find a conflict of interest. The more extreme and unencyclopedic the viewpoint, the greater the likelihood of it attracting sockpuppet support. If an editor is truly writing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell from that person's edits what their viewpoint is. This is most obvious in political articles, but applies everywhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary. As the primary job of Wikipedians is to write the encyclopedia, any user whose principal activity is to interfere with the writing should be removed from the project, as painlessly as possible. The best way is to persuade them that they will be happier elsewhere, and to wish them well; the worst is to beat them up and make them angry: but however it happens, it must be done. It is impossible to enumerate all the kinds of vanity. (La Rochefoucauld, No. 506) Wikipedia's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded. They may be moderately notable people who attempted to edit an article on themselves, and failed to control it; or they may be people who worked hard on an article on a subject about which they care, which was deleted by the community; or they may be people who attempted to push a POV which was rejected by the community. Usually they invoke a higher moral principle in support of their campaign against the project, such as censorship, free speech, conspiracy against them, or whatnot, as their own vanity prevents them from recognizing that vanity itself is the source of their displeasure. Some trolls and POV-pushers are best fought with a time delay. Let them make their edit; then change it an hour or two later, or even the next day. Trolls are easily bored, and are more likely to go away if you hold your fire for a bit. (Blatant vandalism of course needs to be reverted immediately.) This tactic is especially useful with the Stormfront or Free Republic types, or versus any group that pushes a POV and is specifically looking for a fight. There IS a cabal. It's a core group of editors united by the belief that the encyclopedia must protect itself against jerks, and against people who write junk. As soon as someone attacks the community, or any portion of it, by writing a rant on their user page, Act V of their Wiki Tragedy has begun. It will end, inevitably, with their departure or expulsion from the project. The Administrators' Noticeboards, RFC, RFArb, and occasionally RFA, are like galleries of spectacular freeway crashes, slowing traffic in both directions as everyone cranes their head around for a better view. Contributions to the encyclopedia decline every time there is a new wreck. One of the less-noticed reasons for the increase in conflict in the project overall is that almost all of the articles on important subjects are written. There is less ""exciting"" work to do, such as creating from scratch an article on an important topic, and conflict is the most usual substitute excitement. The early days of the project are over, and just as in a relationship, the truly hard work comes after the initial excitement has faded. There are no fools more troublesome than those with wit. People who announce early in their Wiki careers that they want to be admins, probably shouldn't be. Adminship is better approached as a duty taken on by an established Wikipedian, than as a trophy for a newbie to aspire to. The best admins are those who are drafted, and not those who eagerly await a three-month threshold or a certain edit count. Adminship is not a trophy and beware those who want to pin it on like a shiny badge. All the virtues and vices shown by humanity as a whole can be found on Wikipedia. Anyone who runs from the community because they cannot tolerate its vices, divisions, and politics, will have to face the same vices, divisions, and politics again elsewhere in life. Anonymous edits to articles on traditional encyclopedic topics, especially during school hours, are far more likely to be vandalism than edits to popular culture topics. Vandalism in the form of trolling and nasty personal attacks spikes on Friday and Saturday nights, local time. Look at the bright side: at least they're not driving drunk. If a vandal insults you, it is a reliable indicator that you are doing something right. One of the commonest kinds of vandalism is an assertion that something, someone, or somewhere is ""gay"". This is a reflection of the common, indeed unavoidable, sexual insecurity of male adolescents, who make up most of Wikipedia's vandals. It's as universal a part of maturing as acne; revert and ignore. Any new article with exactly the same name as its creator can almost always be immediately deleted as CSD A7. ""Userfying"" – moving these pages to the new user's user page – is a slightly more compassionate approach, but it doesn't work as often as it should. Good people leave the project all the time. Fortunately, good people join the project all the time as well. Bad people also come and go. The project survives in spite of all these arrivals and departures. Many of our best contributors began with a few shabby edits. Be kind to newbies, even though it is a test of patience to see the same mistake hundreds of times over several years. Patience is one of the most underrated of the virtues, and in our present attention-deficit-disorder age it is one of the most rare. People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. If you've been blocked, consider first the possibility you did something wrong. Instead of complaining about abuse of power, censorship, or whatever, just behave in such a way that you don't get blocked. There are thousands of editors who have contributed enormously to Wikipedia without ever getting blocked. It's not that hard. When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here. Whenever a group of people, particularly if they are administrators, gets together and agrees on something, there will inevitably be one or a handful of vocal detractors who oppose because they see something sinister in any group which is in agreement – especially if they perceive that group as having power over them. See WP:CABAL. It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity. You only gain in the long run. Retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises. When you are angry, it is extraordinarily difficult to differentiate between a good-faith edit and the other kind. Postpone that decision until you are no longer angry. The consequences of reverting a good-faith edit with a vandalism-reversion tool or ""rvv"" edit summary are unpredictable, and unlikely to win you friends or trust. As a general rule, do not edit when you are angry. Wait until the feeling has passed, and you are yourself again. When someone screams about ""admin abuse"", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. If there's a block involved, expect to see a battalion of sockpuppets in short order, making even more shrill cries of admin wrongdoing. Try to be as tolerant as you possibly can regarding edits by established contributors. Should you need to revert one, leave as polite an explanation as possible, with room for compromise: and if they're simply wrong, don't rub their nose in it. The loss of long-established contributors due to avoidable conflict is one of the greatest threats the project faces. People who have been here a year or more, and made thousands of contributions to the project, are its greatest asset, and this cannot be overstated. While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane. A little compassion can help, although one's initial impulse is to strike back. Don't. It's a sign of strength not to retaliate, and a peaceful response may actually do some good. ""Retired"" editors sometimes leave the project forever, especially if they have left out of weariness, or because it is no longer new, fun, and rewarding for them. If, however, they have left in anger, they may not leave permanently: expect to see them return for ""revenge"" against those they perceive to have done them wrong: and the actions they perform on their return are among the most vile in the project, and the least productive towards its ends. You can find this kind of behavior in greatest abundance at RFA, RFB, RFC, RFArb, and the noticeboards. Sometimes these disgruntled editors return as sockpuppets, but the braver come back under their own names: but as in all vendettas, they do more harm to themselves than their victims, for they only cover themselves in debasement and slime. No human behavior is more despicable than inflicting suffering just to feel good about it, but unfortunately this is a common motivation indeed. As in the dry season arsonists start fires, so when there is a contentious event on Wikipedia, certain editors will attempt to escalate conflicts, and so enjoy their destructive course. You may recognize the same names appearing again and again in such circumstances. As I have said above, it has become harder to work on articles in the last few years, and it is much easier, and much more pleasurable, for some people to feel the rush and the pride in one's witty put-down of an opponent, than to write or cite or cleanup or reference an article that no one will immediately read. Conflict is as addictive as cocaine, and unfortunately Wikipedia's civility policies only limit incivility among those who respect them in the first place, and who have the personal strength not to need to retaliate. Anonymity is to cowardice what Viagra is to impotence. A high proportion of Wikipedians have issues with authority. That's why many people are attracted to Wikipedia in the first place. Keep this in mind if you become an administrator, for you may have just become, unwittingly, what these people most resent; and no matter how good a job you do, they'll find your one mistake and beat you up with it. It's best just to accept this demographic for the reality it is. They are often our most capable content contributors, and as long as Wikipedia remains open to all, this situation will remain. A related point is that Wikipedia is often accused of having a ""liberal bias"". The only bias it has arises from the self-selection of its members: people are here because they are the ones who want to contribute to an open-content project. You're going to get a lot of ""libertarian left"" here by the project's very nature. When you are attacked by a troll, remember that their choice of insult says more about them than about you, and it's an opportunity for compassion. They just told you what hurts them, and obliquely what probably has, in the past. Harper Lee put it well in To Kill a Mockingbird: ""...it's never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn't hurt you..."" My only quibble is this: while it might indeed hurt, it does no harm. ""Envy is more implacable than hatred."" An often overlooked motivation for persistent harassment is that the troll wants something you have: recognition, passion, education, skill, knowledge – something. It's usually disguised by some claim of wrongdoing on your part, but the disguise often contains subtle hints that the troll wants acknowledgement as an equal. The more persistent the trolling, the higher the level of insecurity that the troll is unwittingly showing. A useful two-question test, to apply to dodgy accounts that seem to be stirring up trouble: 1) Is this person helping to build the encyclopedia? 2) If not, is this person actively interfering with those of us who are? If the answers are ""no"" and ""yes"", respectively, block immediately and move on. ""And slime had they for mortar."" Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the ""bright"" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it. People who put lists of editors they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long. See #18, as this is closely related. The highest compliment a troll can pay to you is to create an attack page about you elsewhere on the internet. It's as close to an admission of surrender as you will get, in addition to showing that you are doing something very right indeed. As in on-wiki trolling, the insults they choose tell you more about them than about you. Consider such pages to be monuments to your good work, but otherwise ignore them. Wikipedia is no more a place for people with control issues than mining is a career for claustrophobes. That such people are as common here as they are is a poignant reminder of the all-too-human tendency of the chronically disaffected to seek out environments that make them angry and miserable. Beware lest you begin to enjoy too much the blocking of vandals, the crushing of trolls, and the banning of troublemakers; spend too much time ridding the project of monsters, you risk taking on the characteristics of those you drive off. Too much troll-fighting can be destructive for one's attention span, sensitivity, and taste. It should be no surprise that the most experienced at troll-fighting often have the shortest tempers. The best way to counter this tendency is to do other things regularly, such as having a life outside Wikipedia. Trolls, banned editors, and mental defectives will try to annoy you, if you are an active contributor. Do good work anyway. Avenge yourself on your enemies by not becoming like them. As sarcasm is the protest of the weak, so attack sites are the whining of the incompetent, who failed to succeed at editing Wikipedia. They are unimportant. Continue creating useful and beautiful things, and spread good will in the world; if others are consumed by hate and vindictiveness, you may feel compassion for them, and be grateful you are not so afflicted. Nothing is harder to put up with than the annoyance of good example. If you want to be liked, screw up once in a while, and apologize. We all think it's a good idea to stand up to bullies. Not only is it harder to do than you sometimes think, other than under the influence of testosterone or your anger-enhancer of choice, but in doing so you risk becoming a bully yourself. I quote from the Dalai Lama: ""...when encountering injustice, take a strong stand – but with no ill intent."" As Freud observed, we are most courageous when we feel most loved. Conversely, the lonely are often the most craven, and their anger is the most vindictive. Wikipedia is filled with the lonely. ""The cut worm forgives the plow."" Trolls and banned editors may harass you repeatedly, attempting to provoke a reaction. Let it go; they'll get over it. The plow already has. Beware of users so in love with their own virtue, that they are incapable of recognizing when it has become vice; and so in love with their own eloquence, that they cannot see when it has become hypocrisy. The former are those who never admit to any wrong, but yet demand apologies from others for the lapses of judgement to which all human beings are prone; and the latter are the blindest and most intractable of POV-pushers. Skill with words correlates neither with virtue nor wisdom. When an editor ceases to contribute to articles, but instead writes only in the Wikipedia space, on talk pages, and arbitration cases, and when more than half of that editor's contributions are in conflicts, either beginning or prolonging them, then that editor is very close to departure. As with stars on the main sequence, some departures are shrinkings into dwarf states, with ever-diminishing contributions, giving little light, and with a long decay; and other departures are violent supernova explosions, spewing waste matter and hot gas in all directions. It is easier to get a sincere ""thank you"" for reverting ""you're a faggot"" from someone's userpage, than it is for writing a researched, thorough, and referenced encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic. The best way to continue as a writing Wikipedian for many years is to be, as the Buddha recommends, ""indifferent to both praise and blame."" Indifference to praise is a hard task for mere humans, but millions of potential anonymous readers demand it of you, for if you require praise you will burn out with one of the fates indicated in No. 59. And remember this: you are allowed to take your work seriously here, and think highly of your own efforts; but be advised, don't talk about it. When Wikipedians spend too much time on the noticeboards, in Arbcom cases, and on talk pages of contentious articles, they have a high probability of concluding that Wikipedia is dysfunctional, incompetent, and doomed to fail. Once a Wikipedian has reached this realization, expect that person's user page to boast an essay announcing the imminent failure of the project. The best cure for this condition is to leave those places, and instead read a few articles on genuinely encyclopedic topics, noticing just how good they actually are. Similarly, if you were to look at a table at a subatomic level, you would see that it consists mainly of empty space, with innumerable minuscule particles whizzing about angrily, each having an arbitrary and undefinable position; indeed, if you look at them too closely, they will change just to spite you: but back away, the whole becomes visibly a table again. We're a pretty good encyclopedia, and you will notice it once you back away from the conflict zones. There will be world peace, and the lion will lie down with the lamb, before banned users realize that they have only themselves to blame for being banned. All campaigns referencing ""corrupt admins"" and ""cabals"" arise from this same inexhaustible source of folly: I can't possibly be wrong – all of them must be. That bad editors seem to be as large and troublesome a group as they are is a form of selection bias, and the more time you spend on noticeboards, the worse it seems. It's rather like the bad drivers you encounter on the roadways: when you reach your destination, you may remember the two or three bad drivers you encountered, but not the hundreds of good ones who escaped your attention by doing everything right. Thus there may be 99 good editors for every bad one, but you'd never notice, for their names do not appear in drama threads, and their angry messages never contaminate your talk page. Playing the victim makes you smaller. This is something that returning banned users, on making their shrill accusations of cabals and conspiracies and personal vendettas, do not realize: it does not make them rise in importance – it shrinks them, diminishes them, makes them even more insignificant and ridiculous on each iteration. It's reminiscent of Richard Matheson's Incredible Shrinking Man, that great existential film into which so much can be read. Instead of helping build the largest encyclopedia in the history of the human race, those trolls finish their Wiki lives battling imagined spiders, with toothpicks. The only one-hundred-percent certain way to get rid of a troll is to close the browser tab. Takes a mouse click. Hard to do though, isn't it? Any edit that improves the encyclopedia is a good edit. Before clicking ""save page"", always run this through your final mental checker: does what I just did in that edit box improve the encyclopedia? People still write new articles for the encyclopedia, but with all the sound and fury at the noticeboards, you have to go out of your way to notice. Even more important, you have to care. It's easier to burn down a dilapidated building than to fix it. The bigger the ego, the more pyromaniacal the impulse. When you realize that editing an article on a current world conflict stresses you out more than the actual conflict does, it is time to take a break. Having your edits bombed to oblivion with an rvv is not as bad as losing your entire family to a paramilitary raid, and sometimes it is important to think about it. It is impossible to love again anything you have truly ceased to love. Editors who return after retirement, or after a wearied or bitter departure, may edit again, but never with the same passion they once brought to the project. Each successive return will be with diminished dedication and shorter duration. The very existence of Wikipedia is a massive proof that there are more people in the world wanting to build than to tear down. Were that not true, vandals would have overwhelmed and destroyed us years ago. ""Truth"" is a big word. Editors who make abrupt claims about either having, knowing, or insisting on ""truth"", and editors who include the word in their usernames, are probably doing something that does not belong in an encyclopedia; and the more stridently they argue, the more suspicious you are right to be. A common insult hurled at dedicated Wikipedia editors is that they ""have no life"". If you write extensively in an out-of-the-way area, you may well become the most widely read writer in the world on your topic. There are worse ways of ""having no life"", such as abusing the few actually useful people on the internet, but those who deliver such insults are invariably tone-deaf to irony. The more one hates, the less one cares about what is true. This is as true in politics as with obsessed sockpuppeteers, and it's the secret sauce in conspiracy theories: look carefully at any, and you’ll find hatred at its core. We have a noticeboard for everything imaginable, except competence. If you become good at troll-fighting, and identifying banned users: if you come to specialize in just a few of them, or even just one: you may discover that your presence alone serves to attract them, and the best thing for the project is to step back and let someone else take over. You don't need to be Ahab, and it's not a White Whale anyway; it's a horsefly. ""It is not your fate to be a fly-swat."" Beware that moment when you think yourself wise, for you may have just become a fool. I'm as prone to vanity as anyone, if not more so, and posting these observations is not an attempt to imply that I am above these behaviors myself. == See also == Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprising == Notes ==" 246 248 550 WP:editing policy WP:editing policy 246 "Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time. Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge, and be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. It is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an inline citation when adding content (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for help at the Help desk). Wikipedia respects others' copyright. Although content must be backed by reliable sources, avoid copying or closely paraphrasing a copyrighted source. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words. An exception exists for the often necessary use of short quotations; they must be enclosed in quotations marks, accompanied by an inline reference to the source, and usually attributed to the author. (See the fair use doctrine which allows limited quoting without permission.) Another way you can improve an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced content. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the content to add a source and citation for it. Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. === Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons === Although perfection is not required, extra care should be taken on articles that mention living persons. Contentious material about living or recently deceased persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should either be verified immediately, with one or more reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner without undue weight, or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ""finished"" article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider: Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources Formatting or sourcing on the spot Tagging it as necessary Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself Repairing a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge Fixing errors in wikitext or formattingOtherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the English Wikipedia entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia. === Problems that may justify removal === Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia:No original research discusses the need to remove original research; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and Wikipedia:Undue weight discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (except in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative). Libel, nonsense, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published. Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it. If you think the edit might be controversial, then a better course of action may be to first make a proposal on the talk page. Bold editing does not excuse edits against existing consensus, edits in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability, or edits designed to create a fait accompli, where actions are justified by the fact they have already been carried out. If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting it or contesting it in a talk page discussion, consider your options and respond appropriately. The ""BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"" (BRD) is often used when a contentious edit has been reverted. === Be helpful: explain === Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring. === Be cautious with major changes: discuss === Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion. === But – Wikipedia is not a discussion forum === Whether you decide to edit very boldly or discuss carefully on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is best to concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than debating our personal ideas and beliefs. This is discussed further at Wikipedia:Etiquette. === If you need help === The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes are available if you need help reaching an agreement with other editors. For guidance on how to edit talk pages see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages Help:Archiving a talk page Contributing to Wikipedia: how and where you can help Wikipedia Disruptive editing: how not to edit Wikipedia Edit conflicts: how to deal with an edit conflict There is no deadline: various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means" 247 249 552 :WP:AFC Wikipedia:Articles for creation 247 "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor in creating a new page as a draft article, which they can work on and submit for review and feedback when ready. The AfC process must be used by non-registered users and by those who do not yet have sufficient editing experience because these groups of editors are not permitted to create articles directly in Wikipedia's mainspace. The AfC process should also be used by anyone with a conflict of interest. Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged not to clutter up the project with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers. If you are not required to use the AfC process but still need time to work on a new article before it's ready for mainspace, please do not submit it for review. Writing an encyclopedic article from scratch is not easy. We recommend that you first gain some experience by adding material to articles that already exist, or by helping out with other tasks. You should read the page Help:Your first article to avoid common mistakes, and save your hard work from being deleted. In some circumstances, it may be more appropriate to request a simple redirect to an existing article than to try to create a new one. Before you start writing, here are some things you should have in mind: Make sure that the topic is notable enough for an article. Is it already covered in an existing article? If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will never be accepted as an article. If yes, have you improved that coverage? Improving existing content is a much more successful way of contributing to Wikipedia. Articles should reflect only what reliable sources have said about the topic, and all articles need references to reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest with the topic you are writing about, you should disclose it on the draft's talk page. If you are being paid to contribute to Wikipedia, you must—under the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use—disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation. The draft should not have category declarations on it that cause it to be categorized as a finished article. If and when the page is accepted by a reviewer, it will have categories added to it at that time; however, categories present on the page while it's still in draft form will be either removed or disabled per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, you can make a suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles.Your article title will have ""Draft:"" in front of it until it is accepted as an article. To start a new draft, click the button below: === Submitting for review === When you are finished, you can submit your article for review by clicking the button ""Submit for review"". If you don't see this button, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft (remember to switch to the source editor first). If you see a yellow box saying ""Review waiting, please be patient"", you have successfully submitted your draft for review. If you don't see this box, you can ask for help at the Articles for Creation help desk. Please note that getting a review can take several weeks, but that your draft will be reviewed eventually. Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption. In the meantime, we hope that you expand some of our already existing articles. Because many minor subjects may not meet our 'Notability' requirements, it is often better to create a simple Redirect to an existing article from an alternative name, rather than to try to create a completely new article from scratch. (For example: the name of a non-notable musician in an otherwise notable rock band could be made to redirect a reader to the article about that band, and where that person is mentioned). If you wish to create a redirect to an existing article, please use the Redirect wizard. If you wish to create new categories, please use the Category wizard. If you wish to submit a file for uploading to Wikipedia, please use the Files for upload wizard List of current requests for new Redirects and Categories Experienced editors are always needed to participate in reviews. The guide for doing so can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. There are 3,625 pending submissions in Category:Pending AfC submissions. The ages of the various submissions are as follows: Declined submissions can be found in Category:Declined AfC submissions. Archives from before September 2008 can be found here. Submissions are archived by date in Category:AfC submissions by date: Old drafts, drafts that have been unedited for more than six months, are routinely deleted (see WP:CSD#G13). Once deleted, they can be recovered at WP:REFUND/G13. A category listing drafts approaching G13 status can be found at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions with the oldest drafts at the top of the category. These can be reviewed and nominated for deletion or improved for mainspace. Some old drafts have been identified as ""promising"", but without any active editor actually committing to working on them. See Category:Promising draft articles and Category:AfC postponed G13. Consider browsing these drafts for topics that you would like to improve and move to mainspace. If it reasonably appears that {{Promising draft}} or Category:AfC postponed G13 are not merited, you may remove them but consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template or category." 248 251 559 WP:DEPRECATED Wikipedia:Deprecated sources 248 "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. Use of these sources may generate edit filter warnings for registered users and may be automatically reverted for edits from IP addresses. Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources or the general sourcing requirements, they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus.Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that would be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been de facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. A discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification of editorial consensus (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements. Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was the Daily Mail, which was determined by community consensus in a 2017 RfC to have a ""reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication"". This RfC became a landmark decision, and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from its closing summary. Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source (blacklisting), which is generally done to address spam-related issues. Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the 2017 Daily Mail RfC: The source is designated as generally unreliable. Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. The source is no longer used to determine notability. Typically, the source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Typically, an edit filter set to ""warn"" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit. This measure is implemented through filter 869 (hist · log), which marks all edits that trigger the filter with the ""use of deprecated (unreliable) source"" tag.Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to the spam blacklist and/or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, which prevents editors from saving contributions containing a link to the source. It is not necessary for a source to be deprecated to be blocked, nor are all deprecated sources blocked. Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive ""ban"" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not. Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). An external link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of all sources continues to be governed by WP:RS and WP:V. Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically. Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability, and that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses. Establishing new types of acceptable use requires a demonstration that the source is uniquely reliable in those particular circumstances compared to other possible uses of the source. Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is blacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in spam-related issues, such as external link spamming. Blacklisted sources are listed at the English Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, with new proposals submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits, and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can technically be entered by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists. To start a discussion on deprecation, start a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN). Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is a consensus for deprecation. However, if the source is not already de facto deprecated as current practice, or if the source has not already been discussed at length in the past, it may be a better idea to start a regular RSN discussion instead. In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to prevent instruction creep, sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, satire sites such as The Onion or The Babylon Bee) are unlikely to be formally deprecated unless there are editors seriously arguing for their reliability. Similarly, the fact that there may be non-deprecated sources which are just as bad as (or even worse than) a source under consideration is not considered to be a valid argument against deprecation. Any source that fails the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. While we will never have an exhaustive list, most deprecation to date has focused on sources that promote known falsehoods, particularly debunked conspiracy theories. This does not have to be intentional and may be a result of factors such as poor fact checking or sensationalism. One might assume, for instance, that fake news websites are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promote pseudoscience or denialism. The pages on potentially unreliable sources and perennially discussed sources may also be helpful. Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here. === Legend === In a highly-attended 2020 discussion, there was consensus to deprecate OpIndia and Swarajya, but the discussion was not a request for comment." 249 252 560 WP:PDATA Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata 249 "Welcome to WikiProject Persondata. Some Wikipedians formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's use of Persondata, a hidden template used to store biographical information as metadata. In May 2015, it was decided that Wikidata had rendered Persondata superfluous, and its removal from Wikipedia is now complete. See Wikipedia:Persondata Wikidata is a sister project to Wikipedia, which holds data about subjects. Usable information from Persondata has been copied to Wikidata, and Persondata is now deprecated - see the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles?. Therefore, please do not add new Persondata templates to pages. The consensus is that Persondata is no longer to be used in articles. You are encouraged to get involved with Wikidata. 26 May 2015 Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC and will be removed from Wikipedia shortly. 23 November 2015 The Persondata data set is available for semi-automatic migration to Wikidata on Kaspar's tool page. Users are kindly asked to help with the migration to Wikidata. 31 January 2016 The Persondata template is removed from all articles by KasparBot. See RfA. Users are kindly asked to help with the migration to Wikidata on Kaspar's tool page. A.Ou (talk · contribs · count) Historical figures Anubhab91 (talk · contribs · count) Whatever Argento Surfer (talk · contribs · count) - Writers, cartoonists, and artists Argolin (talk · contribs · count) - Canadian music; other Canadians sure: I'm there awotter (talk · contribs · count) (Will pass on to Project Oregon) Bmatthewshea (talk · contribs · count) - Will try and add some to Bio's I find needing them (EN) Brainy J (talk · contribs · count) - Like, whatevs. Burntfingers (talk · contribs · count) Any bios I come across. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk · contribs · count) Sportspeople, epecially cricket, football, baseball, American football. Callanecc (talk · contribs · count) Ched (talk · contribs · count) - This is new to me, but I'll try to do what I can. Chendy (talk · contribs · count) Politics, Journalists & businessleaders ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · count) Clear the backlogs. Darylgolden (talk · contribs · count) Anything. Deejayk (talk · contribs · count) music, sports, Seattle, Montana, etc. Dendodge (talk · contribs · count) - anything I come across (which will most likely be somehow related to The Beatles Deyyaz (talk · contribs · count) Anything I can find edgarde (talk · contribs · count) Bad articles. Enock4seth (talk · contribs · count) Any parameter on any bio. Eric Shalov (talk · contribs · count) Starting with my own articles.. Fylbecatulous (talk · contribs · count) As I discover the issue while vandal fighting; moreover, when I have down time Fox Wilson (talk · contribs · count) Software to help the project, maybe different detection than Persondata-o-matic Gnu_andrew (talk · contribs · count) Anything I find Grumpycraig (talk · contribs · count) Persondata_templates_without_short_description_parameter ilamb94 (talk · contribs · count) - Articles I create Islandbaygardener (talk · contribs · count) (Artists - anyone dead) johndburger (talk · contribs · count) Any biog article I edit. Also interested in using Persondata for Navibot Joshua Issac (talk · contribs · count) - joined 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC). I'll add it to biographies without them if I notice. JudyCS (talk · contribs · count) Biographies, ""notable lives"" of all kinds Lemnaminor (talk · contribs · count) Lugnuts (talk · contribs · count) All actor, director, screenwriter bios, etc I create/modify Mardochaios (talk · contribs · count) - Mostly articles from other projects I'm helping with Menasim (talk · contribs · count) - Anything Missionedit (talk · contribs · count) - All biographies Mjs1991 (talk · contribs · count) Using Persondata-o-matic Middayexpress (talk · contribs · count) - Anything Momoricks (talk · contribs · count) (I'll add it to any biographical article I encounter, particularly serial killers and criminals, as I encounter those often via WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.) Msmarmalade (talk · contribs · count) - Focused on the process of wrapping-up Persondata, you can see my plan here Omnipaedista (talk · contribs · count) OrenBochman (talk · contribs · count) Whatever I edit Osarius (talk · contribs · count) - Anything I stuble upon while new page patrolling. Paleorthid (talk · contribs · count) Scientists paul2520 (talk · contribs · count) - Persondata_templates_without_short_description_parameter Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs · count) - I'll work on reaching in to college football articles for coaches and players. Peroxwhy2gen (talk · contribs · count) - Anything I come across... Pinkadelica (talk · contribs · count) All bios I work on or come across Pjoef (talk · contribs · count) (Anything...) Rajah (talk · contribs · count) Rjwilmsi (talk · contribs · count) – Coding logic for AutoWikiBrowser to automatically insert persondata. Robomod (talk · contribs · count) Actors, fashion models, photographers, designers etc robwingfield (talk · contribs · count) Footballers. Royalmate1 (talk · contribs · count) Particularly these massive backlogs[1][2], and any I create or stumble upon SBaker43 (talk · contribs · count) (Fixing missing or incomplete articles as I encounter them.) Scapler (talk · contribs · count) - Any biographical entry I come across without it! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Scott5114 (talk · contribs · count) SGGH (talk · contribs · count) - anything I find Shinryuu (talk · contribs · count) - Scientists & various Germans; anything I find Smtchahal (talk · contribs · count) - I'm interested in adding names to nameless persondata articles. I'd also add Persondata to whichever biographical articles I encounter; whenever I do. TheJJJunk (talk · contribs · count) Thorwald (talk · contribs · count) - Anything. Titodutta (talk · contribs · count) Tomaxer (talk · contribs · count) - Mostly composers. ukexpat (talk · contribs · count) Anything. Unionhawk (talk · contribs · count) - Whatever I find. Warrickball (talk · contribs · count) Whatever I encounter. wnicholas70 (talk · contribs · count) I'm BASQUE. Xenxax (talk · contribs · count) Whatever I find. Yutsi (talk · contribs · count) Anything. Zarex (talk · contribs · count) Whenever I find. Пробегающий (talk · contribs · count) Link from all bases and projects all persondata, authority control information and put on WikiData, search conflicts, solver. Tim Welch (talk · contribs · count) - New York State politicians (primarily historical). 70.186.172.75 (talk · contribs · count) All bios. Alexander Gieg (talk · contribs · count) Any biographical article I come across that interests me enough. Most are in the Philosophy and Religion areas. Arina.Moroz (talk · contribs · count) - Russians BookishAcolyte (talk · contribs · count) Japanese folks, especially actors, musicians, artists... JamAKiska (talk · contribs · count) - Science and History... jeffozvold (talk · contribs · count) Anything I find. Jkj115 (talk · contribs · count) Random, I'll add whoever I find Kakofonous (talk · contribs · count) Anything at all. LelandRB (talk · contribs · count) Anythang MaBu (talk · contribs · count) - Whatever I find, or whatever is bad for parsing. manik.mahajan2 (talk · contribs · count) Help to Standardize PLACE OF BIRTH field . Mdebets (talk · contribs · count) Musicians and historical figures I come across Merrieman (talk · contribs · count) Anything... Mouchoir le Souris (talk · contribs · count) Any and all I come upon Nightseeder (talk · contribs · count) Anything NoVomit (talk · contribs · count) PS. (talk · contribs · count) Ryft (talk · contribs · count) - Science, philosophy, history, Sirius XM Radio. Saranghae honey (talk · contribs · count) whatever I find? Scarce (talk · contribs · count) - Entertainers, mainly actors Spider1224 (talk · contribs · count) Whatever strikes my fancy on a particular day. Tadramgo (talk · contribs · count) Whatever I find Teleomatic (talk · contribs · count) Writers TestTubeFiasco (talk · contribs · count) - Artists, Writers, whatever I find. Trevy510 (talk · contribs · count) Whatever I find! Zhukora (talk · contribs · count) Historical figures, people I come across. === Related projects === WikiProject Biography Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats" 250 253 561 WP:UNBLOCK Wikipedia:Appealing a block 250 "During day-to-day operations, Wikipedia administrators routinely block accounts and IP ranges to reduce or prevent vandalism and other inappropriate behavior. This page explains to blocked users why they may have been blocked, as well as how to request an unblock. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, where you are accidentally affected by a block of some other user. Alternatively, your account or IP may have been blocked because it appears to have been responsible for (or connected to) a serious breach of Wikipedia's policies.If your account was blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. Otherwise, there is a rapid appeal process which obtains quick review by other independent administrators, and brief discussion of the matter. One aim of blocking in some cases is to ensure the user learns from the incident, and that the issues don't happen again. === Common questions === The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page, which is only blocked if abused. If you cannot edit your talk page, you can appeal via the Unblock Ticket Request System. To test if you are still blocked, click here which tries to edit the Sandbox. If you are allowed to edit the sandbox, your block has already expired or been lifted and nothing more needs doing. If the block is still active, you can resume editing when unblocked, or you can request a review of the block if you believe it is unfair or that you have put right whatever was the problem. Note that this only checks for sitewide blocks, not partial blocks. Users can check for partial blocks by viewing their contributions page or by entering their name on the block list. Useful links for helping blocked users: Message seen by blocked users: MediaWiki:Blockedtext (partial blocks: MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial) Requests for unblocking: Category:Requests for unblock When you appeal, other editors – most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter – will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it. Editors may leave comments on your talk page regarding your appeal. Usually, if it's a clear cut case, any uninvolved (independent) administrator will make a decision. The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy). The process can take hours or a few days; for major discussions sometimes it can take a week or more. Administrators will carefully avoid blocking and unblocking fights, which are a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached. Blocks can be reversed with the agreement by the blocking admin, an override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or (in very rare cases) on appeal to the Arbitration Committee. === Types of appeal === In all cases, unblock requests should be submitted on your user talk page. Generally speaking, unblock requests will be one of the following two types: Requests for unblock in the event of a case of mistaken identity, misunderstanding, or other irregularity; Appeals for clemency, in which the appellant acknowledges the conduct that led to their block and requests a second chance.If the appeal is of the first type, you should use the unblock template on your talk page or submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS). If you are partially blocked from using certain Wikipedia functions, you can also submit an appeal on the administrator noticeboard. If the appeal is of the second type, you should use the unblock template on your talk page, and only use UTRS if you cannot edit your talk page. === Direct appeal === Appeals will usually take place on your user talk page; use the unblock template on your talk page to initiate this process: If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked (if the block was clearly and obviously a mistake), but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt. You may be unblocked if the blocking admin changes their mind or can't be reached, and an unblock is considered reasonable. When you are unblocked, you may then follow the dispute resolution process if you believe that you were treated unfairly. If an unblocking needs discussion, reaching a consensus usually takes several days. After a discussion takes place, if there is consensus to unblock, the user is unblocked right away, although conditions may be imposed by the unblocking admin. If there is no consensus to unblock, or if there is consensus to keep the user blocked after ""due consideration by the community"", and the user is blocked indefinitely, the user is considered community banned indefinitely, and must go through the ban appeals process to have it reversed. === Other methods of appeal === In highly unusual cases, you may wish to utilize the dispute resolution process while you are still blocked. To do so, you may contact other Wikipedians by e-mail, or by editing your talk page (which you can usually do even if blocked). Users may not appeal blocks to the Arbitration Committee by email, except if: The block is an Oversight block or CheckUser block The reasons for the block or information related to your appeal is unsuitable for public discussion You have been blocked or banned by the Arbitration Committee or by an Arbitration Enforcement decision. A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active. Upon a request to seek arbitration, editing access may be restored to a limited number of other pages (such as those connected with their appeal) pending the formal decision, so that the matter (and any evidence, facts, mitigating circumstances, or corrections) can be presented as well. A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attacks or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened. Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing. Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from. Users who have lost the ability to request unblocking on their talk pages may then do so at UTRS. Unfortunately, they may continue to abuse the appeal process via that venue as well, and may be banned from UTRS, for six months if a Standard offer is still possible, or indefinitely in the most egregious instances. Third party appeals of blocks are generally not permitted. However, some exceptions are permitted for block reviews. An administrator may choose to refer their own block for review, particularly if it might be controversial. Any editor may request community review of blocks they believe are out-of-policy, though they should attempt to discuss their concerns with the blocking admin first. Such reviews are not considered block appeals, and if the review results in the block being endorsed it is not converted into a community ban. Help:I have been blocked Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks Wikipedia:Unblock perspectives" 251 254 563 WP:TOL Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life 251 "A few Wikipedians have come together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles! For updates on Tree of Life and its subprojects, there is a monthly newletter published here to which you can subscribe. This WikiProject is both a daughter project of WikiProject Biology and a meta-project in its own right. WikiProject Tree of Life aims primarily to represent the taxonomy and relationships of living organisms, as well as their extinct relatives, in a tree structure. Since there are millions of species, not all will be included, but we aim to handle as many as information, time, and interest permit. However, as a meta-project, Tree of Life directly includes only articles which have meaning across taxa or which pertain to taxonomy and systematics in general, or which do not fall under one of our daughter WikiProjects. A full directory of daughter WikiProjects has been listed below in the form of a cladogram. To see a directory of our sister WikiProjects under WikiProject Biology, see this link. To see activity levels and active editors for these projects, use the Wikiproject Directory tool and find the project in question for further information. Some projects may not be listed. Current labels are based solely on template tags at the top of WikiProject pages and do not represent an in-depth assessment of the activity level of any project by WikiProject Tree of Life. === Other projects outside of Tree of Life === WikiProject Agriculture Livestock task force WikiProject Animal anatomy WikiProject Animals in media WikiProject Animal rights WikiProject Veterinary medicine Today's featured articles 12 Apr 2023 – Banksia brownii (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb 07 Apr 2023 – Beaver (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb 02 Apr 2023 – Red-throated wryneck (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurbDid you know 21 Mar 2023 – Sasajiscymnus tsugae (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Thriley (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 27 Mar 2023 – Jack (cat) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion (7 participants) 21 Mar 2023 – FamousNiki (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by SilverTiger12 (t · c) was closed as delete by Eddie891 (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023; see discussion (5 participants) 18 Mar 2023 – List of Cathartiformes by population (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Elmidae (t · c) was closed as merge by Seraphimblade (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023; see discussion (4 participants) 15 Mar 2023 – Lewis (cat) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by SilverTiger12 (t · c) was closed as keep by Guerillero (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023; see discussion (7 participants) 15 Mar 2023 – Saccharopolyspora salina (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Headbomb (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 22 Mar 2023; see discussion (3 participants; relisted)Proposed deletions 25 Mar 2023 – Jack (cat) (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by SilverTiger12 (t · c) was deproded by LaundryPizza03 (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023 18 Mar 2023 – Bernadette (tiger) (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by SilverTiger12 (t · c) was deletedRedirects for discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Anagenic (talk · edit · hist) →Anagenesis was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2023 – Chaos carolinense (talk · edit · hist) →Chaos (genus) was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2023 – Chaos chaos (talk · edit · hist) →Chaos (genus) was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussionFeatured article candidates 22 Mar 2023 – Diodorus scytobrachion (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by FunkMonk (t · c); see discussionFeatured list candidates 26 Mar 2023 – List of basal superasterid families (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dank (t · c); see discussion 16 Mar 2023 – List of early-diverging flowering plant families (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dank (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 28 Mar 2023 – Vampyrellida (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Snoteleks (t · c); start discussion 28 Mar 2023 – Stenaelurillus guttiger (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Simongraham (t · c); start discussion 25 Mar 2023 – Australiformis (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mattximus (t · c); start discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Pachysentis (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mattximus (t · c); start discussion 08 Mar 2023 – Plant (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion 05 Mar 2023 – Beibeilong (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PaleoNeolitic (t · c); start discussion 18 Feb 2023 – Grebe (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 4444hhhh (t · c); see discussion 16 Jan 2023 – Eucalyptus wandoo (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hughesdarren (t · c); start discussion 12 Nov 2022 – Kassina senegalensis (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussionPeer reviews 15 Mar 2023 – Astyanax altiparanae (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Snugglyaggron (t · c); see discussion 20 Jan 2023 – Beibeilong (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PaleoNeolitic (t · c); see discussion 18 Jan 2023 – Animal (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PrathuCoder (t · c); see discussion 20 Aug 2022 – Kentrosaurus (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Augustios Paleo (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 26 Mar 2023 – Geosternbergia (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Pteranodon sternbergi by Ornithopsis (t · c); see discussion 24 Mar 2023 – Massasauga (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Eastern massasauga by BarrelProof (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Frilled lizard (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Frill-necked lizard by Poketama (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Anemonoides nemorosa (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Anemone nemorosa by Afanasovich (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Tabaninae (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Horse fly by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Deer fly (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Chrysops by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Chrysopsinae (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Deer fly by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Horse-fly (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Tabanidae by KoA (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Dilong paradoxus (talk · edit · hist) move request to Dilong by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c) was closed; see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Kosswigianella denticauda (talk · edit · hist) move request to Acanthodelphax denticauda by Roy Bateman (t · c) was moved to Acanthodelphax denticauda (talk · edit · hist) by Hadal (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023; see discussion(1 more...)Articles to be merged 26 Mar 2023 – Abacá (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Manila hemp by Justlettersandnumbers (t · c); see discussion 24 Mar 2023 – Pantherophis gloydi (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Pantherophis vulpinus by 108.18.207.147 (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Vorombe (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Aepyornis by Hemiauchenia (t · c); see discussion 20 Mar 2023 – Luisella babai (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Luisella by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 28 Feb 2023 – Eusideroxylon zwageri (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Eusideroxylon by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 22 Feb 2023 – Balearic shrew (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Asoriculus by Hemiauchenia (t · c); see discussion 21 Feb 2023 – Anjouan sparrowhawk (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Frances's sparrowhawk by FunkMonk (t · c); see discussion 18 Feb 2023 – Aloe suzannae (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Aloestrela by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 10 Feb 2023 – Huaxiapterus (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Sinopterus by FunkMonk (t · c); see discussion 06 Jan 2023 – Chenopodium nuttalliae (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Chenopodium berlandieri by Canyq (t · c); see discussion(20 more...)Articles to be split 16 Mar 2023 – Acephala group (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion 16 Nov 2022 – Melanthera (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mat Kiyan (t · c); see discussion 04 Jun 2022 – Cockchafer (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 26zhangi (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2022 – List of organisms named after famous people (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mrbeastmodeallday (t · c); see discussion 08 Dec 2021 – Hypotype (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Leomk0403 (t · c); see discussion 16 Oct 2021 – Tetrahymena (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by CycoMa (t · c); see discussion 28 Sep 2021 – Stenonychosaurus (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by HannahMoss (t · c); see discussion 26 May 2021 – Pea enation mosaic virus (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Awkwafaba (t · c); see discussion 11 Apr 2021 – Paradracaena (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by YorkshireExpat (t · c); see discussion 01 Nov 2020 – Corroboree frog (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Bobamnertiopsis (t · c); see discussion(1 more...)Articles for creation 25 Mar 2023 – Draft:Leptecophylla oxycedrus (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Jeanjars (t · c) undated – Draft:Dicranoloma billardierei (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC 27 Mar 2023 – Draft:Eusthenia spectabilis (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Karalos Gunnii (t · c) was moved to Eusthenia spectabilis (talk · edit · hist) by Ingenuity (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Wijkia extenuata (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Gendara Park (t · c) was accepted to Wijkia extenuata (talk · edit · hist) by S0091 (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023 10 Mar 2023 – Draft:Tremella Tubulosae (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by JaneS444 (t · c) was accepted to Tremella tubulosae (talk · edit · hist) by KylieTastic (t · c) on 25 Mar 2023 undated – Draft:Wahlenbergia gymnoclada (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC was accepted to Wahlenbergia gymnoclada (talk · edit · hist) by Robert McClenon (t · c) on 24 Mar 2023 In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. for birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. ""Cuvier's dwarf caiman""), they should be used for article titles. In all other cases, scientific names should be used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for article titles for plants and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) for article titles for animals. Note the following guidelines in using scientific names: Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized, e.g. Homo, Rosa, Saccharomyces. Species epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus, either in full or abbreviated (e.g. Homo sapiens or H. sapiens; never just sapiens), as an epithet may also be used for a different species in another genus. They are never capitalized. Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized, e.g. Hominidae, Mammalia, Animalia. Common (vernacular) names are not capitalised (except for proper names that are part of them). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms.For a monotypic taxon (one that contains only one immediately subordinate taxon), a single article should cover both taxa (unless the higher-ranked one has had multiple circumscriptions, and an article is written to cover them all). If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the two taxa, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference. However, for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial. For instance, the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides. If the name of a monotypic genus is shared with another topic, it is usually more appropriate to use a binomial as a natural disambiguation, rather than using a parenthetical disambiguating term for the genus. E.g., Alberta magna is a more natural search term than Alberta (plant). Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later. A useful heuristic is to create articles in a ""downwards"" order, that is, family articles first, then genus, then species. If you find that information is getting thin, or the family/genus is small, leave the species information in the family or genus article. Don't try to force it down any further. Articles about taxa, such as families, genera, or species, typically contain some or all of these sections: (Physical) Description Taxonomy Distribution and habitat Ecology and behavior Conservation Uses CultureSee the general taxon template and descendant project pages, such as the WikiProject Plants taxon template, for more detail specific to different groups. The full taxobox guide is located at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro.Detailed taxonomic information, including notes on how taxa are defined and how they vary between different systems, belongs in the article proper. Where possible, however, a standard table will be provided to allow easier navigation between related groups and quick identification of what sort of organisms are being discussed. These are called taxoboxes. A typical taxobox is shown at right (it belongs on the top right of the page Cetacea). There are three main sections to the taxobox: A header showing the name of the group, sometimes followed by a representative image. A table showing the placement of the group in a typical classification system. A footer, whose content varies, showing the binomial name or a species, or a list of subgroups for higher taxa.Some items that are often included, but are not (necessarily) standardized, include: Breeding organizations' classifications (Dingo) Range map (see, for example, Orca) Synonyms (European lobster)Position: The taxobox generally belongs at the top right corner of the article, unless it has been decided otherwise on the relevant talk page - for instance, if the article is not primarily about the biological group. For cultivars — cultivated varieties of plants — don't use a taxobox; instead use a cultivar infobox ({{Infobox cultivar}}) as described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox. For breeds of animals, don't use a taxobox; instead use the appropriate breed template; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds. === Talkpages === Tag talkpages with: {{WikiProject Tree of Life|class=|importance=}} Major groups should be given their own categories. When possible, these should use the common name in the plural, except for plants, where WikiProject Plants uses scientific names by default (see WP:NCFLORA). In general, only articles about major subgroups should be added, and more specific articles should be included in subcategories. However, when there are only a few articles about members of the group, they can all go directly into the main category. Use your judgement on when to split, aiming for an approximate category size of 10-50 articles. Note that in addition to taxa, categories may also contain informal subgroups. For instance Category:Primates may include an article or subcategory for monkeys, although they are not treated as a formal group. They may also include some other articles that pertain specifically to members of the group, although they are not about them. Categories for articles about the biota of a region should be based on the common grouping of that region used by zoological, botanical, mycological etc. publications. For example, if it is common to separate a region based on political boundaries (as in parts of Europe), categories should be separated by countries. If it is common to separate regions based on geographic features (such as New Guinea), categories should be separated by geographic region. === References === The taxonomy of many groups is in a state of flux as taxonomic experts strive to incorporate the findings of Molecular phylogenetics, so it is not always possible to find a single satisfactory classification, and we would be doing a great disservice by pretending otherwise. The best would be to try and find out what the current consensus is, if there is one, and make notes on variant systems. In this, the following resources may be helpful: === General taxonomy === Catalogue of Life - The Catalogue of Life is the most comprehensive and authoritative global index of species currently available. It consists of a single integrated species checklist and taxonomic hierarchy. The Catalogue holds essential information on the names, relationships and distributions of over 1.7 million species. This figure continues to rise as information is compiled from diverse sources around the world. Results are explicit about their primary sources but may trail behind primary databases such as World Register of Marine Species. M. A. Ruggiero et al.: A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms PLOS One, 2015; also a few corrections here. A Classification of all life down to the level of order, to be implemented through the Catalogue of Life. Families are not included, although they can be found at this 2014 version here (as an excel spreadsheet, some orders etc. changed for the 2015 version) NCBI database − The Taxonomy Database is a curated classification and nomenclature for all of the organisms in the public sequence databases. This currently represents about 10% of the described species of life on the planet. It attempts to incorporate phylogenetic and taxonomic knowledge from a variety of sources. UC Berkeley: History of life through time − phylogenetic cladograms; many well-summarized groups with illustrations; many pages ""under construction""; links to other useful sites Mikko's Phylogeny Archive - A private archive of various phylogenetic trees. Index to Organism Names - Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters, formerly Biosis) - zoological names only, taxonomic hierarchy is useful a starting point but not necessarily up-to-date or complete. The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG) - A comprehensive source (at least to c.2012) for genus names and their authorities for ""all life"", taxonomy is fairly up-to-date in some portions (higher plants, algae, fungi), variable in others; not all genera yet allocated to families. Paleobiology Database [1]: taxonomic and distributional information about the fossil record of plants and animals, complete for many well-known taxa, less so for others. Systema naturae − usually gives multiple breakdowns for groups, which is sometimes confusing but can be very useful. www.itis.gov − now part of Catalogue of Life an automated reference database of scientific and common names for species built within a working hierarchy. ITIS partners with Species 2000 to build the Catalogue of Life. Covers a lot of ground, but is often incomplete or idiosyncratic. ITIS pages older than a few years or with no review date should not be used, and in general ITIS cannot be considered a reliable source on its own. (Note domain used to be www.itis.usda.gov . Deleting the usda component may restore the link. Species 2000 − now part of Catalogue of Life a list of specific taxonomic (current) databases, covering contemporary and fossil organisms. Systax - a database system for systematics and taxometry based at the University of Ulm, Germany, which can be used as an alternative to the Itis system listed above. Kluge Principles of taxonomy Global Names Index - A repository of ~18 million names (species, genus + alternate names and attributions from author) from a multitude of source. === Marine organisms === World Register of Marine Species [2] - an authoritative searchable database of marine organisms, from vertebrates to viruses. The taxonomic editors for each section are the experts in their group of organisms. === Animals === Animal Diversity Web from the University of Michigan - Very informative Lepidoptera and other species (mostly related to Lepidoptera, such as popular butterfly plants, etc.). Info collected from other sources, not sure how accurate it all is. Interesting note: he has a (open source) perl script generating range maps automatically from distribution text. BugGuide.net--extensive resource on taxonomy and identification of North American arthropods. Experts in many fields visit and help with taxonomy. Diptera.info--extensive resource on taxonomy and identification of Diptera. Experts members help with taxonomy Hymis forum--extensive resource on taxonomy and identification of Hymenoptera. Experts members help with taxonomy Fauna Europaea - Database of all European land and freshwater animals.Amphibians and ReptilesAMNH database - Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. ITIS, Reptilia - Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles.BirdsAvibase - Database including all the world's bird species. IOC World Bird List - Preferred source of vernacular names and taxonomy used by WikiProject BirdsGastropods (Mollusca)For all marine species, Wikiproject Gastropods uses the taxonomy curated by MolluscaBase and also viewed on WoRMS. This system is based on the 2017 ""Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families"" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526. Bivalves (Mollusca)Wikiproject Bivalves is using the taxonomy of Bieler, R., Carter, J.G. & Coan, E.V. (2010) Classification of Bivalve families. Pp. 113-133, in: Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.P. (2010), ""Nomenclator of Bivalve Families with a Classification of Bivalve Families"" Malacologia 52(2): 1-184, which can be found at: Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Rüdiger Bieler, Joseph G. Carter, & Eugene V. Coan. 2010: Nomenclator of bivalve families with a classification of bivalve families. Malacologia 52: 4-112. BrachiopodsEmig C. C., Bitner M. A. & Álvarez F., 2019. Brachiopoda Database.Cephalopods (Mollusca)CephBase - Superb information about Cephalopod classification. Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Cephalopods.FishFishBase - Huge database giving basic info on thousands of fish. Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Fishes.MammalsMammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3) - Database of mammalian taxonomy. Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Mammals. Mesozoic mammals - Containing much information about Mesozoic mammals and relatives.Platyhelminths (Turbellaria)Baguñà, J.; Riutort, M. (2004). ""Molecular phylogeny of the Platyhelminthes"". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 82 (2): 168. doi:10.1139/z03-214., reflected in ""Turbellarian taxonomic database"". Solenogastres (Mollusca)WP's taxonomy currently uses García-Álvarez, Óscar; v. Salvini-Plawen, Luitfried (2007). ""Species and diagnosis of the Families and Genera of Solenogastres (Mollusca)"" (PDF). Iberus. 25 (2): 73–143. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 July 2011.ArthropodsSpiders - World Spider Catalog - Preferred taxonomy used by WikiProject Spiders Centipedes - Chilobase 2.0 Scorpions - The Scorpion Files Arthropods - Arthropoda Species File - includes Mantodea Species File (MSF) and others === Plants === Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 181, 1-20. available here: Available online. The current authoritative source for flowering plants at family level and above, updated from APG I/II/III. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website : incorporates the latest taxonomic research; continuously updated. Accepted names and synonyms of taxa from volume 24 of the Flora of North America (Poaceae and relatives) The Missouri Botanical Garden is searchable by species, and where this is available, will give the accepted classification, and the degree to which it is accepted. Also lists authors, synonyms and homonyms. Far from complete. Vascular Plant Families - a systematic and alphabetical index of the non-flowering and the flowering plant families with the Cronquist system and the phylogenetic system of Judd et al. (2002) (i.e. APG) USDA/NRCS PLANTS Database - Not complete, but nice. Resource for some PD images. Common names used are usually only common in the USA and may not be used worldwide. L. Watson and M.J. Dallwitz (1992 onwards). The families of flowering plants: descriptions, illustrations, identification, information retrieval. http://delta-intkey.com - Unique resource, updated to about 1998 (note that especially the lists of genera are outdated) - includes classifications of Cronquist; Dahlgren; Dahlgren, Clifford and Yeo; and APG (i.e. APG I, of 1998) System of Embryophytes by A. Novikoff & B. Barabasz-Krasny, 2015. A good modern treatment of fossil and extant plants (angiosperms excepted), particularly useful for fossil genera and families (with a small number of errors and some omissions). Not completely congruent with the treatment of modern plant divisions by Ruggiero et al, 2015 as given above; a version of Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny's ""System"" with modifications for compliance with the latter treatment is included in IRMNG, the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera, see listing above in ""General Taxonomy"". Gymnosperm Database - very good coverage of gymnosperms HortiPlex Plant Database - Searchable by common or scientific name. Submitted by gardeners- may not be in line with current taxonomy. ILDIS A database of legume taxonomy, includes synonyms and accepted names, common names and detailed bibliographies for many species.Likewise, the following sites can help find taxonomic authors and abbreviations:IPNI, authors search Note that the author database is separate from the plant name databases: the author database is authoritative. The plant name databases are ""as is"" and should be used as a search aid (invaluable as such) rather than as any kind of authority. === Fungi === Index Fungorum - database of fungus species, genus and higher names, with all historical synonyms and indication of current name MycoBank - nomenclatural and taxonomical database, similar in purpose and coverage to Index Fungorum ITIS, which covers other kingdoms as well === Protists and prokaryotes === BIOS database of bacteria, archea and cyanobacteria names, with bibliography. List of Bacterial names with Standing in Nomenclature - Bacteria have a formal approved nomenclature, all approved names can be found here. List of Approved Bacterial Names - list provided by the American Society for Microbiology. AlgaeBase - database of algae species, very large but not complete === Viruses === International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) [3] - the de facto standard for Wikipedia virus articles to method. A good place to see this in action and get an idea of how it works can be found at Virus classification. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) database ([4]) also is a useful resource for virus taxonomy. === Taxa === List of requested taxa === Photographs === If you wish to have a photo uploaded please add {{Image requested|animals}} on the talk page of the article. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of animals lists these requests - if you can upload a photograph of any of these it would be appreciated. === Cladograms === If you would like for a cladogram to be created for an article visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests. WikiProject Animal rights WikiProject Evolutionary biology WikiProject Ecoregions WikiProject Forestry Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Makes Video/Parks Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Makes Video/Wildlife Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Global Names Index Wikipedia:WikiProject Paleontology === On other Wikimedia Foundation projects === WikiProject Taxonomy on Wikidata (add yourself to this list to be notified of relevant Wikidata activity) WikiProject Tree of Life on Wikimedia Commons Wikispecies for scientific users (FAQ) === Userboxes === The following userboxes are available to add to your user page: A number of articles under this WikiProject and its descendants have been recognized for their excellence by the Wikipedia community as featured articles or featured lists, and may serve as good models. The articles are sorted by WikiProject: General: Archaea, Bacteria, Ediacaran biota, Helicobacter pylori, Myxobolus cerebralis, Starfish Amphibians and Reptiles: Australian green tree frog, Cane toad, Crocodilia, Frog, Green and golden bell frog, Hawksbill sea turtle, List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago, List of Testudines families Arthropods: Isopoda, Jaekelopterus, Megarachne, Millipede, Onychopterella Insects: Aleeta curvicosta, Ant, Horse-fly, List of Odonata species of Great Britain, List of ant subfamilies, Mayfly Spiders: Redback spider Birds: Albatross, American goldfinch, Arctic tern, Bald eagle, California condor, Common raven, Elfin woods warbler, Emu, Kakapo, List of birds of Florida, List of birds of Kansas, List of birds of Nicaragua, List of birds of Thailand, Mourning dove, Procellariidae, Red-tailed black cockatoo, Seabird Dinosaurs: Albertosaurus, Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, Diplodocus, Dinosaur, Iguanodon, List of dinosaur genera, Psittacosaurus, Stegosaurus, Styracosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor Fungi: Amanita muscaria, Amanita ocreata, Amanita phalloides, Cyathus, Gyromitra esculenta, List of Armillaria species Mammals: Elephant, European hare, Giraffe, List of fruit bats, List of mammals of Florida, List of mammals of Korea Cats: Bobcat, Cougar, Jaguar, Lion, List of felids, Smilodon Cetaceans: Baleen whale, Blue whale, Fin whale, Humpback whale, Killer whale, Right whale, Sei whale, List of cetacean species Dogs: Beringian wolf, Dire wolf, Golden jackal, List of canids Monotremes and Marsupials: Platypus, Short-beaked echidna, Tasmanian devil, Thylacine Primates: Lemur, List of lemur species, The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates, Primate, Ring-tailed lemur, Slow loris Plants: Cucurbita, Ficus macrophylla, Lambertia formosa, List of basil cultivars, List of the largest genera of flowering plants, Verbascum thapsus Banksia: B. attenuata, B. brownii, B. epica, B. ericifolia, B. integrifolia, B. serrata Carnivorous plants: Drosera regia, Pinguicula moranensis Sharks: Cretoxyrhina, Goblin shark, Megalodon, Oceanic whitetip shark, Pigeye shark, Porbeagle, Silky shark === New articles === To browse Tree of Life subjects that require articles, see the Tree of Life list of requested articles. If adding to the list of requests, make sure to include scientific names, as it will make it easier for others to track down information. One-sentence stubs are discouraged: try to create a worthwhile start class article, with a taxobox, and sources properly cited. When adding weblinks, look for standard references first, such as the IUCN and its sub-commissions. Specific request lists also include: Missing encyclopedic articles about animals. Missing encyclopedic articles about plants Requested articles about plants (botany) Fact-check new biology articles nominated for ""Did you know ...?"" here. The link is to all nominated articles, but binomial species names are easy to pick out. Successful candidates will be linked to from our Main Page, so let's make them look good! === Cleanup === Please add {{missing-taxobox}} to the talk page of articles that need taxonomic information. Articles needing taxoboxes Missing taxobox === Articles needing attention === Biology pages needing attention (cleanup, expansion, wikification, expert needed, etc.)Articles needing attention Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images Category:Taxonomic articles needing attention Plant articles needing attention Plant articles needing expert attention Wikipedia requested images of plants Unidentified plant images - Unidentified plants on Commons === Assessment === Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Assessment === Popular pages === Popular pages, a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. === Quality operations === Quality operations, a bot-generated detail activity log." 252 255 565 WP:ITJ Wikipedia:Improve the junk 252 "Occasionally, an article on a notable topic might find its way to deletion discussion because of either lack of diligent research on the part of its nominator, or because the nominator has otherwise decided that an improvable but as-yet-unimproved article has no redeeming qualities unless improved by someone else. Through a diligent research in both online and offline sources, editors should be as proactive as possible in improving such articles to better them for both the project and for its readers. Being an online database, Wikipedia can maintain improvable articles with potential so that willing editors are better able to improve them through the course of regular editing. Editors should always strive for quality... but unless something is in blatant violation of existing policy, we need to respect the efforts of others and their contributions. This means our not assuming that another's work has no merit simply because it is imperfect, and means that when finding an article that needs help, we editors should do our diligent best to improve the article so that all benefit. As a community, it is up to us all to take a responsibility for improving articles. When or if an editor decides that fixing something is beyond his ability or beneath his dignity, and chooses to then relegate an improvable article to deletion, this makes the tasks of others in building this encyclopedia that much more difficult. It is worse to have an improvable article on a notable subject deleted, than to make no effort to fix perceived problems. Wikipedia accepts that it is itself a work in progress, that it is imperfect even while striving for perfection, and does not demand that everything be immediately perfect. If an article has the potential for improvement, it serves both the project and its readers to get off our butts and actually fix the problem, rather than decide it's someone else's problem. It is not somebody else's problem – it is ours... together... as a community. If an article contains information that is misleading, or slanted, or lacks sources to verify the text, or is inaccurate... the answer is to fix it if at all possible, before considering deletion. If the problem has existed unaddressed for a length of time, that lack of attention should act as an even stronger impetus for an editor to fix it, rather than decide to delete it out of laziness, or because the subject is not one of your own favorites, or because one thinks others should do it. The beginning of addressing concerns is to do the digging to find and use the footnotes that lead our readers to the outside source of article statements... for a reader's easy verification of presented facts and to improves a reader's understanding of the topic... and if difficult, then editors should speak toward possible improvements on the article's talk page... or contact the article author and offer to help. While since 2007, a deleted article can be restored, it is far better to actually take personal initiative and fix a problem when found, rather than either ignore it or propose an otherwise improvable article for deletion... making the work of actually building this encyclopedia someone else's concern. Wikipedia IS a community and not an desert island... and as a community we are far stronger working together than any one individual alone. It is important to remember that proposing the deletion of an improvable article can sometimes act as a slap in the face to the editors who performed the initial research or to those who've made contributions to the article. And although yes, deleted articles can be restored, there is no need to unnecessarily foist work on others when, as individuals within a community, we can work together for improvement. When/if someone recreates the deleted work of others, unless they choose exactly the same article title, they will not know that their work is a recreation of someone else's deleted work. And if unknowingly recreated by a newcomer, such new editors rarely know where or how to request that a deleted article be restored... or about the processes in place that then negatively flag their efforts as a recreation of deleted content. === Last resort === While something in violation of WP:NOT or WP:BLP might well be considered for a quick deletion, deletion should be the last resort for fixable articles with the potential for improvement... and only after all diligent and honest efforts have been made to address concerns in the first place. Everybody wins if an article is properly improved, rather than deleted. Instead of deleting an article because it lacks references, mark non-referenced parts with Template:noref and/or template:citation needed. See WP:POTENTIAL.Add Template:historical to the page. Wikipedia:WIP Wikipedia:PRESERVE Wikipedia:IMPROVE Wikipedia:POTENTIAL Wikipedia:BEFORE Wikipedia:ATD Wikipedia:SOFIXIT Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem Wikipedia:Why should I care? Wikipedia:Bare notability Wikipedia:What ""Ignore all rules"" means Jimbo Wales' statement of principles" 253 256 566 WP:SPELL Wikipedia:Spellchecking 253 "Spellchecking software can be helpful when copyediting Wikipedia articles. This page explains how to use it well and avoid conflicts with other editors. General advice up front: Be sure to use the spelling for the correct dialect of a language (e.g., American English vs. British English). Remember that no spellchecker is completely accurate. Be extremely careful when editing pages written in languages in which you are not fluent. Grammar-checking tools can introduce more errors than they appear to fix. Use with great care. You are responsible for all spelling or grammar changes you make, even if the corrections were suggested by an error-checking tool. Be careful about setting the language of the software to the right dialect of English. If the article is not about a topic tied to a particular region, use the dialect of the first non-stub version of the article. Check the talk page before editing dialect-specific spelling; an article will sometimes have a banner near the top of its talk page that indicates the spelling to be used. Keep spelling consistent in each article (excepting direct quotes) and write in ways understandable in all dialects when possible. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English for detailed advice and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling for a table of spelling variations in different dialects. === Using a web browser === The easiest way to spellcheck a single article is to use the built-in spellcheck of your web browser. Mozilla Firefox has a built-in spellchecking engine. However, you should check that the right dictionary for your language is installed and selected. Right-click in an editing field, make sure that ""Check spelling"" is checked, then under ""Languages"" select the right language. There are separate dictionaries for ""English / United States"", ""English / United Kingdom"" etc.; if the right dictionary does not appear in the list, click ""Add Dictionaries"" and use the page that appears to install it (note that you will have to restart Firefox to enable it after installing). Google Chrome provides built-in spellchecking for each text field. Microsoft Edge also has a built-in spellchecker. Safari also provides spellchecking features on Mac. Opera has a spellchecker. Grammarly is a free plugin for popular web browsers, which checks not only spelling but also grammar, usage, and punctuation. LanguageTool is an open-source tool that checks for grammar and spelling. === Using an external website === SpellChecker.org is a free online spellchecker that requires no extension or add-on installation. WebSpellChecker is a multi-language spellchecking engine that can be integrated into a website or a web application. === Using Microsoft Office or LibreOffice === The default setting in Microsoft Office and LibreOffice Writer is with spell and grammar checking on, so just hit the Wikipedia ""Edit"" button for your article, copy the raw article source, paste it into a new Word or Writer document and follow the red (spelling) and green (grammar) markers and correct mistakes as necessary. If checking is not automatic in Microsoft Word, you may have to go to the menu Tools → ""Grammar and spellchecking"" or some such. When satisfied, simply copy and paste the text back into the text box in the browser window, check that any UTF-8 characters are still working as before by clicking ""Show changes"" and if satisfied, finally click ""Publish changes"" as usual. If you have installed the anti-vandal tool in your common.js, you can use the live spellcheck to identify misspellings as they happen (recent edits). This is not a comprehensive spellcheck – it only points out the most commonly misspelt words. And it will not spellcheck text that an editor is adding to an article (for that, see the web browsers section, above). Wikipedia:Spellcheck dictionary is an editor-compiled list of English words, terms, abbreviations and acronyms commonly encountered on Wikipedia. You may copy it and add it to your software's spell-check dictionary." 254 257 573 WP:RY Wikipedia:Recent years 254 "This page is a collection of advice about year articles, based on general consensus about how Wikipedia writes and maintains such articles. Recent year articles cover from 2002 to 2023. Since so many events happen in a year, not all events will be notable enough to merit inclusion on the page. Such events may be better placed in a separate article on the specific event. That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is usually insufficient grounds for its inclusion. The event should have a demonstrated, international significance. The advice below applies only to the main article on each year, and not to articles on individual events. Any of the advice below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore it in a given case. The lead section of a year article should be approximately two paragraphs in length (while the maximum for any article is four). === First paragraph === The first paragraph of a year article should be only a couple of sentences long, and should include the following information: The name of the year, in boldface Arabic numerals (e.g., 2009) The name of the year, in boldface Roman numerals. These numerals should be Wikilinked to the Roman numerals article (e.g., MMIX). The day on which the year began or will begin, written as either ""common year starting on [day]"" or ""common year that started on a [day]"". The word ""common"" through the name of the day should constitute one or two Wikilinks (e.g., common year that started on a Thursday, common year that started on a Thursday). For purposes of sentence flow, the phrasing of the recent year article's text is slightly different from that of the Wikilinked article's title—the format of which is, ""Common year starting on [day]"". Therefore, the linked text will have to be piped to the actual link. A piped link is formatted thusly: [[Actual link|text to be linked in article]]. So, to recreate the example link above, one would type the following: [[Common year starting on Thursday|common year that started on a Thursday]] or [[Common year]] that [[common year starting on Thursday|started on a Thursday]]. If applicable, the fact that the year is ongoing The calendar in which the year occurs (e.g., the Gregorian calendar) The year's ordinal position in its: Calendar era. For purposes of neutrality and comprehensiveness, both the BCE/CE and the BC/AD systems should be noted, although the systems designate the same bifurcation of years. Millennium (e.g., the 3rd millennium) Century (e.g., the 21st century) Decade (e.g., the 2000s decade). Bear in mind that, in the Gregorian calendar, the first year of a CE/AD millennium or century always ends with a ""1"", because there was no year zero. However, the first year of a decade always ends with a ""0"", because decades are labelled nominally, in order to demarcate sets of similarly named years. (The names of years, themselves, are natural numbers that, relative to the transition between the calendar eras, reflect both an ordinal position and a cardinal length of time.)Thus, the article for 2012 may begin as follows: 2012 (MMXII) is a leap year that started on a Sunday and is the current year. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2012th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 12th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century and the 3rd of the 2010s decade. === Second paragraph === The second paragraph contains a bulleted list of formal and international designations the year has received. To be considered notable enough for inclusion, these designations must have their own Wikipedia articles (e.g., International Year of Planet Earth, European Year of Equal Opportunities for All). The lack of an article does not mean that a designation is insignificant, but rather that it does not demonstrably meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The same editor(s) may create a designation's article, and then add that designation to the year article's second paragraph. However, it is incumbent upon this or these editor(s) to ensure that the created article is suitable for an encyclopedia and does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. === Format === The body of a recent year article takes the format presented just below; the body's contents are subject to the inclusion and exclusion criteria that are set forth further down. Depending on whether a given year, or a given part of it, has arrived, or on other factors, some sections, subsections, or entries might not apply to that year's article. Double-brackets indicate that the contents must be Wikilinked.==Events== ===January=== January 1 Past event. Same as above (S/A). (Wikilink all dates that begin an event/birth/death entry. Wikilink the central names or concepts in descriptions of events, assuming those names or concepts have articles on Wikipedia. If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people.) January 2 – S/A etc.===February=== ===etc.=== ==Predicted and scheduled events== ===March=== March 1 – Future event. (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not be making predictions of its own about the future. It should not make statistical extrapolations of unclear or unverifiable significance. The purpose of this section is to indicate the contents of current schedules or predictions of events that reliable, external sources have deemed potentially important.) March 2 – S/A etc.===April=== ===etc.=== ==Births== ===January=== January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of birth and name. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, but may be duplicated in the year article to ensure that the latter article passes WP:BLP.) January 2 – S/A etc.===February=== ===etc.=== ==Deaths== ===January=== January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description, (born [[YOB]]) (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of death, name, and year of birth. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, and their duplication on the year article is not strictly required.) January 2 – S/A etc.===February=== ===etc.=== ==Awards== ===Nobel Prizes=== Chemistry – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. Economics – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. Literature – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. Peace – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. Physics – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. Physiology or Medicine – [[Name 1]], [[Name 2]], etc. etc.==References== {{reflist}} === Inclusion and exclusion criteria === Inclusion is based on notability. As article quality is no basis for determining notability it is irrelevant as a criterion for inclusion. ==== Events ==== ===== International notability ===== One way to demonstrate the required notability is that the event received independent news reporting from three continents on the event. Events which are not cited at all, or are not linked to an article devoted to the event, may be challenged on the talk page. ===== Sports and other contests ===== Sporting events which are either annual or are not international (more than one continent) are more appropriate for the year in sports page (e.g. 2009 in sports). Certain international sports do generally appear on the main year page, including: FIFA World Cup Olympics Sporting events notable for major disasters such as human stampedes or terrorist attacksEvents which usually do not merit inclusion: Annual championships such as the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or NBA Championship Annual world or continental championships in any sport, such as European or African football tournaments Any other annual contest, such as Eurovision Song Contest or American Idol World records (unless especially notable, something akin to Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile)Events not covered above may be better placed in the year's sports article. ===== Politics and legislation ===== National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. Regular and ordinary shifts in power within the United Nations and European Union are typically not sufficiently notable. Most legislation is not included unless it is of international significance. ===== Disasters, assassinations, and other crimes ===== Disasters may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article. Likewise, assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated. Events such as suicide-murders, kidnappings, school shootings, etc. do not necessarily qualify unless especially significant. ==== Births ==== One method of determining which births could be included is if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question. Prince George of Cambridge, for example, has several non-English articles on him, listed on the left sidebar. Although inclusion may then be automatic, it will not necessarily be permanent. ==== Deaths ==== Persons who are internationally notable are included, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Heads of state or government (other than interim/acting leaders) are typically considered internationally notable. ==== In fiction ==== Film releases, Academy Awards, video game releases, and the like should usually be added onto their topic pages (e.g., 2009 in video gaming, 2001 in film, 2006 in television). === Pictures === Entries can be illustrated by pictures on the right-hand side. Layout should be kept in mind, so a new picture should not be included for a given month if it would cause some of the pictures in that month to extend vertically down the following month's section. Selection of images should be diverse, especially in the ""Births"" and ""Deaths"" section, avoiding overrepresentation of males, Westerners and entertainers. Do not use the {{Multiple image}} template, even for births/deaths on the same day – too many pictures are distracting and it is not a goal of Recent Years pages to create comprehensive albums (those belong to Wikimedia Commons). === Category === Wikipedia:Main article fixation" 255 258 574 WP:POOP Wikipedia:Offensive material 255 "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline. Where it is necessary to indicate that an alteration is carried over from a quoted source, "" [sic]"" or ""[thus in the original]"" or a similar phrase, within single brackets, may be used. Discussions about whether to include a vulgar or explicit image or verbal expression are often heated. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practice civility and assume good faith. Labeling content with such terms as ""pornography"" or responses to content with such terms as ""censorship"" tends to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology. Disclaimers should not be used in articles that contain potentially or patently offensive material. All Wikipedia articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages. A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to ""show off"" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is ""to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"". Any image that does not achieve this policy goal, or that violates other policies (e.g., by giving an undue or distorted idea of the subject), should not be used. Images should respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject. The more sexual image is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors of articles such as Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and ""Wikipedia is not censored"", due to concerns about relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images. Official Wikipedia policiesWikipedia:Inappropriate usernames Wikipedia:Child protection, an official policy against pedophile advocacy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censoredOther related pagesWikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images on offensive images Wikipedia:Pornography Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles Wikipedia:Rating system, a proposal to warn users of possibly offensive content, rejected in 2004 wmf:Resolution:Controversial content meta:Controversial content Help:Options to not see an image Should Wikipedia Use Profanity? Category:Wikipedia objectionable content MediaWiki:Bad image list" 256 259 575 WP:MWG Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide 256 "This guide is intended to assist editors in the creation and writing of articles on magazines. After following this, you should have a ""perfect stub"", and bigger articles should feel a bit more ""mainstream"". Before starting to write an article on a magazine, it helps to keep a few things in mind. First, search for the magazine's article on Wikipedia. It might already exist under a slightly different name than you were expecting. Second, make sure the magazine is notable according to our notability guidelines; otherwise it will probably be deleted. A magazine will usually be considered notable if at least one of the following criteria is met:It has produced award-winning work. It has served some sort of historic purpose or has a significant history. It is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in its subject area. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources. It is a significant publication in an ethnic or other non-trivial niche market.Generally, it is difficult for a newly established magazine to warrant an article on Wikipedia, as it usually will not have had time to become influential.Writing an article about a magazine is usually easier if you have an issue of the magazine next to you, or the magazine's website loaded in your browser, or both. Tracking down the history of a magazine can be a bit complicated. Merges, splits, renaming, etc. are sometimes mentioned on the website but often omitted. Location: The article should be located at the official full name of the magazine (Aquarium Fish International, not AFI) unless it is universally known in an abbreviated form (FASEB magazine, not Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology magazine). The: If The is part of the official full name, the article should be located at that name (American Magazine of Physics, not The American Magazine of Physics, but The Skateboard Mag, not Skateboard Mag). Subtitle: Subtitles are not part of the title. For example, use European Magazine of Physics, and not European Magazine of Physics: A magazine of the European Physical Society. Capitalization: Use title case (American Magazine of Physics, not American magazine of physics). Italics: Italicize the title of the page as appropriate and the name of the magazine everywhere in the text. Usually this will be done automatically by the infobox. Note that the {{italic title}} template included with the infobox does not work for longer titles. In these cases, one should place{{DISPLAYTITLE:''magazine of Foo With Very Long Title That Is Too Long For Italic Title''}} immediately below the infobox. Sorting: If the page starts with a The (such as The Magazine of Foo), add the appropriate sortkey at the bottom of the page ({{DEFAULTSORT:Magazine Of Foo, The}}). See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort order if you are unfamiliar with sortkeys. Redirects: Redirect every likely capitalisation, alternative spelling and abbreviated form (dotted and undotted). For example, American Magazine of Physics should have the following redirects These redirect pages should be tagged with {{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}} or {{R from alternative spelling}}. Note that it can be best to have a disambiguation page for certain abbreviations. Tag these redirects on their talk page with {{WP Magazines|class=Redirect}}. Note: For academic journals, you'll want to use {{infobox journal}} instead of {{infobox magazine}}.The first step in creating a magazine article is to add the {{infobox magazine}} template to a page, and fill as many entries as you can. An infobox does not replace prose, it simply presents key information (such as ISSN, language, editor-in-chief, publisher, magazine website, etc.) in a consistent manner from article to article. Filling this infobox will also help with the writing of the article. Now after you're done filling the infobox, convert what you can into prose. For example, if the Magazine of Foo is a Dutch magazine published weekly by Acme focusing on codfish reproduction and migration, founded in 1924 by John Doe, you can write something like: The Magazine of Foo is a Dutch magazine which focuses on codfish reproduction and migration. It was founded in 1924 by the Austrian biologist John Doe and is published by Acme on a weekly basis.Pretty much everything from the infobox can be included in prose, but leave out things like ISSN, OCLC identifier, website, and other ""technical"" information. Good descriptions of the magazines can usually be found in the first few pages of the magazine, or on their website, but sometimes they are overly precise and need to be ""condensed"". Please reference everything you write. You can use a citation template to facilitate your task. The {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates will usually prove particularly handy. If you use the same source multiple times, you can write {{cite xxx|author=|year=|title=|url=|publisher=|accessdate=}} the first time, and subsequent times (replace NAME with something you like, such as MFooWebsite). [diberri.crabdance.com/cgi-bin/templatefiller/ This tool] can facilitate filling out the templates. Never copy-paste descriptions (or anything else) from magazine websites. These cannot be trusted to be neutral and are likely to be copyrighted material. Beware of weasel words such as ""is a leading magazine"", ""publishes high-quality research"", etc. === What to include === Magazine scopeThe article should have a brief description of the magazine's scope. Publication historyThe article should always include: Year of establishment and disestablishment Former title(s) Founding editor(s) Language of publication (if non-English, or in addition to English) Mergers and splits with other magazines Main magazine series or directly affiliated publications Previous and current editor-in-chiefs (or equivalent position) Previous and current publisher(s) Previous and current frequency of publicationOfficial affiliationsIf the magazine is affiliated with societies (i.e. is their official magazine), or is part of an independent network of publications, do mention it. === What not to include === Aims, readershipA tropical fish magazine can be assumed to have the goals of providing information on tropical fish and other animals/plants kept in aquariums, as well as be aimed towards tropical fish hobbyists. If you correctly described the scope of the magazine, e.g. ""magazine of Foobar is a tropical fish magazine with a focus on Asian and South-American fish."", then the aims of the magazine and its readership will be obvious. List of authors and full editorial boardsMagazines often like to list well-known or prestigious authors, or to include them on their editorial board to add to their reputation. While magazines are free to do whatever they want on their websites, authors have little impact on the daily operations of the magazine, just like most of the editorial board. Therefore, in most cases, lists of contributors and full editorial boards should be left out of articles. Exceptions can be made in cases where the involvement with the magazine of (some) board members or authors (whether positively or negatively) has generated coverage in independent reliable sources. Other thingsThings like Author rights and permissions Contact information (emails, phone numbers) FAQs List of articles published in the magazine Physical address Pricing and subscription information Submission guidelinesare all best left out of the article. Anyone who truly cares about that can consult the magazine's website. If possible, you should upload an image of the cover of the magazine and place it in the infobox. You can usually find low-resolution images on the magazine's website (or on the publisher's website) that can be uploaded under our non-free media use guidelines. For an example of a cover upload, see here. Some magazines have supplemental issues or side publications. If this is the case, mention them along with relevant information (editor, ISSN, year of establishment). If these publications are notable on their own, consider creating a standalone article for them. Here give the homepage of the magazine and its parent magazine if it has one. Something like: Official website Publishers' homepages are usually irrelevant, so do not include them unless they are particularly relevant, e.g. a publisher was founded primarily to publish a specific magazine. Finishing touches should be added at the bottom of the page: A stub template such as {{Europe-mag-stub}}, or the more generic {{Magazine-stub}} if nothing specific is available. A category detailing the interest of the magazine. Please visit Category:Magazines by interest and pick an appropriate category when possible. If none are suitable, then just add the generic Category:Magazines. Some publishers have their own magazine categories. Please visit Category:Magazines by owner and pick an appropriate category when possible. For some publication frequencies separate magazine categories exist. Please visit Category:Magazines by publication frequency and pick an appropriate category when possible. For some languages separate magazine categories exist. Please visit Category:Magazines by language and pick an appropriate category when possible. A category detailing the year of establishment (see Category:Magazines by year of establishment) and, if applicable, disestablishment (see Category:Magazines by year of disestablishment).If any category is missing, contact WikiProject magazines and let us know that the category is missing. Note For academic journals, you'll usually want to use {{WPJournals}} instead of {{WP Magazines}}. However, sometimes both {{WP Magazines}} and {{WPJournals}} might be appropriate.It is very important for the long-term development of articles that their talk pages be tagged with an appropriate WikiProject template. You should add the WikiProject Magazines template {{WP Magazines}} AND other relevant Wikiprojects templates when possible. This will ensure that the relevant WikiProjects will be contacted if the article is (for example) nominated for deletion (if they subscribe to the Article Alerts system), and will be categorized in the appropriate cleanup listings, on top of providing convenient links to WikiProjects for editors looking for help. Automated ""Peer Reviewing"" Tool" 257 260 576 WP:EVENTUALISM WP:EVENTUALISM 257 meta:EventualismThis page is a soft redirect. 258 261 578 WP:LONGEVITY Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity 258 "Welcome to WikiProject Longevity See Category:WikiProject Longevity articles.This WikiProject and its editors aim to create, improve, update, discuss and assess articles and lists about human longevity, collaboratively. This project replaces Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. The project roughly covers the following areas of knowledge: Biological mechanisms of aging Gerontology, including oldest individuals Efforts to overcome senescence to be expanded Files for discussion 27 Jan 2023 – File:Marie-Louise Meilleur, 1998.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on Marie-Louise Meilleur) was FfDed by Interstellarity (t · c); see discussion 27 Jan 2023 – File:SarahKnauss1979.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on Sarah Knauss) was FfDed by Joseph2302 (t · c); see discussion 27 Jan 2023 – File:Jeanne-Calment-1996.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on Jeanne Calment) was FfDed by Joseph2302 (t · c); see discussion The subject or topic of all articles, including those on centenarians and supercentenarians, must meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline at a minimum. === Biographies === Articles on centenarians and supercentenarians are biographies. The notability guidelines for biographies apply. Significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is required. These articles are subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies.[under discussion as of December 2018] A subject whose biography is based on only one or two reliable sources establishing notability may belong on a list, rather than in a stand-alone biography, unless these sources provide significant details beyond longevity. Some centenarians and supercentenarians are notable for reasons in addition to their longevity, e.g., Leila Denmark. In such cases, notable aspects of the subject's life, that are reported in reliable sources, should be included in the subject's biography. Supercentenarians whose age has been reported in reliable sources should be included in longevity-related lists, whether or not other notable, reliably-sourced facts justify a stand-alone biography. Although not the primary focus of this project, cases where advanced age is contested or in doubt should be considered for notability using the same criteria as cases where advanced age has been verified by independent, reliable sources, e.g., Old Tom Parr is notable. When sufficient reliable secondary sources establish notability that calls for a stand-alone biography, the following primary or tertiary sources may be used, for limited purposes only. They may supplement reliable sources, but no article should be based solely or primarily on these sources, and no article should rely on these sources alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. === Living people === When a person is still living or recently deceased, the guidelines on biographies of living people apply. Note that it must not be stated that a person falsified his or her age or date of birth unless that has been clearly reported in independent, reliable sources. === Lists === In regard to lists of centenarians and supercentenarians, and lists of unverified, disputed or disproved claims to longevity, WP:LISTPEOPLE applies. Independent, reliable sources are required. All items must be supported by a citation or a link to an article. Individuals may be included even if they are only notable for their longevity, or claim to longevity, and even if there is not enough material for a stand-alone biography article. The GRG is a RS for someone's date of birth and the citation should be placed in that column. However, there should also be a RS other than the GRG confirming this. For lists of living people this is a requirement. It should not be stated in the lede for any list that a person/man/woman is the oldest unless there is an appropriate source stating this explicitly. Where no such source exists it may be stated that a particular person may be the oldest but that it has not been confirmed. Lists of living people should not differentiate in any way between those on the GRG list and other RS entries; this includes numbering, highlighting, bold, italics, etc. All sources used on Wikipedia must meet the reliable sources guideline. If the reliability of a source is in doubt, obtain the community's input at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN). === Databases === There are various verification services and databases of long-lived people. Information on these databases may be in the process of checking rather than fully checked. They have been described at RSN as more in the nature of ""works-in-progress."" Such databases may be consulted in order to find further direction to more reliable sources. The databases should be viewed with even more care where they disagree. No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. Guinness World Records is a reliable source for ages, for dates of birth and death, and for whether an individual holds or held a record for human longevity. Gerontology Research Group's (GRG) Table E (verified supercentenarians) and Table I (verified supercentenarians sorted by death date) have been found to be reliable sources because all entries in these tables are fact-checked according to the process outlined here. However, GRG's Table EE (pending verification supercentenarians) is not a WP:RS because entries have not been fact-checked. Therefore, Table EE cannot be used as a source for information on Wikipedia. The Oldest Human Beings (OHB) list has none of the indicia of a reliable source, as that term is defined in wikipedia policy. Oldest in Britain is not a reliable source and cannot be used. === Journals === There is currently no consensus about the reliability of the journal Rejuvenation Research. === Obituaries and newspaper articles === Family- and self-written obituaries, such as those listed on Legacy.com, Tributes.com, on funeral home websites, and published in newspapers, are reliable for the date of death but are not reliable for the date of birth or age. Newspaper-written articles and obituaries may or may not be reliable sources. When in doubt, ask editors at RSN whether a particular newspaper article is a reliable source for birth and/or death dates and age in a particular article. === Forums and discussion groups === The 110 Club is a discussion group and is not a reliable source. Global Supercentenarian Forum is a discussion group and is not a reliable source. Any other forum or discussion group is not a reliable source. [Gerontology.wikia.com] is not a reliable source. Biographies should be structured in the normal manner for biographies. List articles should be formatted according to best practice for lists. Embedded lists should be avoided in articles. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/World's Oldest People articles by quality statistics Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/World's Oldest People articles by quality Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/World's Oldest People articles by quality log === Templates === To invite someone to participate, use {{subst:Longevity invite}}. This will produce:If you like, you could add this userbox to your userpage: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity/Userbox}}Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity/Userbox === Participants === Add your name here by editing this section and adding #{{User4}}|user=USERNAME}} or #{{User4|USERNAME}} Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC) schetm (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Eruditescholar (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC) JFG talk 11:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)" 259 262 579 WP:WIAGA Wikipedia:Good article criteria 259 The good article criteria are the six standards by which a good article nomination (GAN) may be compared and judged to be a good article (GA). A good article does not have to meet the more demanding featured article criteria. The six good article criteria are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN. Other comments designed to improve the article are encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment. === Immediate failures === An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria It contains copyright violations It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF}}) It is not stable due to edit warring on the page A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria. For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. === The six good article criteria === A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research:it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list and featured picture status, if applicable. Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria. Featured articles: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions—step-by-step instructions on how to handle the GA process Wikipedia:Nominating good articles—advice for nominating an article for GA status Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles—guidelines for reviewing an article for GA status Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Reviewing Cheatsheet—useful suggestions for GA review Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not—GA reviews should be concluded only in accordance with the GA criteria, not personal preferences Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article Wikipedia:Did you know eligibility criteria—within 7 days of promotion, a GA article may be nominated for a DYK hook review Wikipedia:Featured article criteria—setting your sights on FA criteria may help with the GA review process 260 263 581 WP:NOTIMELIMIT Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state 260 Potential, not just current state relates to the debate on whether articles in the mainspace should be deleted, merged, or kept based on their current potential to be an encyclopedic entry, or as they are now. Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving – omnia mutantur – and it is frequently better to think of an article's potential rather than just how it looks at present. Many articles are created on Wikipedia every day, most of which are a good faith effort by contributors to improve the encyclopedia. Preferably the first revision of all new articles would be beefed up enough so the suitability of an article for inclusion in the encyclopedia could be assessed without needing to look at potential. In practice however due to Wikipedia's open nature of being the 'The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit', articles are and will be created which do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fully but have the potential to do so. While encouraging planning and preparation when creating articles is desirable, contributors, particularly users new to Wikipedia, cannot be expected to build an article perfectly at first attempt. Time should be given for input from multiple editors to allow improvements to be made. The concept of potential is recognised in the Wikipedia:Notability guideline under #Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. It suggests that if an article does not demonstrate notability, editors should make a good faith search for sources before deletion or merging. There are several simple methods that can be used to help determine if an article has potential, even if it is relatively short. An article could have potential if: It gives some context to the topic it appears to be about, even if it is unreferenced. It indicates some importance to the topic, even if it is unreferenced. It indicates some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced. It contains some kind of source, especially if it is a secondary source. Many other articles link to it. Large numbers of editors have contributed to the article. A web search engine (such as Google Search) check of relevant terms of the article bring up many sources, particularly if these sources are reliable and secondary. In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable and has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. Deletion of an article can be one step backwards in creating an encyclopedic entry for a notable topic. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following: Mark the article as a valid stub. Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject. Add templates marking relevant issues with the article to readers and editors. Simply delete and clean the sections of an article causing a problem, such as copyright violations.This will allow for editors in the long-term to improve the article to address all concerns. Keeping articles with potential encourages editors, especially unregistered users, to be bold and improve the article to allow it to evolve over time. Having to re-create an article from scratch often takes a long time and can result in a long-term loss of encyclopedic information from Wikipedia. Note however that an article should have immediate potential, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In cases where an article could have potential in the future but does not now, it should be merged or redirected appropriately if possible, so it can be easily re-created when potential is gained. Merging an article on a topic with narrow scope into an article with a larger scope can frequently be a good solution to issues of a topic not being notable or verifiable enough for its own Wikipedia article entry. However, merging an article which has potential to be successful as a standalone article in the long-run can constrain encyclopedia expansion, cause articles to specialise in one subject area, and possibly result in articles getting too long. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following: Mark the article as a valid stub. Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject. Add appropriate links to and from the article if it is orphaned. Categorise the article if it is uncategorised. Summarise the main points of a 'child' article in its 'parent' article.These options help navigation and allow the encyclopedia to flow, while also encouraging long-term article expansion. Frequently the concept can be applied when becoming involved with a variety of Wikipedia processes. === Speedy deletion nomination === If you have just created an article and it is nominated for speedy deletion, it can be sensible to state on the article's talk page that you are still working on the article. It can also help to explain your aims for the article and its potential notability. Often adding context to the article will help in the short-term to establish the potential of an encyclopedic entry on a topic. === Proposed deletion nomination === If an article is proposed for deletion and you think the article has potential to address the concerns raised, such as notability, then you can simply remove the {{Prod}} template from the article. It is polite to state (often on the article's talk page) why you think the article should be kept; such as citing sources (often those on the internet) that the article can use giving the topic notability and making deletion unnecessary. If an article is deleted by the proposed deletion process, it is possible to make a request to an administrator to undelete it, based on its potential for improvement and expansion. === Articles for deletion nomination === Articles are frequently nominated for deletion because of their current state, not their potential as an encyclopedic entry. These nominations can often result in de facto time limits of about seven days (changed from five in April 2009) for an article to either improve, or be deleted and sometimes merged. This can cause problems, as frequently editors simply do not have time to fix articles within such a short time period. In these cases it is helpful to alert the discussion that the article has potential to be made into a successful encyclopedic entry, and that more time is needed to improve the article. It can also be helpful to quickly remove content of an article which is causing problems, and to add templates to the article as necessary. === Merge suggestions === Sometimes it will be suggested that an article be merged with another article. If you are against a merge because you think the article's topic is notable enough for its own entry, it is sensible to explain why on the article's talk page. When discussing mergers it is also wise to think of the long-term, such as the possibility of an article getting too long. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia:Eventualism Wikipedia:Inclusionism Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Wikipedia:Structurism Wikipedia:Stubs Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Your first article 261 264 583 WP:MAGAZINE Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines 261 "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide Wikipedia with the following: general information about magazines information about specific magazine publicationsThe goals of this project are to identify magazine publications that do not yet have articles in Wikipedia (see WP:MCW/MIS in particular), and to discuss and suggest guidelines for writing magazine related-articles. === Parentage === WikiProject Journalism WikiProject Media === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Comics WikiProject Books WikiProject Journals The project maintains a bot-generated list of magazines cited on Wikipedia using the |magazine= parameter of {{cite xxx}} templates. The list is organized both alphabetically and by popularity. Due to a lack of advanced filtering, the lists will include several academic journals, websites, and other things that aren't magazines. See WP:MCW for more details. Feel free to join this WikiProject by adding your name to the list. Use the format # {{User|YourUsername}}. Mohammad Al Khalid (talk · contribs) Warrenking (talk · contribs) Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) Buddpaul (talk · contribs) Stephenb (talk · contribs) Photophiliac (talk · contribs) Flashflash; (talk · contribs) DGG (talk · contribs) GetMKWearMKFly (talk · contribs) Smmmaniruzzaman (talk · contribs) Cargill208 (talk · contribs) SciFiDragon (talk · contribs) Greenineugene (talk · contribs) John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) Scooge (talk · contribs) PaleAda (talk · contribs) ErinNik (talk · contribs) Civilizeme (talk · contribs) Knox387 (talk · contribs) Mathewkochi (talk · contribs) Liltappinjen (talk · contribs) WM324AHI (talk · contribs) Poppopsun (talk · contribs) Cummins59 (talk · contribs) Der letzte Konsul (talk · contribs) Egeymi (talk · contribs) Gotfredsen (talk · contribs) Jburlinson (talk · contribs) Danielklotz (talk · contribs) Civilizeme (talk · contribs) Mediajockey1 (talk · contribs) Leelabratee (talk · contribs) Randykitty (talk · contribs) Chastized (talk · contribs) MaissaSamaha (talk · contribs) Jdordan23 (talk · contribs) Matt14451 (talk · contribs) Netphemera (talk · contribs) Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) Rania Mohamed (talk · contribs) Kimles (talk · contribs) Vijaitrk (talk · contribs) Yaa Harpo (talk · contribs) Rruegger (talk · contribs) PriceDL (talk · contribs) Madison Grace (talk · contribs) jaldous1 (talk · contribs) WillA98 (talk · contribs) ReaperDawn (talk · contribs) Egbok42 (talk · contribs) Wascore (talk · contribs) Jamesmcardle (talk · contribs) FSGCalthorpe (talk · contribs) The_Cleaning_Laddy (talk · contribs) IamMM (talk · contribs) Manuela_Willbold (talk · contribs) Hlau7177 (talk · contribs) Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk · contribs) Zimbule (talk · contribs) Jpm1989 (talk · contribs) Category:Magazines Category:Magazine articles Category:Magazine articles by quality Category:Magazine articles by importance === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page See also: Wikipedia:Notability (media).Notability is presumed for magazines that: have produced award winning work have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area are frequently cited by other reliable sources are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche marketsPublications that primarily carry advertising, and only have trivial content, may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher (if notable). For tips on writing a good article on a magazine, see our writing guide. === Project banner === This is the general talk page banner for WikiProject Magazines. It can be added with {{WikiProject Magazines}} or the alias {{WPMags}}. Place it on any article's talk page that is in the scope of WikiProject Magazines in the following format: {{WikiProject Magazines |class= |importance= |attention= |auto= }} Parameter options for class are: ""FA"", ""FL"", ""A"", ""GA"", ""B"", ""C"", ""Start"", ""Stub"", ""List"" and ""NA"".If left blank, the article will be marked unassessed by default. Help on how to 'grade' articles can be found at WP 1.0 Assessment grades and /Assessment. === Infoboxes === To place a magazine infobox on an article use: {{Infobox Magazine}} === Stubs === To stub tag a magazine-related article use: {{Mag-stub}} === Userbox === To add a userbox to your user page use: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Userbox}} === Welcoming === To welcome a new participant to WikiProject Magazines, please substitute and place on the new member's user talk page: {{subst:WikiProject Magazines welcome|~~~~}} or {{subst:WPMags welcome|~~~~}} Today's featured articles 11 Apr 2023 – Science Fiction Monthly (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurbArticles for deletion 01 Mar 2023 – Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Oaktree b (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted) 21 Mar 2023 – Singersroom (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by JaggedHamster (t · c) was closed as delete by Aoidh (t · c) on 29 Mar 2023; see discussion (2 participants)Categories for discussion 21 Feb 2023 – Category:Queer magazines (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Bohemian Baltimore (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 05 Mar 2023 – Ozy (media company) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Ozy Media by White 720 (t · c) was moved to Ozy Media (talk · edit · hist) by Hadal (t · c) on 22 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged 16 Oct 2022 – Craftsman Magazine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Craft&design by Seniorcroc (t · c); see discussion 10 Oct 2022 – Source Interlink (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Motor Trend Group by Grorp (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 26 Aug 2022 – Next Magazine (Hong Kong and Taiwan) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 124.217.188.236 (t · c); see discussion 03 May 2021 – Minotaure (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Flod logic (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 14 Mar 2023 – Draft:Marketer.ua (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 10 Mar 2023 – Draft:Chao Foon Monthly (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 03 Mar 2023 – Draft:Mpls.St.Paul Magazine (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mnloon15 (t · c) 24 Feb 2023 – Draft:Fucking Young! Magazine (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by JeremyJordanJournalist (t · c) 06 Feb 2023 – Draft:Shuddhashar FreeVoice (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Vinegarymass911 (t · c) 29 Jan 2023 – Draft:Nikita Zhitov (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by LaurenCityPlat (t · c) 28 Jan 2023 – Draft:Elle Man (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Silikonz (t · c) 27 Jan 2023 – Draft:Sarah Pettit (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Reyslapier (t · c) 25 Jan 2023 – Draft:Hellebore (magazine) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Fuzzy-logic79 (t · c) 18 Jan 2023 – Draft:Seaside Gothic (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Jasonlatnar (t · c)(2 more...)" 262 265 584 WP:STRESS Wikipedia:Wikistress 262 m:WikistressThis page is a soft redirect. 263 266 585 WP:POVFUNNEL Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels 263 "Avoid POV funnels: that is, avoid limiting topics as being constrained by a point-of-view funnel which restricts the possible range of related viewpoints into an unacceptably narrow range. Sometimes, there is a need to have multiple articles to avoid a single article from restricting the coverage about notable topics. Within an article, the particular wording of a section header can overly limit the allowable text of the section. For example, the header ""Media criticism of aardvark film"" pre-supposes a negative viewpoint that the news media disliked the film, whereas the alternative header ""Media response to aardvark film"" allows a balance, for either negative or positive views, in the section, and does not limit the text into a ""POV funnel"" which would restrict the contents. Some words, such as ""criticisms"" or ""scandals"" have loaded meanings and should be avoided in headers or titles (see WP:Words to watch). Many topics directly relate to other major topics, and a single article cannot adequately cover all the information, in a balanced manner, because some topics would have far more detail than others within the same article. In some cases, details have been suppressed, or even removed, in an effort to artificially balance all aspects within a single article. Instead, per WP:FORK, an article could be split into ""content forks"" (dividing the total contents into separate articles on notable subtopics). Although POV-forks are discouraged, content forks are commonly used to split articles into major, notable sub-topics. For example, a renowned scientist might have made a scientific development, perhaps as an invention or scientific theory, which has ""independent notability"" as a separate topic, outside the article about the scientist. Any attempts to limit the related text, about that development, to being only a section of the scientist's bio-page article, would be an example of a POV-funnel. The scope of details needed to adequately describe, or explain, the particular development could be considered as being an WP:UNDUE level of details, if included within the scientist's bio-page. However, when the scientific development is described in a separate article, there would be ample space to expand the necessary details, plus examples, diagrams or charts, to fully describe the major aspects. A similar example would be a separate article for an album of a notable musician, rather than trying to cover all the details about the album inside the musician's bio-page. The extent of album-related details would likely be overwhelming to the remainder of the bio-page, when fully describing the production, cover art, lyrical content and inspiration, singles, supporting concoert tour, critical and public reception, etc., plus the typical detailed track list table, etc. More commonly, every major album, as released by a recording artist, is given a separate article, and thereby avoids cluttering the text of the musician's bio-page article. By having separate articles for albums, scientific inventions, etc., then POV-funnels can be avoided in other articles, such as the bio-page articles of musicians, scientists, etc. In some extreme cases, a POV funnel might be used to purposely restrict what text sections, or images, are allowed within an article. The situation can be seen as a trap, deliberately intending to restrict the information ""allowed"" in Wikipedia. Often, there might be claims that other text (or images) are WP:UNDUE details, beyond the scope of the narrowed article. However, per policy WP:NOTCENSORED, articles cannot omit information, even if considered offensive to some people's religion, moral code, or an organization's bylaws. The goal of Wikipedia is to ""write the encyclopedia"", not to thwart it or suppress it. Nevertheless, some arguments to omit information, as being WP:UNDUE clutter, can be very persuasive, and hence, a POV funnel is typically an effective way to suppress information, or justify axing large sections of text from an already overly-long article. Consequently, some violent debates have arisen as to what is allowed in each article, or section, and there have been storms of edit-wars or WP:ANI sanctions sought to prevent users from adding text. Instead, users should be reminded that even featured articles are often quite long, and the appropriate way to shorten a long article would be to split into subarticles, or move text into previous articles which could be expanded." 264 267 587 WP:offline sources WP:offline sources 264 "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. While many editors use online sources, such as websites and online journals, many great sources are only available offline in printed books and paper journals. Don't let the fact that a printed book or journal is not available online scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia. Likewise, do not remove cited material merely because it is from an offline source. That Wikipedia relies extensively on online sources is not surprising, considering the relative ease of accessing such materials. There is also an additional advantage of using online sources, because it allows all users to evaluate the source and its value to the article. However, this reliance on online sources can lead to recentism, where most articles and content are from the Internet era. It can also lead to an unfair bias against print books and print journals, where an editor's addition of material sourced from a book or print journal is reverted with the comment ""Revert - I couldn't access and confirm this source online."" Books are a typical example of an offline source. These are often great resources for history, philosophy and literature, and they often contain information that can't be found online. Several ongoing projects, such as Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive, NLA Trove and Google Book Search, aim at digitizing certain books or newspaper articles and presenting them online. Even if the books are online, it might be necessary to consult a print edition to double-check any errors from the OCR scanning. Many academic journals only make short abstracts available online. Other content providers, like the Wall Street Journal, publish their content behind a paywall that prevents non-subscribers from accessing the content. Other websites, like the Philadelphia Inquirer, only publish their content online for a few weeks. Sometimes a source was once online, but now is offline (link rot). Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Provision of full bibliographic information helps Wikipedia's readers and editors find the source when they need it, and also increases the source's credibility as a reliable source. This is often done by using a fully-filled out citation template such as {{cite book}} or {{cite news}}. Use of the quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged. Providing identifiers such as an ISBN, OCLC number, Open Library number or similar can help others locate physical copies, as cataloguing data can often vary from one library to another. Many offline sources are easier than you might think to find online. The Internet Archive full text search, as well as Internet Archive Scholar, are often able to provide a copy or snippet from millions of academic papers, books and even TV programs. Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search. FUTON bias Wikipedia:Resource requests Wikipedia:Link rot Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost Wikipedia:Offline sources only, arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" 265 268 588 WP:VPR Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 265 "Yesterday I helped someone to start editing in Wikipedia. Creating an account is a breeze, but when he started editing he is presented with the text editor, instead of the Visual Editor. Text Editor is good and have its uses, but for newer editor it is better to present them with Visual Editor, as it is created to be user friendly and really show changes that you intended. Editing through Text Editor for newer editor may be off putting, as many may just want to do minor changes (maybe add a single line in a table, change the number of things, etc.) and ""learning"" the wiki markup may be too much for them. I understand that changing it in Preferences is trivial for many of us, but for many new editors this can be quite hard. This can be changed easily by making ""Always give me the visual editor if possible"" default. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong support, as in ""this could be one of the most important changes Wikipedia makes"" support. To a new user, the wikitext editor is terrifying and bloated. To an experienced user, it can still be bloated. I'm fairly competent with wikitext, but I still use the visual editor for most purposes simply because the wikitext editor is too much to wade through unless you're making a really technical edit. I genuinely think Wikipedia would have a much larger user base contributing if the visual editor was the default. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC) According to Wikipedia:VisualEditor this is already the case. CMD (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC) For an IP editor, the default is the wikitext editor, but it gives a pop up asking if you want to switch to the visual editor, which I imagine is meaningless to most users. I suppose it's not quite the same thing as a new account (and SunDawn might want to look into it to see where the discrepancy is), but visual editor definitely needs to be more accessible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose. The WMF has been persistently and attempting to force this, despite the fact that they have data showing that defaulting into VisualEditor is harmful. There of course are some people who prefer VE, but the objective data shows the overal impact is negative. The WMF has been resistant to collecting good data on this, but I can report what we do have. If you examine the graph at the right, you'll find that the Desktop Wikitext Editor has approximately DOUBLE the retention rate as Desktop Visual Editor, and that Mobile Wikitext also has about DOUBLE the retention rate as Mobile Visual Editor. That is a pretty staggering difference. From the published graph we cannot tell whether Visual Editor is causing half of editors to quit editing entirely, or whether users given VE-by-default merely abandon VE to use the Wikitext editor instead, or more likely some mix of both. Regardless, the data is extremely damning.Nearly 4 years ago they started work on a mobile-default test. They still have not released any results, however if you dig through the comments of various related tasks it is clear that the results were a disaster for VE. A VE-default on mobile was clearly driving away a significant percentage of edits, and possibly driving away editors. They have been working off-and-on repeatedly shifting the goalposts on that project, trying to get better results. Nearly 4 years, and they still haven't released actual data.Important final note: Never believe any claimed ""Edit Completion Rate"" data. The raw data for VE is so bad that the WMF concocted this specific term and defined it in such a way as to inflate the apparent success of VE. The ""Edit Completion Rate"" is defined such that every Wikitext-activation that does not result in a saved edit counts as a ""failed edit"", but a substantial portion of equivalent VE ""failed edits"" are simply discarded from the dataset and ignored. That artificially inflates the claimed ""VE-success"" percentage.When the VE project was first conceived the WMF internally hyped it as so insanely-awesome that pur biggest problem would be handling the overwhelming flood of new users. The WMF diverted an absolutely excessive percentage of all development time&dollars on this agenda (VE itself, Flow, replacing the translation-editor, attempting to eliminate our wikitext editor in favor of a wikitext mode inside VE, ongoing work to replace our wikitext engine, and various other work). People's paycheck was literally dependent on producing positive results. It resulted in an almost cult-like level of confirmation bias, internally cheerleading and wildly hyping anything that could remotely be interpreted as positive for VE while all unfavorable information and data vanishes down the Memory hole. Nearly 4 years researching VE-on-mobile and we still don't have any published results. I have asked the WMF to preform equivalent research getting solid data on the effect of a VE-default on desktop, but no-go. The retention graph I posted is the best we've got, and that's ambiguous whether VE actively drives new users away or whether it ""merely"" drives users to flee to Wikitext instead. Alsee (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC) (Some vote timestamps are out of order due to auto-resolved edit conflict.) I don't agree with your assessment of the data shown in the graph. The caption reads, emphasis added: This includes all logged-in users who made an edit at any time, on any wiki, between October 2017 and March 2018, regardless of the number of edits made before the study started. This graph does not show overall retention rates for new accounts. Edits in four editing environments were measured: the 2010 WikiEditor, VisualEditor's visual mode, the MobileFrontEnd wikitext editor, and the MobileFrontEnd visual editor. It excludes all edits using VisualEditor's 2017 wikitext mode, [...] All manual ""Undo"" actions are counted as ""using"" the 2010 WikiEditor. Users who used multiple editing environments are counted separately for each editing environment. Therefore, each user can appear up to four times in this graph. If a primary user of VisualEditor uses the undo button frequently, then they are counted as a ""retained"" user of the 2010 WikiEditor. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I agree that the available data isn't exactly the data we need. I said it's the best available data, and that it's pretty damning. The result was disastrous when they tried collecting data for VE-on-mobile. How about we agree that we shouldn't be making such a critical change like this unless-and-until we actually do collect data on what effect changing the desktop default has? I have requested the WMF collect this data, and they declined. I'm all for a formal community request that the WMF do a proper test on this. Alsee (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) ""How about we agree that we shouldn't be making such a critical change like this unless-and-until we actually do collect data"" If the situation we're complaining about wasn't justified with data, why should a change to it require that justification? Is the current situation (that in effect, new editors get locked into VE or wikitext almost at random) even the result of a consensus? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I just realized - this isn't even a proposal to change the default editor. This is vastly worse. This is actually a proposal to move away from the ""remember my last editor"". People who actively choose to use the Wikitext editor would get screwed waiting for VE-to-load and then switch to wikitext on EVERY edit, unless/until the locate preference item to fix this. I likely would have quit editing before I discovered there was a way to fix it. Alsee (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The problem is not for prominent editors like you or me - but for newer editors. Experienced editors have the knowledge and the time to go to their own Preferences (which took less than a minute) but newer editor, in my opinion, will immediately be confused by the text editor and stopped contributing. They don't know that Wikipedia have a very user-friendly UI at VisualEditor. They will think that the only way to edit is through this confusing text editor. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Support. I'm not sure why, but during a recent edit-a-thon at least one new logged-in editor was unable to use VisualEditor, and it us 5 minutes in Preferences to show both editing tabs. VE is easier for beginners. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong support. This is a solid way to make Wikipedia user-friendly and increase the pool of willing contributors. DFlhb (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong support. Visual editor is the more friendly option for new editors, so we should enable it by default. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Support Despite some long-term attempts to continue forcing wikitext on new editors, it is extremely clear that VE is the more welcoming and easy to understand editing environment. I use it more often than wikitext when editing articles, and have not once in recent years considered wikitext an improvement when trying to explain how to edit to a new editor. Sam Walton (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong Support I also have been recently running training events for new editors and am having the same problem that it is very easy for them to get locked into the wikitext editor without realising that the visual editor is an option. Fixing that involves taking them to their preferences and is a speed-bump on the whole training process. That's with in-person training; it's exponentially harder to fix this when training remotely. It shouldn't be so hard for new users to access something which has been created to make the experience easier for them. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Whoa. Why not give them VA as the editor on their first edit, but ""Remember my last editor"" as the default? Why force them back to VE even after they have switched to edit with wikitext? If they found the switch once, they will find it in the opposite direction as well if and when they want it. Fram (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I do agree with this. It didn't break ""last editor used"" but it provided a good interface for new editors. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose: Alsee has articulated this much better than I could've, so there's that, but I'll add extra. Ever wondered why we teach young kids do addition/subtraction when we all have calculators today (smartphone ones included)? The problem with Visual editor is that it is not univerally compatible to all pages, try editing the tables at United States congressional delegations from New York, for example. To edit them, you need advanced knowledge of wikitext. And to gain that advanced knowledge, you need to gain basic knowledge first, which is gained by editing normal prose. And that isn't hard. My first Wikipedia edit was made when I was in 1st grade (≈6 year old) as an IP. I could understand the wikitext logic and implement it to write prose and construct wikilinks. Is the next generation going to be dumber? No one is taught wikitext syntax in schools or colleges, people learnt it as they edited Wikipedia and that has kept the site running smoothly for about two decades. When we default to VE, and people may start using it for basic editing, they fail to acquaint themselves with the wikitext logic, which will hurt them make complicated edits where visual editor fails. Even today, most complicated templates/modules are maintained by a few old guards who familiarised themselves with wikitext/lua, a level of familiarisation which the newer generation of editors has probably not achieved. No one here will be here forever, and newer editors should be encouraged to use wikitext, rather than be served with VE on a silver platter. I know this is a controversial opinion of mine and will probable lose at the end, but I genuinely consider it to be detrimental to the future of the project. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The way I see it, if editors didn't understand wikitext, that is still fine by me - as long as they are able to edit constructively. In my case, my friend just want to add a single information. Forcing him to ""learn"" wikitext took time, as he will have to read about how to cite properly in wikitext, find the ""location"" he wanted to edit in the middle of the jumbled things he didn't understand, and so on. While if he got VE, he could just see it, use the cite button, let Wikipedia handle the citing, and he is finished. There are many other scenario. Someone stumbling into a typo on an article can fix it easily if he use VE, while if he see the complexity of text editor, he may be afraid that he broke something then he did nothing. In short, for most editors, I didn't think the knowledge of text editor is necessary. If they are interesting in doing more for Wikipedia, they will learn that text editor offered more, and learn. But if they just want to fix small mistakes and add small bits of information, that should be fine as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC) This sounds like an argument to import the cite button into the wikitext editor. CMD (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Conditional Oppose if this is going to end up breaking the ""remember my last editor"" option - users should get a consistent experience. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Let's say we use Fram's input - keep the ""remember last editor"" while change the default editor for newer editor to VE, would you reconsider your position? My objective is not break the current ""remember last editor"", but to make VE default for newer editor. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC) @SunDawn: I marked that as conditional. I haven't created a brand-new account just to test this, but if I recall correctly the the current default is ""Ask me what I want to use"" with a big pop up box, isn't it? — xaosflux Talk 16:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Good question. Does anyone know the current default? I assumed it was wikitext. If it's a pop-up box then I'll change to oppose because a choice is better for editors who can handle wikitext and raises awareness of the ""real"" editor for newbies. Certes (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The current default for IPs appears to be the wikitext editor covered by a large ""Welcome to Wikipedia"" banner which has a ""Switch to the visual editor"" button and a ""Start editing"" button. If this is also the case for new editors, then Wikipedia:VisualEditor is wrong and this list is misleading or bugged. CMD (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) That's what I recall seeing when making my first logged-in edit on other wikis. If it's also true for enwp, perhaps all we need do is reword the buttons to something more equal like ""Edit using Visual Editor"" and ""Edit as wikitext"". One of the buttons is highlighted by default; we may want that to be VE rather than Wikitext. Certes (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The way I recall it (when assisting someone new editing) is that they are immediately represented by text editor. The ""edit"" beside the heading is ""edit source"", and he is immediately taken to to the text editor. I didn't recall him given the option between VE and text editor. Of course, the sure way to know is to create another account to test it by ourselves. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Whether you see one tab or two, and if you see one, which one you see, depends on your prefs settings. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Conditional support, only if editors are prominently offered a simple and persistent way to opt out of VE. Certes (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC) It's complicated: see my comment above. Certes (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Comment By adding an obscuring layer which is obscure itself, I suspect that visual editor does more harm than good for about 90% of editors. But it might be a good default for the 10% which is those who are just starting.North8000 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose. Even on fast machines, the visual editor has a very perceptible lag. If you want to encourage people to continue editing, that is going to be a negative. --Trovatore (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC) @Trovatore I've not seen any ""very perceptible lag"" with VE recently on my machines - when do you experience it? Sam Walton (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) To be fair, I'm probably thinking of ""realtime preview"". But it would be surprising if VE were less laggy than that. Is it? --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC) @Trovatore Realtime preview is a niche feature that new editors probably won't use, and it has to be laggy by design, as I understand it. Rendering wikitext into a preview takes time so it can't happen instantly. There needs to be some delay between the preview updates. VE itself, in terms of actually editing articles, is almost completely lag-free for me. Sam Walton (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC) OK, withdrawn. It looks like I misunderstood the proposal anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Generally support - But this thread is already a bit confusing. It would help to revise the top part to state clearly what the current situation is and what specifically would change. VE is already the default for new users AFAIK, as it should be. As I understand it, this would address a specific issue: people switching to the wikicode editor and not understanding how to get back. If my understanding is correct, I definitely support it. Alternatively, we could replace the unclear toggle button that nobody ever thinks to click with a bright line that says ""GET ME BACK TO VISUAL EDITING MODE"" unless you disable that in prefs. My engagement with new users has largely been through edit-a-thons and university classes. When I started with those activities, wikicode was still the standard. VE existed, but wasn't very good yet, and I had everyone working in wikicode. It was fine, and I still use wikicode most of the time. At some point some years back, though, VE got good. Using VE during events/classes was -- and I don't like using this term -- a game-changer. It presented a learning curve that took time to get over, and people used to just run away from editing and/or never really got comfortable. Using VE means newbies can get right into editing and spent their learning time focused on things like wikipolicy, citations, style, etc. rather than syntax. Sure, we still talk about wikicode for talk pages, but with the reply tool, even that's less needed. In short, moving newbies away from wikicode has been an incredible boon for new user engagement in my experience, and now one of the most frequent questions I get is ""I think I did something wrong; how do I get back to what we used before"" when people accidentally find themselves in the wikicode editor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Last I checked, when an IP makes their first edit, they are taken to the source editor and then get a dialog box asking if they want to switch to the visual editor. Has this changed? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC). Comment I would support a far clearer way of switching between the two. When I first started I found VE couldn't do what I was try to do, switch to wikicode and never looked back. However a couple of times I mistakenly switched back to VE, and had to spend 10 minutes trying to work out how to switch back. Hiding the option behind a very unclear toggle is bad UI design. Having a large ""back to VE"" would be a bad idea, as any IP editor using wikicode wouldn't be able to get rid of it using preferences. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I'm slightly unsure about what's being discussed here. As far as I'm aware VE is the default, yet editors are supporting making it the default. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Support making VisualEditor default. Now that it works well and reliably I tend to use it over source editing unless I'm adding an infobox template or something like that, an activity that new editors are unlikely to be doing. VisualEditor is much more accessible and is capable of performing most edits nowadays. There's quite a few tables across wikipedia that should be altered to make them easier to edit with VisualEditor.Garuda3 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Oppose When you start users on the VE as the default, they will basically never learn to edit the source in proper wikitext. I'd rather have users who come in and get familiar with wikimarkup from the get-go, and then once they get some experience, they can later decide to activate the VE. I'd rather not create a breed of new editors who don't know how to manually add a template or an infobox or troubleshoot a badly formatted table, or whatever. There's value in learning to work in the markup, and if we start people on the VE, we basically create an artificial barrier to advancement in Wikipedia to true competence, which is likely to be as, if not more, frustrating than learning to write in wikimarkup from the start. --Jayron32 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Oppose until VE is significantly improved. You almost need to have a better understanding of wikitext for using VE than for SE if you want to avoid breaking links and removing semantic templates. Syntax highlighting should definitely be made default though, as without it reference and template bloat can get in the way of the content of the article. – small jars tc 10:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Support. I don't believe that markup is inherently off-putting to 'ordinary users'. It wasn't ten years ago when BBCode was everywhere and it isn't now when Markdown is everywhere. But wikitext was never the cleanest markup language to begin with and now that the average article starts with a wall of templates and long embedded references, it clearly is off-putting. This isn't 2013: VisualEditor works fine, offers a kind of distraction-free writing interface that lets you focus on prose, makes it easier to add and format references, and if they find its limits new users can easily switch to source editing. It would be nice to have some hard (and up to date) data on how the switch might impact editor retention before making a permanent change, though. – Joe (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC) I sorta see your point, and I remember ten years ago BBCode was used on forums etc, but even those have some technical barrier. On sites used by 'very ordinary users' like Facebook, I think there were still WYSIWYG editors. I use Markdown on sites like GitHub but on 'normal sites' not geared at technically proficient people I don't recall using Markdown or any other language, it's usually either plaintext editors with no syntax support, or WYSIWYG editors. (with the caveat that my memory might be selectively omitting normal sites using BBCode/markdown!) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC) on 'normal sites' not geared at technically proficient people I don't recall using Markdown or any other language – I don't share this experience. I thought the asterisks and underscores used in youtube comments where pretty well known. Discord also has rich text markup and escape codes. They even have little codes for creating emojis in comments on Scratch, a website used mainly by children. [1]. None of this is quite as complex as wikitext, but I don’t think that very ordinary users are yet so dependent on WYSIWYG that the difference is going to be deterring. small jars tc 18:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC) I suppose asterisks and underscores are well known, yes. I guess they're in WhatsApp also. Though IME most people do not use them, I think because they aren't aware how they work. I think Discord does target itself at a relatively technical audience, certainly more-so than Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Strong support - I didn't even realise VE isn't the default for unregistered users. It should be IMO; in 2023 the average user does not want to write wikitext/raw syntax, is not used to doing so (think the avg site a normal person uses), and even techy users who don't use WYSISYG editors tend to use markup languages that are much simpler than wikitext (e.g. Markdown). As for preferences, it'd be ideal if the choice persisted, and maybe that will happen (n.b. the persisting of fixed/full width opening the door on that), but even without that I think it's better to have VE as the default. Even I use VE to write articles, and not the wikitext editors, and I'd consider myself more technically proficient and used to wikitext than the average person. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Can we make showing both editing tabs the default for new editors instead? I don't see any reason that this would harm people, and it would give a nice easy button to choose which editing mode you want to use. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Going back to two edit tabs, one for each editor, is a very reasonable solution. Note that the WMF imposed the change to a single edit tab without consensus or consulting the community. Here's the MWF's announcement. They unilaterally declared that they are going to drop from two edit links to just one. Alsee (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Well... that's extremely silly of them, especially given that on many other Wikimedia wikis there are two tabs. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Strange. I am editing id.wikipedia today and they have two edit tabs - one for VE and one for wikitext. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk @SunDawn I can explain the mess of wikis with random edit tab configurations. I'll try to keep this shortish. The WMF manager who came up with the single edit tab idea has been pushing an agenda to force everyone into VE. I spotted the single-tab project when he first started work on it. He assured me he wouldn't try to impose a VE-default without asking the community first. He then deployed an effectively stealth VE default - not visible to the existing community. He failed to respond to messages and Notifications in multiple places - for weeks. I had to escalate the issue to the Executive Director, she had to summoned him to answer to me. He claimed it was a ""bug"" and, to the Executive-director's-face, he assured us he'd fix it. He again disappeared, silently didn't fix it, when pressed later he admitted the ""bug"" was his plan all along, and declared he would not fix it. ANI ruled it's not uncivil to say a manager ""lies"" when the charge is supported by evidence. Three wikis rebelled with EnWiki and another Wiki writing hacks to the sitewide javascript to override his code. We came one step short of a second superprotect incident. Instead he relented and those three wikis were changed. He then abandoned the project part way through his attempted global-deployment, leaving the global wikis with randomly differing configurations. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) So, if there was never consensus to implement it here, and the code exists for other wikis why not just open an RfC to ask the WMF to add the second tab here? This seems like a relatively simple configuration to enable, and I don't see the phab task getting rejected if an RfC were to close in favor of this—especially at this point in time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Even better idea that what is suggested here. Why not have the cake and eat it?? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Strong support - VisualEditor is much much easier to use for casual editing than doing it via wikitext (atleast on Wikipedia, on other projects it is a different discourse). Learning an arcane markup language should not be one of the side-quests to writing an encylopedia. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Strong support with a but. Look, I run educational programs and each year I introduce dozens of newbies (students) to en wiki. And of course they ignore the choice prompt and half of them gets old code and they are unhappy/confused, and I have to manually help them with adjusting their preferences. This should've been the default years ago. However, I think that an even better choice is to give them ""both edit tabs"", so they can experiment with two modes. That's actually is what I try to get my students to have, interface wise. B/c let's face it, VE is good but editing anything template related is still a mess. (Tables suck in either version). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Support There's a lot of bad history with the visual editor, but it has made a lot of strides and is definitely a lot friendlier for a non-technical editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Support I recently joined Wikipedia (late June) and tbh the visual editor is much better than the text editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roads4117 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Support but still with the change option, oppose pure change - currently we appear to have wikitext as the default, with a big overlay asking which option people would like. I'd change that to Visual with the overlay. Options beat pure Visual, but this covers people who click out, not knowing which to go for. I don't see any reason this would involve it forgetting last selection, which obviously is more key, but the current system doesn't have any issues with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Give both edit tabs as described in my comments above. This will allow users to decide which editing style that they would like to use, while harming nobody. It's the best of both worlds, and it seems more sensible than trying to address this issue by tweaking the default option. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strong support joined Wikipedia in 2014 but immediately stopped because it was just frustrating to learn how to edit. Since visual editor was included I have found it easier to edit and then learn from while actually adding useful content and not to be bothered by formatting refs, tables, etc. It is just easier. I am sure if other new users new about this discussion you will have an avalanche of support. To be honest, it took me a while to understand if this was actually a matter of opinion and not a fact that Virtual editor is just excellent! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Oppose. While I agree that VE can be more easy to use for new editors, it still isn't ready to be dafault option for them. For example, when adding refs, VE automatically give them names, like "":0"", "":1"" and so on. And, unknown to new editors, this auto-generated names cause duplicate ref errors, harming verifiability of articles and forcing more experienced editors to clean them up. So, until this and other defiences of VE is fixed, much better option is to make default syntax highlightning, live preview and editing toolbar. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Arado Ar 196: What is the context in which the references are duplicated? Do you mean when a reference is already in use with a name that VE doesn't recognize, so it generates a new one? Is the assumption that a new user, if they overcame the learning curve to using the source editor to begin with, would know how to search for and find named references rather than add a new one anyway? Or am I misunderstanding your point? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: I mean when two different refs have same name (like that:, same refs with unique names:). My assumption is that a new user, learning to add refs with source editor, will also learn to either give them unique names or leave them unnamed. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 05:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Source names would presumably help editors who want to edit the same page more than once. A basic source code functionality that sadly never made it to VE. Raised on Phab in 2013, 2015, and 2020, raised on the community wishlist in 2017, 2019, and now 2023. Hope springs eternal. CMD (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) @Arado Ar 196, can you give me some diffs with this happening? The visual editor should never give an new ref the same name as an existing ref. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC) @Whatamidoing (WMF): Yes, in simple conditions (two refs are added in one article), VE will give them different names. Problems start when added named refs are copypasted/transcluded to somewhere else. Look here: [2]Visual edit, adding new source (1 use, so no name)+re-using source from table (VE adds ref name "":0"") - All clear, no errors [3]Useful table is copypasted to new template - ref still has name "":0"" [4]Visual edit, ref added with content, most likely copied from somewhere, 'cause 1 use but has name - Error occurs, because ref from templated table has same "":0"" name [5] a certain editor removes ref name from template - No more error (even in old revisions, 'cause transcluded template is fixed). Pretty easy to fix when you knew where problematic ref name is, but can easily get complicated with multiple transcluded sections, like here:[6][7][8]. And all this would be prevented if VE allowed giving refs unique name when re-using them. Because unique names (like ""Merck"" or ""RadExpMerck"" in example above) are much less likely to conflict with ref names in somewhere else. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 06:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, @Arado Ar 196. Diff #3 is almost certainly a copy/paste problem, because the same editor added and re-used that ref three minutes earlier in a different article. If the is directly in the article, the visual editor will renumber it (diff – this was "":0"" when I pasted it, but "":3"" when it saved). However, if the ref is transcluded from elsewhere (including in an infobox), it can't 'see' the existence of the ref, so the visual editor doesn't know that it needs to re-number it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)SupportI have hardly used the text editor and still find it difficult to use ""proper"" wiki markup which someone seems to argue has to be the one of the text editor. I edit in the visual editor and if anyone disagrees with my wiki markups or sourcing in the visual editor I am sorry and grateful for advice. I believe we could just accept that the vast majority of wikipedia users (editors and readers) aren't programmers and would likely more easily be retained as editors if the visual editor is the default.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Support – the defects of VE are not pressing or bad enough to overrule the absolute intimidation and foreignity that the source editor will doubtlessly present to brand new editors. – Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC) === VE default discussion === Ping Femke (alt) DFlhb 0xDeadbeef to consider the WMF's research on this question, that I posted above. You posted while I was writing and digging up the cited info. Alsee (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The WMF research shows correlation, not causation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Preface: I want to address administrators, bureaucrats, and other contributors to Wikipedia. I am not advertising anything in this message, it is just important for me to try to improve the project, to attract participants, to improve conditions for editors. ""Hello everyone. I would like to address all members of Wikipedia. It's good to see everyone in this project. I believe that each of you love Wikipedia and like to spend as much time in it as you want, because doing what you love can be endless. However, you would hardly refuse financial support, a kind of ""tip"" for working in your favorite project. I joined the project about 5 years ago myself, and over the years I have noticed several things: once successful and energetic participants leave Wikipedia: sometimes because of burnout and other reasons, but in most cases it is due to the need to plan their lives, and not everyone has the strength, resources, time, or desire to stay. Sometimes the desire is there, but the opportunity is simply not there. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I love people who are willing to help pro bono, but I want those people to get feedback. I think editors also want ""tips."" I appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation and its staff: add the ability to donate financially to Wikipedia editors. Henry Ford used to pay employees for their vacations - and they worked much more efficiently. There's just one important point - donations need to be added in all language sections. Why can YouTube, Ticktock bloggers get donations from fans of their work and creativity, but not less talented Wikipedia contributors can't? All you need to do is add another button next to the ""Thank you"" button (the participant for the edit) - ""Donate"" to the participant for the edit. If you want to support me, speak up below, I've also created a Change.org petition that you can sign and help distribute (https://chng.it/CKYRQK4G). Love you all. Have a nice day. P.S. - used the translator, sorry for any inconvenience. Алексей Старовойтов (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC) As a Wikipedia editor, I don't want readers to swell my personal bank account. What I would love is for them to have a way to donate to Wikipedia – to have their money used to fund projects editors vote for, such as addressing the huge backlog of MediaWiki bugs and enhancement requests, rather than disappear into a general WMF fund which sponsors a Ruritanian equality workshop or creates another post for an ethical diversity advisor. Certes (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I'm afraid I may have been misunderstood, so I'll correct myself a bit. I was not referring to replacing donations to the Foundation with donations to participants. It is necessary to have both. If any participant doesn't need the funds, they can redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. Алексей Старовойтов (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) What you are saying is that you want the Foundation to employ editors, paid for by donations. Even if that's a good idea, it would be a logistical nightmare to set up(which would also be costly) and likely there would be privacy issues. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Whatever the merits of the proposal or lack thereof, providing a micropayment system for users to contribute to individual editors would not necessarily constitute employing paid editors, but would simply create an incentive for editors to make more and higher quality edits. It’s not a bad idea. Not everyone can afford to donate their time pro bono, and even a slight deferment to offset the loss of time and effort may make enough of a difference to increase the number and diversity of editors, which I do see as a significant problem impacting the quality of the wiki and its perception in the broader community. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I'd support having a system that provided some relevant material reward to highly productive editors (counting myself in that cohort). I would guess that many of us who provide value to the project could benefit from upgrades to the equipment we use to edit, and access to sources beyond those available through the Wikipedia Library. I personally have in the past purchased reference works useful to the improvement of specific sets of articles, and have worn out several computer mouses fixing large tranches of disambiguation links (I think New York alone took about 70,000 mouse clicks). BD2412 T 23:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC) How would you define 'highly productive'? Judging by the number of high-edit-count contributors who have found themselves sanctioned or blocked/banned by the project in recent years, I'd have to suggest that a raw edit count would be a highly inappropriate metric, and I can't think of any alternative off the top of my head that wouldn't be inherently subjective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Raw edit count isn't irrelevant though. I would also look at contribution to GAs/FAs (an area in which I am admittedly somewhat lacking), DYKs, creation and expansion of non-stub new articles. Certainly I would put the burden on anyone seeking support to show their work beyond merely ""I have a high edit count"", but we can set up smart enough measures of evidence. BD2412 T 04:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Blocking results from bad edits, and someone with a million edits has probably made more bad choices than someone with a hundred. However, despite the occasional error, they've also added vastly more net value to Wikipedia. That's the important metric and, although it can be hard to measure, it seems strongly correlated with edit count. Certes (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Given the number of editors blocked, banned, or sanctioned in the top end of WP:EDITS, I think you could reasonably argue that edit count is a piss-poor metric of quality or value-added to Wikipedia. It's easy to generate thousands of edits doing basically nothing if you want. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'd like to echo a few things raised by other editors: 1) for obvious reasons, it might be wise if WMF was attempting to help LT contributors maintain appropriate equipment, connection, and data security, 2) purely to assist with our costs of volunteering, it would be useful for a wider array of library-like local sources like current newspapers be made available by Foundation allies, 3) the WMF might consider a wider program of grants and scholarships towards improving and encouraging the volunteer pool. My highest priority is the sustainability and survival of the program, and substantial foundation liquidity is essential to protect the mission. We also need to see Internet Archive well managed and liquid. I've raised my concerns below, but I believe opening this floodgate could be a pandora's box for Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Oppose. Money, even small amounts of money, attracts bad actors and system-gamers. No issue with individual editors putting donation links on their user pages though. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)We have a stop-gap half-measure, which are grants. Some of them are small. Pl wiki offers mini grants/reimbursements for stuff like buying a book or even a camera (for folks who upload photos). See meta:Grants for a start. Note that I personally think micro grants are good but I have serious concerns about abuse in large grants (TL;DR, I fear some larger grantees are inflating costs to profit while producing next to no benefit for us). But, to reiterate, I think small grants, refunding books, library access, etc. are a good thing to pursue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Having carefully studied all the arguments, I propose possible solutions to these issues: I mean to add the ability to donate to regular editors, but not to remove the ability to donate to the Foundation. In my opinion, donations to participants will not interfere with donations to the Foundation itself. That is, readers will have a choice: to send money to the Fund or any editor, whose contribution they like. An important point: I propose that it is not the Foundation that gives donations to participants, but the readers of the project (although I do not exclude the help of the Foundation, if necessary). If some of the participants do not want to receive donations - we need to add a function that allows to refuse donations. If anyone doesn't want donations and thinks the Foundation needs the money more, we need to add a feature that allows the editor to redirect the donations to the Foundation. If some participants have money, they will have the opportunity to spend it on technical means (equipment, literature, media subscriptions, etc.) and therefore the Foundation will no longer have to spend money on grants to participants, but concentrate its attention and finances on more global and important issues. If anyone is intimidated by large amounts of donations or by turning Wikipedia into a place where many people will want to make money or will want to use donations as a payment system, it is reasonable to put a limit on the maximum amount of donations that can be sent to the editor per payment, for example about $1-$10. If by confidentiality problem you mean payment data of participants, this problem is solvable too, for example on YouTube, when you sponsor authors, you don't see their payment data, a good example. How do I know which authors should be allowed to accept donations and which should not? After all, there are authors who are detrimental and not very competent. For example, you could make it so that authors can only receive donations if they have been on the project long enough (although this measure would not solve the problem). Or it would be a special page where editors could apply for permission to accept donations. Or the ability to accept donations would be assigned at the same time as flags (e.g. ""Patroller"", ""Administrator"", ""Bureaucrat""). Since these flags are not just assigned, nor are they assigned to everyone they meet, this could solve the problem. As for grants, I've already made my point, if readers can donate to participants, then participants can cover equipment costs themselves, and the Foundation would not have to spend its own money on such programs, or at least it would at least reduce the Foundation's costs for these items. And besides, my proposed donations should, in my idea, increase the number of editors who can receive financial support, since the Foundation cannot satisfy absolutely all participants with grants. Алексей Старовойтов (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC) The suggestions above are a roadmap to Wikipedia's social irrelevance, but I'm glad somebody said it. BusterD (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)This is scary material for discussion. I'd be interested in links to previous discussions on this inevitable subject. In the hypothetical, a request for ""donations"" reminds me of the run of '89 (without insult all to disenfranchised First Nations people, of course, but with all of the unintended consequences). I can't be the only wikipedian who has a view of how the pedia might one day die. I'm going to take a liberty to describe my thoughts. The WMF seems to be applying pressure on editors to subscribe to a UCC as volunteers, not paid employees. As a sysop, I feel strongly I'm here by and for the community, not the foundation. From another view, many longtime regular contributors perform important work without which an online encyclopedia truly still in infancy might not survive, and many of those editors are senior human beings who could utilize the stipend. What is true is that none of us will last forever, some of us may be corrupted or co-opted (by money or pressure), and as Larry Lessig once said in a Wikimania keynote, text is becoming the new Latin. My grandchild is no longer taught to read my handwriting. It is an amazing time, and how the world's largest online experiment for getting along reacts to these forces will make for a social experiment worthy of Hari Seldon. The foundation wants to give admins, functionaries and twenty-year contributors a stipend, that's one thing. Creating a way to donate to individual editors may turn us all into paid editors, and transform Wikipedia into Twitter or Facebook, neither fully functional nor socially relevant. BusterD (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Adding a paypal me link for editors down the side of talk pages wouldn't be technically difficult if people were willing to give their email addresses and source for payment, but very few of our readers check the history of an article, and given the collaborative nature of the project singling out one editor for writing something can be difficult, particularly on core topics. I think you'd find next to nobody would send editors money individually and it would be a waste of time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Considering the proliferation of UPE the last few years, I'm sure there are dozens of reputation protection and pr firms who'd love to legally pay editors for popular contributions. Am I the only person to see this? The ""how"" isn't relevant before the ""if"" or ""why."" BusterD (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC) No. you're not the only person to see that this is an incredibly bad idea. I can just imagine an editor saying in a discussion about what to include, ""but five people paid me for this edit"". No, just no. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, I just wanted to add the rebuttal of - this would encourage both functional paid editing ""do editing in this area, where your odds of working on content that aids my business is higher"" as well as irrevocably breaking our reputation for such. If the WMF wants to directly handle acquisition of sources and such, perhaps through the Wikimedia Library, that's always good. But tips? No thanks. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I found a quarter once at a Wikipedia conference. My new pay grade. But I do wish the Foundation greatly funded full conferences, offered room and board to editors traveling to cover a topic (when one editor, okay, I'll name him, Another Believer, goes into a city he photographs and writes articles for most of the statues in that city - a wonderful use of travel time. I say fund a few trips for editors who have shown their proficiency on things like this). And, yes, full funding of events and participants in a gala VivaWikiVegas for a North American Conference, well-earned party and meet-up occasion using Foundation money saved during the covid years. The Foundation really should be funding more Wikipedia editors and projects, to the tune of 10-20 million a year for a few years. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) If editors could be paid for edits then some of them would abuse it. For example, delete a large part of an article with an alternative account and restore it while claiming credit. Or make an unattributed copy to another article. Or make edits you think are popular with somebody willing and able to pay, e.g. removing negative well-sourced material about a company. Imagine articles where it becomes known or just rumored that certain types of edits are likely to get paid. I think there would be too few donors who are both willing to pay and properly judge who actually deserves pay for improving Wikipedia. ""What is the chance somebody will pay for this?"" should not be a thought when you make an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose as it's open to abuse. We already have Wikimedia editathons with prizes that just encourage users to make tons of poor quality edits rather than helping the encyclopedia (e.g. an annual spam as many poor quality pictures into article challenge). Don't see how paying people to do more edits would have an actual benefit to the encyclopedia, as it would change motivation of some editors from being useful to doing as much small junk things as they can to make money. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I would support the WMF hiring people or otherwise subsidizing them to edit and/or mediate neutrally on contentious topics, subject to extensive oversight by the community itself. But I think that the model proposed here of donating directly to editors in a decentralized fashion is unlikely to work for the various reasons identified by other editors above. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) +1 Levivich (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC) NO! This is an amazingly and stupendously bad idea. Just say no. Regards, GenQuest ""scribble"" 00:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) If so many people can come together and contribute to a shared goal, then is paid editing ever needed? I think not. As others have said, I believe it will lead to people joining for the money, rather than joining for what we are truly here for: to create a free encyclopedia. Anything that could detract from that ultimate goal is a bad idea. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC) If people want to donate in support of the project, but don't want to donate to the Foundation, then donate to the Internet Archive or any other project that provides free access to reliable sources. I just ""checked out"" a book for an hour from the Internet Archive yesterday to use as a source in an article I'm working on. I also use the Wayback Machine a lot, and periodically contribute to the Internet Archive. - Donald Albury 13:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose Just no. Too easy to abuse. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Confession I've actually been soliciting donations to further my own editing. After all, obtaining sources costs money, an increasing amount of money since I started editing, & I figure I could get money in a way that did not influence the POV of what I wrote. (Examples: I've found that some of the books I need for Ethiopian & Classical History have set me back over $100, while most of the rest are at least $50 a volume. I've encountered more & more a charge for ILL materials, such as Duke University charging me $15 for me to borrow one of their books.) So far, opening accounts at Go Fund Me, & Buy Me a Coffee have netted me exactly $1 in total. To be good at raising money in these ways, one has to be good at self-promotion, & if I were good at self-promotion I'd probably have been writing & publishing books & making a living that way. Instead I write articles on Wikipedia.One proposal I have been promoting is for the Foundation to set up a process for awarding research moneys. (Yes, the Foundation offers grants, but nowhere is it explained if, when or how it will provide grants for research. At least no where that I've looked. Maybe that's changing.) Providing grants of $50 to $100, maybe $500, is not going to ruin the seriousness of any established editor, but it might be an incentive to keep an experienced editor from drifting away. In my case, receiving a modest grant -- say $100 to $250, which is not enough money for me to live on, unless I live in a developing country where the minimum wage is $2 a day -- would have provide an incentive to improve some of the articles I've worked on to GA or FA class. -- llywrch (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC) I think you are optimistic that that wouldn't have any impact on the individuals writing (including the risk that editors who might indeed have taken something to FA without it, decide to take it to a good level and then ask for the research grant - and not progressing if they don't receive it). Perhaps more significantly, it would give the WMF a means to push content they wanted to see more of - indirect Editor status, and the WMF has public, established, social and political positions that (for example) en-wiki has !voted and confirmed a neutrality on. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC) How about a home for wayward senior wikipedians? This is an avocation I will take with me to my last days (a thought lately inspired watching the impressive Doug Weller log in every day). We'd merely need to qualify the word ""wayward"". BusterD (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I agree with the concerns above that this is open to abuse, but along the lines of User:BD2412's suggestion: instead of giving editors cash, why not use donations to fund access to sources for editors to use, along the lines of the Wikipedia Library? I can see from comments above that I'm not the only one who has spent my own money on sources to use for Wikipedia editing. If the Wikipedia Library could be expanded with paywalled news sources, more extensive access to academic journals, and ebooks (especially scholarly books), that would help me improve the quality of my contributions. Physical books might also be a possibility. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose, As other users have stated, it shouldn't be included with Wikipedia itself, it should more be a private thing on something like GoFundMe. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 03:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) How about a pool of funds for books/source access that anyone could chip into, or something like an Amazon wishlist. Some chapters offer small grants for that sort of thing (I know Wikimedia UK does; I don't know how receptive they would be scaling it up though). But the cost of source material can be one of the biggest barriers to writing quality content (my Amazon wishlist totals about £3,000 and it's almost all books for potential Wikipedia articles), so any subsidy could make a big difference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Good idea, I have suggested something similar for content improvement in the past. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)A rough back-of-the-envelope guess is that the English Wikipedia is built from about $5 Billion in volunteer time. A payment for some tiny fraction of that would probably make a mess out of things and has the danger of being an insult. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Opposefor now. It's not well thought through. I do not believe in self promotion and I am more in favor of a wikipedia solution. There are several competitions that actually already award small amounts of money on wikipedia. I believe the photographic one from commons is one. And one can also apply for grants from wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space? 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) === Details === Selection criteria: Generated using a Quarry query, these 960 articles meet the following criteria and are a subset of the articles created by Lugnuts: Athletes who competed in the 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, or 1912 Olympics Never won an Olympic medal Articles are smaller than 2,500 bytes Referenced only to Olympedia or Sports Reference No significant contributions from editors other than LugnutsIf this proposal is successful: All articles on the list will be draftified, subject to the provisions below: Draftified articles will be autodeleted after 5 years (instead of the usual 6 months) Any editor may userfy any draft (which will prevent autodeletion) Any WikiProject may move a draft to their WikiProject space (which will also prevent autodeletion) Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG Editors may return drafts to mainspace for the sole purpose of redirecting/merging them to an appropriate article, if they believe that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia === Background === In the 2022 Deletion ArbCom case, ArbCom found (Finding #6) that User:Lugnuts had created over 93,000 articles, ""the most articles of any editor ... Most of these were stubs, and relatively few have been expanded to longer articles"", which led to sanctions from the community and to Lugnuts being indefinitely sitebanned by Arbcom. Arbcom also mandated an RfC on mass deletion. A mass creation RfC took place but the mass deletion RfC did not, and the RFC mandate was rescinded, leaving the question of how to handle mass-created microstubs such as these unresolved. This proposal suggests a method for resolving this question, with a group of articles that can be used to test the proposed resolution. === Survey (Olympian draftification) === Support. The alternative to this proposal is bringing hundreds or thousands of articles through AfD each month and that alternative is not practical. These are articles that took minutes, sometimes seconds, to create; each AfD consumes hours of community time and it would be a waste to spend more collective time assessing each of them individually than was spent on their creation. Further, editors who support keeping these articles object on the grounds that the workload is too high; that it is impossible to search for sources with the diligence required in the time available and as a consequence articles on notable topics are deleted.This proposal resolves both of those issues; editors will have time to search for sources, and considerable amounts of our most limited resource, editor time, will be saved. We also cannot leave the articles as are; we have a responsibility to curate the encyclopedia, to remove articles that do not belong on it due to failing to meet our notability criteria or due to violating our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Failing to do so is also harmful to the project; it reinforces the perception among the public that Wikipedia is mostly empty around the edges and that anything is notable, and it reinforces the perception among editors that creating large numbers of microstubs that do not inform the reader is as good or better than creating smaller numbers of informative articles. These are articles that all violate the fifth basic sports notability criteria, on topics that usually lack notability, that no one edits, that almost no one looks at, and that are so bereft of information that they are of no benefit to the reader. Removing the group will improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and by doing it in this manner we provide the best hope of the articles on notable topics being identified, improved, and returned to mainspace. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Disagreed on pretty much all points. These articles improve the scope and quality of the encyclopedia, they are often useful for every day users, and have little to no impact on how others view Wikipedia in my opinion. Ortizesp (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) These articles receive less than one page view per day, so they are not often useful; even the web crawlers don't use them every day. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC) And? It's useful to that person per day that's looking at it, not sure there's a number for usefulness. Ortizesp (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Less than one per day means nobody is looking at them except web crawlers. The lowest one on the list has 20 views in a year. Some of these have been like this for over ten years. These articles are dust in the attic. Levivich (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't agree that the views an article gets dictates whether it should be kept or not. Ortizesp (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Support assuming the query issues are fixed. Not worth the time to individually delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support I'm generally suspicious of mass action, but this feels like a reasonable first step to solving a difficult situation. For one, it's clear that some kind of cleanup is required, and increasing AfD workload by something like half for literal years simply cannot be the only solution. The proposed extremely extended draftification seems like a suitably conservative approach (to the point that I'm not sure five years is truly required), giving editors plenty of time rescue any articles that warrant rescuing while ensuring that (most of) those which do not warrant retaining are eventually (even if after an extensive wait) removed. The set of articles identified here (or rather, the criteria used to identify it) seems like a very ""safe"" subset with high accuracy to the point of sacrificing recall.I'm sure that this type of mass action will not be sufficient to solve this situation completely: there will inevitably be literally thousands of articles that will need to be checked by hand and discussed individually. But filtering out some of the ""worst"" ones out for a start should conserve everyone's energy for the less clear-cut cases.I'd also support an alternative where these would be redirected to ""Country at year season Olympics"" as suggested by Curbon7 in § Discussion, below. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I just rescued Addin Tyldesley now. Just wasn't aware of it previously, but I saved an article in probably even less time than it took to suggest it be deleted.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) No independent RS were added demonstrating he meets GNG, so the article wasn't ""rescued"". JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Articles can't be judged on new standards, as those can always change. Just as someone had 5 years to edit this, people here had years to mark this as a draft or to delete it.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Your response is farcical. You added literally nothing to that article that would get it to pass this project's notability threshold. That is not debatable. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I prefer draftification as I believe it makes the articles easier to work on but I would support redirection as a second choice, with the requirements to restore the article being the same in regards to sourcing. As it appears there is some support for this alternative I've created a list of proposed targets to allow it to be properly discussed. Note that some articles have multiple targets; a way to resolve that issue would be required. I assume the editors in support of this proposal would support this alternative, at least as a second choice, as this proposal already includes that possibility; Rhododendrites, Black Kite, Pawnkingthree, would you support this alternative as your first choice rather than opposing entirely? BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) That would be my first choice, yes., Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support These have not been shown to meet the basic notability requirements of NSPORTS including ""A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage"" and ""Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."" Draftification is the best solution to prevent these mass-created stubs from being any more of a time sink, while giving folks the opportunity to work on any that can be proven notable. I think this RfC format will be the best way forward to deal with these mass creations. –dlthewave ☎ 13:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support For the reasons given. IMO the ideal final result would be to have each of these end up as one line in a table in a broader article. This proposal is a good framework handle that possibility if the 5 year thing is doable. If not, then we have 6 months for somebody to take that on. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support - Per above as a necessary step in clearing out the issues caused by the mass creation. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose - Draftification when the author of the page is blocked is just delayed deletion. Contrary to what BilledMammal says, creating a glut of AfDs is not actually the only alternative. There are three other options: (1) redirect them all to the relevant team/event articles. Articlespace pages for people mentioned in other articles should redirect to those articles anyway, even if the articles are draftified. If redirects are reverted, choose another from this list or send to AfD at that time. Further, for those whose efforts at redirecting have been thwarted, I'd even support a proposal to redirect them all, putting the burden on anyone recreating the article to demonstrate notability. (2) Rather than assume all 960 people are exactly the same, with exactly the same available sourcing, help figure out which are actually notable and improve those. (3) Anything else. There's zero exigency here. I certainly wouldn't say these stubs do anyone any good (and am opposed to the creation of stubs based on databases), but these stubs weren't created illicitly, and they don't harm the project in any way except for the drama that has grown around them. There's no obligation to deal with them. Personally, I prefer #1, but including the others because the threat of ""otherwise we'll have to tank AfD"" is silliness. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support Non-notable stubs are of no benefit to the reader in their current form, and AfD can't handle this amount. Avilich (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose, deleting a thousand pages (which is what this amounts to) for drama-based reasons doesn't build the encyclopedia but seeks to tear out a major part of its Olympic collection. Voices of reason needed please, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirection, Oppose draftification Even as something of a deletionist, I am somewhat perplexed as to why these need to be draftified. If they're not good enough, why not simply redirect them to the relevant event, event group or Games article? At least that might help someone searching for them. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support as Lugnuts created so many thousands of Olympian biographies that comprehensively fail WP:SPORTCRIT that it is not realistic to expect that editors can address them all within the next several years using our standard processes (i.e., finding and adding WP:SIGCOV, which if it exists most of it is stored in difficult-to-access, non-English-language archives, identifying appropriate redirects, proposing and nominating for deletion) without completing overwhelming AfD. This moves these biographies out of mainspace for 5 years, so there is sufficient time for interested editors to address them. As the query shows, on a given day, Lugnuts was often creating 50+ of these biographies. I think that Lugnuts' highly unusual article creation justifies the movement of so many of those articles out of mainspace at once. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Articles should not be judged under rules that didn't exist when they were created. And we know this is happening, because if those rules existed, those articles wouldn't have existed. If someone tomorrow makes a rule that all articles have to mention ""jello"" or be deleted, we would lose almost all of the site overnight.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Even if that nonsensical approach was used, the rule that all athletes must meet GNG was in place at the time Lugnuts created these articles. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) No, we considered all Olympic athletes at the time automatically notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That is not true, GNG coverage was always presumed to exist for Olympians but it was never an automatic notability pass. Editors were just more reluctant to challenge Olympians because that presumption was considered strong. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support - When someone copies a database and pastes it into Wikipedia by the thousands, creating tiny stubs on subjects that don't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SNG, and then never touches the articles again, and no one else reads or edits the articles, for years, even over a decade... the articles are not worth keeping in mainspace (WP:NOT). We will never be able to get through these at AFD, there are too many. Some say redirect them all, some say expand them, some say delete... this procedure is flexible and allows editors plenty of time (five more years) to deal with these titles as they see fit (redirect, merge, draft, expand, userfy, WikiProject). It's better than an WP:XCSD, and it's better than leaving them in mainspace, unedited and unviewed, forever. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose (now support redirection) I don't see any reason why every single one of them cannot just be redirected to the relevant Olympic article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC) If this proposal passes, they can still all be redirected, by any editor at any time. If this proposal fails, they won't be redirected. So why oppose? Levivich (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Draftification of a stub is only useful if there's someone immediately available and interested in working on it. Instead of having them sit for five years in draftspace, the title should be in mainspace redirecting to a useful article if a reader searches for it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I understand your point -- in fact, I agree with it. But right now, we can't turn them into redirects (when editors try, it gets reverted). We can't have 1,000+ discussions about ""should this be a redirect"". If this proposal passes, then we can redirect these titles. If this proposal doesn't pass, then we're back to the status quo: can't redirect, would need a second RFC just about redirect, which we can't have for a while after this RFC ends (for the usual reasons). So if you believe these should be redirected, I urge you to support this proposal, so that anyone who wants to turn these into redirects can do so for whatever articles on this list they think should be redirected (and of course the articles could still get expanded into real articles by anyone who wants to do so). Proposal Provision #5, about redirects, was written specifically for editors who believe these should be redirects. #5 (redirect) is an option on the menu of this proposal; I don't think it would help improve the encyclopedia to oppose this proposal because #5 isn't the only option on the menu: that would be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I'd ask you to consider ""support #5 only"" rather than opposing. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, you can turn them into redirects. In fact, many redirects have g45one unopposed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) So if you believe these should be redirected, I urge you to support this proposal - (Here and elsewhere) your argument that redirect is compatible with this proposal is bizarre. By the same logic, it would also be compatible with absolutely any other mass action that's not redirecting, because you can always redirect them afterwards. For anyone who thinks they should be redirected, draftification is just an unnecessary additional step that adds a countdown clock to the redirection process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) No because if you go and redirect the articles now, someone will revert you, and then you have to WP:BRD that stuff, meaning 1,000 discussions. If this proposal passes, then someone can redirect these articles, and no one could revert that unless they added a GNG source per #4 and #5 of this proposal. This proposal fundamentally is about getting consensus that these microstubs should not remain as they are, and then allowing a wide variety of options for how to deal with them. IMO no one should be opposing unless they think the stubs are fine to be left alone the way they are (which some people do, reasonable minds can disagree). Levivich (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support: When articles ammount to little more than a name, birth date, death date, nationality and a sport they have competed in, they should not be kept as articles. And with 960 of these articles it is unrealistic to keep them in the article space and add more references and information for each in a timley manner, so draftifying these articles is the appropriate action. Terasail[✉️] 15:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support: and, I'd argue that this IS the way to address Rhododendrites' second point casualdejekyll 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose, per a few above. Mass draftifiying Olympians is not a good idea for several reasons: Many of these are notable and can be expanded: As I said at the original discussion on this at the proposer's userpage, many of these are notable. I chose for example two random participants – Albert Bechestobill and Lou Scholes. For Bechestobill, quickly located was full-page coverage in major newspapers; for Scholes, easily found were articles describing him as ""the best oarsman the world ever produced."" The majority I would say could be expanded if the right sources were used, it just takes time to write things (unlike deleting them) – just yesterday I wrote a decent article on Emil Schwegler (formerly on this list) and today I plan on getting to Jay Nash McCrea – its just it takes time to do it; I can't go around and write 900 articles a day. This will result in the mass deletion of boatloads of notable articles: As said above, many of these are notable. That being said, what this is basically is just the delayed removal of the majority of them under the nice-sounding tone ""you can just move it back if its notable – and everything works out"" – if this is approved here's what will happen: all these articles get moved to draftspace, only a couple get worked on (I doubt that there's going to be a ton of eager editors who want to help out in writing articles on 1900/10s Olympians), and then eventually just about all of them get deleted. Additionally the proposer has made it clear he plans on going after the rest if this passes, which will result in not just the initial 1,000, but then the rest of the 90,000 also being put there. We do not have the time, energy or resources to expand 90,000 articles in a short period of time with deletion the consequence if we do not. And I'll bet that BM and his deletionist buddies will go after other sports if they get rid of the Olympians, and then the rest of stubs until this place becomes a perfect deletionist paradise. But back to the consequences of just this being passed: many many notable articles will get deleted in the end, and a few improved. Does that help the encyclopedia? NO. There is no harm in keeping these. The only harm that could possibly be done would be if this is passed, which will (as said above) result in many notable articles being deleted, and a few improved. That is not an improvement to Wikipedia at all And it would especially not be an improvement if this passes because then it would possibly lead to absolute loads more being proposed to be removed and likely removed. 1,000 short articles provides much more overall value than a few nicer-looking ones in my opinion. There are other ways in dealing with them. As Rhododendrites said above, there are several different ways that these could be dealt with than mass draftification. The proposers are stressing that ""oh its way too hard to have these at AFD"" – AFD is not the only option. Of the numerous different ways these could be dealt with, my personal favorite – expand them. So in conclusion, mass draftifying nearly a thousand Olympians would have a terrible effect on the encyclopedia, and is completely unnecessary. Signed, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose So, there are several problems with this discussion. First, and only tangentially related to my vote, but still bears mentioning, is the statement ""which led to sanctions from the community and to Lugnuts being indefinitely sitebanned by Arbcom. The initial ban was for ""Canvassing, incivility, bludgeoning, spamming"" (quote taken from the initial ban proposal); it was not the creation of stubs per se that led to the ban. Furthermore, the Arbcom ban does not explicitly state that it was merely for creating the stub articles in the first place. Indeed, the ban was enacted under a variety of problem, including ""making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior."" and notes things like ""been blocked for conduct at AfD"" (both quotes from the ArbCom page). The OP makes the disingenuous post hoc ergo propter hoc assertion that they were banned because they created the above article stubs. They were banned for things like being disruptive to the AFD process and battleground behavior, making personal attacks. All of that is sanctionable offenses. Creating stub articles is not. I can go create a stub article right now and no one would be proposing to ban me. So the very premise that the ban was enacted merely because some stubs were created is a non-starter for me. That being said, what do we do with all of these stubs? Nothing at all. If the article meets the standards to be an allowable stub article if it hadn't been created by Lugnuts, like if it was just a stub created by someone else, then there's no reason to do anything special to it because it was created by Lugnuts. They're perfectly fine in the mainspace. If you find one of the stubs you want to expand, do so. If you find one of the stubs should be deleted, WP:AFD is thataway. If you don't want to do either of those things, doing nothing is perfectly fine too. Even if the OP's initial statement wasn't fraught with the errors I already noted, I would still oppose treating these stubs any differently than any other random stub someone might happen to trip over. --Jayron32 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Preliminary question. I am open to a proposal to delete many of the early Olympic participants, but this appears a proposal to delete hundreds of articles without even providing a list of the articles to be deleted. Maybe I'm wrong. Is there a list of the proposed deletions? Before casting a vote, I would like to see a list and have an opportunity to peruse it. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) @Cbl62: The list is in a collapsed green box at the top of the proposal, right below the question and above the ""details"" section. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support. There are not any perfect options here, but I think this is the best. If someone wants to shepherd some draft stubs back, there's ample time to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support either this or mass redirecting. Pre-WW1 Olympians are usually not notable, and so most of these can never become full articles. —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Also, I propose removing from the list those who competed in the Olympics after 1912 – this is supposed to be from 1896 to 1912, not after as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC) We also should not have ones that were kept at AFD (post sports RFC) on this list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)This discussion has been added to Wikipedia's list of centralized discussions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support, and I would add that we need to review more than 960 articles at a time; at such a low rate, cleaning up after Lugnuts will take about 8 years.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. Per Wikipedia's deletion policy, draftification must not be used as a ""backdoor to deletion"". Because abandoned drafts are deleted after six months, moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles... or as the result of a deletion discussion. Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. This proposal is an extremely clear attempt to mass draftify articles as a backdoor to deletion. The nominator writes that the alternative is not practical but there is another alternative not considered in the OP's arguments—using the articles for deletion process to make decisions with respect to a single mass AfD of these sorts of things. Also, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is pretty clear that literally anyone can object to the draftification of a particular article and revert it to the mainspace, so I'm not sure that this would actually achieve the resolution that the proposer of this RfC desires (all it would take is a few editors to restore one article to mainspace per day over the next six months for this mass draftification to end up back where we started, and that seems to just be delaying sending these to AfD). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) By extending the autodeletion period to five years the specifics of this proposal are intended to prevent this being a backdoor to deletion, and the various options around article adoption and article redirection are also intended to prevent that. It will also prevent improper restorations; if there is a consensus for this proposal editors will only be permitted to restore these articles to mainspace after adding sources containing significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Will this apply to all draftified articles, or just to the 960? My understanding is that we have an adminbot delete old drafts if they are more than 6 months untouched. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Only to the 960. The specifics of this need to be determined, but there are plenty of options and the required bot modifications will be minor. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support. The proposal is unprecedented, and I am generally opposed to mass actions of this type. Despite my reservations, I do support this proposal limited to early Olympians. My rationale is as follows: No reasonable expectation of notability. The past year of dozens and dozens AfD discussions has clearly demonstrated that mere participation in the Olympics in the early years of the games is in no way a basis to presume or expect that the individual is notable under our WP:GNG standard. Mass creation. The articles at issue were the product of a well-documented mass process in which thousands of articles were created at the rate of approximately a minute per article. Lack of substance. The articles are microstubs that contain limited narrative text simply reciting that the person was an athlete in a particular sport who competed in the Olympics X year. If the articles are ultimately deleted, nothing of real substance is lost. If SIGCOV is later uncovered and brought forth, and given the fact that only a minute or so was devoted to the original effort, the articles can be re-created without any meaningful loss of prior effort. Violation of SPORTBASIC. The articles violate prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC which provides: ""Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."" The articles here are sourced only to database sources and do not include SIGCOV. Cleanup of ""deliberate errors"". A departure from normal processes is also warranted by the unique case involving Lugnuts and his admission in August 2022 (here) that he added ""countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views."" Draftification of these low-page view articles permits screening for such errors.In sum, I support draftification in this narrow situation. In normal and less egregious circumstances, I would expect normal AfD or redirect procedures to be followed and would likely oppose such a proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. I originally supported but now BilledMammal is objecting to the removal from the list of articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) even though they have been expanded, now include SIGCOV, and are not based solely on database entry. IMO the extreme remedy of mass removal of articles should not be considered for articles that fall into a gray area. Such articles, if challenged, should be dealt with under regular order, by normal AfD processes. Cbl62 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Restoring support based on representation that Spitzer and Greene will not be draftified. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Support - seems the best thing to do. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose This is a backdoor attempt at deletion of articles via the Village Pump, and as such is an obvious violation of deletion policy. Take them to AFD if you want them deleted or demoted to drafts. Steven Walling • talk 19:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Lugnuts is Wikipedia's most prolific article starter, ever. He started rather more than 90,000 articles, most of which were biographies, and he's told us he put deliberate inaccuracies in them. If we nominated 10 of them at AfD every day, it would take nearly thirty years to process them all. I'm afraid that it's simply unfeasible and unrealistic to use AfD to clean up after Lugnuts. It would also be profoundly unfair on other editors to swamp our normal deletion processes with the quantities of articles involved.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Nominating a group of articles like hoaxes is explicitly called out as allowed in our deletion policy, per WP:BUNDLE. In addition to this being the wrong venue, the stated intent of the proposal is to test the waters for establishing a precedent for mass deletion, which is bad faith and not clearly about removing demonstrably bad articles that violate notability or verifiability policy. Steven Walling • talk 04:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) ""he's told us he put deliberate inaccuracies in them"" - is it proven? Not much room for inaccuracies in a stub. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Of course it's proven. Lugnuts claims he introduced deliberate inaccuracies into his stubs in this edit. Some don't believe him on that point, because he was ragequitting Wikipedia when he wrote that. Others might suspect that someone who often started upwards of 20 articles a day wasn't checking his facts carefully in the first place. Whichever side you take, it's my view that we have reasonable grounds to doubt the accuracy of this content.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Deleting 960 articles on the chance that there might be inaccuracies is a bit of a stretch. There might be inaccuracies in basically everything that isn't a GA or FA article, but there is no deadline for fixing work in progress, and perfection isn't required. These aren't BLPs, either. Steven Walling • talk 23:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) When the article author admits they've put deliberate inaccuracies and obfuscated copyvios in biographical articles, I'd normally expect a more active response than this from a sysop. I do hope you'll reconsider your position here.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Like you said, he was ragequitting. I wouldn't be surprised if he said that in order to make people delete all his articles as a ""f*ck you"" to the project. Steven Walling • talk 01:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) If that was what he wanted, he could have achieved it for almost all his articles with G7. I don't think that is what he wanted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Either way, the argument that we should mass delete a series of articles via a straw poll at the Village Pump is utter nonsense. These articles met notability requirements when they were created and many, if not most, of them probably still do. There's no way of knowing, when you nominate 960 at once based on a hunch, rather than an actual review of the articles and research into all the possible source material. Steven Walling • talk 05:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Have we gotten any proof aside from Lugnuts statements, that he has introduced deliberate inaccuracies? It's better to have no articles rather than a faulty article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @SunDawn: Plenty of inaccuracies have been found; whether or not they are deliberate is impossible to say for certain. One example has already been given in this thread by CMD. I just checked another random article myself; literally the first one I clicked on, Fyodor Zabelin, has the wrong birth date in the infobox. Since Lugnuts specifically mentioned birth dates in his claim that he had introduced deliberate errors, one might wonder whether this gives some ground for believing him. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Sojourner in the earth: Thank you for the information. This is a really strong case for total draftification. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Neither of them can be described as deliberate errors. Wrong date on infobox for Fyodor Zabelin must've been an error, as Lugnuts created Yrjö Vuolio (with that birth date) just 4 minutes earlier. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Pelmeen10, thanks for looking that up. I didn't read as far as your contribution but thought ""Lugnuts introducing deliberate errors? No way!"" I've worked a lot with Lugnuts on rowing articles and have always found him conscientious. So I did the exact same as you did: looked up what else did Lugnuts create on 16 July 2019 in that batch, found that he created 10 articles during 29 minutes, Zabelin was the second article in that batch and the birth date belonged to the first article. A simple database / copy-paste error. I think we should dismiss the idea of Lugnuts having introduced errors deliberately; that is simply not the editor who I had the pleasure working with. Schwede66 05:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Schwede66 - Just to be clear on this, this kind of totally careless article-creation (systematically reproducing errors), spread over many thousands of articles, is the kind of thing that would get you a warning first and eventually banned if you persisted in doing it nowadays. Accidental or not, competence is required. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose as Village Pump is not the place to mass delete articles, as is effectively beimg proposed here. No need for a mass decision on all of these articles, they should be checked according to relevant AFD policies individually as some will definitely be notable. Speedy redirecting should be used when there is clearly no notability. This range of dates is also completely arbitrary, with no justification for why the specific dates were chosen and why these people's notability should be assessed differently to Olympians of different years. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose unless there is a guarantee that the sources already in each article have been examined and any even marginally close calls removed. For example, I would have concerns about the inclusion of Alf Davies (swimmer) on this link - the sources suggest that there's a decent chance that there's more there in newspapers and so on. This isn't the first time lists like this have been put forward - I think we found a knight of the realm on one list... At that point I would still oppose in favour of redirecting where even remotely possible per WP:ATD (which is a policy not a guidelines) - draftifying like this is an utter waste of resources for everyone concerned, whereas a redirect preserves the page history and attribution and enables an article to be returned to if sources emerge and someone has the time and motivation to do so. Finding those initial sources, especially when some are archived, isn't as simple as some of the views here might suggest. We have alternatives to deletion; these are flat out more efficient and we should use them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support. I made a similar proposal at one of the many RfCs this past year, so of course I support this. I don't understand the ""backdoor to deletion"" hand-wringing or complaints about the possibility of inclusion of maybe notable athletes in this list. If there are people in there who you think might meet GNG, guess what!! You can personally take them out of draft space and work on them in your user space, thereby avoiding the extremely overly-lenient 5-year deadline. Or you could redirect them. Or put them in project space. These are all better for people who want to keep articles than leaving them in mainspace where they will likely be athlete #22 taken to AfD on any given day and you'll only have a week to find all those difficult-to-access sources that surely exist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support, the proposal is for a very targeted list, and the way these articles have been generated seems problematic. The first one I clicked on was Alexander Martin (Canadian sport shooter). That article, in its entirety: ""Alexander Martin (28 December 1864 – 26 October 1951) was a Canadian sports shooter. He competed in the 1000 yard free rifle event at the 1908 Summer Olympics."" I checked the Olympedia source and was immediately struck by ""Born: Glasgow, Died: Woking"". These are clearly not Canadian locations. Olympedia also lists two family member Olympians, both of whom apparently competed for the GBR NOC. So while Alexander Martin may have competed for the Canada NOC, there seems a lot of evidence that describing them as primarily Canadian is a mistake. If somehow the first article I clicked on was the only problematic one, then I suppose I'd have to revise, but that seems unlikely. I would strongly support mass redirection to the relevant Olympic page (if available), and of course would also support people expanding these where possible to be useful and accurate. Both these actions are possible with or without the passing of this proposal though, so I don't understand how they are coming up as oppose rationales. CMD (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Looking at the article, I noticed that the source used for his Olympic participation refers to a certain Arthur, not Alexander, Martin from Canada born in a completely different year! Tvx1 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Tvx1: Look at the Olympedia source, which states ""Name previously given as Arthur Martin, but this is not supported by contemporary Calgary newspapers."" BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) But that is a wiki just lile this one and thus unreliable. And what about the twelve years discrepancy in the birth year? Tvx1 16:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Olympedia isn't an unreliable wiki. As for the birth year, it seems that the people who run SR/Olympedia originally believed the shooter to be Arthur, but then later realized it was actaully a Martin named Alexander, born twelve years prior. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I do not see anything that makes it reliable. Moreover, the official site says it was Arthur, not Alexander, Martin as well. The Calgary statement doesn’t even make sense. What do local Calgary newspapers matter to an athlete who was allegedly born in Glasgow and died in Woking?? Tvx1 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ""Olympedia isn't an unreliable wiki"" - I see absolutely no reason at all to believe that Olympedia is particularly reliable. Whilst the sports statistics on Olympedia come from official bodies (though the chain of ownership is unclear) and might be said to be reliable for that reason, there is a strong wiki-like aspect to the prose content, birth/death dates, and also potentially to the names used on the database. For example when an AFD was raised against our article about a non-notable rower called Francis English it turned out that the death-date was wrong and Francis English went under the name ""Frank"", Olympedia was updated to include the nickname and the corrected death-date soon after the AFD meaning they were relying on Wikipedia to do their fact-checking. Prose content on Olympedia also appears to come from e.g., families of the Olympians concerned and thus is not independently sourced. I get that the head of Olympedia is supposed to be an expert but the database is run by volunteers and there is no clear editorial system or rigorous fact-checking. T's concerns are thus well-founded and cannot be dismissed simply by saying ""I haven't seen many errors"" or that the IOC has used it. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Agree. That’s the exact same sentiment I have. The Alexander/Arthur Martin case is another example of the issues they have. Tvx1 16:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support competing in the Olympics is not an indication of athletic greatness. Participation is often decided by politics, or there may not be any gatekeeping at all. See also the 1904 Summer Olympics, 1904 men's marathon; apparently a free-for-all. Schierbecker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose It is against policy to use draftifying as a backdoor for deletion. Red-tailed hawk sums it up perfectly. --Rschen7754 01:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose I find no reason to delete them. There could be a reader looking for information on the topic; we are an encyclopedia; why do we feel the need to delete information? I this context, I think the stub-quality of the articles is irrelevant. Perhaps the content would be better served as part of a larger article, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Further, it would be a fallacy to assume that an ""oppose"" vote would necessarily lead to mass AfDs — it is a false assumption that the articles involved need to be deleted at all. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:N; just because there is verifiable information on a topic doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. These are also why failing to deal with these articles through a process other than AfD will lead to mass AfD's; leaving non-notable topics in mainspace makes Wikipedia worse, and it is against policy to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support If someone spends a few seconds doing something mildly disruptive, we should have no qualms about undoing that thing. If anyone wants to create a well-sourced article on one of these individuals, these stubs will be of no help at all. The community has found Lugnuts' mass creations to be disruptive, why immortalize his inappropriate creations? In fact, I'd support deleting all of them that haven't attracted major content contributions from others. No prejudice towards decent articles on the same topics being re-created in the future. Ajpolino (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support Although they should really be deleted after the normal 6-month period. Also rather disappointing to see the same cheerleaders from the non-notable NFL player debate weighting this discussion down. Zaathras (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support draftification as first choice. Aside from the problem of notability, many of Lugnuts' articles have been shown to have serious verifiability issues (almost inevitable with articles created at speed). If it's true that Lugnuts has admitted to introducing deliberate inaccuracies (@S Marshall: do you have a diff for that?), that's all the more reason to remove these articles from the mainspace as soon as possible. I came into this expecting to support redirection over draftification, but I've explained below why I don't think this is practical. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Sojourner in the earth - See here. I guess I should say that many think he was lying about this. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Support - And yes this should be rolled out to Lugnut's 19th-century cricketer articles, his 19th/early 20th century footballer articles, and to sub-sets of the mass-created articles of other historical mass creators (e.g., Carlossuarez46, Dr. Blofeld). WP:PROVEIT is pretty clear on what happens to content the notability of which isn't supported - either the people who want it kept find support for it, or it gets deleted. Any other position is allowing editors to establish a fait accompli of mass-created articles that will never be improved to meet notability standards, and most of which cannot be improved. WP:FAIT is clear that we should not allow that.This cannot be handled one-by-one by the normal AFD process as it would jam it permanently. Mass deletion through AFD is possible but this discussion is frankly just as valid as any AFD discussion and probably will engage with more editors which, frankly, is needed, as AFD discussions are often dominated by people heavily invested in the deletion/keeping of article-sets such as this one.Some argue that the fact that some of these articles may be notable is a reason to keep all of them. It simply isn't. What that is is a reason for people who want them kept to go and establish the notability of those articles and bring them back to mainspace. Anything else is accepting a WP:FAIT situation.Finally, this is not personal. I would also support the same measure be used against other articles sets that were created in violation of WP:MASSCREATE, even by editors I generally like. ETA - my favoured position is actually just straight deletion of these articles. Draftification is something I'm OK with as an alternative to that because in reality everyone knows that only a handful will be saved even with years of time to work on them because so few of them even can be saved. Redirection is basically a non-flyer for the reasons I discussed below in relation to ""Harry"" Oppenheim - there is no reason, no reason at all, to redirect people to a list in which specific non-notable Olympian is possibly mentioned (many of the redirects will have the wrong name, because of the poor methodology used to create these articles), rather than serving the full search-results to them and allowing them to see all of the other places that person and other people with the same name listed on EN Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Support per nom, 5 years is ample time for any interested editor to expand on any of the articles. Redirect to the relevant pages would also be fine in my opinion. BogLogs (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I just saved an article now - Addin Tyldesley. Just wasn't aware of it previously, but I saved an article in probably even less time than it took to suggest it be deleted.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose as the solution to the problem is needlessly complicated. Seems to me that the simple(st) solution is to delete all relevant stubs created in this way immediately. WP editors who are interested in writing about any Olympian who is truly notable could presumably get the same starting information from the same sources that the current stubs used, so there's nothing to be gained by draftifying. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @JMWt: Would you support the alternative of redirecting? BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @BilledMammal: well I don't know. Firstly I don't know how automated the process would be or whether it would need considerable manual editing time. Second it seems to me that there is quite a high risk of good-faith errors creeping in when trying to do this with so many pages (for example an Olympian being accidentally attached to the wrong team). This in turn could lead to even more circular referencing and the errors being repeated in off-wiki sources. For me the most accurate solution is delete. The databases still exist, there's no presumption that any of the Olympians in these stubs are not notable - so recreation if RS become available for particular people shouldn't be an issue. I accept that it looks like a sledgehammer solution, but for me the main overwhelming issue is the integrity of WP as a usable encyclopedia. If we routinely do anything which adds to the risks of spreading errors, that's bad. I'd rather keep the stubs that simply reflect the content of off-wiki databases than do anything else that introduces errors. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @JMWt: It would be easy to automate, and no new errors would be introduced; it might continue to include existing errors, but in that case we are no worse off than we currently are. BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. per BeanieFan, my comments at the previous discussion about olympian stubs and most of the other opposers here. The way to deal with a mass creation of notable topics is not mass deletion or mass draftification - there is no deadline, and it is much better to get the right answer slowly than the wrong answer quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) This assumes we have a good interim position right now, which given the lack of attention that seems to have been paid to these articles I am not convinced of. There's no deadline by which redlinks have to be turned into tenuous blue links either. CMD (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The past is prologue... There's not anything we can do about the fact that they have already been created, but as Thryduulf notes, now that they exist, we might as well deal with each thoughtfully. You are correct as the best action was probably not to have created these so rapidly, but we can't go back in time and make that unhappen. --Jayron32 19:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, we can make that unhappen, that's kind of what's being proposed here. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) We can make that unhappen and per WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT they shouldn't have been able to be created in the first place. Since 2009 it is policy to request permission for mass creation of articles here. And I'd argue that creating several articles within minutes or a few hours are likely to be considered bot like editing as mentioned at WP:MEATBOT. Per MEATBOT is also required to request permission at the same place. WP:MEATBOT is within a policy, for admins it would technically be possible to enforce it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Comment in addition to my note above and discussion below in the redirect section, there seem to be quite a few of these which have a reasonable claim to notability. We really need to read the sources and not rely on a machine query. Philip Plater, for example, seems well worth looking in to and if we delete this via drafting it'd be a massive mistake. A number of the British ones seem to have details that would be worth looking in to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Why would it be a headache? Nothing is being salted and the Olympedia pages will still exist. The sources currently in Philip Plater doesn't suggest GNG, although the story should certainly be added to Shooting at the 1908 Summer Olympics. CMD (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Ah never mind, it has been included at Shooting at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's stationary target small-bore rifle since 2006. CMD (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The Olympedia source, when you look at it, does in a way suggest that GNG coverage exists – I've found that when they give decent bios, the Olympians usually have a much higher GNG rate than when they don't. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I would agree! Maybe someday someone will be able to look into such cases and write some articles with more than a database pull, that could do basic things like not make slightly misleading nationality claims and include links to the events the athletes participated in. As noted above, there is no deadline for this. CMD (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC) But we already have the articles! Why would we need to delete articles on a topic to be able to write something on that topic? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Perhaps this was missed, but we should have articles ""that could do basic things like not make slightly misleading nationality claims and include links to the events the athletes participated in"". CMD (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The articles do link the events that the athletes participated in – and I haven't seen very many with the wrong nationality – just about all of them seem fine to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) No they don't, Philip Plater which you linked just before didn't until I made the relevant edit. As for ""very many"", maybe not very many, but how many? We don't know, because these are procedurally generated sentence pairs. CMD (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Lets see, I'm going to pick ten random people on this list and see if they have the link or not: Francesco Pietrasanta, no; Arthur Maranda, yes; Arthur Seward, yes; James Cowan (sport shooter), no; John McKenzie (wrestler), yes; Orazio Santelli, no; Yrjö Vuolio, yes; Jules Roffe, yes; Pierre Saintongey, yes; and Ödön Toldi, yes. That's 7/10 have it. And even if they were missing it, that's still no reason to mass get rid of them by the thousands. As for the nationality, to check, you can just click on the Olympedia link and it will tell you – I have only seen a handful with any issue, and in most of those cases it was half-right, i.e. they were born in e.g. Switzerland, and then became U.S. citizens and competed for the U.S., and the article referred to them as American. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I checked the first yes of yours, ""Arthur Maranda, yes"", and it doesn't link to his events at all. He participated in the Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's long jump, the Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's triple jump, and the Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's standing long jump. If even a second layer of checking isn't correctly assessing these articles, a new process is needed. CMD (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) It says he ""competed at three events at the 1912 Olympics"" and links ""Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics"" in the words ""three events."" BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Correct, it does not link to the events he was in. CMD (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I agree, Blue Squared Thing, many of these are likely notable. I've checked a bunch and for some I've seen Olympedia bios describing them as having been the best of the era, among the most famous, etc. For example, when I chose a random one in Lou Scholes and did a quick search, I found articles describing him as ""the best oarsman the world has ever produced"" (not surprising, though, considering this is the Olympics). And then for Albert Bechestobill, I was able to locate full-page long articles in major newspapers. When I looked for Arthur Burn, he was given headlines for his life and death. And another one I think would probably have good potential: Carlo Bonfanti – Olympedia mentions how the way Italy viewed diving was changed all because of him – there has got to be coverage on figures like that. And many Olympedia references have enough coverage that I'd consider them a SIGCOV source all by itself. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Checked out another one, Donnell Young, and he had in-depth feature stories published on him and was one of the only Olympic centenarians. This is really, really, really a bad idea to mass get rid of articles without any effort made to see whether they're notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) It was a really, really, really bad idea to mass create these articles without any effort made to see whether they are notable. This proposal is what is required to correct that error. BilledMammal (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) When these articles were created, they were considered notable. Later modifications to the notability guidelines removed their automatic notability (but many are still notable). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) They were presumed notable (under some interpretations of WP:NSPORT), and it was a really, really, really bad idea to mass create these articles without any effort to see whether they are are notable and thus ensure that this presumption was correct. BilledMammal (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) ""Presumed notable"" back then equaled ""notable."" BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) It actually never did, but many AFD closers just mistakingly assumed it did. It doesn’t do so anymore at all and actually most of these are not notable.Tvx1 17:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC) The proposal is not get mass rid of them. It’s to move them to an appropriate place to dustinguish the non-notable ones from the one which are and actually make the keepable ones encyclopedic. No one is requesting blind deletion here. Tvx1 17:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Garnett Wikoff: Another clearly notable article from this list that I was able to substantially expand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Another one who has potential for notability: William Valentine (archer) – per Olympedia, he was an owner of a pharmacy for a while and trained Charles Walgreen – the founder of Walgreen's! It was partly because of him the business was founded! BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) More with potential (going off of Olympedia): James O'Connell (athlete) - national AAU triple jump champion; James Murphy (athlete) - English national champion cross country runner; António Pereira (wrestler) - thrice competed at the Olympics (we really should not be listing those who competed after 1912!); Archibald Murray (fencer) - given the Order of the British Empire; Harold Bartlett - important military person and awarded the Navy Cross, also aide to president Woodrow Wilson; Gaston de Trannoy - two-time Olympian, later important official, and president of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports; Georg Andersen (wrestler) - European champion in wrestling; James Reilly (swimmer) - coached swimming at Rutgers for 40 years - inducted into their Hall of Fame; etc. just from looking at Olympedia for a few random ones! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Another interesting one: George Retzer. He lived to be 96 and was still regularly working out into his mid-90s (50 situps, 50 pushups every day, wow), and received UPI and LA Times feature stories for it, in addition to having more coverage for being the Pacific Coast wrestling champ. Clearly notable. Just like many others here. Mass throwing them out without any attempt to see if they're notable is an absolutely horrendous idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Yet another that seems highly likely to be notable: Iraklis Sakellaropoulos - the Greek wiki has a much more detailed article on him, he competed at three olympics, was a champion runner in Greek in the 1910s and 20s, and there seems to be a bunch of mentions of him online and in books using his name in Greek (unfortunately I do not speak Greek, so can't tell if its sigcov - but even if those aren't, I'm 99.999% sure the newspapers of the day would have covered him). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Every each of the defended Olympians by @BeanieFan11 I checked are only sourced with databases. WP:NOTDATABASE,WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Both shortcuts are to policies. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Paradise Chronicle: No they're not, I've improved many of them (for example, Fred Narganes, Herbert Gidney, Garnett Wikoff, Thomas LeBoutillier, J. Nash McCrea, and others) – there's just so many that we're trying to get rid of here, I haven't been able to get to them all. As for NOTDATABASE, that does not apply. It only applies to: Summary-only descriptions of works – nope; Lyrics databases – nope; Exhaustive logs of software updates – nope; Excessive listings of unexplained statistics – nope (the statistics and events are explained; I don't see how it would fall under that). As for WHOSWHO, that one says ""Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..."" – for many of these coverage exists that goes beyond their Olympic appearances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC) That's great, you found some. You can expand them from draftspace. No-one will oppose you. The sources used of the unexpanded stubs are still databases, check Antonio Pereira for example. And an OBE gives a phrase more, that's it. And they were still created ignoring the policies on WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATE as Lugnuts actually did create more than 50 articles on several days and more than 25 often and then any semiautomated or high speed editing can be considered bot like editing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I'd also support that the one who save such articles are able to voluntarily receive the same notifications the article creator does, as the expanders are likely more interested in getting aware of (potential) wls to and from the article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose - This has nothing to do with articles and is just a continued harassment campaign against Lugnuts. How can you possibly judge Article A based on Article B and Article C? These articles and the people who they are written about have nothing to do with each other. Why would they ever be judged together? And this idea of an article not only having to pass current rules but also needing to pass future rules that didn't even exist is horrifying. This is not in good faith and this goes against everything this website should be. I'm absolutely disgusted by this.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose tremendous waste of time and resources, and as I've reiterated times, there's nothing wrong with stubs. Many of these could be fleshed out and pass GNG, and many of these are useful to users. If you want to merge them to a list one by one, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The good news on the merge front is they all appear to have been included in relevant lists since 2006 to 2007. CMD (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support either draftification or redirection per BilledMammal. These articles can always be recreated if anyone can find sources showing their notability. (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. The only thing the subjects of these articles have in common are 1) they competed in the Olympics during a certain time frame 2) they were created by a certain editor. If you believe that mere documentation that someone competed in the Olympics is not sufficient to confer notability, then neither of the things these articles have in common have any bearing on the article subject's notability. That means the responsible thing to do would be to go through and determine notability for each article on an individual basis. Dealing with them in bulk is inappropriate, and would make it inevitable that some babies will be disposed of with the bathwater. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Scott5114: The contents of the bathwater aren't being thrown out here; they will still be available, whether in the form of a draft or a redirect. In addition, one of the issues with dealing with them individually is that it will overload AfD. Do you, and other editors opposing this proposal on that basis, have no objection to 25, 50, or 100 of Lugnut's articles being taken through AfD each day (a process that will take between 5, 2.5, or 1.25 years, respectively, if we conservatively assume that only half of Lugnuts articles have notability issues)? BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Putting them in draft space makes it less likely that anyone will ever actually improve them. I haven't the foggiest idea what's in draft space right now. And when I am using the site as a user, if I come across a redlink and think ""gee, I expected Wikipedia to have an article on this,"" my first inclination isn't to check draft space to see if there's something that just needs to spruced up a bit. I would be very surprised if that is actually part of anyone's workflow. If it is a long and painful process to put them through AFD then so be it; that is the pain that the nominators choose to endure themselves, and inflict on others in the process. Presumably should they choose to do so, it's because they've examined an individual article and found that it is in fact not notable, and can prove that at AFD. Circumventing the process simply because it will take more effort than some people care to do is simply cheaping out. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Most of the proponents of dealing with these articles individually also oppose sending them en masse to AfD, since the seven-day deadline gives too little time to find sources. This is a proposal to extend that deadline by 4 years and 358 days. Those who wish to examine these articles one-by-one will have plenty of time to do so. I'd also note that all the articles covered by the proposal are extremely scanty; even if they were deleted, any one of them could be recreated with better sources in a matter of minutes. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Presumably should they choose to do so, it's because they've examined an individual article and found that it is in fact not notable, and can prove that at AFD. They would be able to prove that the individual article doesn't demonstrate notability; there is no consensus that they are required to do more than this when nominating mass created articles. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. Draftspace is an invisible graveyard. It wouldn't matter if the auto-delete period was set to 50 years; approximately nobody beyond the original author ever stumbles upon a draft. Articles get improved by attracting editors, and editors get attracted as a consequence of visibility, which drafts simply do not enjoy. Therefore the practical eventual outcome of draftification would be deletion.However, I also do not support deletion. Several editors have proposed redirection instead, and I agree that this would be better. Regardless of the possibility of (potentially deliberate) errors within the articles, I don't think anyone is doubting that these people existed and had a verifiable association with a particular event - therefore it should be possible to identify an appropriate redirection target. Finally, I'll also mention that this whole set of articles feels like it skirts WP:COPYVIO as a potential infringement of Database rights, and for that reason I do not support doing nothing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Support as deliberate errors had been introduced, per the evidence by Chipmunkdavis. There is no time to check it all, and it is better to have no articles than hundreds of faulty articles. I would agree that draftification would be a better option, but there is no way we should have thousands of articles that have deliberate errors on them. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I highly doubt that he made ""thousands of articles with deliberate errors in them."" I've checked many articles written by Lugnuts and only very rarely have I found errors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support, with a preference for redirection over draftification. Either way, the article histories will be preserved, and can be used if someone can find reliable sources that establish notability. (IMO, notability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for an article, i.e., just because a subject is notable does not mean that Wikipedia has to have an article about the subject.) - Donald Albury 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support, many of these articles could be improved to pass notability, but they should not be in mainspace until this has been done. However, to increase the chances of editors improving them I suggest adding a note about drafts to the tasks/to-do lists of the relevant wikiprojects (olympics/fencing/swimming…) with a link to the ""other"" section in their article assessment page. EdwardUK (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support There are to many articles that are only notable because of topic specific notability rules. Such rules only serve to formalize the systemic bias of Wikipedia. My general preference is that WP:GNG replace all topic specific notability guidelines. I recognize that is unlikely to reach a consensus, but I fell this is a step on the right direction. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) These aren't notable per topic specific notability guidlines. But many are notable through GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose mass deletions without a detailed look are never a good thing, especially when a lot of the articles likely are in fact notable. Draftifying them is a poor choice, because that makes them hard to find (and therefore, interested editors won’t find and work on them), and just results in a shortcut to deletion. There’s nothing wrong with stubs - in fact, for the same reason, I’d argue having a stub encourages people to expand it more than not having an article at all does. Anything that is truly not notable can be deleted via the standard AfD process, which the village pump is not an appropriate substitute for. Deletion of notable material is not an acceptable side effect. Claims of “it can always be recreated later” are not useful: any recreated articles will likely be rapidly sent to AfD and deleted before someone interested happens to see it and dig up some appropriate sources. Frankly, I’m a little bothered at the very high notability standard that seems to be set these days, as it encourages a perception that the encyclopedia is complete and new contributions aren’t welcome. A lot of us treat Wikipedia as the one-stop shop to learn something, an image that’s taken 20 years to cultivate. It’s going to lose that if it keeps going this direction. Obviously there has to be some kind of notability standard, or else everyone and their dog would have their own article, but accurate content should be a far greater priority. Highway 89 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) If accurate content should be the priority, then mass-creating articles without spending time to ensure accuracy seems a detriment. CMD (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support That way, they can stop cluttering mainspace while people prepare them in draftspace. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see how they are cluttering mainspace, it's not like people fall on these pages accidentally. Ortizesp (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Just to clear up a common misperception, there is no way to clutter up Wikipedia mainspace because, given the right computer tech, Wikipedia can fit on the head of a pin. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose - per others who note that draftification as a backdoor deletion is inappropriate, and a better solution (as offered above) is to redirect these to the appropriate Olympic games. Rlendog (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support per Levivich. starship.paint (exalt) 15:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support-ish. After reading Lugnut's final goodbye post where he admitted to leaving false statements in article for years, I can't see how we can leave these stubs in article space. I also don't think we need to spend countless hours to check each one. I would prefer deletion, and if not, then a normal 6 months draft. Regardless, redirects from the person to a relevant article is always helpful and I would support mass redirect (but not with the same content deleted, that invites reverting the redirect and leaving the bad content there). --Gonnym (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I highly doubt that was true (about the false statements). Having known Lugnuts when he was still here and having checked many of his creations, I very highly doubt that his final statement was true; it was likely just made to piss off all of those who did not like him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Another reason why this proposal is a terrible idea: John Hession. Hession received TONS of coverage (so much that I was originally going to expand it, but was so overwhelmed by the amount of coverage that I thought it'd be better to save others and then afterwards expand him) and was described by some as the greatest shooter of all time. We should not be blindly getting rid of these, especially since many of them received sigcov and some of them received coverage calling them the greatest in their sport ever! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC) You will have 5 years to work on them from Draftspace, they aren't disappearing. If anything, your comment reinforces why draftification is the optimal choice here. As for your claims about Hassion and the ""greatest shooter"", that is a wee bit of hyperbole. You're basing that on a title of an obituary which itself uses the vague verbiage of ""some claim"". Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) But when a high percentage are notable, it makes no sense to send them to draftspace! I would much prefer not to spend the next five years of my life expanding articles on Olympians or they all get deleted! (and additionally, if this passes, BilledMammal is going to do the same with the other 90,000) As for Hession, he won many world titles, set many world records, won national championships and won records in them, etc., so I think while he might not be the best, he's still one of the best. We should not be blindly getting rid of all these! BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Support -- seems like a well-thought-out solution to a complex problem. Renata•3 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Huge Oppose this is exactly the thing Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. This should be handled case-by-case and we should never just wily-nily dratify them en-masse. They certainly aren't hurting anyone by being there and as we come across them we can re-check gng to see which are worthy and which are not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose I agree that something ought to be done about this subset of articles. Draftification is the wrong way to tidy this up. If we agree that these stubs should not retained, then let us redirect them to the appropriate article. There is nothing to be gained from moving the articles to draft space; it would be a disservice to our readers. Why should a reader looking for an early Olympian not find a result? Draftification would create holes. Redirects would lead the reader to an article where they can find out about the person. Draftification leaves behind red links elsewhere. Creating redirects does not have that problem. Draftification is fraught with problems and should not be pursued. Schwede66 05:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Support If any of these people pass the GNG, editors can expand them and provide proper sourcing. If they can't they will be deleted in 6 months. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Note that BilledMammal has been reverting when I've removed articles from this list containing SIGCOV, saying that he controls this proposal and anyone who wants to remove an entry must discuss with him. And I went and started a discussion 30 minutes ago, but he's refused to respond while actively editing other areas. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) It appears he started a discussion on it with you on 3 March. CMD (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I think it is a little unreasonable for you to expect me to drop everything and respond to you immediately; when you commented I was in the middle of opening two large move requests (Talk:Aaron Callaghan (footballer, born 1966)#Requested move 6 March 2023 and Talk:Alakol, Azerbaijan#Requested move 6 March 2023). I also don't expect people to discuss every removal with me. I have no objection to people removing articles when they provide sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG or to editors removing articles after providing just one source if that source is extensive. My objection is to you repeatedly reinstating removals that don't meet these criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose As someone already said it takes time to write things, while deleting them is easy. Wikipedia is not finished and there is no deadline. Those articles have basically nothing in common except they were written by the same editor (which is irrelevant), so binding them all together without any BEFORE and without any actual demonstration that these articles are not notable is not appropriate and this is also not the place for such discussions. They should be taken to Afd individually, if you have some concerns. Someone commented that deleting them this way would take min. 8 (or even 30) years, but then you expect people to rewrite them in 5????? I believe it is more than obvious to everyone that this proposal of draftifying is actually a backdoor proposal to deletion, which is basically gaming the system. I am strongly against massive deletion of so many sports articles and the eradicating of so much olympic knowledge, that is very useful to us readers (those who are not interested only in most commercialised superstar champions of the present days) and that is not doing any harm whatsoever. Furthermore (and what actually made me write this comment after a long time of just reading) it was clearly stated that if this proposal succeeds, this anti-sports modern book-burning crusade will continue with massive deletions of other athletes (post 1912), which I again find very worrying and utterly un-encyclopedic. I know I will achieve nothing but I simply had to write this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.76.250.241 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Nothing in common? Takes time to write? Have you looked at the articles? They're carbon copies with some variables that differ per page. Assuming they weren't automated, they took probably a minute or two each at most. CMD (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Support per Levivich and pragmatism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose as articles that meet SIGCOV are being kept in the proposal. If the SIGCOV articles are removed, I would be Neutral on the proposal - clearly we can't have a ton of permanent stub articles with little to no notability, but I'm not sure userficiation is the right idea. Redirects seem far more helpful. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Agree with Mistral. For this reason, I originally supported but BilledMammal is refusing to allow amendment of the list to remove articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) even though they have been expanded, now include SIGCOV, and are not based solely on database entry. IMO the extreme remedy of mass removal of articles should not be considered for articles that fall into a gray area. Such articles, if challenged, should be dealt with under regular order, by normal AfD processes. BilledMammal's refusal to allow amendment of the list renders this proposal objectionable IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) It is standard practice to not edit RfC statement content after RfCs are opened, especially after there have already been comments. It is best practice to not edit content currently under an RfC. Fine to oppose, but it seems unfair to blame BilledMammal for following WP:RFC. CMD (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Disagree. BilledMammal initially said he would agree to allow amendments to the list, but then threatened me at my talk page saying it was a violation of WP:TPA for me to remove two that had been amended. He said he would only allow amendments if he approved in advance. He has refused to give his OK to removal of articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) which are now clearly out of scope. I initially supported the proposal but such extraordinary mass removal should be limited to the most extreme cases with zero SIGCOV and only database sources. Cases like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) should be challenged, if at all, only under regular order. Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not following on what exactly you disagree on. The standard practice? Obtaining consensus seems to be a good way to work within the RfC guidance. CMD (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I disagree with not striking entries from the list that no longer fit the scope of the proposal. The proposal was to remove from Main space Lugnuts' early Olympic articles that lacked SIGCOV and were based solely on databases. That scope seemed reasonable, and I supported it. Consistent with that scope, BilledMammal initially invited users to strike individual entries that no longer met that scope. He then reversed course when BeanieFan (an editor with whom BilledMammal has a history of disputes) improved a couple articles and struck them. By reversing course, BilledMammal has changed the initial nature of the proposal and is now insisting on including articles that are out of scope. That's what I disagree with. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, although I don't think I said the point you are disagreeing with in my comment. At any rate, the risk of contention that you describe is exactly why the WP:RFC page suggests not doing exactly what BeanieFan is doing. CMD (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Conditional support - The proposal is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff. No direct deletion and a fair opportunity to turn the stubs that are keepable into encyclopedic articles. However, five years is way too long not to autodelete. That really should be just one year or two years at the very most.Tvx1 21:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Support, no preference for redirects or draftification. If the article is draftified or deleted and it actually has sources that meet GNG, it can be improved or recreated as a proper article and not a 1 or 2 sentence stub sourced to a database. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support. If anything, the proposal should be even broader. As the RFC notes, Lugnuts does not deserve ""Assume good faith"" and even to the extent that the articles are not inaccurate, they are largely woefully undersourced - if someone attempted to get such a shoddily sourced article past AFC, it would never pass. I have no objection to saving articles which is why a 5-year moratorium on deleting drafts is good, but I don't see that as relevant to this RFC - if there are articles in the list that genuine SIGCOV has been found since (note that some of the examples above are still rather shaky), whatever, it just either won't be draftified or can be moved back to the mainspace immediately, and it can go through normal AFD if desired. SnowFire (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support. I see this proposal and the ""just redirect instead"" as equivalent in all but name, so putting my support here. I am in favour of either/both of just draftifying or dradftify-and-redirect, with a mild preference towards the latter. I actually prefer draftifying for a much shorter period of time than 5 years, potentially the standard 6 months (?) of Draftspace simply because I do not think 5 years is a reasonable amount of time, and the articles that ought to be deleted would instead just linger in draftspace for years until they're eventually deleted long after being forgotten. I'd rather have a concerted effort and save whatever articles can be saved, failing which they should ideally be put under the same scrutiny and procedures as the rest of Wikipedia. Being created by a prolific admin should not grant 5 years of ""free Draftspace stay"" compared to other articles. Soni (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose the only problem that's been identified with these articles is that the subjects may not pass the sports notability guidelines. I don't think that's nearly a big enough deal to warrant something like this. Mass deletion/draftification is reasonable if there are more serious problems with the content, such as copyright violations, hoaxes and the like, but notability guidelines are not that big a deal. Hut 8.5 08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Other problems have been identified, they are mentioned in a couple of places in this discusison. CMD (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Like what? I shouldn't have to read an entire 13,000 word discussion to see the rationale for this. The proposer only mentions the notability guidelines or logistical problems related to enforcing them, as do the vast majority of the comments in support. Hut 8.5 12:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Hut 8.5 - Except for lack of notability? Accuracy is the main one. Lugnuts admitted to purposefully putting inaccuracies into his articles, and whilst there's those who think he was lying about that, it's also inarguable that he made a lot of mistakes when filing in those article-templates at one-a-minute - more than a few of his articles have turned out not to even have the correct name. WP:MASSCREATE violation is another additional reason. However, the lack of notability issue is enough by itself for these articles to be dealt with as that's a DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) If you don't think that articles by this person can be trusted then we should be considering deleting all of them, not just Olympic athletes from a certain period. (FWIW that comment sounds like trolling from someone who's just been indef blocked and I wouldn't read too much into it.) The only distinguishing feature about these ones is the sports notability guidelines, which seems to be the main rationale for this. While lack of notability is a valid reason to delete something under the deletion policy, you are proposing to ignore the deletion policy with respect to these articles. I don't think mere failure to follow the notability guidelines is enough for such a drastic step. I would expect to see a bigger problem, preferably one which is grounded in a policy rather than a guideline. Hut 8.5 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Just as a data point: as far as I can tell, the contributor copyright investigation didn't find evidence of deliberate errors being introduced. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Of course it didn’t. That searched for copyright violations, not inaccuracies. Tvx1 20:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Some of the comments in that investigation explicitly referred to looking for inaccuracies, though not all of them. As I said, it's just a data point. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Support in the cases of those that are just regurgitation of database entries. Oppose for the few that have been expanded to be more encyclopedic. WP:NOT a database or an indiscriminate collection of information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support I've got to say, I've always hated the low bar set for including sports figures here. (Do we still have the article about the ball player with no name? Moving on). That said, I cannot favor mass deletion at this point. The 5 yr limited draftification seems to be the solution to an extraordinary problem. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. A clear case of the need to Ignore All Rules on a massive scale. I would hope that this process could somehow be automated and perhaps a database/index of these article drafts could be made accessible for those who would want to avail themselves of it. Also, another thought: Is it technically possible to symbolize (mark unobtrusively) red links that have articles in DraftSpace? Regards, GenQuest ""scribble"" 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support per Snowfire. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Qualified Support I'd much rather see these articles redirected and even thought of opposing this, but ultimately I feel that something needs to be done. So if the alternative to redirect doesn't happen this has my weak support. The reason this has less support from me is that draft imposes time limits and requires moves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Ambivalent, leaning oppose. This proposal really seems like draftifying as a backdoor to deletion, which is against policy, and I think it's fairly harmless to have a bunch of borderline-notable stubs lying around. People can always PROD them as needed. I am concerned about the inaccuracies reported above, but I spot-checked a few articles and they seemed to match the sources. I'm also concerned about the WP:TRAINWRECK concerns mentioned by some participants who say that some of the articles listed pass WP:GNG. It's an unfortunate situation, but dealing with the articles on a case-by-case basis (PROD, redirect, or expand as appropriate) may be best. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Mx. Granger: People can always PROD them as needed ... dealing with the articles on a case-by-case basis (PROD, redirect, or expand as appropriate) may be best. In your view, how many can I PROD or redirect in one day without being disruptive? Levivich (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC) That's a good question. It's not realistic to expect people to deal with hundreds of PRODs in the same topic area all at the same time. Given the special circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to PROD 5 or 10 a day or maybe more (though under normal circumstances that would be a lot for one topic area). Redirecting is easier to undo than deletion, so that could probably be done at a higher rate without being disruptive. But I realize the list might take weeks or months to get through at that rate. Hence my ambivalence – I don't really see a good solution, so I'm not sure what the best approach is. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Not weeks or months, years. 93,000 Lugnuts stubs, the ones listed here are less than 1% of the total. At 10 a day, we're talking 90 days for 900 articles, plus AFDing the removed PRODs (or some of them), so it'll extend beyond 90 days. Now, I know people will say, well not all 93,000 Lugnuts stubs need to be dealt with at all, some are good. That's true. We don't know how many. But even if a mere 10% are bad -- 9,000 articles -- PRODing 10 a day would take 3 years. And if it's higher than 10%, if it's 50% bad, then we're talking over a decade to PROD them all. To go through them case-by-case is totally impossible, in my view. It must be done by batch processing, because of the number. They were created by batch processing, so I don't feel bad about not going through them one by one, but I feel a lot better about it when I realize that it's functionally impossible to get through 10,000 articles or more, one by one. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Support Depicting my opposition to mass article creation, microstubs are not a value-add to the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Support: Wikipedia is not a sports database and many of these people will not be notable. The efforts of those who have expanded articles under this scope is appreciated, but it is not clear why this is made easier by having an existing sub-stub article rather than directly using the two website sources to write something from scratch. You could even keep an outline of the wikitext in userspace or start by copying a similar article. If it took minutes for Lugnuts to create then it takes minutes to re-create, not much overhead. I am persuaded against redirection by FOARP and I believe that it would fall afoul of WP:R#DELETE#1 and #2, by indiscriminately redirecting many common names with more notable targets to very brief mentions (if any) of very obscure sportspeople that no-one would be using the search function to discover anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per Rhododendrites. I suggest AfD-ing the worst 5%, and then review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I guess that merging possibilities are poorly considered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) What would we merge? And plenty of these microstubs have been AfD'd and deleted or redirected...in the past 11 months we've had 214 bios of Olympians and 75% of them have been deleted (71), redirected (88), or merged (2), and that's including a lot that don't meet the criteria for this list (and so would be expected to have a greater chance of being kept). Why should the community have to spend 2.5 more months reviewing 50 AfDs (using the archive average of 19/month, which a lot of people complained was too high) just to arrive at the same conclusion: we have way too many non-notable Olympian stubs? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC) What would we merge? Any proposal to delete, even 5-year slow delete, should require the proponent to explain what merging is not possible. For William Horschke, for example, why not merge all USA participants to USA at the 1904 Summer Olympics? I agree that the article creator should have asked this question. Plenty have been AfD-ed? I didn’t know that. Was it stated upfront? It would be helpful, it is what I was asking for. This data would change my mind, if the were all deleted. But they mostly weren’t. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics/archive, a minority were deleted, and almost none were draftified which makes draftification and odd proposal here. “Redirect” looks to be a prominent outcome. Assuming that a redirect implies that the subject is mentioned at the target for having done something, I consider that similar to a merge of a stub. Redirection, with optional merge, is something that could be done without special authorisation by RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC) So far as I can tell, all of these individuals are already mentioned in the relevant Event at the X Olympic lists. If that is the merge needed, then it is already done. CMD (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC) A far smaller minority were kept and the merge rate is negligible, which supports the reality that these subjects are not notable. The proposal to draftify for five years is simply to address claims that 7 days at AfD or 6 months in draftspace is ""too short"" to find refs, and mass redirection poses its own issues as described below. JoelleJay (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC) I accept that “keep” or “do nothing” not good solutions. I would prefer mass redirection to deletion or draftification, the first per policy WP:ATD-R, and the second because draftspace should not be used as purgatory, because draftification should only be used for pages that are envisioned to be returned to mainspace, and this clearly will not be the case. Redirection allow easy bold editing should new sourced material be found. Unjustified reversions of redirects should be responded to promptly by AfD, with consideration of sanctions due to disruptive editing if the reverts were done en mass. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC) The issues people have brought up with redirection are 1) not all subjects have a suitable redirect (e.g multiple Olympics) and 2) redirecting wholesale brings up issues with names shared with other mentioned-but-pageless people. JoelleJay (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC) (1) Any person who has participated in multiple Olympics is quite a step above the typical example, and their article should be Kept, of AfD-ed. If it is in anyway complicated, there is need for discussion, and with deletion or pseudodeletion on the cards, AfD should be used for that discussion. (2) So, why not WP:Move to an unambiguous title before redirecting? The current excessively minimalist titling practice doesn’t apply to redirects. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Several articles[9][10] on multi-Olympians have been deleted due to failing the requirement for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Support mass automated deletion or userification, both in this case and as a general solution where anyone mass-creates articles and and any discussions (before or afterwards) that occur fail to produce an affirmative consensus supporting their creation or retention. The ArbCom case showed that Lugnuts' judgement when creating articles is not good; and the listed sources look like raw databases, which likely do not pass WP:RS in all the places where Lugnuts used them, failing the GNG. Redirection, as some people have suggested above, is not reasonable because we can't verify that these articles are actually appropriate for the target they would be redirected to (or that they reflect any sort of reality at all, given the terrible sourcing); nor is it reasonable that people spend several times the amount of time and effort Lugnuts spent spamming out these to ""review"" them. Anyone who believes there are individual articles worth salvaging has had ample time to do so. If people believe the database entries that were indiscriminately dumped into Wikipedia here can be turned into valid articles, the WP:BURDEN is on them to produce proper sources for them, and the WP:ONUS is on them to demonstrate a consensus supporting it - arguing that article-shaped-objects that were mass-produced in mere weeks or days must consume months or even years of the community's time to clean up is unworkable. A mass-edit that was done with one press of a button, with no discussion or effort to seek consensus, should not be so drastically more difficult to review and reverse. --Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose I prefer the redirect option if there the community determines a problem exists. I am not convinced that a problem actually exists as Rhododendrites says in point 3 above (""There's zero exigency here""). This proposal appears to be a way to avoid a formal community discussion on how to resolve the question about how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion. There are some things to like about the proposal, such as long term draft space, but in my mind, any mass nomination process should involve a group of uninvolved editors to review the nominated articles prior to beginning the AfD process. --Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC) This proposal appears to be a way to avoid a formal community discussion on how to resolve the question about how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion. Please explain this theory. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) This is mentioned in the background section of this proposal. I believe the proposer wants to suggest ""a method for resolving this question, with a group of articles that can be used to test the proposed resolution."" To me the way forward would be to continue the discussion and evaluate the proposals articulated at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale before launching a test. - Enos733 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I wrote that sentence :-) This RFC is a formal discussion on how to resolve the question (or, at least, a question) about how to handle mass nominations at AFD, and it proposes a method for avoiding mass nominations at AFD for articles that meet a certain criteria. I understand preferring redirects, or believing that these can just be left in mainspace as is, but I don't understand how an RFC avoids an RFC. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) To me this is a little bit of forum shopping, as a discussion was happening elsewhere (and yes I understood it stalled). I would rather see a more complete proposal, rather than an ad hoc test. - Enos733 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC) That's a lot easier to say than do. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion wasn’t just stalled, it was cancelled by ArbCom. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Support Junk the lot. Virtually useless to man and beast. Complete anathama to everything Wikipedia is trying to achieve. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Comment Seems kind of silly when we change the notability criteria then have to do mass deletions. Now we only consider GNG or SPORTS rather than anyone who's competed in the Olympics. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Support Draftifying this many articles is pointless; just delete them. They can be re-created when sources show up. Cleaning the cobwebs out of wikipedia is important. Still seems silly to have changed the notability criteria, but here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Support draftification or redirection. Either one works. If the only references given are a database source, then they aren't even giving a presumption of notability, particularly since they aren't even medalists. Any that have been expanded or otherwise had proper sources added can just be moved back to mainspace after draftification by the editors who made the improvements. Considering this could have instead been a proposal to delete them all, which would have been valid due to the requirement for all sports biographies to meet the WP:GNG, I think draftification is getting off light, particularly with the special extended time period consideration given here. SilverserenC 00:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per NOTPAPER and, more importantly, NTEMP: if we remove what cannot be easily added to today, we skew the balance inexorably towards recentism. Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Strongest support ever Let's consider the options. Doing nothing - It should be clear by the discussion reasons that the articles can't stay the way they are. We have to do something. Drafts - The extended autodeletion means it's not a deletion backdoor, and draftifying them is our best bet. While some people say no one will improve them, I think the people discussing have the village pump watched, and will most likely go to the draft space to improve the articles if the proposal passes. Redirect - To what? And also, no one will search them, so it won't help the encyclopedia at all. AfD - That will increase the workload, and there will only be 7 days to find notability, as oppose to 5 years if the proposal passes. Such AfDs will most likely be delete, so why discuss it instead of discussing something actually meaningful to discuss? That is why I support. Nononsense101 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Support based on evidence of low page views dictating that drafting articles will have minimal impact. Cherry-picked examples of articles that have proven their notability with improved references would be returned to mainspace as users search for such athletes, recovering the minimal bycatch BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Support There are several existing wikipedia rules that would have prevented their creation if they had been enforced. (detailed reasoning comes later).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Reconfirm support and also to discourage future mass creation of stubs. The Lugnuts stubs were created ignoring the policies of WP:MASSCREATION, WP:MEATBOT or WP:BOTUSE. Those are policies and should have been enforced. Most of the articles were not edited considerably by other editors except for Lugnuts and draftifying them would still provide potential expanders with 5 years time to expand the articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose This has been shown to be a test case in deleting most of the 90,000 stubs created by an editor. I would be open to a separate proposal to redirect some of these to the nation's teams. A delayed deletion is not the only way to handle this issue. A dedicated group of 20 to 100 could fix these articles in a reasonable amount of time. Abzeronow (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC) So your proposed “fix” for this is that a substantial percentage of the actually-active editors of EN Wikipedia (a 2017 study showed nearly all articles were written by about ~1,300 editors) dedicate months/years of time to fix the problems entirely created by a single editor? Yeah, no. But even if this is the way to fix it this proposal doesn’t prevent this from happening? The articles can still be fixed in draftspace if people wish to do that? FOARP (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Support for the love of god please. I've come across so many of these stubs of sportspeople created by Lugnuts that have zero claims of notability besides the criteria of being an olympian. Sportspeople is an area where we ought to be more strict practicing the notability guideline. Database entries do not count to notability. SWinxy (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I would also prefer deleting them outright FWIW. SWinxy (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Support, per FOARP. This is a reasonably pragmatic compromise that addresses the fact that many of these ""articles"" are potentially not even accurate, let alone notable. Even if the Lugnuts sabotage admission is untrue, other editors in this RfC have detected errors that – in my mind at least – call into question the reliability of the datasets used to create these stubs. I further agree with FOARP that an approach similar to this should be taken with regards to many other mass-created stubs that have little hope of satisfying the GNG or becoming reasonably-substantial articles, and that leaving said articles alone – or trying to mud-wrestle over a few of them at a time at AfD – legitimises using fait accompli as a work-around for the burden of establishing notability and reliable sourcing. Protestations such as those from BeanieFan11 are not at all compelling: they argue at one moment that [the] majority [of the stubs concerned] I would say could be expanded if the right sources were used, it just takes time to write things, then at the next admit that nobody actually wants to do that work of expanding them (I doubt that there's going to be a ton of eager editors who want to help out in writing articles on 1900/10s Olympians), thus undermining their own suggestion that an Olympic stub cleanup project be created as an alternative to the headline proposal. Similarly from Abzeronow just above me here; [a] dedicated group of 20 to 100 could fix these articles in a reasonable amount of time. I wish them, or any and all other editors, the best if they do genuinely wish to start a Lugnuts Stubs WikiProject and set to the task of making decent articles out of these database entries – but I see zero reason as to why that work cannot be carried out over the next five years in the peace and quiet of draftspace. XAM2175 (T) 12:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I would further add, for the avoidance of doubt, 1) that I support the principle of the proposal and the methodology used to prepare the query, and that my support endures on those terms even if the list of articles produced by said query changes in the course of the RfC; and 2) that I oppose systematic redirection as an alternate proposal on the grounds that there is no clear methodology for selecting appropriate targets for redirection. XAM2175 (T) 12:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Support I find the ""articles shouldn't have to satisfy Wikipedia standarads"" argument extremely amusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Discussion (Olympian draftification) === Comment I think the better WP:ATD is to simply redirect them to ""Country at year season Olympics"", as mass-draftification has been routinely rejected as being against the purpose of WP:DRAFTIFY, which clearly states that the process is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Such redirects are often reverted. This specifics of this proposal are also intended to ensure that it is not being used as a backdoor route to deletion, by extending the auto-deletion period to five years, and by allowing the articles to be returned to mainspace without improvement for the purpose of redirecting them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) That discussion seems to relate to American football players, which is a topic-area with very fervent advocates. As far as I'm aware, no one is disputing the illegitimacy of Lugnuts Olympian sub-stubs. Thank you for the correction of the 5 years, I had missed that point. Curbon7 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Query @BilledMammal: I checked the most-expanded entry on the list, Alfred Bellerby. Why is this +651 byte edit not a significant contribution? -Ljleppan (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC) It should be, there must be a bug with the query. I'll resolve it and remove any articles that don't meet the criteria from the list; thank you for bringing it to my attention. BilledMammal (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Thought as much :) If you need another test case, Special:Diff/856423499 appears to be +415. Ljleppan (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) There were two issues; the query was excluding articles with contributions <-200 bytes, and including those with >200 bytes, and the query was not considering edits made immediately before an edit by Lugnuts. I've fixed both; for the first, I've decided to continuing excluding contributions <-200 bytes rather than adding articles to the list after the RfC has been opened. This has reduced the number of articles listed from 1,027 to 971.BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for being so fast with the fix. Could you also check this +233 at Edward Carr (athlete)? Ljleppan (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I think I found that one at the same time, on Adolf Davids. I've fixed it now; the issue there was that it wasn't properly including edits with a change tag other than reverts or undo; that diff was tagged with 616, or wikieditor. This has reduced the number of articles listed to 960. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) The delete after 5 years seems like it might be annoying to do (since the drafts would have to excluded from any bots and automation that assumes drafts are G13 after 6 months), and I don't know if it's necessary unless some editors argue that there's something to be saved. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) The other issue with the 5 year rule as currently written is what should an admin do if a human updates one of these pages 4 years 9 months after draftification but hasn't moved it in to mainspace yet? We can solve this problem by clarifying that this 5 year timer is a one time extension of WP:G13's 6 month timer and human edits after 4 years 6 months extend the timer in the normal manner. This also lets admins simply delete using WP:G13 (instead of having to cite this RFC) once the 5 year clock runs out. Iffy★Chat -- 14:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC) My thought is that doing this subversion of G13 might be trying to square peg the round hole. Would it be worth creating a psuedo-namespace for this, similar to UBXspace? casualdejekyll 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Objections to a separate proposal to go along with it, asking if we should mass redirect these articles? Does anyone actually object to redirecting them all (i.e. would only be satisfied if the articles were deleted)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I object to any proposal that has the concept of ""them all"". If you find that one of them is best dealt with by redirecting it, do that. Some may be best handled by expanding them (or leaving them for someone else with more interest in doing so to expand). Some of them may be best handled by deleting the article outright. Let PROD or AFD handle that. Some of them may be best handled via a redirect. Wikipedia has millions of stub articles. The handwringing over these is primarily about the personality that created them, not about the quality or potential of each one assessed on its own. Yes, these thousands of stubs are a lot, but far less than 1% of all stubs we have at Wikipedia, and proportionally are not that big of a deal. We don't have to do anything with the full set of them, other than approach each one as though it were any other stub we came across. --Jayron32 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Reframing my meaning: is there anyone who supports draftification who would object to them being mass redirected? There are clearly at least a few who oppose draftification but would support redirecting. I don't doubt there are still some who would oppose either one, but redirecting seems obviously preferable to draftification. All of the arguments about redirection above assume ""someone will revert"". Well, if the proposal is to redirect, that becomes moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Well, I for one wouldn't object, but I think it saves a whole lot more time to say, in this RFC, ""Support #5 only"", and see if that carries the day. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) So, while I certainly don't fit in the camp you're targeting, I am going to push back on a couple of things. Each proposed alternative to deletion has its own unique problems, and none of them really satisfy all possible issues. Some people may support draftification because it preserves, in the currently viewable state, the article itself in a way that allows for people to more easily expand it. Redirection makes the initial text harder to recover. I mean, only a little if one is an experienced Wikipedia editor, but undoing a redirect and turning it back into an article does involve some rather arcane moves (available to any editor, but tricky nonetheless) that draftification does not. For many purposes, redirecting is tantamount to deletion and salting. Indeed, even deleting and leaving redlinks behind is a better solution, as a redlink at least says ""here's an article that you might want to create if you can get the sources together"" whereas a redirect basically says ""Don't even bother"". --Jayron32 17:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC) undoing a redirect and turning it back into an article does involve some rather arcane moves (and BilledMammal's I believe it makes the articles easier to work on) - When was the last time either of you saw a newbie find a draft and improve it? Apart from the drafts that get outside attention (high-profile controversial article, canvassing, etc.), I'm not so sure I've ever seen it happen. Not in browsing on-wiki; not the new users I've worked with off-wiki. It's part of the failure of draftspace (or rather, why it failed as a collaborative space and turned into a trap for bad content): on the chance that someone goes to create a new article at the exact page name of the draft, nobody sees the notice that there's a draft, and the processes to discover drafts apart from seeing that notice are far more arcane. Way back in the early days of draftspace, I loved the idea and created a few thinking it would spark collaboration, but nobody ever edited them; to the contrary, people (experienced users, not newbies) just went ahead and started the article anew. With extremely rare exceptions, people don't discover and improve drafts. I agree it's also unlikely that someone will look in the history of an article to see the material, but it's not less likely. And really, if we're being honest, what is the value of what's there in the first place? There are two reasons I'm opposing the proposal above, and neither is because Lugnuts created a treasure trove of quality material for the ages: one is it's frustrating to see deletion-via-draftification, even with a 5-year countdown. It just doesn't do anything other than delete with a veneer of preservation. The other is the article titles should redirect, so why not keep the piddly bit of content that's there per WP:PRESERVE yada yada. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) When was the last time either of you saw a newbie find a draft and improve it? MY POINT EXACTLY. We shouldn't do anything with these stubs outside of the normal things we would do with a stub when we come across it during our own random wanderings through Wikipedia. Sometimes, when I find a stub, I don't do anything with it, and leave it for someone else to handle. Sometimes, I'll be like ""I know enough about this, and I think this is a worthwhile project to handle"" and I'll expand it. Sometimes, I'll be like ""I'm not entirely sure there's enough source material to justify an article about this"" and I'll search, and find out there isn't, and I'll nominate it for AFD. My entire point here is that every person in this discussion should be handling these stubs in this manner, and not fretting about what to do with them all. They'll get handled. Or maybe they won't. But we don't need to do anything special. Stubs exist. They existed before Lugnuts created this relatively small set of them here. The will continue to exist and new ones created tomorrow as well. There's no need to do anything special. Ignore them. Expand them. Delete them. Whatever you would do if you found a stub that had nothing to do with Lugnuts, you should do with each one of these. --Jayron32 18:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Do any of these articles have nontrivial incoming links? —Kusma (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) This comment, and the discussion in general, seems to be full of people who believe that draftification = deletion. This proposal is explicitly NOT that and I'm not sure why people are so convinced that it is. casualdejekyll 15:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Because it will result in having been a backdoor route for deletion for the majority of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) why people are so convinced that it is - For the reasons I wrote above (and below, and elsewhere). The usefulness of draftspace, to the extent there ever was any, was eroded through a series of RfCs maybe 5-6 years ago which turned it into a bad content trap. Even before then, it was very rarely used for collaboration or article discovery, at least in part because it was never adequately integrated into our technical systems and editing norms. It had potential, but now it's limited to trapping spam/cruft/attack pages/nonsense. It may be useful for that, but I wouldn't support any proposal based on the idea of people somehow finding drafts and improving them, because that just doesn't really happen outside of token cases. This is unhelpful busywork with a veneer of ""preserving content"" when the goal is really just to delete them (which I wouldn't support, but have more sympathy for than draftification).It's even stranger because there's not really anything to collaborate on or salvage. What we're talking about here is the preservation of 960 instances of Lugnuts creating a placeholder, yelling ""first!"", adding it to a running tally, and moving on to the next one, leaving the hard part for someone else. Some people say stub creation inspires passersby to develop articles, but in my experience those who want to write a decent article are more likely to do so if they also get to create it (and/or don't have to work within someone else's structure), for better or worse. Not that I think stub creation should be disallowed; let's just not pretend like there's a lot of value here. I digress...Extending 6 months to 5 years doesn't transform draftspace into a useful collaborative space and doesn't create something valuable out of these stubs. It's a way for those who think the stubs shouldn't exist to functionally delete them where a mass deletion proposal wouldn't succeed. I get that some folks are opposing because they see some value in these drafts, but I'm opposing because (a) moving to draftspace is pointless because of the nature of draftspace and because they're not particularly valuable, (b) I don't support their mass deletion, and (c) redirection is just obviously preferable. With that, I'll take some time away from this thread, as I'm writing a disproportionate amount. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Is there a reason that we cannot enact this proposal, but then, instead of R2ing the redirects, retarget them to the associated ""Country at the year Olympics"" article? We would then be able to slap on a {{R with possibilities}}, which would automatically include a handy note that says ""This is a redirect from a title that is in draft namespace at Draft:(name of page), so please do not create an article from this redirect (unless moving a ready draft here). You are welcome to improve the draft article while it is being considered for inclusion in article namespace. If the draft link is also a redirect, then you may boldly turn that redirect into a draft article."" HouseBlastertalk 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) One hurdle appears to be that Someone™ needs to figure out what to do about the cases where the subject participated in multiple Olympics. See bolded entries in the collapsed list in § Alternative: Redirection targets below. Ljleppan (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC) How is #1 (""Draftified articles will be autodeleted after 5 years (instead of the usual 6 months)"") going to be enforced? A lot of G13 deletions are done by bots, the ones that aren't done by bots may be done by people unfamiliar with this unending saga, and I don't envy the person who would have to babysit hundreds of drafts every six months for five years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC) With something like a template or a category. In theory a faux-namespace could be used, but that has some disadvantages, although those disadvantages could be overcome with a redirect from draftspace to the faux-namespace, but that also has some disadvantages. I think the details of implementation should be left until after we see if there is consensus for the idea. If there is consensus for the idea, figuring out the implementation would be a next step, and then we would probably try nominating other batches of articles for the same process (with the implementation figured out). Levivich (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I wish people wouldn't use terms such as ""microstub"" or ""sub-stub"", especially in supposedly neutral places such as RFC statements. Our shortest articles are simply stubs, and the use of other terms serves to frame a debate against such articles before it has even begun. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC) There are different types of stubs, however; we needed to make it clear what sort of stubs we were discussing. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Request if the motion passes, could a page be created with the articles listed so that people can try to expand them within the 5 years. I know I might try to expand some of them but will have no time until at least July and without a page/list/something like that, I know I'll forget. Red Fiona (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I intend to; this list will still exist, but I plan to create another one with all current categories listed. If you have any recommendations for where the list should be placed, please let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you :) Red Fiona (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I went through and added sources for a few so that they no longer met the criteria listed (no sources other than Olympedia/Sports-Reference), and BilledMammal has reverted me SIX times (clear violation of WP:3RR) – yet he's accusing me of being disruptive (I have only reverted three times)! BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I support editors removing items from this list if they meet the criteria defined for the restoration of articles if this proposal passes. This was not done for the articles I restored the list; for most of them only a single source was added, which is not enough to plausibly demonstrate WP:GNG, and for one no sources were added, only text. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) By making those edits you're making your entire proposal false, as its no longer just a list of articles containing only Olympedia/Sports-Reference with no significant edits. And any explanation for why doubling the revert rule is acceptable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The criteria for how these articles could be restored is clear; it doesn't make sense to apply different criteria during the RfC than after it. Regarding the reverts, I believe editors are allowed, with some exceptions, to prevent alterations to proposals they make. I also note that you have done more reverts than I, but we already have a discussion about that on your talk page so I won't comment further on it here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) No, I have not made more reverts than you (unless three is greater than six somehow) – I do not see anything allowing what you did at WP:3RR – and again, by reverting, all you're doing is making your proposal a bunch of lies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) This is troubling. I supported this extraordinary proposal only on specific conditions, including the absence of any SIGCOV. If SIGCOV have even arguably been added to some small portion of the articles, those articles should be stricken from the list. Otherwise, the grounds underlying the ""support"" votes (including mine) have changed. Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I note the WP:SIGCOV was added after the RfC was opened; I don't believe it makes sense to have different criteria to remove list items during the proposal (one WP:SIGCOV) than after the proposal (WP:GNG). However, if you or other !support editors disagree, I won't object to their removal. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I checked one and it was removed due to the presence of a plaintext reference to the 1911 UK Census and a later death registry, so no sigcov issues there (assuming the references were accurate, they were plain text and even then hard to tell if it's the same person). CMD (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Would you say, CMD, that this is SIGCOV (from one of them that was re-added)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Be nice to have some diffs for context, but that is indeed not a plaintext reference to a census. CMD (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) BeanieFan11 has removed articles under four different categories: Articles that included plaintext references like the 1911 UK Census and so were missed when establishing the list; for example, Wilfred Bleaden Articles where, after the RfC had started, they added no sources but made an edit of greater than 200 bytes; for example, Carlo Bonfanti Articles where, after the RfC had started, they added one sources that could plausibly be WP:SIGCOV; for example, Arthur Burn Articles where, after the RfC had started, they added sources that could plausibly demonstrate WP:GNG; for example, Richard Genserowski I consider removals under the fourth category to be appropriate, as that matches the criteria for restoring the articles defined in this proposal, but I reinstated the articles that were removed under the first three categories as those would be insufficient to restore the article if the proposal passes. If !support editors disagree with any of reinstations, then please remove the articles, or let me know and I will remove them. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Adding full-page long articles (such as Bechestobill's case) would not pass your criteria for bringing it back? That is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Most of your additions were also considerably shorter; for example, at Arthur Burn, you added a source containing three sentences. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) ...with the comment ""I could make an enormous expansion of the article with the sources that exist, but don't have the time currently so I'll add a ref so it doesn't get draftified."" BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I removed Behestobil. That article now has a full page article from a major newspaper, a clear example of SIGCOV. This extraordinary proposal to bypass normal AfD processe was to be limited to microstubs lacking any SIGCOV and received my Support vote on that basis. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you. Do you consider sources like the one added to Arthur Burns to also warrant removal? BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) If you have already found multiple sources then it would be easy to add a second reference. Why don't you just do that, demonstrate that WP:GNG is plausibly met, and uncontroversially remove the article from the list? BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, no, this proposal is about stubs with zero sigcov references. Not stubs with one reference. Zero. Considering you're the most vocal advocate of the proposal, I was hoping you would already know that, @BilledMammal. casualdejekyll 15:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll: All of these stubs had zero sigcov references when this RfC started. I'm of the opinion that items should only be removed when the criteria for restoration is met (Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG) as I don't think we should set lower requirements while the discussion is ongoing than we will set if there is a consensus for this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Your proposal is just going to be a lie then, as its not a list containing only ""Sports Reference or Olympedia"" with ""no significant edits other than Lugnuts."" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Then there is a grey area that needs to be somehow addressed. I think that generally your position on this is plausible, but the other hand of it is that the proposal hasn't actually been enacted yet - i.e. nothing's been moved into draftspace, so requiring the articles to meet requirements to move out of draftspace when they haven't even entered draftspace yet seems a little silly. I'd say that once the move is done, that's when we restrict it to only your ""fourth category removals"". casualdejekyll 16:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC) My concern is that will be gamed, and as the criteria for inclusion is the list is so conservative gaming it will be easy to do. I don't believe there will be any harm caused by requiring that the restoration criteria is met to remove articles from the list, but I think there will be disruption if we allow the selection criteria to be used to remove articles from the list. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) BilledMammal is repeatedly reverting when I remove entries with SIGCOV – see here, here and here. Pinging those who have talked about these matters (besides me and BilledMammal) prior for their opinions: @Cbl62, Casualdejekyll, Rlendog, and Chipmunkdavis:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I disagree with those reversions. If SIGCOV is found, then the affected article is in a different class from where the main problem under discussion is. It shouldn't matter whether the SIGCOV was added before or after this discussion started. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I also disagree. Rlendog is correct. The whole point of this proposal is to deal with sub-stubs lacking any substance or SIGCOV and based only on databases. I support the proposal, despite its drastic nature, but only on the basis that it is narrowly limited. If articles are improved to the point that they no longer fall within that scope, they should be removed and that should not be controversial. Will strike my support is this continues. Cbl62 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) Either find two GNG-compliant sources, or, in deference to Cbl's position while the discussion is ongoing, one GNG-compliant source that contains extensive coverage. However, I don't understand why you insist on working on this list while the RfC is ongoing; it does cause some disruption and clogs up watchlists, and there are many other articles on Olympians that need to be worked on - if it would help, I can provide you a list containing such Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Why not just leave the list as-is and revisit whatever changes should be made to it after the RfC is over? JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @JoelleJay: Because the proposal is for drastic mass-removal of 1,000 articles that is an exception to normal processes. Given the concerns I raised in my support vote, I am willing to support the proposal in this unique case. However, it should only apply to articles that plainly fit the scope, i.e., zero SIGCOV and based only on databases. If there is SIGCOV and sourcing beyond such databases, the articles should be dealt with using normal AfD processes. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I absolutely do not support mass draftification of articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter). Such close cases should be dealt with at AfD if someone wishes to challenge them. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) This proposal allows five years for anyone to do what Beanie is doing (BEFORE searches of 1,000 articles). No one claimed to have done BEFORE searches of all 1,000 prior to starting this RFC. The articles on the list met the criteria when the RFC was launched. There is no point in somebody going through the list during the RFC to pull articles out of it. To do that damn near 100 times is disruptive. And even if 100 articles are pulled out, there would still be like 800 or 900 left. It's not even a significant portion of the total. Removing articles one by one is purely disruptive, it accomplishes no constructive goal. At the very least, Beanie could just give BM a list of articles that were expanded during the RFC in the event this proposal passes, and BM can take those off the final list. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I had in mind. The list can be amended before implementation, but constantly editing it entry by entry during the RfC is disruptive. It would be clear GAMING if someone was to invalidate inclusion of items on the list by making 200+-byte fluff edits or by adding trivial non-database sources; I don't see how other edits that fail to meet list removal criteria are any different. Even if the list was draftified without amendment, if Beanie shows some individuals do meet GNG they can be moved back to mainspace immediately; if for some of them he can only find one SIGCOV source then he can userfy or work with a wikiproject to incubate the drafts in projectspace. If some NEXIST-notable subjects whose pages no one visits continue to not be visited in draftspace, and no one is interested enough to write a new article on them from scratch in five years, then so be it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Improving articles is the antithesis of ""gaming"" the system nor is it ""disruptive"". I support the proposal but articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) are no longer in scope and should be removed from the list. Mass draftification is an extreme measure and should be limited to those that are clearly' within scope. If 25 of the 1,000 articles get improved while the proposal is pending, that's a good thing! Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) He can improve them all he wants, I'm just saying we can revisit whether they meet list inclusion criteria after the RfC but before implementation. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) If someone wants to challenge the notability of Spitzer and Greene, they are free to do so but such challenge should folow regular AfD procedures. Articles that include SIGCOV should absolutely not be part of this extraordinary mass removal. 21:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) Nobody is opposed to the articles being expanded/improved, and of course nobody thinks articles that include SIGCOV should be part of the mass draftification (or redirection). The point is, we don't need to remove them from the list during the RFC. It's not like just because they're on the list means they're automatically going to be draftified if the proposal passes. We can remove the expanded ones from the list after the RFC (if it passes), and people can still go along expanding them during the RFC, just don't need to be making 25 edits removing them one by one from the list day after day. It has nothing to do with the articles, it's about not spamming this page. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) So long as there is agreement that improved articles like Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) are not going to be draftified as part of this proposal. @Levivich: @BeanieFan11: Is that agreed? Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Even if they are drafted, individual articles that have been edited to show sigcov can always be easilymoved back to the mainspace or recreated. This proposal is specifically designed to make that painless. CMD (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) If a second independent/secondary/significant source is provided, yes. BilledMammal (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @BilledMammal: You're avoiding the question. Do you agree, as Levivich suggests, that Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) should not and would not be draftified under your proposal? Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Any that plausibly meet GNG would be removed; it would be helpful if editors provide a list of articles they improve, but I will also do my own checks. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Still avoiding the question which is about Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter). Cbl62 (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Cbl62, BeanieFan11, and Toa Nidhiki05: I had a discussion with JoelleJay and Levivich; articles that meet WP:SPORTSBASIC #5 (one significant/independent/secondary source) will be removed from the list. However, it would be preferable if they are removed as a group at the end, to avoid clogging watchlists. This would include the two you mention. BeanieFan11, rather than removing items immediately after improving them, can you create a list of articles you have improved, perhaps on the drafting talk page? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Don’t think these two meet that though. Tvx1 01:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) If and when Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) are removed from the proposal, I will restore my support vote. Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC) What's wrong with the assurance they'll be removed after the RfC is over? JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC) What's wrong with removing them now? Others have been removed. Why not these two? Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW, I am not saying that Spitzer and Greene meet GNG. They may or may not survive an AfD, but they clearly do not fit the scope of this extraordinary mass-removal proposal and should be dealt with under regular procedures. Cbl62 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I don't want to keep getting notified every time the list is amended, and allowing any user to unanimously remove entries at any time based on their personal interpretation of SIGCOV is obviously untenable. I guess if @BilledMammal wants he could ok the removal of those two specifically now, but future proposed changes would have to be held in a separate list in another subsection/userspace for editors to discuss if the proposal passes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Nor should it be based on your personal interpretation of SIGCOV. It should be based on whether the articles are within scope of the proposal. Also, who appointed you to issue a ruling that ""future proposed changes would have to be held in a separate list in another subsection/userspace""? The RfC opened with the premise that it could/would be amended to eliminate articles that are not within scope, and the rules of the RfC should not be changed midstream. Many who supported the RfC may have done so on the premise that this would continue to be respected. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I don't read the RfC as opening with that premise. It reads to me as here is the quarry, here is the list of articles that quarry generated. Changes to the question mid-RfC are extremely unusual and generally discouraged, while changes to content under WP:RfC is explicitly discouraged, so I doubt commentators made their comments under the expectation that these usual practices would not be followed. CMD (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) It shouldn't be based on anyone's singular personal interpretation of SIGCOV! I am saying entry removals should be assessed by more than one person, and that won't happen if everyone is editing the list themselves. The proposal criteria were based on the history/status of the articles up to this point, before there was the incentive to make edits to the entries just to invalidate their inclusion. If editors claim they added SIGCOV sources, we should verify entries actually do now meet at least SBASIC #5 before removing them, otherwise the RfC will get bogged down by edit-warring on the list and it will become harder to track which entry removals had some agreement and which ones derived from one person's GAMING or erroneous interpretations of NSPORT. We clearly agree that the object of these criteria is to identify the stubs that are most likely to be on non-notable people; the quarry heuristic BM is using is merely a proxy for this, not definitional. Therefore removals that actually reflect the article now containing ≥#5 sourcing are acceptable, but forcing an entry out by making it fail a technical quarry parameter is GAMING that goes against the spirit of the proposal. The only way we can distinguish good-faith additions of plausible GNG sources from users inserting 200 bytes of contentless text is through multiple people evaluating the edits, and how would we do that when someone changes the list without comment? JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)UTC) If you want, go ahead and remove those two. However, please add future removals to a list instead. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC) And if I do wait until the end and show you a list, how do I know you won't just be like ""screw you, I don't feel like removing them""? I'm not sure I trust you, considering you have absurd interpretations of notability and do not like me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Would a pinky swear be sufficient? Levivich (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) How about this: rather than remove them one-by-one, I remove them at three-to-five at a time. I will not wait until the end and show you a list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC) OK how about this: if you agree to stop messing with the list, you can remove 20 articles from the final list for any reason, no questions asked. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) If I don't accept that, I feel I could find more than that amount of notable ones with sigcov to be removed. How about this, I only remove entries from the list at most once per day (starting the day after acceptance if accepted), and only if the amount of notable ones that I've found is at 5 or more, and can only revert a re-addition at most one time, with me being allowed to remove 18 articles from the final list, no questions asked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) How about you just leave the list alone until the end of the RFC and we evaluate then if any need te removed, should the proposal to draftify be successful? Tvx1 07:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC) WP:AGF, and I don’t dislike you; I dislike some of your actions, but not you. Even Lugnuts I didn’t dislike and unsuccessfully argued against ArbCom banning him. However, I think it is reasonable to allow other editors to review the articles you restore, so I would ask that you create a list rather than removing them yourself; for example, the coverage of Walter Bowler is lacking. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC) === Alternative: Redirection targets === This list is to allow discussion of the proposed alternative of redirecting articles to the relevant country and year article rather than draftifying them; the requirements to convert the redirect to an article would be the same as the proposed requirements to move an article out of draft space. Note that some of these articles have multiple possible targets; those are marked in bold. ==== Survey (Alternative: Redirection targets) ==== Support redirects. For reasons outlined in my comments above, I support both creation of redirects and draftification. The two proposals are not mutually exclusive. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirects on general principle, everyone agrees that in normal circumstances BLAR-ing articles with no discussion is allowed, whereas draftifying or deleting them is not. There's no need for unprecendented procedure breaks when the problem can be dealt with while still following procedure. I also see some errors in the table: you listed the same article twice for Frank Ihrcke and George Stapf, and George Patching and George Pinchard are bolded despite not conflicting. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you, fixed- duplicates were handled manually and I appear to have made a couple of mistakes. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirects per Cbl and Pppery. I agree this and the draftification are not mutually exclusive. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose with a similar rationale for opposing the other proposal. These should be discussed on their own merit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC) These really should be discussed individually – some are very clearly notable, some may not be. We should not be getting rid of them all at once when its been shown that many are notable, especially considering that no harm at all is done by leaving them as they are. I think its more harmful to mass get rid of articles, some of which may not be notable, but at the expense of many very clearly notable ones than leaving them as they are and discussing them by their own merits – as they should be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirects per my comments in the previous section. I agree something must be done but have reservations about draftifying. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Since this appears to have turned into a !vote, Support as second choice per my comments in the previous section. BilledMammal (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Also support, as long as it's clear the same requirements for returning to mainspace are enforced. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose WP:TRAINWRECK. --Rschen7754 01:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support As noted, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strong support, send the readers somewhere with information that has hopefully been looked at with some due diligence and might have wider context. No objection to drafting still happening, although I don't think it has much purpose at that point. CMD (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strong support per my comments in the above section. BLARing is much more reasonable as it maintains page history, while also being semi-useful. Curbon7 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Weak support [only choice], per what I wrote in a couple places above. Opposed to draftification; very weakly preferred to just leaving them alone. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support I am not sure exactly what problem the OP is trying to solve. Stubs, per se, are not a problem. I do not think we are dealing with the additional considerations of living people with this list. So, while many of these articles may not meet WP:GNG in their current state, I struggle to see the harm to the project if these articles are left alone and nominated for deletion through normal channels. --Enos733 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)@Enos733: Are you supporting or opposing this proposal to redirect all the Olympians? You said ""support"" but your comments (stubs ... are not a problem ... I do not think we are dealing with the additional considerations of living people ... while many of these articles may not meet WP:GNG, I struggle to see the harm to the project if these articles are left alone) seem to say the opposite. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC) My thoughts are similar to what Rhododendrites says above. I prefer redirects to draftification/deletion. - Enos733 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Support Per my comment in the main survey. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose - Per Harry Oppenheim, which is shining example of where the urge to redirect everything in all cases rather than delete ""to preserve the edit history"" is misguided. These redirects simply serve to cast in stone the erroneous methodology and bad sourcing used to mass-create these articles in the first place. Harry Oppenheim was someone who literally didn't exist under that name, the real name of the non-notable Austrian footballer was Heinrich Oppenheim, but we already have an article about a different Heinrich Oppenheim who is actually notable. There are also multiple other real Harry Oppenheims which a searcher is just as likely to be looking for (a news paper owner, and art-collector, a South African magnate etc.) because they are equally as (non) notable as the Austrian footballer, but for bizarre reasons we redirect searchers to a list of Austrian footballers who played a tiny number of games for the Austrian national team, with no real explanation as to why they land there, rather than just giving them the search results they would get for all the other Harry Oppenheims mentioned on Wikipedia which would obviously be of more interest to them. FOARP (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per FOARP. The solution to disruptive mass creation is to simply delete the whole batch without looking twice (or if that's not possible, draftify it). The redirects can be recreated from scratch when appropriate, and the ones that are not should certainly not be kept around for sake of preserving trivial edit histories full of low-effort useless information and cosmetic edits. Avilich (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per my comment in the previous section; these should be dealt with on an individual basis. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Weak support as second choice. I have many reservations about this, as explained elsewhere, but it's still better than doing nothing. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirecting. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) It's complicated, but redirection is so obviously a better option than creating a tonne of drafts - and is way more efficient technically. I would want, as per my comments below, to be sure that the sources already in the article have been checked for significant detail by a human being - this takes 20 seconds each article and in a 30 minute sample period threw up around 38% of articles as having prose sources already present and which suggest (strongly in around 20% of cases) other sources exist. We need a balance between throwing out everything and reducing the number of stand alone articles. That can be done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - I don't support the idea or support lumping them all together.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment while my personal preference would be to keep the stubs as they are, I admit it's a personal preference and I can't back it up with Wiki policy. Of the two other options, I think redirecting is the better option, although I would like to make a suggestion that we hold off on redirecting the articles which could go to two possible Olympics, because I suspect those people are likely to be easier to find additional sources for (but I could be wrong). Red Fiona (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose on principle, since we shouldn't be making bulk editing on so many articles (either to delete, redirect or draftify). If there is a consensus to bulk change these, redirecting is better than the other options, but checking them all properly is the vastly superior option to applying handwaving principles to batches of articles like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @Joseph2302: These articles were created through bulk editing. If you oppose bulk editing on principle would it not make sense to make an exception to allow the undoing of problematic examples of bulk editing? BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Qualified support - I would support redirecting those that do not meet SIGCOV. If SIGCOV is met, those should be excluded from the mass redirect and evaluated on their own merits. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Support I wish this was a more acceptable answer to both sides of the argument. Redirecting articles can be undone without the lose of any article history as and when SIGCOV sourcing is found, and it doesn't have the time constraints that making drafts does. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirectsif draftification does not find a majority.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Support redirects since draftification is essentially a delayed deletion. We should only redirect those in which other sources cannot be found to improve these stubs. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose, per FOARP. I'm not at all confident that systematic determination of the redirect target can be trusted. If redirection is the best outcome for any number of these stubs, it can be determined by manual assessment of the draft. XAM2175 (T) 12:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Discussion (Alternative: Redirection targets) ==== One issue with this alternative that needs to be resolved is what to do with the articles like Alfred Keene, which could be redirected to either Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 1912 Summer Olympics. Are there any suggestions on how to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) In my view, this is a major problem that must be resolved before the proposal can be seriously considered. The sheer number of articles we have on the Olympics would make it a major chore to figure out what should be redirected where. As an example of the scope of the problem, there are actually six plausible targets for Alfred Keene: Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics, Fencing at the 1908 Summer Olympics, Fencing at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's sabre, Great Britain at the 1912 Summer Olympics, Fencing at the 1912 Summer Olympics, and Fencing at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's sabre.The same problem exists even for the articles not bolded in BilledMammal's list. Carl Wiegand only competed in one Olympics, but should his article be redirected to Germany at the 1900 Summer Olympics, Gymnastics at the 1900 Summer Olympics, or List of Olympians killed in World War I? A third example: plausible targets for August Ehrich include not only the national article and the event article, but also List of Olympic male artistic gymnasts for Germany. Reasonable people can (and probably will) disagree over which of these targets is more suitable, so unless we want to end up discussing every article case-by-case, I think anyone arguing for redirection should also indicate how they think we ought to go about it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) One solution would be to redirect to the first (or last, or even random) Olympics they participated in, and then let normal editing processes handle it from there. Another would be to say ""there is no obvious redirect target, so let's draftify for now"" and let normal editing procedures figure it out from here. Both are far from perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good. Ljleppan (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Draftify first. Unintentionally, I'm sure, this issue of having to redirect has simply acted as a barrier on anything being done at all. FOARP (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Someone above made the explicit suggestion of COUNTRY at the YEAR SEASON Olympics as the most logical option. I'd be happy with that and it's clear and easy to use - see my point below for which one we use where someone has been to more than one games. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Agree with Sojourner in the earth above - And yes, this is a problem generally for nearly all these redirects of non-notable sportspeople: there is a multitude of possible redirects, each as bad as the other. Returning to the ""Harry"" Oppenheim case discussed in my !vote above, Heinrich Oppenheim played two games for the Austrian national team but he also played at club level in Austria so why are we highlighting their very brief career on the Austrian national squad. Indeed, why are we highlighting them with a redirect at all when other Harry/Heinrich Oppenheims existed? FOARP (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC) That's a good point about other people with the same name. If we didn't have an article on the Olympian Alfred Keene, then the painter Alfred John Keene would be the primary topic, and should therefore be the target of the redirect. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Firstly I'm not even sure I'd be trying to do anything with Alfred Keene before doing a quite intensive search of The Times and the London Gazette - the notes on his Olympedia page suggest strongly to me that there's very likely to be something to allow us to develop a decent article about him.In terms of where to redirect - in some cases it'll be obvious because someone will have had one relatively successful games, in which case the redirect should probably go there (Sidney Domville for example, although again the notes in Olympedia suggest he's worth a look as a keeper). In other cases it won't be so clear - I'd probably suggest their first games in that situation, but I could live with the last. It's just slightly easier for modern people to use the first (and bear in mind that stuff like shooting means people can have really quite long Olympics careers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) My plan, if there is a consensus to create redirects, to redirect to the country article for the first Olympics they played in. I'll also provide a list of the articles covering sportspeople who played in multiple years to WikiProject Olympics, so that interested editors may easily alter the target if desired. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) BilledMammal - but then why redirect at all? With the redirect the user is taken to a single page. Without it, the user sees all mentions of that name on Wikipedia in their search results, including all the events and teams on which that name is listed, but also all the other people of that name who are equally as likely to be of interest - isn’t that better? FOARP (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I agree, and have argued extensively for that position in the past, but I believe a few inconvenient redirects are an improvement over leaving these articles in mainspace, and if there is a consensus for the proposal only on the basis of redirection I don't believe it would be appropriate to omit a few. However, I would be happy to provide you with a list of articles with multiple appropriate targets, and can probably generate a partial list of clashes with other articles - you can then bring them as a group to RfD? BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That seems very arbitrary and potentially unhelpful, eg. if someone is reading about the 1912 Olympics, searches an athlete's name and is taken to an article on the 1908 Olympics, with no indication of where they can find the information they're looking for. It might do as a stop-gap measure, but if consensus is to make these articles into redirects, my preferred solution would be to merge them all into List of Olympic athletes (1896–1912). That would be a lot more work, obviously. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That would be a lot more work, obviously. Depending on what information you believe should be included in that list, it might not be. What information do you believe should be included in it? My concern would be that the list would be very long (WP:LSC), and that it wouldn't fully resolve the issue as some athletes who competed between 1896 and 1912 also competed after 1912; I think that can be corrected by creating ""List of Olympic athletes: A"", ""List of Olympic athletes: B"", etc. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) It also doesn't deal very well with people who appeared in 1912 and then in the 1920s, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) What information do you believe should be included in it? For the list to be useful, I think at a minimum it would have to contain birth and death dates, Olympic years and events participated in. This information would have to be checked against the sources, though, to make sure we're not propagating errors. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) We can check against the sports-reference source automatically; would that be sufficient? If we are going to do this I think it will need further and separate discussion; both to determine what information to include, and to determine whether such a creation would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Perhaps it would be easier than I thought, then. I'm completely ignorant about what kind of things can be accomplished with technology. I agree that more discussion would be needed. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Discussion (other article-sets which need addressing) ==== If this motion passes some serious thought should be given to sub-sets of other extreme-low-quality articles mass-created on Wikipedia. Off the top of my head: The 19th-century and early-20th-century cricketer/footballer articles made by Lugnuts. Dr. Blofeld's mass-created Bangladesh/Burmese ""village"" articles created using only GEOnet Names Server (GNS), a deprecated source for this purpose. Dr. Blofeld has indicated that they are OK with these articles being dealt with in some way in the past. The Antarctic geological feature articles created based only on GNIS, a deprecated source for this purpose. Carlossuarez46's Iranian/Azeri ""village"" articles, created based on GNS/the Iranian census (both deprecated for this purpose - the Iranian Census because it includes wells/pumps/farms/houses etc. as ""villages"").Of course the process would be the same as here, and the search used to highlight it having similarly very low criteria for escaping draftification. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Yes, the problem for me is permastubs which can't be expanded or ever become a useful start class article. I think you'll find most stubs created by me can be expanded, but the ""xx is a village"" approach using a database, even with a population figure in many of them was a poor way to approach it. I'd be happy to delete all database type stubs from the site which can't be significantly expanded, or merge them into lists were appropriate. Carlos's Iranian stubs for instance, I think we'd be better off merging a lot of the smaller settlements into lists by district. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I think this discussion will need to be split off, but I've created two lists of articles created by Carlossuarez46 on locations in Iran and Azerbaijan. These lists attempt to include every article they have created, so they will include articles that would not be considered for draftification like Hadrut; filtering can be done later, if there is a consensus for this proposal and when we decide how we want to filter the articles. They also may not be complete; I am not certain yet what article or talk page categories are best suited to generating a complete list, and suggestions are welcome. I am wondering, though, if these creations were fully automated; I'm seeing several articles with identical names disambiguated only by coordinates, and I don't believe that even an inattentive human using a semi-automated process would not realize that those are probably the same location. BilledMammal (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC === Alternative proposal to draftification and redirection: create an Olympic stub cleanup project === I have what I believe would be something much more beneficial, at least a hundred times more helpful to the encyclopedia, than the two above proposals (redirection and draftification): start a project dedicated towards expanding and cleaning up Olympians. I have found many people from this list above that are notable, some very highly notable (examples which I have expanded: Fred Narganes, Thomas LeBoutillier, Herbert Gidney, J. Nash McCrea, and Garnett Wikoff, to name a few – and for some others, which I haven't had the time to, I've just added sources to show notability, some of which had full-page long articles (Albert Bechestobill) and some of which had articles describing them as the greatest ever in their sport (Lou Scholes, John Hession)) – it is insane to suggest blindly removing (redirection=removing;draftification=backdoor route to deletion) nearly one thousand articles when many of which are very notable (unless there is a major issue otherwise with all of them, except that's not the case here). So I propose that we create a project to cleanup, improve and expand Olympian articles, with rewards for those who do so. As for what the rewards are, I've thought of this: improve two Olympian articles to the point that it would pass the WP:DYK criteria – one barnstar; improve three further – one more barnstar; then one additional barnstar for every time someone does five more (I've thought of different types of barnstars and awards that could be designed for this). I feel this would be much more benefifical to the project than just mass throwing out huge amounts of Olympians, when many are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support as nom. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) An Olympic stub cleanup project sounds like a great idea, but I don't see why this is an alternative to draftification. The stubs can easily be worked on in draftspace. Contrary to the claim that keeps cropping up that draftification is being used as a backdoor to deletion, I very much hope that the majority of these articles can be rescued and restored to mainspace. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Also, BeanieFan, I'm afraid I have to add my voice to those who feel that your behaviour at this RfC is (unintentionally) disruptive. Removing Otto Feyder from the list in order to nominate it for AfD, where you propose to turn it into a redirect – a proposal already under consideration in this discussion – is only wasting the time of volunteers. You're doing some good work on these articles but it would really be so much easier for everyone if you would wait until the RfC is over. Regardless of the outcome, none of these articles are going anywhere for at least another five years. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Apologies about Feyder, I see now that that action didn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support - I would be interested in contributing to this. No rewards needed for me.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I support this, but this can also be done from draft space. On the rewards I believe some more general award for the article expanders could be thought of. Organize ""backlog"" drives etc. Then also, the Lugnuts olympic stubs are just a start. There are likely tens of thousands similar ones that could need an expansion if sources exist.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose - at least as an alternative. Experience has shown that these articles just won't be dealt with. Wikipedia just doesn't have that many truly-active editors that it can waste the time of ~100 or so of them for months sorting through Lugnuts' articles. There is a clear DELREASON for these articles as they currently stand. No opposition, of course, to anyone doing this ON TOP OFF the remedy of draftification. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose as alternative. Concur entirely with FOARP. XAM2175 (T) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === Discussion (general) === Perfection is the enemy of progress. We're talking about an immense amount of stubs that the creator spent perhaps 1 minute each creating. Any plan which requires a special discussion and decision-making process for each one (perhaps 1 hour of volunteer time for each) will not actually get implemented and would be an insult to volunteer time. Some way of efficiently moving forward on this is needed, even if imperfect. The potential downside of an efficient system potentially having non-optimal handling of some exceptions is easily fixed and not big. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Frankly my preference is for straight-deletion of failing articles that were created en masse, and the recreation of that part of them which may be notable as actual articles. The proposed process does at least eventually achieve that result so I am in favour of it. Opponents are essentially admitting that even given years of lead-time, they are not going to fix these articles, in large part because many/most of them cannot be fixed. FOARP (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Well, I""m not sure that that's necessarily true. I just took a strict 30 minutes - timed - and clicked through the first 163 articles on the list of 960 above (17%) - working in the order they were presented, i.e. alphabetically by forename. For each one I checked the Olympedia article to see if it had anything substantial to say about the person. If there was anything relatively in depth that made me think there might well be further sources available I recorded it as ""Definitely worth a look""; if there were a few personal details or details about their career I recorded ""Possibly worth looking at""; if there were only passing details, such as the club they represented or their performance just in the Olympics I didn't record anything. On average it took less than 20 seconds per article, including recording. Of those 163 articles, I recorded ""Definitely worth a look"" 31 times and ""Possibly worth looking at"" 32 times - so, 63 of the 163 had something on the Olympedia article which gave me significant pause for thought (38.7% - with 19% clearly, in my view, worth a proper look). That's a much higher proportion than I was expecting. This might be because the majority of those with detail on were British or American - more likely British fwiw. The 1908 London and 1904 St Louis games almost certainly mean that there are more of those articles - if the set had been 1912 to 1928 then I imagine the proportions would have been lower. Obviously this is partially subjective. I tried to be as clear as possible and only record when there was clearly something that caught my eye, but at the same time was working quickly and there may be some blurring. I was focussing on the likelihood, in my experience of using newspaper reports from this sort of era, of other sources existing - after all, that's almost certainly where the Olympedia writers got their information from. In some cases there wasn't much in the way of information but hints that there must surely be more (Daniel McMahon (sport shooter), for example), whilst another cases there is already a significant amount of information (Daniel Flynn (cyclist), for example). The set I looked at is here along with my notes. I took out most of BilledMammal's columns for simplicity. Why is this ""important""? It's reasonable to make the assertion that stubs can act as seeds for articles. I think it's also reasonable to assert that stubs in mainspace are more likely to be developed than redirects or drafts. I have absolutely no quantifiable evidence to back up that assertion, but I'm sure I've seen other people make it in the past and I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to say. So what? The query is good at identifying possible articles that might be dealt with. And by my book, 60-odd percent of these could probably be dealt with somehow. But my only request is that we look at the sources actually present first. For the list of 960 that's, what, less than four-person hours (20 seconds per article is easily doable over 30 minute bursts). Think how much time has been wasted on this process of discussing alone over the last couple of years. At least part of that - and a substantial amount of the opposition to the proposals - is people pointing out that some of the articles on lists which have been presented as clearly notable (Bill Huddleston was on one list for example, yet already contains a substantial prose source because the methodology assumes, as with these lists, that the sources included in the article are only databases). The discussions above have already thrown up plenty of other examples beyond the first 163. Yes, let's do something. But let's not delete everything without even having the courtesy to spend 20 seconds on each article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I think it's also reasonable to assert that stubs in mainspace are more likely to be developed than redirects or drafts. I have absolutely no quantifiable evidence to back up that assertion, but I'm sure I've seen other people make it in the past and I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to say. I have quantifiable evidence to say the opposite; see my essay Wikipedia:Abandoned stubs. Articles are much more likely to be expanded by their creator than by anyone else. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think that's quite the same thing though, is it? And, interestingly, your 35% figure having been developed is quite close to my 39% figure for items on that list where there's a fairly significant flag that I can raise that says, hang on a minute, we need to look at this properly. Which is my main request here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Not quite, but it is the best evidence we have or can get without an experiment that would violate WP:NOTLAB. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think there'd be anything disruptive involved would there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) the methodology assumes, as with these lists, that the sources included in the article are only databases This isn't accurate. The method assumes the source has been used as a database, which is not the same thing. (And apparently used in a way that generates the wrong birth dates in some instances, somehow.) CMD (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I take the specifics of your point, but my point is that the way that the list that Huddleston was on was created using a query to produce a set of articles that are presumed to be inadequately sourced, which is often taken to mean sourced only to databases (see any number of discussion around the sourcing of articles about sports people). The assumption behind that is that the sources, in that case CricketArchive, are assumed to be purely a database source. In the case of Huddleston that source contained a decent sized prose article about him as well as the standard data tables and so on. The same is sometimes true of articles sourced only to CricInfo - a point I've made a number of times elsewhere. In the case of the list of 960 articles presented here, the assumption seems to be that articles sourced to Olympedia will simply have data tables rather than any reasonable prose that could act as a seed for article development. In around 40% of the 163 cases I've looked at so far I don't think that assumption is reasonable to make. Of course, identifying the 60% that don't have that and doing something with them would make the task of figuring out exactly what to do with the 40% much easier, and, with caveats, I support that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see where that assumption is being made; I don't even think anyone has suggested Olympedia is a poor source. Whatever it (and Cricinfo) could be used for, it has instead been used to procedurally generate two sentences on each subject. Whatever is done to those sentences, Olympedia and its seed information would remain for those interested in the 40%. CMD (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Given the history of this subject area and discussions such as those at WP:ACAS and ones like this at the cricket project or those surrounding the changes made over the last 2-3 years related to WP:SPORTCRIT, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to make given the point in the selection criteria section which says Referenced only to Olympedia or Sports Reference. As I say, I take your specific point about the way that they have been used in these articles at present, but my point here is that Olympedia clearly contains some detailed prose on some of these articles - as do CricInfo and CricketArchive. Not on all of them, but on enough to make it necessary to manually inspect the sources before we chuck stuff out that we should be eventually improving. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't know whether I was involved in those various discussions you point to, but this proposal is specifically designed to provide time for people to manually inspect the sources and develop the articles. CMD (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Leaving aside that no one will do that if they're difficult to find drafts, rather than much easier to find main space articles, they can then move it back to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG. Which getting on to 40% of my survey ones already do... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC) GNG requires multiple sources. In some cases, Olympedia might count as one (although many of the blurbs are too short to plausibly be WP:SIGCOV), but sports-reference never does. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Blue Square Thing - The prose sections on Olympedia are not clearly reliably sourced. If you believe they are reliably sourced, you need to go beyond ""I haven't seen any instances of them being wrong"". I have, actually - Francis English was listed on Olympedia as having died in 1984 but clearly lived beyond that, Olympedia was corrected after the Wikipedia article was redirected but this just goes to show that they are relying on Wikipedia to do their fact-checking. You have to explain who actually wrote them and whether there is any actual rigorous editorial process, because as far as I can see the answer to that question appears to be that they are Wiki-like content written by the volunteers who maintain those databases, and include material e.g., sent in by the families of those listed. I also agree with BilledMammal that most/all of this prose content does not rise to the level of SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) The point isn't to draftify them in the hopes that someone outside of NSPORT editors will find them organically, it's to draftify them specifically so that the editors who insist there must be sources can work on them outside of mainspace and we don't have to go through hundreds of AfDs. Given their lack of attention over the last decade, no one outside of the usual sports editors/blanket inclusionists care about these stubs (and even that's just wanting them to exist for completion's sake), much less would notice they were gone, so I highly doubt draftifying would make any difference to their expansion prospects. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Blue Square Thing, your study was responding to / responsive to a particular post but IMHO not to the main reasons for the main question here. IMO the main premise of the proposals is ""if someone makes a real article out of it fine. If not, then it goes. In a way commensurate with how they were created....en masse rather than requiring an hour of volunteer time to delete each article that took one minute to create. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) How are these not ""real articles""? Many articles in paper encyclopedias (that some of us remember, and Wikipedia is supposed to emulate) only consisted of one short sentence. ""Joe Bloggs competed in the quadrathlon at the 1971 summer Olympics"" tells the reader more than nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) When a paper encyclopedia says just one sentence about something, that's called an ""entry"", not an ""article."" No one is arguing against ""Joe Bloggs competed in the quadrathlon at the 1972 summer Olympics"" being an entry in the article about the 1972 Summer Olympics, but we shouldn't have one-sentence articles because those aren't what articles are. Semantics aside, if we have one sentence to say about something, it makes almost no sense to put that one sentence on its own web page, alone. It makes a lot more sense to move that one sentence to some other web page that already has other sentences on it. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)In draftspace no one can hear you scream - they could be there for 5 years without anyone improving them, yet many of these articles have been in mainspace for longer and have only drawn any interest once they have been threatened with draftification. The subjects may be notable, there may be sources available, and there is the argument that they should be kept because if left long enough someone else may do something to improve them. These stubs do not establish notability, they have few sources and yet they are still here when better quality drafts would be rejected by AFC. It seems that editors agree that something should be done, but not what? An option could be to run an Olympian WP:De-stub-athon that would cover the listed articles but as part of a larger improvement drive, rather than specifically honouring or condemning any individual creator. There are 133,000 articles classed as stubs by the Olympics wikiproject (including those listed here and many others created by Lugnuts). Afterwards the option will still be there to discuss what to do with anything on the list that editors have not been able to improve, but maybe the situation would be clearer. EdwardUK (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC) From a couple of things raised here and what I came across with the Arthur/Alexander Martin case, I've grown seriously concerned that Olympedia is not the reliable source some think it to be. I also don't understand why all those articles seem to rely nearly solely on that for information and don't even cite the Olympics own official site's profiles on the people in question. In any case, a serious vetting of the sourcing is required.Tvx1 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Operating under the assumption that users self-sort into WikiProjects of personal interest, it seems unlikely that these stubs could be handled by a dedicated project. WikiProject Olympics reports 190K articles under their purview and only 5.5K are assessed as C quality or above. Thus, if only 2.9% of its articles have reacted a threshold of substantial content over 20yrs after the project's founding, it seems unlikely that a further fork of their labor will attract the necessary support to resolve the stubs BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Comment As of now and as to my count it was 63 support to 27 opposes to the draftification. Off course I can err but the supporters are very likely in the majority.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC) And because consensus is determined by someone uninvolved evaluating the strength of the arguments, not by counting noses, that is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I hope this would be always like this. Mostly Often it's just counting votes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Ludicrous talking shops like this are among the main reasons for this site's headlong plunge into a permanent downwards spiral. Why delete only the Olympians? The best solution for such a farcical mess of a site is to delete everything. 2.99.210.156 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Comment Some other solution for the micro biostubs would be migrating the stubs to something like a directory of people. This would also be quite a boost for the closure of the gender gap I believe.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC) For what it's worth, virtually all initiatives to improve the gender gap (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red) focus on increasing Wikipedia's coverage of women, not on decreasing the coverage of men. This would narrow the gender gap on a numbers level but would do nothing for the broader aim of fixing the under-coverage of women, which is the entire point. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Notes === In Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 188#Move protection, there was agreement that DYK articles should be move-protected while they're on the front page (and in the queue leading up to that). I put forth a BRFA, at which it was suggested that I open a discussion here to get wider consensus on the need for such protection. There were also some technical questions which came up at the BRFA, but for this discussion, let's just look at whether the basic concept of move-protection has consensus or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I was opposed at WT:DYK, and I haven't really seen any good arguments for protection. Moves of DYK items are rare, and incorrect moves more so. Where is the problem that is being solved here? —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose, pages are not protected pre-emptively, and no substantial argument to deviate from this principle has been presented. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support We have WP:MPNOREDIRECT and any move ends up at WP:ERRORS. That alone is reason enough to do this as there’s too much traffic at Errors. Most main page moves occur through WP:ITN, though. If we get this working smoothly for DYK, we can later discuss whether we want to broaden the scope to ITN. There’s hardly ever anything urgent about a move but if it is urgent, it can be done by an admin who can also resolve the redirect on the main page. Schwede66 19:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC) ""An edit will need to be made to a protected page after the move"" is an incredibly weak argument for default protection. Do you also want to protect all pages linked from the TFA blurb? —Kusma (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Support as per the previous discussion: it interferes with history compilation in any number of fields and allows non-admins to screw with what's linked from the main page. I think that should require consensus. It would also be weird and arbitrary to move-protect TFAs and not DYKs, even though the bolded links of DYK on any given day roughly match the TFA views bump. I'll also point out that any kind of maintenance tag or merge or AfD nomination can't be added while an article is on the Main Page; if consensus isn't gained to pull the article off of DYK, the tag is removed and any nomination closed. We already have fairly extensive rules preventing good faith tagging of articles while they're on the Main Page; RMs and moves shouldn't be an exception. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Leeky, do you have a link to the rules about tag bombing articles on the main page? I got into a tussle in January with someone who tag bombed the TFA. (Over a template calling for revdel of an alleged copyvio in the history ie something not only not urgent, but did not need to be done at all.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @Hawkeye7: There are very few Main-Page-wide guideline; DYK keeps its own at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, but interpretations get a little murky. SG?AfD hold, combined with WP:SK#6, means that an article can't be AfDed while on the Main Page – but SG?dispute tags, a separate guideline, makes an article ineligible for DYK once tagged, and thus grounds for a pull. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) WP:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#F7 says F7 (article title): Make sure your article title conforms with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). But I don't regard this as sufficient reason for a pull, especially given that the WP:RM process may not approve renaming. I don't regard tag bombing as a reason either. I 've had articles tag bombed. In one case, an editor felt entitled to tag bomb for notability even after an article was kept at AfD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support We shouldn't allow vandals to attack the front page. No other reason why someone would want to move an article while it is on the front page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Do you have any evidence that most page moves of DYK pages are vandalism? I honestly can't recall the last time it happened. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I can't recall the last time a page move anywhere was urgently required except to revert vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Can you think of another reason why we ever would want to WP:IAR and bypass the WP:Requested moves process? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC) If a page needs to be disambiguated or similar, you just move it without going through WP:RM. See WP:NOTRM. As there are many cases where WP:BOLD moves are encouraged, it is usually unnecessary to invoke WP:IAR. —Kusma (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I compared the number of entries in Special:Log/move vs the number of discussions in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions last week, and I think it's fair to say that >90% of page moves don't involve the RM process. DYK involves mostly new articles, which probably have a higher rate of appropriate/non-vandal page moves than average. But even then, it just doesn't seem to happen much. DYKs are only on the Main Page for a few hours. Can anyone name even three DYKs that were moved during the few hours the article was on the Main Page? I can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Support It is sensible to protect. A move can be requested at WP:ERRORS. Agree with Schwede66 that There’s hardly ever anything urgent about a move but if it is urgent, it can be done by an admin who can also resolve the redirect on the main page Bruxton (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NO-PREEMPT. No evidence has been presented that there's a plague of inappropriate moves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @Legoktm: What's a little confusing here is that as far as I can tell, this type of question has already been decided for TFA (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 3. There's no particular difference between DYK and TFA (or, for that matter, ITN, etc). We should have a uniform policy for all main page content. The details might change for each section to accommodate the differences in process, but the basic policy should be the same. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @RoySmith: you mean TFA Prot Bot 1, which was for move protection? My recollection when I took on that task is that people had been manually move-protecting the TFA for years (and even automatically with some unapproved adminbots) and the bot was just automating what was the custom, not introducing a new practice. Legoktm (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Cmnt: Has there been a huge problem with what this is trying to prevent? It seems to me, at this point, to just be policy-creep. GenQuest ""scribble"" 02:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC) oppose not even one case has been supplied of a problem move. Since the DYK articles are usually new, there is a much bigger chance that a rename to something better is in order. For a TFA, that has gone through a long careful process by several people, so we can be sure it is at the best name already. As long as a redirect is working, reporting at WP:ERRORS is unnecessary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Strong Oppose-Most DYKs do not get enough page views to justify this. Schierbecker (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Most DYKs get hundreds of views per hour, many get over a thousand per hour. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @Schierbecker: speaking as someone who's helped maintain DYK's stats pages for over a year, you're right that barely any single DYK matches a TFA view-for-view. But that's only because DYK runs eight or even sixteen hooks a day, splitting attention; a much fairer comparison would be looking at how many views all DYKs get in a day, compared to TFA. They're in the same order of magnitude – DYK gets some 40-50k views a day, last I checked, which is comparable with lots of TFAs. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC) That's nothing. Do we pre-emptively move protect other pages that are temporarily popular? Schierbecker (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)s @Schierbecker: yes... pages on TFA. I mean, you pointed out that DYKs don't get enough views to justify protection, compared to TFA – I'm just pointing out that in the aggregate, the two are actually quite comparable in that respect. If it's not about page views, that fine, but saying that would directly contravene your initial !vote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think it makes sense to think about this in the aggregate. There are some 8 hooks refreshed every 12 hours. An inappropriate page move to a DYK entry will be caught before too many readers see it. Your comparison to the practice of protecting TFAs is not quite on the mark. There will almost never be a reason to unilaterally move a TFA. Schierbecker (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) How often do we fix redirects from the main page, and how often is that caused by a DYK? I've had a look through the history of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and searched for the term ""redirect"", going back to Jan 2022. Obviously, that method won't find all instances, but it gives an idea. Also note that it's not necessarily the target article that causes the redirect. There are unders and overs, I suppose. Schwede66 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem. Policy is against pre-emptive protection and there's no evidence that page-move vandalism is a problem on DYK. Yes, we move-protect TFAs; I'm not entirely sure that's necessary (and note that the bot for that doesn't interfere with existing protection) but TFA is much higher profile than DYK and featured articles (and their titles) have been subject to much more scrutiny than DYKs which, by definition, are often new articles. I don't see anything to suggest that move-protecting DYKs by default is necessary or helpful. We haven't needed it thus far in all the years that DYK has existed and all the thousands of articles that have been through it, nor have we thought it necessary for ITN or OTD, so I don't see it being necessary now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support It's only for a few days for heaven's sake, and the correct thing to do is almost always to launch a WP:RM discussion, not just move the page on a whim. This has happened to a nom of mine (of course I immediately reverted, & the editor never came back) and happens not infrequently. I don't really understand the opposes. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose'. We do not preemptively protect. I think that bold moves can be a benefit to the project, particularly when titles are grossly out-of-line with relevant naming conventions, and merely being nominated for DYK does not warrant move protection as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Bold moves can be a benefit (I do some myself), but usually they aren't - they are just new editors, those with a cranky set idea, or more experienced editors too lazy to follow procedure & start an RM (I revert far more than I do myself). Being on the main page naturally attracts far more of them. The DYK reviewing process results in most really bad misnaming issues being resolved before this would apply. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. We should have less rules protecting DYK, not more (e.g. the ""no tags on articles on the Main Page"" rule, even though we have things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilico's where an article is DYK'ed and AfD'ed on the same day, and ends up deleted). As said above, a solution in search of a problem. Fram (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support and would also support extending this to all articles on the main page. Highly visible content, and there will almost never be a significant benefit to moving it unilaterally during the 12/24 hours an article is on AFD, but there can be a detrimental effect. Given that only admins can add content to the main page, we shouldn't being allowing anyone to defacto edit the content once it's on the main page. Pre-emptive protection for something highly visible seems fine to me, as it is used elsewhere e.g. protecting images on the main page and all highly used templates are both done pre-emptively, so I don't agree with the argument that pre-emptive protection shouldn't also be done for DYK (and other main page content). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Protection of Main Page images and of highly used templates is a response to frequent vandalism before we had these protections. (It was popular for a while to insert shock images via template vandalism). Moves of DYK items or other Main Page linked items are not a frequent type of vandalism, and so we do not move protect these pages. Note also that all pages are already protected from moves by non-autoconfirmed editors. —Kusma (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Support for bold links. The Main Page is highly visible, and WP:MPNOREDIRECT does not allow redirects on the Main Page. Protecting bold-linked pages would prevent page-move vandalism; even though we don't typically preemptively protect articles, we already do so for TFAs. I don't agree that we should be allowing people to move bold-linked pages boldly, if you will, while they're on the Main Page. If a bold-linked page needs to be moved so urgently that someone can't wait 24 hours (until the article is off the Main Page), a user could always file a request at WP:RMTR#Administrator needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Just because a page is linked from the Main Page shouldn't stop usual wiki rules form applying. On the contrary, pages linked from the Main Page should be as open to editing (including editing the page title) as reasonably possible. The approach of not protecting seems to be working so far, so I don't see why we should change it. As to WP:MPNOREDIRECT: this is not some law, it is just a rule we have to make certain types of vandalism less effective if the redirect is less watched than the target. Page moves don't change the number of watchers, so this isn't a particular strong argument when applied to redirects created by page moves. I guess one of the reasons we don't see a lot of vandalism of DYK items via page moves is that it is not really more effective than just vandalising the pages directly, and additionally requires an autoconfirmed account. —Kusma (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @Kusma, I understand your point. However, I should specify that the reason I'm in favor of temporarily protecting these pages is not only because of page-move vandalism, but also because the resulting redirects can be hijacked. I realize that community consensus is trending against this proposal, anyway, but I think WP:MOVP can be interpreted as allowing current DYKs to be protected. The policy says that Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved can be protected, and I think this may apply to DYKs currently on the main page, which typically receive thousands of views during their DYK appearances. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NO-PREEMPT. No evidence given for a need for preemptive protection. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Weak Oppose we should avoid having sysop-flagged bots unless there's a clear need to address. In the last discussion the only move identified was a positive one, and occurrence is so rare that the no MP redirects issue could easily be fixed manually through the errors process, and isn't that significant a concern to begin with. I don't feel too strongly on this as move-protection does not merit the same degree of concern that editing protection does, and the fact that moves aren't happening at all to any significant degree cuts both ways. I wish this had been brought here first prior to any work being put in, but there's nothing that can be done about that now. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose - the protection policy very clearly instructs not to protect pages except in response to disruptive editing. While we do sometimes make blanket exceptions (such as WP:HRT) it is (with good reason) a very high bar to demonstrate being a net positive over the potential for harm. Despite having been asked several times and having had ample time to respond, the supporters of this preemptive protection have not provided any evidence demonstrating that that is the case here. There's no pattern of disruptive page moves of articles listed at DYK, and even if there were there's little risk of widespread harm owing to how little time these links are visible on the main page, how many eyes are on them already, and how easily they can be corrected. It has also been pointed out at BRFA that automatically protecting these pages would replace any existing move protection set by an admin for good reason, and then it would expire back to no protection. That's a pretty significant risk of harm, particularly for GAs and BLPs. So in summary there are no good reasons to do this, and several good reasons not to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose: nobody seems to have provided any evidence that there is a problem that this will solve. We shouldn't depart from the general policy of not protecting pre-emptively if we can't even demonstrate there's an issue to be solved. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose Not convinced this is actually a problem in need of solving. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Support - so what if there isn't ""a plague"" of unjustified page moves? We don't apply suncream after we've been burnt. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NO-PREEMPT. The very first thing the main page says is ""Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."", and I take that last part seriously. We shouldn't pre-empt contributions for merely speculative reasons. Colin M (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose Not a problem. GenQuest ""scribble"" 20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose Let redirects (and editors) do their work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 was moved from this page due to its large volume of comments. It has now closed with no consensus to rollback the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector 2010, but noting a numerical majority in support of rolling back. Where do we go from here? For challenged edits, we don't allow bold changes to stand simply because there is no consensus to roll back – we restore the status quo ante unless there is consensus to change – but this change is not an edit. Is this a case of WP:CONEXCEPT where we must simply accept a fait accompli? Is there any appetite for taking further action to emphasise the majority opinion and, if so, what form should that take? Certes (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Please don't do this. This battle has waged for long enough. There's nothing new to be said that hasn't already been said in the 2 month long RFC, which was expertly summarized by a pair of uninvolved editors in their excellent closing statement. The suggestion there was to spend the next 6 months working with the WMF to improve the product and reevaluate how things look at the end of the 6 months. I strongly agree with that recommendation. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Biggest +1 ever. User:ScottishFinnishRadish put it nicely here. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Yup. What a humongous time-sink. DFlhb (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, let's get back to what's really important. Is it corn or maize? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Option 3: it's inedible garbage. DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC) You need to cook it first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The closers clearly explained that in this case, no consensus means no rollback. If anyone wishes to challenge the close, they can follow the procedure at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; but that means giving policy-based reasons why the close was not a reasonable interpretation of consensus. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) In the spirit of moving on productively… It’s clear there are many editors who have specific grievances with the new skin. Since there is no consensus for a wholesale rollback of the skin, I suggest that progress will involve more focused attention on the fix-forward of those specific grievances individually. It would be helpful to create a summary of the main issues raised, each with links to relevant bugs that have been filed on Phabricator, so that (a) there is visibility of progress towards fixes, (b) concerned editors can focus their efforts on getting their specific issue resolved, and (c) to document that the issues are already well known and don’t need to be raised again. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Quite a large number are grouped on Phab. Personally, I'm currently watching making TOC code work again, which appears to have good traction, and the putting user talkpage links back in the header, which appears to be abandoned. CMD (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I think that close had significant flaws; it placed too much weight on the closers assessment of whether current and future changes addressed the concerns of the community and on the closers assessment of whether the conditions of the previous close had been met. Both of these assessments are required to be made by the community, not by the closers, and by making those assessments I believe this close was a supervote. The way forward from here is to overturn that close, whether voluntarily by Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity or by appeal at WP:AN. BilledMammal (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC) We should iniate a formal WP:CLOSECHALLENGE without hesitation. This closure is about as far away from the truth as possible. This is unacceptable. Tvx1 18:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I am glad there was not a consensus to roll back. I think that those who dislike the new skin are more vocal than those who like the new skin better. And it felt like there was a lot of ""piling on"" happening in the discussions. I agree with @RoySmith above. David10244 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)There's probably no use even trying. The result was pre-ordained from the start - the numbers could have been 2:1 or 3:1 - it wouldn't have mattered. And if by some chance the closers had followed what was clearly a fairly obvious consensus, there's no guarantee it would have been respected. Honestly at this point the best way to respond is for editors to vote with their wallets and stop giving the WMF money. In the meantime, I wholeheartedly support repeatedly starting new discussions until the WMF gets it in their head that maybe railroading the community isn't a great idea. They don't get brownie points for being marginally more responsive after forcing something the community clearly doesn't want. The suggestion of a new RfC in six months is equally laughable - as if that will actually happen or have any outcome other than the one pre-ordained to happen. This entire charade is exemplary of everything wrong with how Wikipedia is run. Toa Nidhiki05 23:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) @Toa Nidhiki05: are you implying that the closers are secretly working with the WMF or something like that? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC) There was no scenario where the implementation would be overturned and the new skin would be anything other than default. Whether that was in a ""no consensus"" RfC closure with hundreds of votes that skewed 61-39 in favor of rollback, an RfC review that finds the initial close invalid, or the WMF simply refusing to comply. Change was never going to happen. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)If you don't like Vector 2022, switch it off and don't use it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Many of us have. I'm alright, Jack; I need never see Vector 2022 again. Unfortunately, most of our readers do not have that option. Certes (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Maybe give it a few months to see if it made the ivory tower gets more responsive and make fixes and if not reopen it then ? North8000 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sure the third RfC will have a different result than the first two. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) In my view, the community expressed itself in favour of keeping V10 in both the RfCs, and in the second one the consensus was even stronger than in the first one. The WMF should simply withdraw V22 and rework it to address all concerns expressed by users, and then and only then resubmit it for community evaluation. Æo (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)It was always going to be a controversial close, but the fact is the RFC was whether we should rollback Vector 2022, and there isn't a clear consensus to do so. And so the closure seems correct, even if lumbering people by default with something with large issues is a bad idea. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Agreed. The close could have gone either way; this seems like one reasonable interpretation. With any close close like this, extra effort should be made to address the concerns of those who wanted the other outcome. (In this case: accelerating responses to relevant phab tickets, like the ones CMD notes above.) – SJ + 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)I'd like to see it rolled back. I've seen a lot of complaints about it on other sites, you cannot see the links to other wikipedia pages section easily and it's a major pain in the butt as I have to be signed into all kinds of nations wikipedia websites.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @KatoKungLee: do you mean the interlanguage links? – SJ + 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Sj: - I'm really not familiar with some of the lingo, but if you go to a page, you can click on another language's version of the page. With the new look, if you can do that, it's hidden or not easy to find.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Well for me I solved all of the many problems by reverting to the previous one. But for the sake of others including those that don't know they can do that it would be good to make the old one the default. Whether the close was right or wrong, maybe it will make WMF into better listeners and they'll fix the new one. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Unfortunately, there's a loophole in our consensus system where the WMF has an unlimited and unrestricted veto power over every discussion on the project, for any reason or for no reason. So this could have been unanimous, and the WMF still could have just ignored the close, regardless of how disruptive its actions are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) That doesn’t mean the blatantly incorrect close should be allowed to stand. Tvx1 17:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) So go ahead and challenge it? Unless someone actually goes through the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE process nothing is going to happen. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)I'm just disappointed the change which consensus was found for (full width by default) hasn't been implemented after two days. It should be very little work if I understand correctly, and the devs had literal months to prepare for this very probably result. Instead all they've done is ""begun to discuss and evaluate"" and promised ""proposals"" within a week, as if there hasn't been enough talk already. small jars tc 22:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Isabelle has said the WMF is not bound to do this and her close will not be impacted by whether or not they follow through on this. In other words: the only actual binding part of this RfC is keeping it as default. You should expect the WMF to ignore the second bit of the RFC, as not even Isabelle is willing to hold them to it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC) You should stop spreading misinformation and attacking Isabelle for somehow not holding them to it(?) as if that's something they—or anyone!—could do. I'll be the umpteenth person pointing you to WP:CONEXCEPT. WMF can ignore any or all of the close. None of it is binding. None of it CAN be binding. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55F2:D3B6:7A49:FADD (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Also, please note that Isabelle uses they/them, not she/her. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55F2:D3B6:7A49:FADD (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels Very little in software development at the scale Wikimedia projects operate in can happen within two days. There are always edge cases, considerations, and options to evaluate, even when something seems clear-cut. Just be patient. Sam Walton (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC) It's a matter of changing the default mode of a toggle button. If that takes more than 2 hours to complete, they must have some very baroque software architecture. small jars tc 16:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Changing the button is the easy part. It's finding which file of the 10 trillion to edit, waiting 10 minutes for the code to compile and for the unit tests to run, having the code reviewed, blah blah blah... Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Is this close really not going to be challenged?? Surely such a gross misrepresentation of a discussion cannot be allowed to stand.Tvx1 07:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC) You've been commenting the same thing multiple times across multiple threads. If you're unhappy with the close, then challenge it yourself. Simply repeating yourself over and over again isn't helpful. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC) It's a difficult choice. On the one hand, the closer had a very difficult and time-consuming job, and acted competently and in good faith. On the other, there is a significant majority opposed to the recent change, so it should be reversed. Of course, whether the organisation which we trusted with our funds, trademarks and domains will deign to listen is a different question. Certes (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Challenging the closure does not necessarily imply disavowing Isabelle Belato's and Ingenuity's good faith. Æo (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Just leave it, most opposes have no merit, just a grudge for change. I was highly skeptical as well at the start and I quickly switched back to vector 2010. But then after the main concern I had was addressed, and also saw that the WMF actually does address the concerns raised, I eventually moved to vector 2022 for good and now I also prefer it on other projects.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I was one of those who supported the rollback and I assure you that my vote was not driven simply by a ""grudge for change"". Æo (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (ec) It's more than reasonable to leave this be for the six months until this will be revisited. Criticism of the change happened with the last skin and will happen with the next one. Our input has been and will be solicited. I'm pretty much used to it now- try it, you might like it. If not, use the old one. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I and most of those who voted for a rollback to V10 are not driven by individualistic thinking; it is not a simple ""personally, I don't like V22 and therefore I stick to V10"". Most of us think that V22 is inferior to V10 in many respects and is detrimental to the encyclopedia and to the users' experience, and that V10 should remain the default skin for the general welfare of the encyclopedia and for all the other users. Æo (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC) There was people who thought that for V10, and there will be people who think that for V30 or whatever its called. That's a recipe for changing nothing for all time. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I disagree, I would have supported the change if V22 had actually been better. But it is not. Æo (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I expect almost all registered editors who supported the rollback have visited Special:Preferences and will soon almost forget that Vector 2022 ever existed. We're !voting on behalf of the silent majority of unregistered editors, who don't have that privilege. Certes (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC) If most opposes had no merit, than why are they given so much weight in the close to the point of claiming a ""no consensus"". Tvx1 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) A related discussion can be found at VPI, discussing possible modifications to the default settings of Vector 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)The close result is funny though in the retrospect of the whole active canvassing of non-Wikipedians by the WMF specifically to support the change. The real consensus against the re-design is much more than 2-1 considering that. SilverserenC 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Good luck getting the closers to reconsider even a fragment of their defective close. It’s not going to happen. Toa Nidhiki05 02:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)The close has been formally challenged.Tvx1 19:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I've boldly closed that review. Let the discussions on the closer's page finish, and then interested editors can collaborate to open a review if it is still deemed necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC) What needs to be finished then?? They have made it abundantly clear they will change their stance and insisted themselves a formal review was the way. How much more time needs to be wasted??? Please undo your unilateral close and let the procedure run its course. Tvx1 23:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Take a look at the discussion here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC) You could open a close review of the close of the close review. (don't actually do this, please) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Meanwhile, life goes on... --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)A second Close Review was opened today. Soni (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I propose that {by use of magic I don't personally understand} the disambiguation icon be set as a default thumbnail image for all disambiguation pages to improve navigation clarity for users. jengod (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Good idea, if possible. Traditionally we use red and blue but the colour isn't important. Certes (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I believe that's a question for the Web team, so pinging @SGrabarczuk (WMF). The next step is probably filing a Phab: ticket for it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Would this apply to search results and the search preview in v22 and menerva, as well as to releated articles? small jars tc 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I don't know what v22 and merneva are but it would be great if this also registered in search results. jengod (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Hey @Jengod. I'd like to ask what you mean by a ""thumbnail"" here. Are you suggesting that the disambig icon should be shown in search preview and search results? Could you repeat your proposal using a description/a list instead of the word thumbnail? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I think this concerns the page image (mw:Extension:PageImages). Such icons are usually excluded from becoming page images, that could indeed be changed for disambiguation pages. XanonymusX (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC) If this is possible, I would definitely support this. Looks better than the default grey page and I don't see any reason why it should be opposed. Adds a pop of colour to the previews and looks almost Underground-ish. Assuming that, of course, it can be done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Would support as well if technically possible. A good, solid idea. Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I've created a Phabricator ticket, but I'd like to encourage you to add comments focusing on the following: describe the actual underlying problem which you want to solve. Do not describe only a solution what exactly you would like to be able to do and where exactly why should this be implemented This will help to prioritize the task, understand the scope, and check whether it's really done. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry I'm late replying to this: 1. I'm a mobile-only user (and editor) and one of my wiki hobbies is keeping an eye on what's surfaced by those three ""related articles"" boxes that appear at the bottom of pages. When you're roaming the site that way, it becomes really obvious that every article is improved by a default image (must placed above the TOC on article page to appear) and a <40 characters short description. Very important guideposts. Anyway, disambiguation pages often show up as a visual dead zone with an off-putting minimum of information. 2 I would like the default page image for disambiguation pages (some of which are quite dense and informative in their own right cf Point (disambiguation)) to appear less like voids and more like wayfinding tools. My proposal is that the red-blue sideways disambiguation trident symbol Commons:File:Disambig.svg be the default image for all disambiguation pages that don't have an existing image (which they mostly shouldn't have but I bet there are exceptions). 3. This should be implemented to improve the user experience. Cheers jengod (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I've copied your comments on Phabricator. This seems to have a fair amount of support! EpicPupper (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) mw:Extension:Disambiguator makes the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages so MediaWiki can identify them. We add __DISAMBIG__ in {{Dmbox}} which is used by disambiguation templates. The page image displayed in searches and elsewhere is selected by mw:Extension:PageImages. We have both extensions so the suggestion can be implemented if PageImages automatically selects a certain image for marked disambiguation pages. I like it and suggest the image can be set by a wiki in a new MediaWiki message like MediaWiki:Disambig page image. I don't know how various other wikis handle disambiguation pages but I think the message should be blank by default, probably also in Wikimedia wikis. Here we could choose Disambig.svg for File:Disambig.svg. mw:Extension:PageImages can currently only select an image which is in the lead and at least 120px. We could implement it locally without a change in the extension if we display a 120px icon on disambiguation pages but I don't like that. We could probably trick the extension by using code which technically places the image in the lead but hides it from viewers in practice. We would need an additional template on disambiguation pages because they often have sections, and existing disambiguation templates are placed at the end. It's also an ugly hack I dislike. The ""hidden"" image might be displayed in some circumstances or cause confusion when some features claim it's there but users cannot see it. A change in the extension would be much cleaner. I suggest we wait to see if the developers will implement it before we consider a local hack. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Some disambiguation pages do currently have a page image taken from the lead, e.g. Macedonia and William and Mary. It usually only represents some of the entries. I'm fine with always replacing it with a disambiguation icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I'd suggest only replacing it with a disambiguation icon when there is no existing image available. EpicPupper (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This feature already exists in VisualEditor. If you click the chain icon to add a link and write example then the option Example shows a disambiguation icon as page image. mw:Extension:Disambiguator#Features says: ""If VisualEditor is enabled, shows whether a page is a disambiguation page or not in the link dialog"". PrimeHunter (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC) For those interested, there's currently a RFC asking should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I'm puzzled why this is even a contentious issue. It's like choosing to not use a template or an table. Zaathras (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC) A quick glance of the revision history reveals evidence of disruptive edit warring by the usual suspects. It seems I'm no longer allowed to name names around here without someone trying to twist it into a personal attack, so I'll leave it at that. Once more progressing to a time-wasting RFC as a knee-jerk reaction further shows the lack of respect people have for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I'm genuinely curious what should be the next step should be if not a RfC? Those who believe that the infobox would be an improvement have been bold in adding it find that edit reverted immediately by an editor(s) steadfastly opposed to finding consensus in the matter. Like Zaathras I am baffled at the nature of the debate. I would love a better path forward, but this is the way. Nemov (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Not sure why this needs additional attention beyond what the RfC brings. It's contentious because we have no clear rules about when/whether to use infoboxes, so all of the debates come down to personal opinions. ""An infobox would be self-evidently good here because they help readers"" vs. ""infoboxes might be useful sometimes, but not here"". It's all just personal preference, stated with various degrees of matter-of-factness. It's basically the same as WP:CITEVAR, except there aren't a bunch of people going around to articles they've never edited saying ""list-defined references are just obviously better, so let's use them here"" against the wishes of the people who actually worked on the article. I get both sides of the infobox argument, except for that desire to impose it... It does seem like we're approaching the point where there might be consensus to just use them everywhere, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Given the community's growing acceptance of infoboxes as a normal part of the Wikipedia UI shouldn't some of the contentiousness be dropped on this topic? If most of the community believes that infoboxes are an improvement to the article why should it be a surprise that new editors are attempting to add infoboxes? Most of the recent RfC are from editors who didn't know anything about the ancient infobox wars. I was certainly blissfully unaware until I saw this popping up in RfCs. The idea that new editors are trying to ""impose it"" is a little unfair. What I don't understand is the continued opposition to infoboxes despite the fact it appears the community finds them helpful. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Given the community's growing acceptance of infoboxes. Anecdotally, it seems that it may be headed that way, but you'll need to actually establish consensus for a change to the rules to act on it. If a dozen people go to many articles to impose an infobox against the wishes of the people who wrote the article, it can certainly look like growing acceptance, or it could just be a smallish number of people on a mission, a smaller number of people objecting to said mission, and a vast majority who just don't care enough to comment. Some of that vast majority would come out for a broader RfC on infoboxes generally, and who knows where they'll land. The idea that new editors are trying to ""impose it"" is a little unfair. It looks like you yourself have gone to a whole bunch of articles to try to add an infobox where the primary contributors did not want them. Why is ""impose it"" unfair? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC) If you look at my edit history I have only created one RfC on adding an infobox. That would be this one since I found the article after watching On the Waterfront. I have been involved in several RfC discussions about infoboxes the past 5 months. That's mostly because I'm involved in most RfC discussions that past 5 months. I find the idea that I'm part of some nefarious mission to impose infoboxes an unfair characterization. My general observation that in most of the infobox discussions the same group of editors almost are always involved in opposing them (which is their right). I can't really say the same about those attempting to add them. It's been a variety of different editors, some new, some old, some having nothing to do with old discussions. I'm reluctant to frame this as us vs. them because many of the editors who have supported the infobox haven't been involved in every discussion. Plus, the group that have opposed are full of great, well meaning, and productive editors. It's simply not in good faith to complain about editor's motivations. So my question again falls back to a path forward and not trying to dredge up the past. If no path is outlined then we'll see the same pattern. Editors will stonewall the infobox, someone will create an RfC, the community will be alerted, and the infobox will be added. This seems to be like a waste of time for RfC watchers like myself. Nemov (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC) nefarious mission - I don't think it's nefarious, to be clear. But apart from that I don't really have anything else to add. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Seconding Rhododendrites point here. Any sort of easily modifiable and replicable idea gets spammed throughout Wikipedia pages. That doesn't indicate a broad community consensus, it indicates that easily made edits are made more often, because they are easy. The more visible the template, the more it happens. I suspect infoboxes would be one of those items that the community does support, but the broader argument doesn't hold. CMD (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Rhododendrites' claims that there's a group of infobox warriors that ""go to many articles to impose an infobox against the wishes of the people who wrote the article."" That's not been my observation the past five months even if there are a few familiar faces. Also, the claim that I ""have gone to a whole bunch of articles to try to add an infobox where the primary contributors did not want them is false. Rhododendrites has commented against inclusion on several infobox discussions but I wouldn't characterize their position as an anti-infobox warrior. There doesn't seem to be much interest in finding a path forward which is fine. The system appears to be working. WP:RFC says that RfCs can be brought here so more editors can comment. Inviting more editors to comment is a reasonable way to find consensus. Nemov (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, keeping in mind the article has had millions of views since 2015 and only a couple of people ever had a problem with no infobox. There have been a number of different names turn up at IB discussions aside from the regulars, I don't know how many are sockpuppets of past ones or are actually genuine. Nemov may be innocent, but overall as with Kubrick it does suspiciously look like a coordinated effort to enforce boxes on promoted articles, taking advantage of the fact that several of the people who once defended against them no longer edit. The example given below is a perfect example of how they are not essential. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Personal reflection: Someone added an infobox to an article I started, Rupert Frazer. I couldn't be arsed to oppose it, but it just seems unnecessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) That article is a good example of an article that doesn't need an infobox. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I disagree. It's a great example of an unnecessary infobox. It takes four lines to show on the right-hand side what we say in one line on the left. It adds only the current age, which I consider a ""nice-to-have"", but not worth the addition of the ugly little box on the right. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I'm generally for infoboxes and believe their a benefit to the reader, but an infobox that has nothing more than the details of the first sentence is pointless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Removing it here make sense, though I think sometimes new editors find it challenging to figure out how to add an Infobox, and so base structure can make it easier for them to then add an image etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Example diff Special:Diff/1145970784/1145978283 Why not have the alt text in the image page, it can then be copied by bot into citations. If editors want to change the alt text they can on a per-cite basis as normal. This at least creates a base alt text. -- GreenC 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) @GreenC, I understand that the immediate problem is that there is no place to store it. c:Help:Alternative text has links to the relevant prior discussions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Moreover, if the image is on Commons, as most images used in the English Wikipedia are, then it would be presumptuous to store the alt text there. Images on Commons can be used in any Wikipedia, and there is no reason why one language should be privileged as the alt text for such an image. Donald Albury 01:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Commons is multilingual. It's supposed to have all text content in each language. Alt-text would be no exception. – SD0001 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Well, there are currently 321 active language Wikipedias. That would be an awful lot of data to add, even if you had enough speakers of each language who were willing to add descriptions to the more than 91,000,000 media files on Commons. You are offered the chance to enter descriptions in more than one language when you upload a file, but even for the (admittedlt few) images I checked that are used on half-a-dozen or more different language WPs, I didn't see anything other than English descriptions. Donald Albury 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) It'd be less data than's already stored for the pictures (60 bytes in 321 languages is about 20 KB; a typical modern digital photo could be 100–1000 times that size). Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance (though if you're planning to add millions yourself, then let's maybe give Ops a heads-up first). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, I'm not worried about the data storage space. I was thinking of the volunteer-hours involved in adding individualized alt-texts to millions of images. Donald Albury 00:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Every image *needs* alt text. See MOS:ACCIM. EpicPupper (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC) As far as I know, WAID is right on the technical issue, and I agree with DA on the Commons presumptuousness issue. Even if we could bypass both those issues, an images alt text should be determined based on its use in the article. For example, there's an image of Elizabeth II in the infobox at Purple, and the same image is used at multiple articles about the monarchies of various countries. The alt text at Purple should mention that she is wearing a purple hat, while the others do not need that detail. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Commons holds descriptions for each language, I do not think it would be difficult to hold a default alt-text for each language too. CMD (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Exactly. If editors want to modify the default text, simply add |alt= to the citation as would be done anyway (when there is no default text). At least there is a default text starting point, which in many if not most cases would be sufficient, and save a lot of duplication of effort. It would also benefit increasing the number of citations with alt text. -- GreenC 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Inside VisualEditor (visual editing or its wikitext mode), if basic alt text were stored on Commons, then it could be imported into the dialog and stored locally. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I agree with Firefangledfeathers, particularly about the context issue - alt text is there to give provide the context and encyclopedic relevance of the image that readers who can see it get from the image itself. That context and relevance depends on the reason why it is being used in the given article. At Purple, the image of Elizabeth II needs only to say that it is a picture of an (elderly) woman wearing a purple hat and coat, at Windsor, Berkshire, Governor General of Papua New Guinea and most other articles it need only say who it is a picture of, although at List of state leaders by age her age in the photograph would probably also be relevant information. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Xeno's proposal notes that context can be an issue; he suggests that default alt text would be able to be overridden for specific uses in pages. EpicPupper (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think we should presume that Commons doesn't want this for itself. Simple descriptions of Commons' images could be helpful for Commons. Otherwise, the alt text is the filename, which can be incomplete (how about ""cancelled purple Canadian stamp showing Queen Elizabeth""?), misleading (""4C"" isn't the same as ""4¢""), or incomprehensible (automatically assigned numbers that say little or nothing about the contents, such as File:004 2022 04 15 Ei.jpg). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC) It's probably possible to implement this via structured data. EpicPupper (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Most images I've seen are only used in one (or just a handful of) articles. Is the added burden of needing to go on Commons to change alt-texts worth the benefit, for that presumably small number of images that are used in many articles? DFlhb (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I challenge the notion that most images are only used once or twice - this is very clearly not the case. EpicPupper (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) There are (as of a few minutes ago) 6,468,023 different images used in mainspace. 5,076,097 are used on just one article. 826,773 are used on two articles. 565,153 are used on three or more. This count includes flags, icons, and other decorative or navigational images included by wikitext, but not images used only via CSS. The most-used image is File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg at 1,473,481 uses. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC) My initial claim was incorrect, however, 826,773 images on two articles and 565,153 on 3+ is not insignificant. Even for images only used on two articles, a centralized default alt text stored on Commons would auto-update with changes, removing the burden for editors of alt text to also edit the text on more than one page. As well, quoting Chidgk1 who posted this on Phabricator (dual-licensed CC-BY-SA and GPL): I sometimes add pics on a Wikipedia for which I am not a native speaker so it would be very hard for me to write alt text there. Conversely as a native English speaker if I write the alt text once then those with poor English can easily benefit later when they add the same pic to another article. EpicPupper (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC) What is very clearly the case is that most of the images on Commons (today ""91,601,939 freely usable media files"", ok not all images) are not used at all, and never will be. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) An ideal implementation is that writing alt= here would overwrite the commons alt-text with no need to exit your edit window. CMD (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) So.. I've always thought this was an interesting idea, but that any sort of implementation has too many restrictions to be of true use. Like stated before by ppl in this discussion: alt are language specific so cannot be reused across languages. sister projects are unlikely to provide them (they are busy enough trying to stay alive) Commons has more images not in use, than in use Neither Wikidata nor Commons are trusted by Wikipedians It doesn't help writing initial alt descriptions, so only helps with multiple usages of of the same image. Alt is context specific so even for images that are used multiple times, it's likely not always going to suffice So the majority of alt descriptions are likely to be written by each of the wikipedias.... Which means that like 95+ % of the the alt text is basically coming from the same place and the same people, Wikipedians, they would just have to move where they store/get them from. Taking in all of these limitations and edge cases, made me think. What if someone were to make a bot that takes the alt of an image usage, which then copies it to the alt tag of other local uses of the thumbnail where no alt is provided ? Wouldn't that solve almost the exact same problem, without all the increased complexity of which the return on investment is very dubious ? If the results of such bot edits are uncontroversial, then it gives much more credence to this proposal. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Issue: Many new editors fail to cite reliable sources when adding encyclopedic content. Only guidance they have on this subject is a small text above the editing window when editing in source mode. Visual editor is slightly better with this, but it is burrowed within a button. This proposal will focus on the source editor. Proposal: Currently, the text reads ""Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources."" My proposal is to reword the ""Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources"" into ""Any information added must be supported by reliable sources"". Rationale: The current text is cryptic to new editors and uses words that has its meaning in a unconventional way. For example, the word ""verifiable"" may be confusing to new editors and is not approachable. My reworded text will improve the accessibility of the text to new editors. Carpimaps (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Administrator note this is about message MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn. — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)@Carpimaps: are you wanting to limit this to only ""articles""? Encyclopedic content may be present in other places, such as templates and drafts. — xaosflux Talk 10:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I will rephrase it to be inclusive of other namespaces. Carpimaps (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""Any information"" is overly broad for other namespaces. That being said, it's probably simpler for the target audience of new editors to avoid getting into the details. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Linking reliable sources would be helpful, along with verifiable and perhaps citations if those words remains, although they are linked from the currently linked page (Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1.) Certes (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Cmnt: How about: ""Any content added must be supported by, and include, reliable source(s)"". GenQuest ""scribble"" 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""and include reliable sources"" makes it sound like the actual source should be included, rather than a citation to the source. That could inadvertently lead to copyvios as people attempt to ""include"" the source. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Wording aside, there is no consensus at the moment that every edit must correspond to an appropriate citation within the text, whether it is a new one or an existing one covers the change. It should be possible to cite a source, but the community has so far given higher priority to someone adding relevant information over insisting that the author include a citation for that information. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. Maybe I’ve just been here too long, but is the word verifiable really that confusing? I don’t think it has any special meaning here beyond its everyday meaning. I agree though that Encyclopedic content isn’t helpful to outsiders. The lay perception is probably that this website is an encyclopedia and that means everything found on it is encyclopedic. I suggest wikilinks be added to both terms, pointing to pages that explain them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Maybe the problem is that long-time editors have a different understanding of what it means for something to be verifiable. @Carpimaps, Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable gives this definition: Something that people are ""able"" to ""verify"". Specifically within the meaning of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, it is information that someone (although not necessarily you) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been published in a reliable source, even if no source is provided in the article. Contrast uncited. This proposal is to change the sentence Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources to Any information added must be supported by reliable sources"". I wonder whether you are aware that of the significant difference between the two? The existing sentence says that all content must be something other people are ""able"" to verify but does not (technically) require sources to be cited; the second says that every sentence must be cited. The first is a long-standing policy; the second is an idea that some editors support, but that has not been accepted in previous discussions. Also, anyone who is interested in encouraging newcomers to add citations will probably want to watch Wikipedia:Edit check and mw:Edit check. There's a software project underway to encourage (but not require) citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Personally, I think you're reading more into the text than is there. I don't feel that saying added information must be supported by reliable sources is asking for every sentence to be cited. It doesn't put any requirement on having a citation per sentence, or even that each specific edit must include a citation. It doesn't even require a citation; it's only asking that the information has support from reliable sources. I think the current sentence is more prone to being interpreted by new editors as requiring a citation than the original proposal (though I agree it does not actually require this). isaacl (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I would say the definition of verifiable that you have cited is entirely the same as the common non-Wikipedia meaning of the word. Verifiable. Something that is able to be verified. Not necessarily something that has been verified. It’s not jargon. For this reason I don’t think there’s a strong case for changing the existing wording (but I do support adding wikilinks to provide an abundance of clarity). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) A Close Review for the recent RFC on Rollbacking Vector 2022 is currently underway at AN. Soni (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)" 266 269 589 WP:books WP:books 266 A Wikipedia Book is an organized collection of Wikipedia articles. There are third party services for rendering electronically in PDF format, or ordering as a printed book. The book is compiled afresh each time it is retrieved by the service, so that a new upload will always reflect the latest versions of the articles. Each book has its own Wikipedia page, which contains a Contents list of the articles included in it together with formatting metadata such as Chapter headings. You can create a book as a sub-page in your own user space, or as a community book in the Book: namespace. The Book Creator tool automates much of the book design work, although experienced editors can still code up the book design by hand. Once completed, a book can be uploaded to the independent company PediaPress, where print-on-demand copies can be ordered. Books may also be retrieved by other independent publishing tools such as MediaWiki2LaTeX. It used to be possible to build an e-book on Wikipedia for immediate download, but this service is no longer available. For information and help on Wikipedia books in general, see Help:Books (general tips) and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books (questions and assistance). You can look for books either by browsing the book categories or by searching for a title or topic. === Book categories === Wikipedia books are automatically categorised by location. Category:User namespace book pages lists all current user books maintained on user pages. === Search tool === The following code: {{#tag:inputbox| type=fulltext prefix=Book: width=40 break=no searchbuttonlabel=Search }} creates a search box which will return a list of book titles. === The Bookshelf === The Bookshelf is a simple tool which combines the above options with a few statistics, enabling you to browse, search and view the Wikipedia Books created to date. You can place a copy anywhere by clicking the Edit tab above and copy-pasting the code from this page. Featured topics and Good topics are collections of some of Wikipedia's best articles. Some topics may have a dedicated book linked in the upper-left corners of the topic boxes. === 2009: Rollout === Wikipedia Books was first rolled out in 2009. It comprised two main parts: The Book Creator user interface, for designing the book and for selecting an electronic format to render an individual copy as an e-book. The Offline Content Generator (OCG) back-end service, which rendered the book in the chosen format and made it available for download.But Wikipedia does not print books or handle ordering, as that costs money. An agreement was reached with PediaPress, who built their own renderer and publishing website, where a user could upload a Wikipedia book and either download a PDF softcopy for free or order Print on demand copies. PediaPress later withdrew their free softcopy service. === 2017: On-wiki PDF withdrawal === Eventually the OCG service became outdated and unmaintainable. It became unreliable, while bugs and evolving security issues could no longer be fixed. The Wikimedia Foundation turned off the book rendering service on all Wikimedia wikis in October 2017. Since then, Wikipedia books have only been available from third-party providers. === 2017 ff: Candidate replacements === A candidate replacement, called Electron, was based on the open-source Chrome HTML-to-PDF rendering engine but proved unsuitable for books, although it replaced the OCG for the PDF download of single articles. A second attempt, named Proton, also failed at book rendering but succeeded Electron for article rendering in 2019. During this period Dirk Hünniger independently wrote MediaWiki2LaTeX, which also compiles Wikipedia books in PDF format. However the Wikimedia Foundation were reluctant to adopt it because they could not support the Haskell programming language in which it is written. It has since been improved and offered by the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF) as an online service. As of August 2020 the Book Creator design tool, MediaWiki2LaTeX softcopy rendering service and PediaPress print service remain available. In April 2018 PediaPress stepped forward to try and develop a viable replacement PDF book renderer called Collector, based on their previous experience with their own in-house renderer. The new renderer is planned to provide limited initial functionality, with incremental improvements over time. As of April 2019 an alpha release of the core Collector service has yet to become usable. It is being developed as a closed source project. The WMF are also unable to support closed-source code owned by third parties. === 2019: Links hidden in articles and sidebar === In December 2019 English Wikipedia suppressed the rendering capability of Template:Wikipedia books (related =Template:Book bar & Template:Books-inline) and removed the Book Creator from the sidebar after a community discussion about effectiveness. As the Book Creator no longer generates copies of Wikipedia books, its primary working feature directs users to order printed Wikipedia books from PediaPress, a third-party company which has a longstanding agreement with the WMF. Editors in discussion valued the user experience of Wikipedia readers over the business prospects of PediaPress and felt that the template and sidebar link were no longer justifiable. The namespace and its transclusions were retained in the hope that the WMF would come up with a solution. As a result of then-anticipated future solutions, template transclusions were not removed from articles. See Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books for more information. === 2021: Deletion of Book namespace === As a result of a village pump proposal, article and template transclusions to Wikipedia books are deprecated. Due to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Template:Wikipedia book, Template:Wikipedia books and related templates were deleted in April 2021 and all of their transclusions were removed. A set of proposals to look at the future of the Book namespace were started on May, 15 2021. May 24, 2021: Proposal 1, there was consensus to deprecate the entirety of the Book. Proposal 2, there was consensus to disable indexing of the book namespace to hide it from searches was reached. Proposal 3, there was consensus to stop the creation of books in the book namespace with the book creator. June 18, 2021 Proposal 4, there was consensus to no longer support WikiProject assessment of the book namespace. Proposal 5, there was consensus to delete all books within the book namespace, with the option to move them to userspace.On July 13, 2021 the namespace was deleted through phabricator ticket T285766. 267 270 591 WP:INLINE Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates 267 "Welcome to WikiProject Inline Templates. This collaboration is dedicated to improving Wikipedia's inline neutrality- & attribution-cleanup, dispute, and footnote templates. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please join the project by adding your name to the list of participants. Membership merely signifies your interest in inline templates and members are under no obligation to do anything; however, the to-do list is a good place to actually starting helping out. Note that ""inline"" is used here in the sense of ""within text"" rather than ""directly from another server"". === Description === A project to centralize the creation and management of inline superscript templates such as {{Citation needed}}. === Goals === Protect templates from well-meaning reformatting attempts that are known to cause problems in various browsers Develop a ""meta-template"" from which all of these templates are derived, so that layout problems with them can be fixed in one place Ensure consistency between all of these templates, as to their formatting, naming, content and mouseover (tooltip) messages Provide a talk forum for discussion of problems with the templates, or other needs with regard to them Provide a proposals area for the organized creation of new templates of this sort instead of today's random creation of often redundant inline templates Possibly provide an ITfD mechanism, the way WikiProject Stub sorting has provided the SfD mechanism Actually identify and categorize all of the templates of this sort Ensure that the Template messages documentation is updated with regard to these templates Write a guide to their usage (possibly stand-alone, or possibly as part of the MoS) Improve each template's documentation === Scope === Inline superscripted cleanup and dispute templates such as {{Citation needed}} and {{Clarify me}} Reference citation inline templates such as the {{Ref}} and {{Note}} family of templates Recommendations on improvements to Cite.php-style reference citation mechanism (..., , and ) Possible scope expansion into other inline templates such as the {{tl}} family of templates Not formatting-and-function or typing-aid templates that happen to be used inline in article text but are essentially invisible to the user.See archives of Template talk:Citation needed for some reasons why this project is needed. Discuss ideas for new inline templates here before creating them, to avoid template overlap and Templates for discussion debates later. Discuss changes to inline templates here before making them, to prevent inconsistency, browser incompatibility, and usability/accessibility problems. Inline templates, where possible, should be built on the {{fix}} metatemplate, not coded from scratch, for maintainability. If you discover a ""new"" inline template, no matter how old it is, please add it to the ""New inline templates"" section below, so that it can be processed (checked for proper categorization, etc.) ‡ = Only part of it is superscripted. ‡‡ = Has a non-superscripted mode as well. ‡‡‡ = Only part of it is inline.Superscripted: {{according to whom}} a.k.a. {{whom}}, {{says who}}, {{who says}} and several others ⇒ {{anachronism inline}} ⇒ {{attribution needed}} a.k.a. {{views needing attribution}}, {{attrib}} & many others (after many merges) ⇒ {{awkward}} a.k.a. {{awk}} ⇒ {{by whom}} – a grammatical variant of {{who}}, a.k.a. several others ⇒ {{citation broken}} ⇒ {{citation needed}} a.k.a. {{fact}}, {{cn}}, {{needs citation}}, {{uncited}}, etc.; ⇒ {{cite quote}} ⇒ {{clarify}} a.k.a. {{clarifyme}}, {{clarify me}}, {{huh}}, {{what}}; see also {{clarifyref}} and {{clarifyref2}} – subst'd variants that provide a |reason= that describe how to provides better reference citations ⇒ {{contradict inline}} (should probably be merged with the next one) ⇒ {{contradiction inline}} (should probably be merged with the previous one) ⇒ {{dead link}} ⇒ {{disambiguation needed}} a.k.a. {{ambiguous link}} a.k.a. {{dn}} ⇒ {{disputed inline}}, a.k.a. {{disputable}}, {{debatable}} ⇒ {{dubious}} a.k.a. {{DisputedAssertion}} ⇒ {{elucidate}} ⇒ {{episode needed}} a.k.a. {{episode}} ⇒ {{failed verification}} ⇒ {{lopsided}} ⇒ {{medical citation needed}} a.k.a. {{MEDCN}} ⇒ {{unreliable medical source}} a.k.a. {{MEDRS}} ⇒ {{non sequitur}} {{nonspecific}} ⇒ {{note}} {{note label}}‡ {{OR}} a.k.a. {{or?}} ⇒ {{page needed}} a.k.a. {{pn}}, {{page number}}, {{pageneeded}}, {{pagenumber}} ⇒ {{POV statement}}, a.k.a. {{fixPOV}}, {{POV inline}}, {{POV assertion}} ⇒ {{primary source inline}}, for signalling that a non-primary source is needed ⇒ {{ref}} ⇒[1] {{ref label}}‡ a.k.a. {{footnote label}} {{registration required}} ⇒(registration required) {{request quotation}} a.k.a. {{request quote}}, {{quote request}} ⇒ {{rp}} {{season needed}} a.k.a. {{episode needed}}, {{seasonneeded}}, {{episodeneeded}} ⇒ {{specify}} ⇒ {{synthesis inline}} a.k.a. {{syn}} ⇒ {{technical inline}} a.k.a. {{jargon inline}}, {{technical statement}}, etc. {{unreliable source?}} a.k.a. {{verify credibility}}, {{vc}}, {{rs}} ⇒ {{update after}}‡‡ a.k.a. {{old fact}}, ⇒ {{vague}} ⇒ {{verify source}} a.k.a. {{verification needed}} ⇒ {{volume needed}} a.k.a. {{issue needed}}, {{issue}} ⇒ {{weasel inline}} a.k.a. {{weasel word}}, {{weasel-word}} & others ⇒ {{where}} ⇒ {{who}} a.k.a. {{who?}}, {{weasel-name}}, ⇒ {{who2}} – variant of {{non sequitur}} {{year needed}} a.k.a. {{year}} ⇒Meta-templates: {{fix}}‡ — used to create other such templates, consistentlyDeprecated (no longer used): {{ref num}} (use {{ref label}}) {{rf}}Noteworthy for features: {{vague}} — has feature where optional parameter becomes the mouseover/tooltip messageNeeded: {{daymonth}} (for missing day, e.g. ""November 2006"" when not appropriate), to go along with {{fulldate}} and {{year}} ({{date}} and {{day}} already used for something else)Related software functions in Cite.php that aren't templates: ... Non-superscripted: {{as of}} {{edit conflict}} a.k.a. {{ec}} ⇒ (edit conflict) {{harvard citation}} {{TBD}} ⇒ {{wikicite}} (deprecated; see above)Similar but out-of-scope (for now?): A number of templates are, technically, used inline, but for purposes very different from those that concern this project (at present). {{tl}}, {{tlx}}, {{cl}}, {{ul}}, etc. {{sort}}, {{nts}}, {{TBA}}, etc. {{day}} and the like; DAB and other hatnote templates; {{seealso}}/{{further}}/{{main}}/{{cat main}} and other self-ref tags; numerous shortcut templates such as {{Shamos 1999}}; numerous other shortcut templates such as {{wc}}, {{cuegloss}}, etc.; language formatting templates; and others that are technically ""inline"" but don't have anything to do with maintenance or sources, and are not superscripted. {{sectstub}}‡ (recently converted to inline style, but not actually used inline) {{hcard-bday}} – technically inline or part-inline, but do not serve functions similar to the templates this project is concerned about. {{cite}} family of ref. citation formatting templates === Problematic ones === {{issue}} – same functionality as {{issue needed|c=y}}, and name is too generic, because {{issue}} is entirely comic-books-specific (according to the doc page however the template itself is completely generic except for the category it adds). {{citation needed}} and {{request_quotation}} – should the latter be merged into the former? {{cref}}, {{cnote}}‡ — possible duplication with {{ref}} {{comic book reference}} — may have a stray period-space in it near end (flagged with HTML comment; needs testing) {{who}}, {{who?}}, {{WW}}, {{weasel-inline}}, {{weasel-name}}, {{views needing attribution}}, and userspaced variant {{User:Xiaphias/who}} may need to be merged; discussion here Cite.php's — indents for no reason, and worse yet indents to a depth that does not align with the :* indentation used by {{note label}} references. There are a pair of templates, {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}, related to {{reflist}}, which solve this misalignment problem, to an extent (see ""Option 3..."" at Template:Refbegin documentation for usage), in that they match the indentation. They are untested with {{note label}}, but work fine with ""* Reference details here""-style manually-added general sources in the References section. Recommendation: Have developers modify to not indent, or at worst to match "":""-level indentation, and modify {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to conform. === New inline templates === Please feel free to list new inline templates here (newest at the top, please). It is advisable to propose new inline templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates before creating them, so as to ensure that there is consensus that they are needed and will not unnecessarily overlap in function with others. Once templates have been checked for standard {{Fix}} usage, categorization in Category:Inline templates, and other issues, they should be moved to the main list, above. ==== Created ==== {{globalize-inline}}. Created July 2020 as an inline version of the 2004 banner template. For individual statements that are inappropriately geographically restricted in viewpoint, and show inappropriate geographic bias. {{is this date calibrated?}}. Created August 2018 to identify radiocarbon dates for which it is not clear whether a calibration procedure has been applied, leading to ambiguities of up to 4000 years. {{better source example}}. Created June 2016, for self-sourcing examples. {{contentious label inline}}. Created June 2016, for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels. ⇒ {{verify quote}}. Created October 2015, to more specifically address quotation source verification than {{verify source}} or {{cite quote}} (often it's the transcription or the contextual excision that needs examination, not whether source can be verified). ⇒ {{obsolete source}}. Created October 2015, to more specifically address a particular kind of WP:RS failure, than the vague {{better source}} or uncertain {{unreliable source?}}. ⇒ {{expand acronym}}. Created in August 2010, to flag acronyms and abbreviations. ⇒ {{romanization needed}} a.k.a. {{transliteration needed}}, an inline template requesting a romanized transliteration or transcription. ⇒ {{needs IPA}}. inline template for requesting IPA renderings. ⇒ {{Undue weight inline}} – inline template to flag undue weight issues. ⇒ {{speculation inline}} – inline variant of {{speculation}} ⇒ ==== Discovered ==== {{Citation needed (lead)}} ⇒ {{Citation needed span}} {{peacock term}} ⇒ {{importance inline}} a.k.a. {{trivia inline}} ⇒ [formerly a.k.a. {{notability inline}}, {{notability-inline}} which now give an error, and {{notability?}} which now goes to the banner {{Notability}}) {{DjVulink}} {{talk page stalker}} a.k.a. {{tps}} ⇒(talk page stalker) {{full citation needed}} a.k.a. {{full}} – requests full citation ⇒ {{attribution needed}} – needs documentation and other WPILTizing ⇒ {{editorializing}} – inline template for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Editorializing ⇒ {{editorialising}} – different-spelling wrapper for the above ⇒ {{registration required}} – adds a note that registration is required to access the contents of a link. ⇒(registration required) {{SCICN}} ⇒ {{SCIRS}} ⇒ {{subscription required}} – adds a note that subscription is required to access the contents of a link. ⇒(subscription required) {{R}} – a wrapper around {{Not a typo}} a.k.a. {{typo}} a.k.a. {{Proper name}} a.k.a. {{As written}} – wraps an intentional typo. For example, this is used on the Celsius page to show examples of bad formatting of temperatures. {{pronunciation needed}} – slightly wordy request for pronunciation info. ⇒ {{archive inline}} {{swatch inline}} {{relevance inline}} a.k.a. {{off-topic-inline}} ⇒ {{self-published inline}} ⇒ {{spam link}} a.k.a. {{linkspam}} ⇒ {{example needed}} ⇒ {{examples}} ⇒ {{Pronunciation}} {{coord/display/inline}} – one of several subroutines of {{coord}} {{zh}} – Use this template to show a Chinese name, word, term or phrase in a line of text with various readings. {{ISBN missing}} – an in-line request for the ISBN of a published source. Similar in use to {{Year missing}} and {{Page needed}}, etc. ⇒ {{Circular ref}} ⇒ {{Quantify}} ⇒ {{Link note}} ⇒() {{Password-protected}} ⇒(password-protected) {{Subscription or libraries}} ⇒(subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries) {{Subscription or membership required}} ⇒Subscription or UK public library membership required {{Closed access}} ⇒ {{Open access}} ⇒ {{KIA}} ⇒ † {{DOW}} ⇒ (DOW) {{Executed}} ⇒ {{POW}} ⇒ (POW) {{Surrendered}} ⇒ {{WIA}} ⇒ (WIA) {{Click inline}} – deleted per this TfD and the previous one about {{click}} {{External links inline}} – inline template to flag external links that may fail WP:EL or WP:NOTLINK. (Template deleted September 12, 2011) {{Fact-now}} – pointless wrapper for {{Citation needed|date=March 2023}} {{Inline warning}} — used manually to provide a custom cleanup note {{dlw}} – redundant with and replaced by {{webarchive}}, {{waybackdate}} {{Ent}} – use Cite.php or {{ref}}/{{note}}) {{inote}} {{hcard-geo}} and {{hcard-geo-title}} {{InlineXbeg}} and {{InlineXend}} – created in June 2008, in response to an inline template talk page discussion, here. a pair of templates designed to mark extended passages for attention with only a single tag at the end (avoiding chopping text to pieces). {{Wayback}} – deprecated in favor of {{webarchive}}, {{waybackdate}} === Talk page banner === {{WPILT banner}} – ""This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates ..."" === Userbox === {{User WPILT}} Category:Inline templatesInternal Category:WikiProject Inline Templates Category:WikiProject Inline Templates members Wikipedia:Avoid self-references Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates === Related projects === Parent: Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates Inactive: Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles" 268 271 594 WP:ACOTF Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight 268 "The Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (ACOTF) is an ongoing collaborative effort to raise the quality of a selected article of Australian significance. The aim of this initiative is to fill gaps in coverage of the Australia and Australia-related topics on Wikipedia by developing individual articles one-by-one through extensive co-operation. During the collaboration or soon after, the article will hopefully attain or near featured standard. The collaboration also serves to give users a focus and something to be proud of. Brown Mountain forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do Military history of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Australian plague locust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Melbourne Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Anyone who is a registered user prepared to devote time to collaborate on an article, not just Australians, can nominate an article and vote for articles already nominated. The article is selected using approval voting. Every second Sunday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for two weeks to potential contributors. The next winner will be selected on Thursday, 22 July 2010, 12:00 (AEST) Previous selected articles that have gone on to become featured articles can be found at /Features. All previous selected articles can be found at /History. Failed nominations can be found at /Removed. === Nominations === New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of this page. Please use the template in the comment. If the page you are nominating already exists, please add {{WP Australia | collaboration-candidate=yes |...}} to the top of its talk page. The ""collaboration-candidate=yes"" part automatically adds the talk page to the category Category:Australia collaboration candidates. === Considerations for nominations === Please only nominate Australian articles (or topics) which need serious work. If you have an article in mind that is not related to Australia please use Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive, which is not specific to Australian articles. Giving reasons as to why an article should become the ACOTF may assist others in casting their vote. Can the wider community easily contribute to the article? Or is it something only a small number of people will know about? Sources to find articles to nominate might include: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do Category:Australia articles without a WikiProject Category:Australia articles needing attention Australia stubs or its subcategories Collaborations sometimes work better if people know how to help. Consider adding a {{todo}} template to the article's talk page, and identifying what you think needs doings for others to add to or fix. === Voting === Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like. Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see Approval voting). Only registered users should vote. Any Wikipedian can vote on this page. You do not have to be an Australian. To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with ""# ~~~~"". This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item. Potential voters should consider when voting whether they are prepared to contribute to that article if it is selected. The ACOTF can not be effective if people vote purely in the hopes that someone else will improve an article. The purpose is to draw together a group of interested people for a time. === Tie-breakers === In case of a tie, the tied candidate that was nominated first will be selected. === Article selection === If the article is selected as the ACOTF, enter the article's complete title at Template:Collab-australian. The template {{WP:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/Current}} should then be placed at the top of the selected article. When the article is no longer ACOTF, please add the following template to the talk page: {{WP Australia |past-acotf=dates}} === Pruning === Nominations will be moved to /Removed if they do not attract attention. An item will be allowed to remain up for voting two weeks per two votes it receives. NOTE: If the turnover of collaborations slows down as it did in September/October 2006 or February and August 2008, the expiry dates should be taken with a pinch of salt for a while and allowed to relax to ensure popular choices are not pruned merely due to nobody actually selecting a new collaboration topic. Items may also be removed if they are inappropriate for nomination (see Considerations... above) None" 269 272 595 WP:advocacy WP:advocacy 269 "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work. Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic, term or viewpoint leading to disproportionate coverage, false balance and reference spamming. When advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas battle to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue. Wikipedia operates through collaboration between editors to achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Differences of opinion about neutrality, reliability, notability, and other issues are properly resolved through civil discussion aimed at facilitating a consensus. Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject. Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia. If an editor appears to be advocating for a particular point of view, this can be brought to their attention with reference to the neutral point of view policy. If the editor volunteers information that confirms they are acting as an advocate, this information can be used to justify appropriate measures. Speculating on the real-life identity of editors is strongly discouraged to prevent outing, a serious form of harassment. When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, hostility, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause. Something worth noting is that there is often a ""fine line"" between being an Advocate and being a Steward. While a Steward may have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind when editing an article, others may not view their edits and/or behavior in the same way. Be cautious when communicating with someone that might be an Advocate when they are actually a Steward or consider themselves one. In particular, editors that appear to be advocating for a particular point of view may employ peacock terms, weasel words, and other words to watch. Useful ways to avoid advocacy include: Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. Attribute claims to known authorities or substantiate the facts behind an argument. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. Polite advocacy can often be controlled by informing the editor of Wikipedia's mission and asking them to refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and disruptive editing can provide the basis for blocking an editor. For long-term, low-level disruption, those engaging in advocacy may be topic banned by the Wikipedia Community or the Arbitration Committee. Advocates sometimes employ defenses, such as: === I only want to help Wikipedia! === Good intentions do not excuse actual disruption. If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral. An example of a good answer: ""You might have all the best intentions in mind, but that doesn't mean your editing breaks WP:NPOV guidelines any less"" === What I am writing is true! === Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect ""true"" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view. === The public needs to know this! === Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes. If information needs to be published, there are many media outlets. Once information has been published, it may be noticed by Wikipedia editors and utilized as a reference. === Articles on X should be written or edited by believers in X and not Y. === An oft-repeated argument holds that people who subscribe to a particular viewpoint are those best qualified to write about it. This argument takes forms such as: ""We need AIDS-denialist editors to write a good article about AIDS denialism"", or ""Who better?"" than a Klansman to edit our article on the KKK, or ""People who attended Tech University have no business editing State University."" These arguments are perhaps superficially appealing, but fundamentally mistaken. The best articles on Wikipedia are written by people who value the encyclopedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and original research. Advocates of specific views prioritize their agenda over the project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. Such advocates are unnecessary, and in fact distinctly counterproductive, to the goal of accurately and neutrally covering controversial topics. Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives undue weight to a particular point of view, that can be a problem. Advocates may place suggestions for new topics, content, or useful references on article talk pages. However, they must not disrupt the discussion or prevent formation of a consensus. The Wikipedia Community values transparency. Those who seek to advocate on behalf of causes are encouraged to disclose the nature of their activities on their user pages and when joining a conversation. === Wikipedia policies === Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion Wikipedia is not an anarchy or forum for free speech === Wikipedia guidelines === WP:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point === Wikipedia essays === Wikipedia:Activist Wikipedia:Advocacy articles Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Wikipedia:Coatrack Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Wikipedia:No holy wars Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) Wikipedia:Propaganda Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent" 270 273 597 WP:wikilawyering WP:wikilawyering 270 "Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to: Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problemThe term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution. Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. As another example, the three-revert rule is intended to prevent edit warring. An editor who reverts the same article three times day after day is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule, and can thus be sanctioned for edit warring. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written in a manner that usually is more fuzzy and open to interpretation than laws are. They create certain rules and principles which are applicable in many situations but are not a ""how to write a good article"" instruction, nor do they replace good decision making. So, the ""rules"" and guidelines are just a part of the decision making process, and there is usually latitude on how they are interpreted or to what degree they influence a broader decision. Also, without even getting into secondary sets of rules there are about 73 official policy pages and about 280 official guideline pages, many that are obscure, unknown, overlapping, or with wording that is not carefully written. So, in those cases, whatever you are trying to do (such as win a debate or battle) you can probably find or interpret rules to help you win the battle though enforcing that rule is not per se the concern of yours. So, in those cases, your object isn't to enforce the rule, your objective is to use the rule to achieve a different purpose. In short, you are using technicalities to achieve a different objective. While not a good thing, this is not some horrible rare behavior, it is a common practice and the most common meaning of ""wikilawyering"". Unlike Wikipedia, the legal world is 90% about technicalities, and a part of a lawyer's job to achieve a result using technicalities. So ""wikilawyering"" merely means taking a practice that is a good idea in the legal world and moving it into Wikipedia where it is a bad idea. All editors are expected to follow our WP:Policies and guidelines (P&G). Civil, succinct, and relevant analysis of P&G is not wikilawyering, but is the best way to mutually resolve disputes. On the other hand, when editors use irrelevant P&G technicalities to try to win a content dispute, WP:Consensus and WP:Disruption might apply. When editors use inappropriate P&G argumentation to drive other editors away from a discussion or perhaps even the project itself, WP:Bullying and WP:Harassment may be in play. Types of wikilawyering vary in severity. At the mild end of the spectrum is just using technicalities to try to win on a content decision that is unrelated to the raised technicality. At the severe end of the spectrum is ""weaponizing"" the Wikipedia system to try to ""get"", deprecate or eliminate the presence of an editor for objectives related to personal or content battlers rather than to resolve the issue raised. Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims. It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly WP:Neutral point of view) conforms to their own point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits. The word wikilawyering typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors. The types of wiki-lawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Wikipiedia policies, guidelines and systems. It can also be about a specific action or a broader characterization of the individual. So an assertion that it is occurring is not necessarily a strong accusation. As with any critical term, care should be taken to, at most, criticize the practice or action and not attack the person. For example the message ""Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering"", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern. Similarly, ""This proposal is wikilawyering a bit, because ..."" is a comment on the content or nature of the proposal, not on the personality or motives of its author or supporters. Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term. Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats, Featured Article and Good Article review procedures, and various other formal processes. Another example of misuse of the term is when it is known that an editor is actually a lawyer. Sometimes the editor who is also a lawyer, is accused of wikilawyering simply because of how they explain their positions. However, simply being a lawyer does not mean that one is wikilawyering whenever they participate in discussion. === Policies, guidelines and essays === Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Wikipedia:WikiBullying Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Spurious legalisms Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Wikipedia:Consensus § Forum shopping Wikipedia:Policy shopping Wikipedia:You might be wikilawyering if... (humor) Wikipedia:RJDLI (rationalized just don't like it) Wikipedia:The rules are principles === Articles === Rules lawyer Barratry Abuse of process Frivolous lawsuit Vexatious litigation Malicious prosecution ""Wikihistory""" 271 274 598 WP:PRX Wikipedia:Delegable proxy 271 "Delegable proxy is a proposal to allow each user to designate a trusted user to speak on his behalf in debates in which the user does not participate personally. It would enable an analysis that reflects what the outcome might have been had more users participated. Its implementation would be rather simple, requiring only a proxy table. Delegable proxy does not contemplate forcing matters to a vote. Rather, it would provide an additional source of information for analyzing the results of our existing decision-making processes. In those processes, objective facts and policy take precedence over opinions; alternatives can be suggested and debated simultaneously as the original proposal; and discussion is used to present relevant facts and persuade others in an effort to reach a consensus. Certain debates more closely resemble a poll than others because the nature of the subject matter precludes creative alternatives, limiting the available options to a small set of choices (e.g. support or oppose; keep or delete; etc.) discussed in one central location. In such cases, delegable proxy's ability to analyze representativeness of the results may be particularly useful to closing admins. Delegable proxy would initially be an experimental, optional, advisory tool, with no changes to current guidelines or policies needed to implement it. The community could examine the results of the experiment to help decide whether it would be a good idea to turn delegable proxy into a binding aspect of Wikipedia's control mechanisms, and some proponents of delegable proxy oppose making it binding even if it is successful, considering that advice is actually better than control. Users designate a trusted user they generally agree with by adding him to the Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table and obtaining the proxy's acceptance. If a debate arises in which the user does not participate, but his proxy does, then a closing admin may look at the table (presumably with the help of an automated proxy expansion tool, analogously to the RfA analysis tool used by bureaucrats) and note that, had the user participated, he probably would have shared the same opinion as his proxy. If the user himself participates, then the proxy is of no effect in that particular debate. A user can also revoke the proxy at any time. The proxy is delegable, which allows proxy chains to form. For instance, if A appoints B, and B appoints C, but C is the only one of those three who participates in a debate, then C's opinion counts for all three of them. This allows for a backup; in the event that, for instance, both A and B go on vacation, their general views are still represented while they are gone. It also allows for B to delegate some of the workload of participation to C. It is possible for users to form proxy loops in which, for instance, A appoints B, B appoints C, and C appoints A. In this case, if neither B nor C participate, but A does, then the proxy expansion will show A as being the proxy for the other two. Proxy loops are inevitable if everyone has a proxy, and desirable in that they increase the robustness of the system by allowing users to prevent a scenario where someone doesn't get represented because they are at the head of a proxy chain. Users in a proxy loop can take turns participating on behalf of the others, if they so desire. The information provided by the proxy system becomes more reliable as more users participate and as the set of participating users becomes more representative of the overall user population. A participation bias in the proxy system does not necessarily negate its usefulness, as long as closing admins are able to glean some insight from proxy expansions after taking the bias into account. The main rationale for the proxy system is to counter the effects of participation bias in debates on Wikipedia. In any given debate, only a very small percentage of Wikipedians participate. Especially when groups smaller than about 30 are involved, the small sample size creates the possibility for random factors to cause the outcome to deviate from what the larger community would have decided. The participants are self-selected, which creates further potential for biased results. An example might be if most of the people who take an interest in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion discussions are of the deletionist persuasion, or if a post is made to a WikiProject page about a pending deletion debate on an article under their purview, which draws a sufficiently large group to sway the result to Keep. Under a delegable proxy system in which all the pro-Keep WikiProject members were joined together into a chain or loop, the proxy expansion would show the same result whether one member participated or all of them. This would eliminate the advantage generated by one group of editors being more organized, or devoting more time to deletion debates, than another. By providing a mechanism for gaining insight into the views of infrequent debate participants, delegable proxy may facilitate and reward more productive allocation of editor time. The current system encourages users to devote time to, for instance, deletion or policy debates if they want to influence the overall patterns of deletion. However, this is only a good thing if a particular user's time is most productively employed in such debates. Some users may have relatively rare and useful skills, such as bot code creation or scientific article writing, that they can contribute to the encyclopedia. If they also feel passionately about certain issues (e.g. deletion policy), then given a limited amount of time in which to participate in the encyclopedia, they have to choose between forgoing either some of the work they are best at, or some influence they could have exerted over discussion outcomes. It seems ironic that users who choose to help the encyclopedia primarily through contributions to the mainspace or technical aspects of Wikipedia should be penalized with diminished clout. Delegable proxy can provide an efficient avenue for users to make their opinions and preferences known. Delegable proxy may also improve the quality of debates. The current system gives users an incentive to quickly review and voice opinions in many different deletion debates if they want to maximize the breadth of their influence over deletion policy application. There is no penalty for an ill-considered comment, other than being disregarded by the closing admin. Someone designated as proxy by many users might well be more careful, as poorly-considered comments not only could be disregarded, but might spur users to drop him as proxy. Admins could use proxy expansions in many different ways. Unusual patterns of any type can provide an impetus for further investigation. For instance, if the users on one side of a debate are speaking on behalf many users, and the votes on the other side are speaking on behalf of few, it could reflect votestacking by the latter. In general, the fact that many users have entrusted someone to speak on behalf of them suggests that the user is known and respected by at least that group of users, which may be useful information to the admin. Some things can also probably be inferred by looking into which users have designated a person as proxy. Irrelevant data can be filtered out; an admin may choose to disregard, for instance, proxies of users who have made no edits for several months. A common objection to delegable proxy on Wikipedia is the potential for users with sockpuppets or meatpuppets to game the system. Users could start multiple accounts, each designating the main account as proxy. This would be a risky proposition, however, as discovery could not only result in blocks and bans, but in harm to the user's reputation that would make legitimate users less likely to designate him as proxy. Automated analysis of statistics such as account creation date, edit count, date of proxy execution, date of last edit, voting patterns, and possibly IP addresses, can detect suspicious patterns. The proxy system may help fight sockpuppets by providing another source of data that can be used to unmask them. Moreover, as use of the proxy system becomes more common, it would become more difficult to influence a debate through direct participation by a small number of sockpuppets; it would be necessary to use more of them, or link them together into proxy chains. Unsophisticated attempts to do either would leave suspicious clues. And once one sockpuppet in a proxy chain is detected through checkuser analysis or other evidence, the other members of the chain can be scrutinized as well. A lack of on-wiki communication among members of a proxy chain would be a suspicious sign, as presumably users would choose someone they know. In short, it would be hard for a sockpuppetmaster to convincingly emulate the formation and use of a legitimate proxy chain; and such activity, once discovered, would unmask the whole chain and lead to its dismantling. Some users object that delegable proxy will encourage cliques. It is worth asking, what, exactly, is objectionable about cliques? One definition of clique is ""an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose."" Presumably the exclusivity is the problematic part. It is true that members of a proxy chain or loop can decline to choose a person as their proxy, and in that sense, that person is left outside of that loop. In some cases, that might be desirable, as when no one is willing to name a troll or crank as their proxy; that could actually improve the quality of decisions. The proxy table would be public, so anyone could see the membership and structure of each proxy chain. Moreover, anything that members of a proxy chain do on Wikipedia will still be a matter of public record, and other users can review their contributions and participate alongside them. Lastly, the proxy chains will not affect outcomes by coordinating mass participation by their members (e.g. through off-wiki communication such as IRC), since participation by any one members counts as participation by them all in the proxy expansion. This makes it different from some cliques that have appeared on Wikipedia in the past. Another pitfall is that users might leave the project, yet their proxies would remain in effect, distorting the proxy expansions' representativeness of currently participating Wikipedians. There are many possible approaches to this issue, such as expiration dates on proxies. The simplest solution is for the person running the analysis to factor in the length of time since a user actively contributed, and how substantial their contributions to date have been. Someone whose only edit was to appoint a proxy a few days ago would likely have much less influence than a Wikipedian who accumulated thousands of edits over the past three years and left three weeks ago. In the latter case, the length of time they were gone would be only 3 weeks out of 156, introducing a 2% distortion for that individual. It is up to the person using the analysis whether that margin of error is acceptable. Another objection is that Wikipedia discussions are made by consensus reached from a discussion on the merits of the issue at hand, not votes, and therefore it violates the guideline that polling is not a substitute for discussion. While delegable proxy can be used to obtain a more accurate numerical representation of what the outcome would have been had a larger group participated, it is not intended that decisions be based solely on proxy expansions. If the facts and policy are clearly on the side of the minority, then the outcome should reflect that. Not all cases are clear-cut, however. Subjects such as notability, especially in borderline cases, often involve judgment calls. The quality of a judgment call presumably is influenced by the judgment of the person making it, and in those cases, the proxy expansion's ability to show which users have been entrusted by others to weigh in on their behalf may be useful. Moreover, some decisions do take on characteristics of polling. There is substantial disagreement between inclusionist and deletionist factions about what types of articles the encyclopedia should keep. Under the consensus-based process by which policy and guidelines are made, widely agreed-upon standards becoming binding while contentious ones are excluded from policy pages, leaving a large grey area in which the rules' application must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The policymaking process itself is guided by few particular superordinate goals or standards other than a general mission to improve the encyclopedia, which means different things to different people. When debates take place without commonly-agreed upon standards by which to objectively prove the merits of one argument or another, the results are prone to come down to subjective opinions, preferences and wishes of the users who participate. In those cases, an admin has little choice but to close based on whatever is the rough consensus of participants is, or declare there is no consensus and maintain the status quo. So, we do vote sometimes, and the results are biased by who contributes. This is evident in the need for a rules against forum shopping and canvassing; if such attempts to manipulate the composition of the group of decisionmakers had no potential to influence the result, people would not try it. One objection to delegable proxy (and polling in general) is that it is contrary to the normal practice of coming up with creative ideas in the course of discussion and reaching consensus through persuasion and modifications to the original proposal. In some discussions, such as policy debates, creative alternatives are proposed that branch off into separate discussions which take place simultaneously. This process allows opportunity for better proposals to emerge that the community can agree on. Other debates, such as AfD and RfA, do not lend themselves as well to creative solutions because the process imposes limits on the possible outcomes. An RfA, for instance, will ultimately result in a decision to promote or not promote someone to sysop. An AfD has a limited set of outcomes, such as keep, delete, or merge. And certain policy discussions eventually reach an impasse in which continued debate is not generating any new alternatives, and the discussion focuses on a decision to enact or not enact a specific proposed change. In those cases, discussion may still be useful in that as objections are raised and addressed, users can become better-informed about aspects they hadn't considered, and possibly switch sides, may result in better decisions and a less divisive final outcome. Sometimes a poll is in order, though, when it is evident that more debate will not significantly change opinion or result in new solutions, or when the decision needs to be made in a timely manner (e.g. we would not want RfAs to drag on for very long). When we do poll, delegable proxy can be a useful tool for analyzing the representativeness of the results." 272 275 599 WP:MIRROR Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks 272 "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia. Many correctly follow the licensing terms; however, many others fail – accidentally or intentionally – to place the notice required by these terms. Such pages are listed in subpages grouped alphabetically – see section § How to list new mirrors below. If you find such links, please add them here. In July 2020, the subpages listed a total of 1030 mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. Using these mirrors and forks on Wikipedia Copies of Wikipedia are not reliable sources and not acceptable external links in articles per the verifiability policy. Articles that use a republished work as a source should be edited to either remove the work or to tag the source with {{Circular-ref}}. Leave {{backwardscopy}} on the article's talk page to identify Wikipedia as the original source. Copyright status of mirrors and forks Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit websites. Republication is not necessarily a breach of copyright, so long as the appropriate licenses are complied with. Effect of non-compliance with licenses If the license is not complied with, then the republication is a copyright violation. You own the copyright to your contributions, not the Wikimedia Foundation. Legally, the Wikimedia Foundation is in the same position as the republishers (except that the WMF always complies with your license terms), because the WMF is republishing your copyrighted content under your license. If someone violates the terms of the license, then enforcement needs to come from the copyright owner. Consequently, complaints about violations need to be made by a person who actually wrote part of the improperly republished material. See #Non-compliance process for one typical method for dealing with publishers who violate your copyright. If your own copyright has not been violated, then you may contact one or more of the editors who own the copyright for the material in question, and suggest that they follow the steps in the suggested process. The Wikimedia Foundation and the community cannot do this on behalf of the copyright owner. List new mirrors in the appropriate alphabetical section: #ABC – DEF – GHI – JKL – MNO – PQR – STU – VWXYZ Also include them on the CC-BY-SA Compliance (most sites) or GFDL compliance pages (if they say they comply with that license). If a mirror link is permanently offline, it should be copied to the archive page. A site is permanently offline if the domain has expired or the domain has been transferred to a new owner. Wikipedia's main license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia). As of 2009, most Wikipedia text is also dual-licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. However, this will gradually change as CC-BY-SA text is imported. Thus, it is not safe for most reusers to use the GFDL. Pages identified to use imported CC-BY-SA content are included at Category:Articles with imported Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 text. The GFDL can still be used indefinitely for pages without CC-BY-SA only content. Generally, the GFDL imposes requirements that are similar to the CC-BY-SA but more stringent. For details about Wikipedia's interpretation of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. However, always remember that only the CC-BY-SA and GFDL themselves are legally binding. Note that all notices and/or links must be visible to all users who can see the content. Thus, CSS and JavaScript-only links and/or notices are not acceptable if the Wikipedia article is plain HTML. The license does not apply to materials in the public domain or that is used under fair use. Also, material can be used under other terms if and only if all contributors have approved them. The websites listed on the ""compliance"" pages below use content original to Wikipedia as a source for at least some of their content. Wikipedia itself is not included. This section describes the steps that might be taken on discovering a new site that uses Wikipedia content without properly complying with the license. Note that Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Contributors retain their own copyright for submitted work.If you do contact a website about infringement relating to work originally submitted to Wikipedia, please note it on the relevant subpage listed above. Doing this will help coordinate activities in helping other websites become compliant with our licence, without webmasters feeling harassed by lots of angry non-compliance notices. You may want to consider using a disposable e-mail address for this: since many of the websites listed here are built for advertising purposes, spamming is a possibility. Also, if the owner is planning to shut down the webpage, or remove the Wikipedia content as a whole, suggest to them that they use robots.txt or meta tags so we can remove and prevent future search engine indexing and caching for those websites. Also, if the owner is reachable, suggest that they update their Wiki with the latest database dumps to keep up with recent changes. === Steps === This is not an official guideline but a tool you can use for dealing with infringement. Continue the series below as long as the site is non-compliant. Note that you must choose only pages for which you hold (partial) copyright. These steps only work for dealing with infringement on websites in the United States. If the text is licensed under CC-BY-SA only, send a standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to the site owner. If it is dually licensed, send a standard license violation letter. You can use a whois lookup to get contact info if it is not otherwise available. One week (or more) later, send a follow-up reminder. Three weeks (or more) later, send a final warning, noting that continued infringement will result in a DMCA takedown notice being sent to their ISP. Two weeks (or more) later, send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP, enumerating articles that infringe your copyright. Note separately that the site also violates the copyrights of others. To find the appropriate address, first search the ISP's website. To find the ISP, you can: enter the domain name in the DNS search at http://dnsstuff.com, then click the IP. First search the ISP's site for a legal address. If that doesn't work, try to look them up at https://dmca.copyright.gov/osp/. If they're not in the directory, send the notice to the abuse address. Note that sites are not legally required to accept DMCA notices. If they don't, the only recourse is legal action. Some mirrors load a page from the Wikimedia servers directly every time someone requests a page from them. They alter the text in some way, such as framing it with ads, then send it on to the reader. This is called remote loading, and it is an unacceptable use of Wikimedia server resources. Even remote loading websites with little legitimate traffic can generate significant load on our servers, due to search engine web crawlers. If you suspect a website is remote loading Wikipedia content, you can report it at meta:Live mirrors. The appropriate way to run a mirror is to download a dump of the compressed 'pages-article' file and the images from http://download.wikimedia.org/, and then use a modified instance of MediaWiki to generate the required HTML, along with above mentioned copyrights information. Please use Articles, templates, image descriptions, and primary meta-pages (pages-articles.xml.bz2) for mirroring purposes. A separate list of sites that utilise Wikipedia content is maintained at the OpenFacts site: Copies of Wikipedia content. This list consists primarily of complete copies of all Wikipedia articles. It is intended to show readers where they can get Wikipedia content when Wikipedia itself is down. WikipediaWikipedia:Wikipedia clones (mostly about clones' use as a source) Wikipedia:Republishers Websites which use Wikipedia Wikipedia:Content forking Wikipedia:Press coverage Wikipedia:Searching – Dealing with mirrors and forks in external search results Wikipedia:Send in the clones – a 2004 discussion of Wikipedia's relationships with its mirrors and forks Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#Wikipedia mirrorsWikimediameta:Guide to the CC dual-license – for authors who want to make their contributions available to Creative Commons sites meta:James explains law – Some of the interesting legal questions and issues affecting the project meta:Mirror filter – Filter list for filtering mirrors from Google search results meta:GFDL and CC-BY-SA enforcement – if you want to go furtherOther online encyclopedias (some are forks of, or are based on Wikipedia, the rest are competitors or colleagues)List of online encyclopedias" 273 276 601 WP:RFI Wikipedia:Requests for investigation 273 "This page has been shut down after this debate.Please use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as an alternate venue for cases of simple vandalism that require an immediate block and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for cases that require further investigation. Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages. The first page used for tracking vandalism was a user subpage, ManningBartlett/Naughty people, some time before 4 November 2001. The vandalism in progress page was established as VANDALISM IN PROGRESS on 1 December 2001 - the title was upper-case to make it easily distinguishable on recent changes). Around the same time, the Wikipedia Militia (since renamed to the Volunteer Fire Department) was formed to coordinate responses to press releases about Wikipedia. The ""VANDALISM IN PROGRESS"" page was moved to the Wikipedia namespace in August 2002 and was renamed to the current title in 2006. Its archives since 2003 may be found in Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives and the talk archives since august 2002 can be found in the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 4 and in text form as subpages of Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation. Old subpages can also be found through special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. the long-term abuse page also grew out of ""vandalism in progress"". A section on the ""vandalism in progress"" page for persistent vandalism was added in February 2004, later abandoned, and then re-created as ""Ongoing alerts"" in September 2004; in December 2004 it was split off to its own page, titled Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts." 274 277 603 WP:BRIDGES Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 274 "Welcome to WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels. Goals: To increase the number and quality of articles about bridges and tunnels, improve their formatting and language, add references and media, and increase standardization.Scope: This project is related to articles about specific bridges and tunnels, types of bridges and tunnels, lists of bridges and tunnels, bridge and tunnel categorization, and related templates.If you would like to help, check the to do list or articles needing attention. Feel free to include yourself to the list of participants. WikiProject Architecture WikiProject Civil engineering WikiProject Transport Template for members to include on their user page: {{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels}}; or Use the following on your userbox form to show you are part of this project: The template to place on an article's talk page (pretty basic) is {{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels}}. For a Start quality article, use {{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels|class=Start|importance=}}. For a list of bridges and tunnels, use {{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels|class=list|importance=}}.Class and importance guidelines are shown on the Assessment page. WikiLeon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Acroterion (talk · contribs) Mainly listings on the NRHP Advanstra (talk · contribs) Australia and elsewhere (e.g. Ted Smout Memorial Bridge) Blanchardb (talk · contribs) - I will maintain lists of bridges in Quebec (esp. Montreal) and will gather and update as much information as I can about individual bridges. Expect me to add a few pictures (taken by myself) as well. BridgeHistorian1896 (talk · contribs) - Mainly bridges on the inland waterways of the United States. Bogger (talk · contribs) - Ireland Cacophony (talk · contribs) Canton Viaduct (talk · contribs) Specializing in stone viaducts Chongkian (talk · contribs) - Interested in bridges and tunnels in Taiwan Cryptic Scripture (talk · contribs) Daniel Case (talk · contribs) I write about enough bridges through my work at WP:NRHP and WP:NYSR, so I might as well be part of this project. Denimadept (talk · contribs) - images of, and articles for, bridges. Don Braffitt (talk · contribs) DoubleYouGTT (talk · contribs) Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk · contribs) bridges in Chicago, Pennsylvania, Texas, especially railroad; lists Ferroequus (talk · contribs) Railroad bridges, trestles and viaducts are my area of focus. Flying Stag (talk · contribs) Bridges primarily in the UK Garyvines (talk · contribs) Bridges in victoria, Australia, as well as bridge engineers Ghirla (talk · contribs), responsible for all the stuff contained in Category:Bridges in Russia HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), mostly interested in mediaeval bridges and railway viaducts in England IntrigueBlue (talk · contribs) will lend a hand with editing/clarifying, despite knowing nothing about anything. Interstate 11 (talk · contribs) I will make minor edits to U.S. Automobile bridges. So far, I have made edits to both Gerald Desmond Bridge (1968-2020) and Gerald Desmond Bridge (2020-present), which has recently been split into the way it is. James_Shelton32 (talk · contribs) - Former Railroad Bridges in Virginia. jay8g (talk · contribs) Jklamo (talk · contribs) - lists, bridges in Europe, China, Flickr image-digging Kgbo (talk · contribs) - Bridges in Australia and in Poland, in English and in Polish kwameghana (talk · contribs) Will help with articles on bridges from Africa Lar (talk · contribs) will help out when he can. Leonard G. (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) – associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Illinois bridges MajorScafellPike (talk · contribs) Predominantly UK railway/canal bridges/viaducts/tunnels Mario1987 (talk · contribs) MetroFan2009 (talk · contribs) Mooshykris (talk · contribs) Myselfalso (talk · contribs) naipicnirp (talk · contribs) Bridges in and around Chicago PennySpender1983 (talk · contribs) Peterlewis (talk · contribs) Bridge accidents and disasters! Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) - mostly covered or historic bridges S charette (talk · contribs) Sam (talk · contribs) - mostly suspension bridges. Sanibel sun (talk · contribs) - Mostly cover bridges in Southwest Florida, mostly Fort Myers Scillystuff (talk · contribs) - Pittsburgh bridges. Seth Whales (talk · contribs) Bridges in the UK generally. ShakyIsles (talk · contribs) - Chinese and New Zealand bridges Shari Garland (talk · contribs) - Bridges of Saint Petersburg, Russia SpringBliss (talk · contribs) Stuffed cat (talk · contribs) Interested in the bridges of Tees Valley - eleven so far Tatiraju.rishabh (talk · contribs) Articles like Godavari Bridge, Godavari Arch Bridge and Old Godavari Bridge The Bushranger (talk · contribs) - northwest Florida bridges, primarily ThunderFan109 (talk · contribs) any bridges in New York and Portland. Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) - bridges in Croatia TransporterMan (talk · contribs) Have particular interest in transporter, steel truss, cable-stayed, and ribbon bridges. Trulystand700 (talk · contribs) Bridges Ullpianissimo (talk · contribs) primary area of interest is the Ohio River Valley and its tributaries, ranging northward into Michigan VerruckteDan (talk · contribs) Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) - anywhere, anytime I can. 千里走单骑 (talk · contribs) amiaheroyet (talk · contribs) Expand the guidelines for bridge and tunnel articles Nominate articles for good or featured status Add {{Infobox bridge}} or {{Infobox tunnel}} to articles Standardize categorization for bridges – discuss on the talk page Add introductory paragraphs to bridge and tunnel category pages (defining the category) Update the List of bridges in the United States with info from Cat:Bridges in the US Add latitude and longitude information to articles (see WP:GEO) Expand Category:Bridge (structure) stubs and Category:Tunnel stubs articles List of crossings of the Shannon The basic Wiki guidelines should be followed normally. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and Pulaski Skyway serve as good models. === Introduction === The introduction sentence should include what type of bridge or tunnel it is, what it crosses (river, canyon, etc.), and where it is located: '''Bridge''' is a [[bridge type]] that spans [[body of water or land]] between [[city, state]], and [[city, state]]. (Notable information here, e.g., if it's the oldest/tallest/largest of its type). It was built in [[year]] by [[agency responsible for construction]] and was designed by [[notable engineer or firm]]. === Images and media === Please upload media to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used across all Wikipedia projects easily. If there are many pictures a gallery at the bottom of the page is an option to consider. === Infoboxes and templates === {{Infobox bridge}} and {{Infobox tunnel}} are the preferred templates for individual structures and work best for users if placed at the top of the page. Refer to the template pages for detailed instructions. {{Infobox bridge type}} should be used for bridge design types. === Categorization === The article should be included in the category for the type of bridge that it is (example Category:Suspension bridges). It should also contain a category based on location, such as Category:Bridges in New York (state) There has been much discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and on this talk page about the best way to organize articles within categories. For this project we will place all bridge articles in a category based on location (by nation for countries not yet with a lot of bridge articles where subdivision hasn't happened (Category:Bridges in Japan), or small countries with relatively few bridges (Category:Bridges in Singapore)), or states/provinces for larger countries (Category:Bridges in New York (state)). If these categories are further divided amongst subcategories, the articles will remain included within the larger category (For example: all the bridges in Category:Toll bridges in New York (state) and Category:Bridges in New York City will be included in Category:Bridges in New York (state)). This makes the category pages the easiest to navigate at the price of adding slightly redundant categories on the individual articles. This has been found to be the best solution until MetaWiki supports the inclusion of subcategory articles within parent category pages. === Why write an article about this bridge or tunnel? === A good article should contain as much of the following, and more, as possible: WHAT is this bridge or tunnel? How long/wide/high/tall is it? What sort of construction is it? (See bridge types, below.) Made of what? Concrete, steel, wood, stone, reinforced styrofoam? When was it built? Why was it built? Who built it? Who designed it? What precedes it? That is, were there any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry? What context is it in? Any history? Battles, political or otherwise? Other events? What kind of effort went into it? How much did it cost? Is or was there anything special about its design, location, circumstances, paint color, or manner of failure or destruction? What does it carry? Roads? Railroads? People? Elephants? How many elephants? Does it move? Intentionally? How so? Provide a picture! Or several! What are its coordinates? What makes it worth an article?The more you can put into an article, the more references (more references mean more people care), the more data in general, the less susceptible to AfD the article is. === Popular pages === Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels/Popular pages === Specific bridges === Jiaxing-Shaoxing Sea Bridge is an article I've only just created and is the world's largest cable bridge. I've done what I can with it, with the limited information I could find. Mountain Creek Lake Bridge was copied from an external source and needs to be rewritten. Niagara Cantilever Bridge Needs review. I expanded it a lot but it still could use more work. ++Lar 05:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Bridges in Peoria, Illinois should be renamed List of bridges in Peoria, Illinois, and the the page layout adjusted accordingly (and with new articles for individual bridges, if appropriate). Triborough Bridge needs to be reworked, possibly to include 3 infoboxes, more images, diagrams, etc. Hampton Bridge is marked with a cleanup template Schwandbach Bridge, new article, would really benefit from a photo Ikitsuki Bridge needs to be improved more that way it becomes more notable Amelia Earhart Bridge has been demolished and replaced by a new bridge with the same name. Article needs info on new bridge (or new article about new bridge). Lake Barkley Bridge is a newly approved article I made and is only start class. It could use a photo. Ullpianissimo (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)See the list of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks at the ASCE Civil Engineering historic landmark list (also at List of historic civil engineering landmarks); the bridges below don't have articles yet, unless they're here under another name: Bridges of Niagara Fink Deck Truss Bridge Fink Through Truss Bridge Missouri River Bridges (Chamberlain, South Dakota) Sewall's Bridge Whipple Bowstring Truss BridgeSince these bridges are listed as Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks, they're probably noteworthy enough to deserve articles. === Now-demolished bridges === Bridges that were landmarks in their time but are now gone, but which heartily deserve articles. Lansdowne Bridge over the Indus, the longest cantilever bridge when built (and the ugliest!) – exists as Lansdowne Bridge Rohri Buildwas Bridge, Telford's major cast iron structure === Bridge engineers === Joseph Chaley – important pioneer of the wire cable suspension bridge Guillaume Henri Dufour – suspension bridge pioneer, but article barely mentions his bridge works James Finley (engineer) – more detail to be added Ulrich Finsterwalder – cable-stay and post-tensioning pioneer Louis Harper – needs a photo Jean-Rodolphe Perronet – French engineer who advanced masonry arches considerably David Rowell & Co. – needs a photo Marc Seguin – needs amendments and expansion on suspension bridges Jiri Strasky – Czech developer of stressed-ribbon bridge concept Eduardo Torroja – famous Spanish structural engineer Squire Whipple – stub, would benefit from expansion Portal:Bridges Presentation of some of its sections. Washington Bridge (Connecticut) – Request for rating on importance & quality scale. — Importance done, still needs quality review. John H. Cocke Memorial Bridge - Tagged as not notable--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Alte_Brücke_(Frankfurt) Needs assessment, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Charlestown Bridge → North Washington Street Bridge (Boston)North Washington Street Bridge → North Washington Street Bridge (DeWitt, Arkansas)There is a move discussion requiring more participation. Please consider commenting/voting in it. —Davidpward (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Schuylkill River Crossing Complex AfD? Pghbridges.com (external link) – good for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area bridges.midwestplaces.com Historic Bridges of the Midwest – Good for bridges anywhere in the US Midwest historicbridges.org Historic Bridges of Michigan and Elsewhere – Good for bridges in the Midwest, Great Lakes, and Ontario. Structurae.de (external link) – Structurae: International Database and Gallery of Structures – largest bridge database on-line Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey, source of photos and info Historic Bridges of the United States – limited and error-ridden, but potentially useful Covered Spans of Yesteryear – present and former covered wooden truss bridges in the United States and Canada Bridgemeister: Mostly Suspension Bridges – an attempt ""to catalogue as many suspension bridges as possible"" with thorough documentation of references === Featured content === Featured articles There are 15 Bridge FAs (see Category:FA-Class Bridge articles), one former bridge FA, and one tunnel FA: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (formerly featured)Featured listsList of bridges to the Island of Montreal List of largest suspension bridges (formerly featured) List of Seattle bridgesFeatured pictures Wikimedia Commons Picture of the day" 275 278 604 WP:REDFLAGSOFNONNOTABILITY Wikipedia:Red flags of non-notability 275 "Those that contribute to numerous WP:AFD discussions, work at WP:CSD, and do similar tasks observe certain recurring characteristics of articles which fail WP:N, particularly biographies. These can be called ""Red flags of non-notability"", and include things such as: An article about a small group written from the group's perspective. Anything containing first person pronouns such as ""we"" and ""us"" are almost certainly not notable. If no third party information can be found so all information comes from the subject's perspective, that tells all that no one has bothered to cover the group and it fails notability. Religious, youth, and music groups are most often found in this category. If your religious group can raise the dead, let us know. If your band meets WP:BAND, come back. Until then, you may be great people, love Jesus and make good music, but you don't get an article at Wikipedia. As well, if the only source about the Fraternity of Foo is FraternityofFoo.com, then this is probably not notable.A biography (or description of a commercial product) with astounding superlatives but without sources or explanation. Adjectives such as ""well-known"", ""best"", ""renowned"", ""award-winning"", ""ground-breaking"", ""unique"", ""well-liked"" are tell-tale signs. Groundbreaking means the subject works in construction? Award winning means the subject has little trophies given out at the bowling alley? Unique? we're all that so we're told. If the article tells us that Joe Blow is a renowned phrenologist in Foo, perhaps a source would be easily found. However, it usually seems that Joe Blow is best known among Foo's illiterates, because nothing is written about him. Again, failing a notability test. See also: Wikipedia:Peacock terms. WP:Weasel words like ""one of the top"" or ""among the nation's best"" may also be tell-tale red flags. This is language more associated with promotional press releases than encyclopedias.Biographies with titles where the surname is improperly lower case. If the author cannot bother to capitalize the name of their subject, why should anyone bother to read it? Typically, these are done in vanity, in haste or in error, which may indicate that the subject is not notable.Biographies that violate naming conventions, such as ""Dr. Jordan Marsh"", ""Mistii"", or ""Mrs. Ruth Less"", unless that is the person's full stage name.A product article without telling us what the thing does or who makes it. If we don't know what the gizmo does or who makes it, do we even care to find out about anything else? Presumably, anyone who is looking at the gizmo article would want to know what it does, who makes it. Not in a WP:SPAMmy way, but just the facts. Too often, something is described as a solution or solves problems. An article that claims to be a ""web solution"" (or a ""waste solution"") says nothing – is it a spider's sticky goo? That too is a ""web solution"" and just as non-notable.Articles about immovable things that don't tell you where they are. If the author cannot tell us where the school, business, tree, park, church, building, or museum etc. is, it's probably no loss to delete the article, because only insiders can make any use of it. ""Joe's Pizza was the first pizza parlor."" conveys to some a claim of notability, but without a location we should assume that it means ""Joe's Pizza was the first pizza parlor [at that precise location – previous businesses being a bike repair shop, beauty parlor, and a brothel perhaps]."" and its non-notability is evident.Articles on products, films, comics, television shows, video games and albums which haven't been released and which have only recently been announced, usually for types of media. These articles often have working titles. Sometimes these items may never become actual products and never be previewed or have any impact. If a fan of the content is writing this article, there may also be lots of superlatives about how this comic/game is ""legendary"" and a ""masterwork"". Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries Wikipedia:Red flags of copyright violation" 276 279 605 :WP:SPA Wikipedia:Single-purpose account 276 "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made ""few or no other edits outside this topic"", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed. Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that ""single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."" For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for advocacy. New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them. The general test for an SPA is: It must be understood that evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus-- this is perfectly acceptable. By contrast, evidence that a user is editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral material or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to raise concerns. === Decision-making tags === In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name (producing a note that the editor ""has made few or no other edits outside this topic""), as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion. If you are tagged as an SPA, please do not take this as an attack on your editing. Some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear what the new editors are doing. The format of the tag is: {{subst:spa|username}} add this after the user's signature (do not replace the signature) {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp}} use this if the user did not add a signatureBefore adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the ""who not to tag"" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration. If a tag is warranted, it should be limited to one instance per single-purpose account per conversation thread to inform readers in that thread. Adding a tag after every comment by a single-purpose account within a single thread is unnecessary and likely to be perceived as antagonistic. === Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) === The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should, under no circumstance, consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag. Editing timeline: A given user's overall timeline of editing should be taken into consideration before placing an SPA tag on that user's edits. Only a complete edit history will allow a fair consideration of that editor's intentions. Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following: Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA. Users who are established editors whose current focus is on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, such users are welcome to edit on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.Edits by a single user within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like ""spiders"", ""nutrition"", ""baseball"", or ""geometry"" are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic (such as ""spiders""), this does not mean the user is an SPA (though only editing the page Latrodectus might). Some very broad but specialized academic topics may seem narrow to editors with little or no knowledge of the field – if you are unsure what constitutes a specialized topic, then it may be best to mention this fact when claiming a certain account is an SPA or to not place such a label in the first place. Lack of a user page or signature: While many single-purpose accounts do not have user pages, this is not a reason for identifying a person as an SPA. Some established users who edit articles on a variety of subjects do not have user pages. In addition, even the most experienced editors occasionally forget to sign their comments. A subject outside of SPA area: An editor can become labeled as an SPA within a given subject, but do not label other edits as belonging to an SPA if the edits are to a genuinely unrelated page. The tag should only be used on pages that relate to the single-purpose account's ""single purpose"". Number of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a ""single purpose"". More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers. === If you are in a discussion with someone who edits with appearance of being a single-purpose account === Community standards such as not biting the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If treated fairly, newcomers may become more involved over time. If a newcomer is participating in an Articles for deletion discussion, then consider adding a {{Afd-welcome}} tag to their talk page. Only tag users as SPAs if they actually fit the tagging guidelines above. Even if the tagging guidelines are followed, use the tag only if it actually serves a constructive purpose in the context that it is being used. If you are a newcomer or are editing as a single-purpose account, good policy-based editing will likely earn you rapid respect. Ask others for help as you learn. The same policies apply to you as to everyone else, although your reputation and your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors. === If you are working a single-purpose account === If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbour a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama.If you wish to continue working as an SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information online. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations. The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies. Indeed, in some cases, there may be clear conflicts of interest. Care taken in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship. === Other considerations === While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly require a post-beginner level of editing skill (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party with previous wiki editing experience who wishes to improve the Wikipedia project, or it may even be that tasks, like editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images or participating in a discussion, are nowhere near as difficult as you might think and don't actually require extensive experience or a degree in wikiology. For this reason, statements regarding motives should be avoided in almost all circumstances. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment. New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Indeed, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions. It may be helpful to cite the official policies regarding sock puppets and meat puppets for guidance on such matters, especially if new users have joined Wikipedia specifically to participate in a debate, or if they have joined at the request of another user who wants help in discussions on a particular article. One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage expert opinions. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with cited interpretations during content discussions. Please do not be discouraged by such editors. Eventually, they will respect you, especially if you remember that you are not personally a source, and your focus, even expertise, is best directed toward finding and citing independent reliable sources for the articles you edit. If you are new to Wikipedia or if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing criteria, please read very carefully the following policy and information pages: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not—what is acceptable or unacceptable use. Wikipedia:Five pillars—the editing foundations of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—the core policy that informs how pages are to be approached. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry—the core policy covering both users with multiple accounts, and multiple users working together on one ""viewpoint"" in a debate. Wikipedia:No personal attacks—some new users may find the single-purpose account label to be insulting. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers—new members will become new contributors soon enough if they are willing to learn about Wikipedia culture, so welcoming new users does more good than labeling them as new. Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Internet sockpuppet Role account Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Griefing Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sleeper accounts Wikipedia:Tag team {{spa}} – template to tag contributions by a single-purpose account" 277 280 607 WP:NOTGAZETTEER Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer 277 "Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that ""Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works"". Gazetteers are a kind of reference work, and as such Wikipedia incorporates features of them within the context of encyclopaedic articles.However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a ""indiscriminate collection of information"", ""dictionary"", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a ""geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas"".Articles about locations must pass the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline as a minimum requirement. Even where WP:GEOLAND is passed, such articles may still be merged or redirected for better accessibility and presentation of information. The mere existence of a geographical location does not mean that an article must be written about it if there is, in fact, nothing really to say about it that can be sourced to reliable sources.Typically this becomes relevant in discussions at articles for deletion where one side wishes to keep an article on the grounds that ""Wikipedia is a gazetteer"" and where the references cited are a bare mention in a gazetteer, or in a similar source listing locations that does not distinguish between legally-recognised populated places and other places. Writers of articles about geographic locations that fail WP:GEOLAND, and about which it is not possible to write encyclopaedic articles, may instead contribute to Wikivoyage, GeoNames, or similar open-source gazetteer or gazetteer-like projects. === Census data === Census data, particularly that from censuses which are from cultural, linguistic, or historical contexts that are unfamiliar to the editor making use of them, should be treated with extreme care. Not every location listed in a census will necessarily be a ""populated, legally recognised place"" as required by WP:GEOLAND. For example the Iranian 2006 census listed ābādī, which are essentially a class of rural location, that includes mills, pumps, wells, factories, and farms, as well as rural villages, meaning that many of the ābādī are not what would generally be consider ""populated places"", still less ""legally recognised"" since the census by itself does not confer legal recognition. Similarly Turkish census data lists mahalle, which is variously translated as quarters/neighbourhoods, but which also includes village-type populated places, and not every one of which is necessarily a legally-recognised populated place. Lists of post-offices, police stations, and other government-operated services should also be treated carefully. This is a form of census-like data and may have the same pit-falls, particularly as post-offices may be mobile or simply the adjunct of a store that isn't necessarily co-located with a community, and police stations may be located outside populated communities. Best practise when handling census data from a context you are unfamiliar with is to seek help from editors more familiar with it (for example people fluent in the language of the country whose census you wish to make use of). Particularly where you wish to create a large number of such articles, a consensus to create the articles should be sought first at a relevant Wikiproject, even if you do not plan to use automated tools to create them. === GEOnet names server (GNS) === The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) is a database of locations outside the United States operated by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the United States Board on Geographic Names. It is compiled primarily from US military maps, at least some of which incorporate systematic errors. As it covers locations outside the USA, errors in it are also much less likely to be corrected. For example, a 2008 survey of South Korea toponyms on GNS found that roughly 1% of them were actually Japanese names that had never been in common usage, even during the period of Japanese colonial rule in Korea, and had apparently come from a 1946 US military map that had apparently been compiled with Japanese assistance. In addition to the Japanese toponyms, the same study noted that ""There are many spelling errors and simple mis-understanding of the place names with similar characters"" amongst South Korea toponyms on GNS, as well extraneous names of Chinese and English origin. As such it suffers from much the same problems as GNIS (see below) with the added burden of covering countries for which data is much more scarce and older, and from which they are much less likely to receive requests to update or correct the data within their database. === GNIS === GNIS (the Geographic Names Information System) is a database of over 2 million natural and man-made features within the United States of America operated by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the United States Board on Geographic Names. A significant portion of these are labelled ""populated places"" within the database. Even ignoring the accuracy problems seen within this data, simply being listed as a ""populated place"" within GNIS does not demonstrate that the place has legal recognition as GNIS does not confer legal recognition of populated places. Instead legal recognition of populated places within the US is conferred through state and federal law through e.g., incorporation. GNIS is, however, one useful way of discovering locations to write about within the US prior to locating further references related to the topic further confirming that it is notable (either as a legally-recognised populated place, or otherwise as a WP:GNG-pass) as part of the article-creation process. === Arguments to make === Keep - Jageshwar is an easy WP:GEOLAND pass per these sources (1 2). I Heart Notability (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - Bare listings as a ""populated place"" on GEOnet Names Server do not make this a WP:GEOLAND pass. Passing Mention (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Keep - I saw this place was a populated place on GNIS and then used the alternative names on GNIS to find more sources (1 2 3) confirming that it is a WP:GEOLAND-pass. I Checked (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) === Arguments to avoid === Keep - This place is listed as a populated place in GNIS, GNIS is a gazetteer and so is Wikipedia per WP:5P1. GNIUS (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Keep - This place appears to have been listed as an ābādī in the Iranian 2006 census. A Bad Eye (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - Not listed in the national Gazetteer, so not notable. GAZer (talk), 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Gazetteer (essay to which this is a counter-essay) Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) Wikipedia:Substantive content" 278 281 614 WP:RESCUE Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron 278 "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). Sometimes Wikipedia articles about notable topics exist in poor form, badly written, unsourced – but that is not sufficient in itself to remove them from the encyclopedia at Articles for Deletion. If an article is about an encyclopedic topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the article may simply need improvement. A significant aspect of this project's focus is on articles that may be written in poor form, lack references or need improvement, yet are backed by reliable sources and are therefore likely worthy of a Wikipedia stand-alone article per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some writer may have worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. In reaching out to work with such writers and readers, the project can help to preserve worthwhile content in the encyclopedia. The project works toward improving Wikipedia as a whole by cooperating together to improve deficient articles through editing to provide necessary sources, correcting inappropriate style or tone, cleaning up grammatical and layout problems, etcetera, with the overall goal of improving the encyclopedia. Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is on Wikipedia articles that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD), which may: Need references Be written poorly Lack information readily available Need cleaning up.We also help rescue content in Wikipedia's main namespace (refer to Wikipedia: Namespace for more information) and other Daily deletion debates (XfD) processes, such as Miscellany for deletion (MfD) and Templates for discussion (TfD). See Articles & content for an overview. ARS members may also be interested in rescuing articles listed at Wikipedia: Listing of possible copyright problems. These articles often cover notable topics. Evaluating the extent of such problems can be difficult, but thoroughly rewriting articles with problems identified as foundational has the additional benefit of helping WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. A list of content for rescue consideration is located at this project's content rescue list. See: Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articlesThe Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about editing and improving articles. ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Wikipedia. If everyone who cares about preserving important topics and removing unsuitable content reads one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), the impact will benefit all of our readers. Moreover, reading through an article nominated for deletion and adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content can help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted. === Does ARS want to keep everything? === No. The project is not about making policy to ensure that nothing is deleted or casting keep votes in AfD discussions. The project ensures that articles that can be written to follow Wikipedia policies do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing, which per WP:AFD means that it was not a good candidate for deletion. The {{Sofixit}} and {{Solookitup}} templates are sometimes all that's required for a rescue. Every time an article is deleted the contributions that were made to it are lost, and then only Wikipedia administrators can access it, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. After deletion, an article's content, value, and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public. In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere, and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve. This makes Articles for Deletion (AfD) a very important place; one that deserves everyone's attention. A common axiom is that ""AFD is not cleanup"". Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, sourceable content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not deleted. The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources, located at Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than the entire deletion of articles. The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted is a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. The Article Rescue Squadron was highlighted in a July 2007 Wikipedia Signpost, and has grown with many processes to tag, track, and list tagged articles. === Articles proposed for deletion (prod) === Sometimes articles are proposed for deletion (prod, prodded) without being sent to AfD, some of which are notable per Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Refer to Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion to browse these articles. You may wish to consider joining WP:PRODPATROL. Many new articles come to Wikipedia via the Articles for creation (AfC) process. Reviewers assess these contributions and either accept, decline or reject them. Declined drafts on notable subjects may be improved by the authors and resubmitted. In many cases, however, this does not happen and the drafts are essentially abandoned. Abandoned drafts are subject to deletion under WP:G13 after 6 months of inactivity. Since all this occurs in Draft: space and typically involves new editors, these deletions are largely invisible to the editing community. You can help by reviewing drafts that will soon become eligible for deletion and improving them and submitting them for rereview at AfC. Drafts becoming eligible for G13 in a week from now Submissions that an editor feels may be able to be saved Quality submissions that an editor feels may be able to be saved All declined submissions - includes subcategories for various decline reasons See also: ARS Guide to saving articles Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources Read Wikipedia's Editing policy, including the policy What Wikipedia is not. Discuss issues regarding an individual article on that article's talk page, not on this project's talk page. Suggest an article nominated for deletion that you feel meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons, on this project's article rescue list page, for ARS consideration. Browse Articles for Deletion periodically, and consider improving articles that you feel meet notability guidelines. Read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for more tips. === Source searches === In addition to below, placing {{Talk header}} at the top of a Talk page now includes the ""Find Sources"". === Article Rescue checklist === Here's a quick checklist of 10 steps anyone can take for articles that need rescue: Find and add reliable sources – It is most important that sources demonstrating the notability of a subject are added to articles when they are found. Do it properly, using the correct citation templates. Add WikiProjects – View article talk pages to see if appropriate WikiProject banners have been added (this list of banners maybe be easier to browse). WikiProject banners help draw attention to articles from editors who are interested in the subject, especially if the project subscribes to Article Alerts. You don't need anyone's permission to add relevant WikiProject banners to article talk pages. Solicit WikiProject input – Many articles needing rescue merely need attention from an expert on the subject. A short note on a WikiProject talk page seeking expert attention can bring remarkable results fast. Take the time to strengthen the Lead section – The lead sets the tone for the rest of an article. Take the time to rewrite or improve the lead so that an article's title and its contents are in sync. Nothing detracts more from an otherwise notable subject than a lead that inadequately conveys what an article is about. Clean-up articles – If an article about an otherwise notable subject has a bunch of unorganized content on the page, it is best to clean it up on the spot and bring it up to par with the Manual of Style guidelines. Some examples of clean-up include copy editing, wikifying (adding internal links, interwiki links and external links), correcting spelling, grammar and typographical errors, converting poorly formatted references with proper citation templates and adding relevant sections. Add Infoboxes, Navigation Templates and sidebars – If they are not present in articles and their addition is appropriate, do so and complete their fields as much as possible. De-orphan articles – Link and cross-reference articles with other articles, lists and categories. Make sure articles have internal links that link to other appropriate, highly related articles, which helps to clarify and expound upon information. If it is difficult to incorporate links within the text of an article, the See also section is an appropriate place to list links for related articles. Look for sources and content in related articles that might enhance orphaned articles. Utilizing the ""What links here"" feature in the Toolbox pull-down menu in the left column of Wikipedia pages provides a list of pages that link to an article. Eliminate the junk – If there is unsourced or irrelevant content, copyright violations, or other ""junk"" in articles, eliminate it ruthlessly. If there is a question about the validity of content, start a discussion on the talk page and tag questionable content with template messages as necessary. Don't just ignore the ""junk"" if its there. Conversely, it's very important to preserve appropriate content – as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in a ""finished"" article. For more information, please refer to Try to fix problems. Treat articles as if they were your best achievements – Make changes to articles that will turn them into articles that you would be proud of personally. We know how to do it, we just need to do it. Positively engage new editors – When you find that an article has been created by a new editor (maybe their first one) or by inexperienced editors, engage them in a positive, mentoring way. Help them learn how to create and contribute better content. Engage them on their talk pages, encourage them, and most importantly make them feel welcome. If there are policy or guideline issues on the table, don't just refer them to a policy link; engage them in a discussion to ensure they better understand how to make quality contributions. Make sure the editor knows that merging and userfication are alternatives to deletion. Even if an article is ultimately lost, this positive engagement will help us all by encouraging new contributors to make useful, productive edits. Note: To ensure the most recent listings in the pull-down menus below are displayed, click here: === Articles === For current articles nominated for deletion, see Today's AfD log (from Wikipedia: Articles for deletion). For a list of all deletion debates opened on a daily basis, see XfD today For a list of deletion discussion pages, see Deletion process For a search engine to find deletion discussions by topic, see Search all deletion discussions. For a general guide to creating articles, see Wikipedia: Your first article. ==== Articles currently tagged for deletion ==== Category: Articles for deletion ==== Articles currently proposed for deletion ==== Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion See also: Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs – Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process. ==== Biographies of living persons ==== Article Rescue Squadron – Biographies of living persons Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteersMany articles have been deleted as Biographies that had been flagged for years as unsourced. The administrators who deleted them have stated that the restoration of these articles is acceptable, provided that any restored articles are then properly sourced and made fully compliant with WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons). For some background information, see here. BLP articles that are properly sourced will simply be restored, along with their talk pages. To volunteer to reference one or more of the articles that have recently been deleted as unreferenced BLPs, see ARS BLP volunteers. ==== Article restoration ==== Further information: Viewing and restoring deleted pages ===== Article userfication ===== See also: Userfication essayRequests for undeletion – If an article has already been deleted but you intend to improve it, you can request that it be moved into your user namespace at Requests for undeletion. Another option is to ask any of the administrators on this list who will userfy articles for editors. ==== Articles with topics of unclear notability ==== Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability. === Content === ==== Files for discussion ==== Files for discussion – Files for discussion (FfD) is for the discussion of images and other media files (such as audio and video files) that are being considered for deletion. Files that have been listed at FfD for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. ==== Categories for discussion ==== Categories for discussion – Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories is discussed. Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised. ==== Templates for discussion ==== Templates for discussion – On this page, deletion or merging of templates is discussed. Stub templates are not covered here, and are discussed at Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion. ==== Redirects for discussion ==== Redirects for discussion – Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where problematic redirects are discussed. ==== Miscellany for deletion ==== Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion Article alerts See a selected list of previous rescues at Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame. See Current articles subpage and Current articles (2009) for listings of resolved rescues and ARS collaborations from 2009. === Examples === Article Rescue Squadron/Examples To join, simply add your name to our membership list; feel free to add your ideas to the project discussion page as well. === Rescued articles === ARS user page boxes: {{User Article Rescue Squadron}} – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. {{User WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. Once you've rescued an article or two, show your Rescue Squadron pride with {{User:Jclemens/Rescues|n}}(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue) – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. {{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Userbox|n}}There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. === Rescued article — then to FA or GA === Have you helped take an article from Articles for deletion to Featured Article or Good Article quality ? show your Rescue Squadron pride with {{User AFD to FA|n}}(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue and take to Featured Article quality) – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. {{User AFD to GA|n}}(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue and take to Good Article quality) – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here. === WikiProject Invitation === To invite someone:To invite someone to join the Article Rescue Squadron, you can use our handy invite by pasting {{subst:Article Rescue Squadron invite}} to their userpage. There are five specific Rescue Barnstars for anyone who has made significant contributions to rescuing articles; it is up to those awarding them to choose which one to use: Hall of fame:Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron – Hall of Fame/Award See Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron – Templates for ARS templates. It can be discouraging for an editor to have their article deleted, especially for new and first-time contributors. An alternative is Userfication, in which articles for deletion can be placed into a user's namespace, providing an option to improve an article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Instead of deleting articles altogether, sometimes they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism). It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This may discourage both Wikipedia readership and authorship. Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of what Wikipedia is not can reduce the total information of Wikipedia. === Related projects === === Essays, etc. === Deletionpedia – Access to deleted Wikipedia articles ""Wikibin: The Recycle Bin of Wikipedia!"" – Access to deleted Wikipedia articles (in German) WikiPedia Deleted – Enzyklopädie PlusPedia – Category page of deleted articles from German Wikipedia wmcharts – Deletions and restorations === Essays === ""In Defense Of Inclusionism"" (essay) The Charms of Wikipedia in The New York Review of Books (subscription required) – includes information about article rescue, by Article Rescue Squadron veteran Nicholson Baker ""The hidden Wikipedia: how to find deleted material about Nutritional Medicine: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service."" Free Online Library. Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia (essay) – by Andrew Lih, USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution === Wikimedia Meta-Wiki links === Meta-Wiki is the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and related projects. Association of Deletionist Wikipedians Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians Association of Mergist Wikipedians Association of Structurist Wikipedians" 279 282 616 WP:CHEATS Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games 279 "The following are guidelines for various aspects of writing article content about video games, established by consensus among Wikipedians. Please discuss them on the talk page if you have ideas or questions. Editors should also be familiar with the main Manual of Style, writing about fiction sub-guidelines, and the general guide to writing better articles. For video game-related naming conventions, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games). In general, the following sections describe typical ordering of sections used in articles related to video games. These do not necessarily have to correspond to the actual section headers and divisions. Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article. === For games === Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the entire article body, which explains why the game is notable and important; this is the key aspect of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article. Infobox: Contents should adhere to the template documentation, see below for further information. Gameplay: going over the significant parts of how the game works. Remember not to include player's guide or walkthrough material. The gameplay section should come before the plot section, with the exception of when it would help to simplify the discussion of either section. For example, in Assassin's Creed, the player plays the role of a man in the 21st century experiencing the memories of a long-distant ancestor in the Crusades, with several gameplay elements in place to reflect this double-perception. In this case, describing the plot before the gameplay simplifies the content of each, avoiding repetition between sections. Plot: if the plot is not too complex, it can be lumped in with the gameplay; otherwise, put it in its own section. If necessary, the section can have subheadings for the story, setting, and characters. Keep it concise and avoid trivial details. Development: discuss development, design concepts and inspirations, etc. This can easily include several different subsections. It also includes release material, such as the game's marketing, promotional info, and/or release dates. If the release material is large enough, it can be split to its own section. Reception: This should detail how the game was received by critics. Legacy: If the game had a substantial impact on its series, genre, and/or the video game industry, consider making a section dedicated to its legacy. This can either be put under the reception header or, if there is enough information, a separate section. If the only major impact is a sequel or media adaptations, consider instead naming this section ""Related media"", ""Sequels"", etc. as appropriate. References: Cite sources! If you are unsure what to include for references, reviews, interviews, news articles, game instruction booklets, and guides are all good candidates. See this list of sources deemed generally usable or unusable on Wikipedia. External links: When available, list the company and game website(s) if the company website is separate from the game's website. In addition, list all relevant websites for English publications. Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided. === For characters === Lead section: The name of the character or series (if a group of characters) in bold italics, name of the company and/or designers that developed them, and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the article. Finally, why the character(s) is notable and important; this is the key part of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article. Infobox: Articles on a single character should have a character infobox. Articles on a group of characters should have an infobox omitted. Concept and design: going over the process in which the character(s) was created and designed. Appearances: This should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game. This section should normally be integrated into the rest of the character section if in a list or article on a group of characters. Merchandise: This section should be included if the likeness of the character(s) has been used extensively on merchandise and marketing material. Types of merchandise should be include and if possible release dates and regions of the merchandise Reception: This should detail how the character(s) was received by critics. Criticism about the game itself should generally be omitted as the character(s) is the subject of the article. References: Cite sources! If you are unsure what to include for references, game instruction booklets, guides, reviews, and interviews are all good candidates. External links: When available, list the game website(s). If it was published in a non-English country first, list both the original country's website; in addition, list all relevant websites for English publications. Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of those to be avoided. === For settings === Lead section: The name of the setting or fictional world in bold italics, name of the company and/or designers that developed them, and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the article. Finally, why the setting is notable and important; this is the key part of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article. Infobox: Most articles on a setting should have an infobox omitted. There are exceptions though. Concept and design: going over the process in which the setting was created and designed. In-game content: This section should include information about the setting as it applies to the game. Briefly discuss the role in the game and any aspects of the in-game world that is notable and/or an important fact to the game. This section should not contain excessive detail about the game's plot, descriptions about the setting, or game guide information. Reception: This should detail how the setting or aspects of the setting were received by critics. Criticism about the game itself should generally be omitted as the setting is the subject of the article. References: Cite sources! If you are unsure what to include for references, game instruction booklets, guides, reviews, and interviews are all good candidates. External links: When available, list the game website(s). If it was published in a non-English country first, list both the original country's website; in addition, list all relevant websites for English publications. Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of those to be avoided. === What is appropriate? === Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry. Readers should be presented with a concise overview of the game's plot and gameplay. Plot sections, if necessary, should be no more than approximately 700 words, to retain focus. It is important for readers to be able to learn how the game was developed and its commercial and critical reception. Because the encyclopedia will be read by gamers and non-gamers alike, it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A rule of thumb if unsure: if the content only has value to players, it is unsuitable. Video game articles should be comprehensive and readable to non-gamers. Wikipedia commonly has stand-alone articles about notable games, companies, individuals, or hardware. Reliable information about game peripherals, expansions, music, merchandise, or characters can often be merged somewhere more appropriate, and richer in context. Avoid detailed coverage of in-game elements such as items, levels, or setting. If multiple reliable sources describe a game element's importance to a game or series, this can be summarized at the relevant parent article, in context. A separate article for a game element is typically warranted if multiple sources establish its importance outside the game itself, describing its influence on the game industry, history, or a genre. Content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia may be appreciated elsewhere: Codex Gamicus for general info/trivia; Fandom for detailing a setting, plot, or in-game items; Gamepedia for specific games; StrategyWiki for walkthrough/strategy/gameplay content; and Wikibooks Electronic games bookshelf. To propose that an article or section be copied to a gaming wiki, use the {{Copy to gaming wiki}} template. See Help:Transwiki on how to move information to other wikis. To simply tag such information for removal, please add the {{Game guide}} template to the article in question. === Essential content === Each video game article should include a minimum set of standard elements: An infobox, completed correctly and appropriately (see WP:WikiProject Video games/Templates for instructions on how to use the different templates for video game articles). The {{WikiProject Video games}} template placed on the article's Talk page. This lets others know that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Video Games. A ""Development"" or ""History"" section. To keep a real-world perspective, it is essential to explain how the article subject was made, and not only discuss the fiction. A ""Reception"" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically. For additional guidance see this guideline. When writing about a game, be sure to categorize it by genre, platform, and year (see WP:Categorization).If these essential pieces of information cannot be found in reliable sources, then it may be more appropriate to merge this topic into a parent article. ==== Release dates ==== Release dates for video game should be included as follows: In the {{Infobox video game}}, release dates should be provided for primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. If the video game is first released in a non-English country, commonly in Japan, then that should also be stated. Region releases (North America, Europe, or even PAL region) are preferred to specific country releases unless there are significant differences in release dates or the game was preemptively banned or restricted from sale in a specific country within the region. Consider using footnotes rather than a separate country release entry in the infobox to keep the information included within it relatively succinct. Releases in non-English countries should otherwise not be included in the infobox, but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body. If the game is available for multiple platforms, group release dates first by platform, then by country. Thus, a game that may come out for the Xbox 360 then later for the PlayStation 3, group all the Xbox 360 release dates under one heading, then all the PlayStation 3 releases under a second. If a remake, remaster or game collection is covered within the same article as its original game, further group release dates by original and remakes, then by console, then by country. However, games re-released through emulated systems, which include the Virtual Console for Nintendo consoles, microconsoles like the Atari Flashback, and some software titles like Sega Genesis Collection should not have these emulated re-releases included in the infobox. If the game is a same-day multi-platform release, it is not necessary to create separate lists for each platform, and these can be grouped accordingly. See the infobox in Grand Theft Auto V for example. Should the number of consoles or remakes become excessively large, consider stating only the first release or primary console within the infobox using the {{Collapsible list}} template with the {{{title}}} field set to show the top-level information, and summarizing the other release dates within the development section of the article body; See the infobox in Lemmings (video game) for an example. Release dates should be provided using the {{Video game release}} template, unless the game had a single, simultaneous worldwide release date, in which case the template may be omitted. Do not use flag icons in the infobox, instead, state the region/country by name, one of the limited region codes supported by {{Video game release}}, or by their ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes. If one set of releases have different regional release dates, while another platform has worldwide release, then stay consistent throughout the infobox with the {{Video game release}} using the ""WW"" country code for worldwide releases. Release dates must be consistent with the prevailing prose date format. In the article lead, release dates should be summarized to be as general as possible, avoiding specific mention of platform and region releases unless significant. Whenever possible, the release dates in the lead should be summarized to the year of release, or month and year if further applicable. Examples: A video game released worldwide across all major platforms within a single year but many different dates can be summarized as ""released in 2008"". If the release period spreads across a year boundary, this can be summarized as ""released in 2008 and 2009"". A video game with a later port to a different system can be noted as such: ""The game first released for the PlayStation 2 in January 2008, and was ported to the Nintendo DS later that year."" Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within ""Development"" or ""Release""), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews.An article may be written in a specific form of English (American English, British English, etc.); use a date format that matches the version of English that is used in the article. See WP:DATE and WP:ENGVAR for further details. Dates should not be linked. Care should be taken in citing release dates. Many commercial gaming sites, such as GameSpot, IGN, and 1Up.com, supply accurate dates, as well as retailers such as Amazon or GameStop. For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates. If a general timeframe (""first quarter"", ""early"") or even month is provided, include this before the year, but do not link these terms (see date formatting in the Manual of Style). Avoid the use of seasonal estimate release dates (""winter"", ""summer"") as these have different meanings in different parts of the world (see WP:SEASON for more). Keep in mind that some publishers may advertise a ""release date"", while some may advertise an ""in-store date"", and some may advertise both. (Metroid Prime 3: Corruption provides an example of both.) Usually, but not always, the release date also happens to be the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In some cases, the game is shipped out before the release date – this usually happens with large-scale releases where the publisher intends for everyone in a country or region to have access to it at a specific time (midnight launches, etc.). The ""release date"" should always be used, and the ship and in-store dates are almost always irrelevant. Early releases such as open beta-testing periods, early access, or other similar mechanics should not be included in the infobox once the game is actually released. While the game is in an early release state, that early release date may be included in the infobox, but it should be indicated as an early release, and in the article prose, the game should be treated as an upcoming video game that has yet to receive a full release for all other purposes. ==== Platforms ==== In both the lead and infobox, the list of platforms should only include the name of consoles or operating systems, such as ""Game Boy"", ""iOS"", ""Windows"", ""PlayStation 4"", ""Sega Genesis"", ""Xbox Series X/S"", to which the game was developed for by the developer or publisher. Specific details on the platform can be discussed in the body with appropriate sourcing. The listed platforms should not include storefront names, such as ""Steam"", ""PlayStation Network"", ""Xbox Live Arcade"", ""eShop"" or ""App Store"". In general, storefront names are not required to be mentioned in any part of a game article unless they are relevant to the sourced discussion around the game. The listed platforms should also not include subscription or streaming services that offer games, such as ""Apple Arcade"", ""OnLive"", ""PlayStation Now"" or ""Xbox Game Pass"". These are not considered ports or the like, and only reoffering the game from an existing platform on a different service. The only exception to this is for Stadia, which has been determined to be a unique platform that developers must build for and offers unique features not offered by the underlying Linux operating system. The listed platforms should not include platforms on which the game is playable via emulation, whether officially released for that (such as Nintendo's Virtual Console and Nintendo Switch Online or officially licensed Dotemu rereleases), through middleware solutions such as Proton on Linux-based SteamOS on the Steam Deck, or through third-party/user-made emulation systems like through ScummVM. The platform list should be limited to those platforms which the game was built and compiled for. Often there will be games that are a collection of emulated games, such as Sega Genesis Classics or The Disney Afternoon Collection. The article on the collection of the games should include the new systems the collection is offered for, but those platforms should not be added to the articles on the individual games. Similarly, the listed platforms should not include platforms that support backwards compatibility for earlier versions. While several original Xbox games are playable on the Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 should not be listed as a platform for these games. Similarly, both PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X and Series S feature both backwards compatibility from the previous generation as well as the capability for optimization patches to improve the performance of the game on the newer consoles; this is also not sufficient to include the newer consoles among a game's platform list. Avoid listing hardware-specific aspects in the platforms. Do not use ""Ouya"" or ""Nvidia Shield TV"" but instead ""Android"", though exclusivity to these devices can be mentioned in the body. Do not include ""Oculus Rift"" or ""HTC Vive"", but instead use ""Windows"" but clearly indicate the game supports virtual reality, and a list of compatible headsets can be mentioned in the body. For some Apple games that require a specific device (such as an iPad over an iPhone), stay to the base operating system (iOS) but mention the limited hardware compatibility in the body. Similarly for operating systems, use the broad category of operating system and not specific versions of releases. A game that requires the operating features of Windows 10 should still only be given in the platform list as ""Windows"". Use ""Unix"" or ""Linux"" to cover the broad classes of various Unix/Linux distribution releases. For Mac OS X/OS X/macOS games, use the name of the operating system used when the game was released. If a platform list is very long due to numerous ports, consider highlighting the original platform using collapsed lists or links to a relevant section to give the full list. Avoid repeating long lists of platform names in the lead. For example, for Lemmings, we state Lemmings is...published by Psygnosis for the Amiga in 1991 and later ported for numerous other platforms. rather than an exhaustive list of the twenty-some platforms it had received official ports. For games which receive official remakes or remasters which are not covered by a separate article, include the platforms the remake was released on, but make sure to distinguish the platforms of the original release and of the remastered release. If the remake has its own article, such as the 2019 Resident Evil 2 remake, do not include the remake's platforms in the original game's article. Unofficial third-party or fan remakes should not be considered in determining a platform list. ==== Categorizing upcoming games ==== If an upcoming game has a confirmed release date set for that year and a citation, add it to Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2023 and move it to the appropriate year category e.g. Category:2023 video games after release. If in doubt, or there is no date information, add the game to Category:Upcoming video games. If a game's development appears to have stopped but has not officially been cancelled (e.g. Agent or Tekken X Street Fighter), add it to Category:Vaporware video games. This category can also be used for games that were previously considered vaporware before eventually releasing. === Inappropriate content === Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics. Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. Based on: WP:Notability § General notability guideline, and WP:Summary style § Avoiding unnecessary splits. Numerous short articles: One large article usually provides better organization and context for a topic. Don't create multiple small articles when one larger compilation will do. The ideal article is neither too large nor too small. Based on: Wikipedia:Article size. Detailed instructions: Saying that a character can jump, shoot, and drop bombs is helpful to understand the game, but avoid explaining button combinations or cheat codes. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Strategy guides and walkthroughs: Basic strategy concepts are helpful to understand the game, but avoid details about how to solve puzzles and defeat certain foes. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:Neutral point of view § Undue weight. Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing: Following from the above, excessive in-game details on characters is strongly discouraged. Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information. While character lists can include some plot summary specific to the character, these plots should not be rehashes of the video game(s) in which they appear but instead broad strokes that simplify the plots of individual games. If these requirements cannot be met, it is instead more appropriate to reduce the list to one to three paragraphs of prose within the ""Plot"" or ""Synopsis"" section of the game or series article. It is almost never appropriate to create a standalone list of characters that appear within a single video game as these can be described in the game's article. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:Neutral point of view § Undue weight. Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts: Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels (including lists of stadia/sport venues), character moves, character weight classes, unlockable characters, vehicles, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, § Wikipedia is not a directory, and § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; as well as WP:Neutral point of view § Undue weight. Cost: The purchase cost of games, products, or subscriptions, including point values for online services, should not be included in articles, unless the item's individual cost has attracted substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Exceptions are generally made for inclusion of the manufacturer's retail price of standardized game hardware and devices, such as game consoles, on articles about that hardware or comparisons with other hardware, a practice in line with other physical product articles on Wikipedia. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Rumors and speculation: Speculation about future games, rumors about content within a game, or changes in video game developers and publishers should not be included, even if these rumors emerge or are re-reported from reliable sources. Discussion of well-reported, industry-wide rumors from a historical standpoint, well after the time they had or should have happened, may be appropriate to help provide context for a topic. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and § Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, as well as WP:No original research. Exhaustive version histories: A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory and § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists § Notes. Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate. If mention of an actor has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, typically the actor will be mentioned in the prose of the development section. (Good examples are: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Portal 2, and BioShock Infinite). Unofficial translations: Unless they are mentioned by independent reliable sources, unofficial translations should not be mentioned. Summarizing those sources may be appropriate, but avoid linking to a website for an unlicensed fan project in order to reduce any potential copyright violations.If the unofficial translation's website's page is necessary for verification of certain details, it may be used so long as it doesn't link to or host an image file for a commercial game. If it does, use of an archived version from an Internet archive like Wayback Machine is acceptable. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal System requirements: System requirements for a video game should only be mentioned if independent reliable sources have distinguished that game from its peers (e.g., the high system demands of Crysis on its maximum settings). A brief summary of those sources should be mentioned in prose, in a manner that is easily understandable by a reader with no knowledge of the subject. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Succession boxes may be valid in some cases, but they should not be used for things such as being a bestselling game for a single month in one nation for a single console. Succession order should be based on either obvious information, such as release dates, or information that can be readily and reliably sourced; for example, it is possible to source the narrative chronological order of the games in the Metroid series to information provided by Nintendo directly, but less apparent for series like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. Keep in mind that navboxes may be a better form to provide the same sorted information in a more compact form, such as with the {{Seumas McNally Grand Prize}} navbox. Non-notable soundtracks: Unless the soundtrack or music is the subject of independent commentary (apart from the game): put it in Development rather than its own section, do not include tracklists, and do not add non-free soundtrack cover art or audio clips. Never upload non-free soundtrack art similar in content to the main infobox's non-free art. If the soundtrack has been released on a widely distributed physical medium, it can be acceptable to include an infobox for the soundtrack alongside discussion in the ""Development"" section (for example, see Journey (2012 video game)); non-free cover art must meet the WP:Non-free content guidelines to be included in this infobox. Age and content ratings: Unless the game's age and content rating (ESRB, PEGI, CERO) is the subject of independent commentary (such as the case for Left 4 Dead 2 in Australia), do not add it to the article. Release edition tables: Do not add tables featuring a game's many release editions, such as special, limited, collector's, into articles. If a re-release has been the subject of independent reliable sources, a concise summary may be appropriate in prose. Based on: WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directoryThese standards have been developed in accordance with fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines and reflect the consensus of the community. All editors should understand and follow these standards, though they should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ==== Pop culture citations ==== Video games have been around long enough to have made a mark on popular culture (or pop culture). Recognizing a subject's influence on popular culture can enhance an entry subject's notability on Wikipedia. Usually this can be added to the 'Reception' (sub)section (see Shenmue), an 'Other media' section (see World of Warcraft § In other media) or, if notable and influential enough, a separate 'Legacy' section (example: Super Mario Bros. 3 § Legacy). However, all instances must be documented and follow Wikipedia policies on citing sources and verifiability. Specifically in regards to television citations, a citation to the specific episode using {{cite episode}} should be included. Any entries not following these guidelines will be marked {{citation needed}} and eventually removed if a suitable reference is not found. Material should also be presented in the preferred prose format rather than lists of popular culture items. The following guidelines are to be used for judging if content is relevant enough to be included in a pop culture section: Worth mentioning: The entry is directly related to the brand and character. For example, licensed TV shows based upon games, like Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. Depending on the amount of information, such an entry might be in a separate section. The game or related subject is a literal character in the film. The game is integral to the plot of the work (i.e. it would be named in a well-written plot summary). For example, World of Warcraft is significantly featured in the South Park episode ""Make Love, Not Warcraft"", and is allowed to be mentioned within the World of Warcraft article. In references to music, the appearance is worth inclusion when the game or character is integral to the artist, album, or song itself. Examples of worthiness would be where the game or character is part of the song presentation (artwork), song title, album title, or the subject of the song itself. For example, Manilla Road's song ""Defender"" and Buckner & Garcia's Pac-Man Fever album. Multiple notable appearances in a specific medium should be combined and summarized. For example, multiple notable appearances of Pac-Man in the TV show Family Guy can be summarized in one or two sentences. Consensus needed: References and parodies in media (film, television, music, etc.) would merit inclusion when the game or character in question plays a significant part of the storyline, dialogue, or scene. With very few exceptions, the film, television show, novel, or other work should meet the relevant Wikipedia:Notability criteria for the appearance to be worth mention. The game or related subject is being played by the major character(s) and is the major subject of the dialog in at least one scene. The game is being played and the game events are an illustration, counterpoint, or ironic commentary on the subject of the discussion—note this must be obvious or sourced to a reliable secondary source, or it will likely be labeled original research. Consider the importance of the dialog or scene to the work as a whole. The second segment of Futurama's ""Anthology of Interest II"" episode contains numerous video game references and parodies, some which are more integral to the plot than others. The inclusion of this episode on the specific video game articles would need to be determined by editor consensus. Not worth mentioning: The game or related subject is only mentioned in passing, or is just a source of occasional interruptions during dialog. The game is being played only because the playing of any game is needed for the scene, for example to give the characters something to do or to be distracted by, even if the game is specifically named. The game appears as a background prop. For example, Gears of War is briefly shown in the first few minutes of the movie Live Free or Die Hard but is never referred to by name nor does it appear later; this would not warrant a mention. The entry is not directly related to the brand and character. A sports figure who has adopted the nickname ""Pac-Man"" because of perceived similarities between the person and the character, or a sports figure nicknamed ""Super Mario"" whose first name is Mario. Having a brief mention in the midst of a song does not warrant inclusion. ==== Exceptions ==== There are always exceptions to these rules. In general, anything can become suitable for coverage in Wikipedia if it is given significant attention by reliable sources. For example: It is usually inappropriate to list all the levels in a game, but Sonic Generations is an exception because its reliance on aspects from prior Sonic games is the basis of the game. It is usually inappropriate to explain strategies, but the ""lurking"" exploit in Asteroids is an exception because it changed the way developers test their games for exploits. It is usually inappropriate to describe in-game items in detail, but describing the portal gun from Portal is necessary to understand the game, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. It is usually inappropriate to list specific multiplayer servers or worlds in a game, unless they have individual notability and coverage in reliable secondary sources, such as Hypixel, 2b2t, or The Uncensored Library. It is usually inappropriate to include cost information, but including the launch price of the PlayStation 3 in its article is an exception because it was largely criticized across various reliable publications. This should be included in the ""Reception"" section. It is usually inappropriate to mention or list homebrews and fan remakes of games. However, certain specific homebrew games, such as Grid Wars and Armagetron Advanced, have achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) on which they are based. Some fan remakes of games or their engines are independently notable and have their own articles, e.g. OpenMW (see also the ""Remakes"" section below). If a short article that has existed for some time is to be merged (per #2 above), merge the content first and only redirect the short article once consensus determines the merge is of sufficient quality. It is usually inappropriate to speculate about games that were never announced. However, certain games such as Chrono Break have been the subject of much debate by independent reliable sources, with the game's developer Square Enix commenting on questions about the future of the Chrono series. === Remakes, expansions, and series articles === Remakes, expansions (including both expansion packs and downloadable content), and game series can be handled as either a section in a parent article, or as a separate article. If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article. Expansions follow similar criteria for when it is appropriate to split out a separate article, taking care to avoid unnecessary splits. Series or franchise articles provide an overview of a continuous intellectual property, and a summary of its recurring elements. Generally, there won't be enough shared information for a separate series article until there are at least three related entries. Avoid creating a series article that only repeats what sources say about the individual games, and instead base the article on what reliable sources say about the series as a whole. This broad coverage can take some of the following forms: A broad scope: The series article should not merely recap or summarize individual games. It should instead describe the series as a whole in broader terms, such as what the games have in common. This could include general gameplay, and recurring elements such as characters and locations. Development/History: The article should give information on how the series came to be, and follow the thread of its history across multiple releases. This continuity is vital information that would otherwise be lost in articles about the individual titles. Reception/Legacy: There should be content that describes the real-world impact of the series. What do critics think of the series as a whole? How did the series effect its creators, the genre, and the wider industry in games and entertainment? Franchise/non-game media: Some series expand beyond the medium of video games. Franchise articles can cover these topics if they do not achieve independent notability on their own. This is an encyclopedia, and articles should be written formally, unlike FAQs, fansites, or player's guides. In addition to the general Manual of Style guidelines, keep these video game-centric style ones in mind. === Name formatting === Italicize video game series and stand-alone video games. Individual video game levels, chapters, or episodes of a standalone video game should use standard double quotes (for example, ""Milkman Conspiracy""). Italicize titles of in-universe fictional works that would be italicized if they were real, e.g. Red Book of Hergest. Similarly, use double quotes for titles of in-universe fictional works that would normally use double quotes if real, such as song names. Common words should not be capitalized; not in the infobox or article body. Terms like first-person shooter, multiplayer, third-person view are written as such.For expansions and downloadable content (DLC), the nature of that content will affect how the names should be presented, though editors should seek consensus for alternatives for specific cases: For a DLC that is a significant add-on story, often handled separately from the main game's story and not integrated into it, the name of the DLC should be italicized, treating it like a stand-alone game. Examples include Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony and BioShock 2's Minerva's Den. For DLC that may add additional narrative along with additional content to the main game, integrating that story alongside the existing narrative, the name of the DLC should be quoted. For example: ""Dead Money"" for Fallout: New Vegas, and ""The Bank Job"" for Payday 2. For DLC that mostly adds new content (characters, maps, weapons, vehicles, gameplay modes) but little new narrative, the DLC name should follow standard English capitalization rules but is otherwise left unformatted. For example: Stimulus Package for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Night Blade Pack for Saints Row III. For games that are presented episodically, such as most releases from Telltale Games, individual episode names should be in double quotation marks, following the approach with television episodes. For example, The Walking Dead: Season One's ""A New Day"" and ""400 Days"".Video game genres and formats or types of gameplay should be presented in standardized style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Musical and literary genres): Do not capitalize genres and the like except where a proper name (or abbreviation of one) appears. For example: survival horror, first-person shooter, massively multiplayer, adventure game, Metroidvania, GTA clone. An exception is roguelike, typically given in lower-case despite being named after the game Rogue. While it is common for gaming publications to over-capitalize (as in First-Person Shooter), just as music magazines often do with music styles (Hip-Hop), this is not done on Wikipedia. Video game platforms and hardware should follow appropriate naming and style for trademarked names. WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks covers this in detail. The short version: do not use typographic tricks to try to mimic logo stylization, including ALL-CAPS or SMALL-CAPS; use plain English, though camel case is permissible, as is letter/number substitution, if consistently treated as the title in reliable sources (e.g., Left 4 Dead). Italicize (online) magazines, newspapers, news sites, and other publications with original content. In particular, websites whose primary purpose is to deliver original content should be italicized in prose, tables, and references. This includes sites such as Gamasutra, IGN, GameSpot, and Polygon. (see § Sources, below, for more information on citing references properly). The preferred spelling of electronic sports when abbreviated is ""esports"", completely in lower-case and without a hyphen. A hyphen may be used, as in ""e-sports"". Articles should be internally consistent, and editors should respect either variant. Capitalize the ""e"" as necessary for the guidance on capital letters (for example, capitalizing at the start of a sentence such as Esports is one of the largest growing areas in the video game industry.) and include a hyphen or an upper-case ""s"" as necessary for the guidance on trademarks. === Neutral point of view === Write from a neutral point of view: represent fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias or original research, all significant views published by reliable sources on the topic. This principle is a pillar of the community. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that paraphrases reliable, independent, secondary sources. It is not a venue for publishing your personal views. Cite vetted publications with reputations for reliability, fact-checking, and editorial control, such as news, reviews, awards, and developer interviews. Avoid press releases, which lack editorial distance from the developer. If sources conflict, include all reputable positions in weight proportional to their coverage. For example: While Retro Gamer reported that Sabre Wulf broke the company's sales records,[1] Computer and Video Games wrote that it underperformed prior games, with only 30,000 copies sold by December 1984.[2] Eurogamer reported that 350,000 units were sold in total.[3] Avoid vague statements (weasel words) that sound authoritative but offer no substance. Rephrase Many think the game is great as a verifiable statement: The game received five Game of the Year awards (only count reliable sources). When sources and interviews use flattering or promotional language, maintain your professional prose quality and instead provide more specific and referenced facts about the project so readers can decide for themselves. Rephrase puffery (peacock terms): The game is the console's best into IGN and GameSpot listed the game as among the console's best. Avoid writing or listing the game's features and mechanics like an advertisement. Wording such as ""My Player − NBA 2K15 features a career mode in which you start your career in the draft and working your way up by training your player"" is unacceptable (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Second-person pronouns). Instead, write out the features in an encyclopedic manner, such as ""In NBA 2K15, there is My Player mode in which players can create their own NBA player and use the created player to raise stats by training and playing out games throughout his career."" === Naming within articles === For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article. For example, while the Famicom is not quite the same as the NES, the differences are relatively minor for the vast majority of game articles (see also WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names; while it is part of the article naming policy, we generally refer to things in article prose the same way we do in article titles, to avoid confusing readers). === Verb tense === Use the present tense when describing a subject that continues to exist. For example, a 1984 video game and console both continue to exist as long as copies of both are in circulation, but both a canceled video game and a discontinued online game exist only in the past tense. The Nintendo Entertainment System is an 8-bit video game console, and Super Mario Bros. is a video game. Sonic X-treme was a platform game in development for the Sega Saturn, but was canceled before release. Glitch was a browser-based massively multiplayer online game launched in 2011 and discontinued the next year. Battleborn was an online hero shooter that was released in 2016. Its servers were shutdown in 2021.However, when describing specific events related to a console or game, such as production, advertising, reviews, use a tense appropriate for the time period in which the event occurred. Avoid phrasing that may confuse past and present tense. The Nintendo Entertainment System is an 8-bit video game console designed by Nintendo. But: It was released in 1983. The PlayStation 5 is currently being sold worldwide.Similarly, use the present tense to describe gameplay and other in-game events. This is logical: even if a game was released decades ago, it still performs the same today as it did on release. Game plots should always be written in present tense, as they happen as the game is played, not in the past. An exception is when an event (fictional or historical) took place prior to the events of the game. For example, Throughout the game, Pac-Man is chased by four ghosts. At the beginning of the game, Niko Bellic arrives in Liberty City, not arrived. The event happens as the player begins the game. Four hundred years prior to the start of the game, the Lefeinish watched their country decline as the Wind Orb went dark. === Japanese titles === In the first sentence, only include a parenthetical foreign language equivalent when the game/topic is not primarily known by a Latin alphabet title. Move the parenthetical to a footnote if the non-English name is not critical to understanding the topic. It is recommended that unless the Japanese name (kanji/kana) is critical to the understanding of the topic, one should place it in a footnote to the official English title. (This only applies to video game-related articles. For other Japan-related articles, see WP:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles.) Even if the Japanese name is important, in some cases there are several Japanese titles, or the fully-utilized nihongo templates are so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph; these should also be placed in a footnote. This can be done using {{efn}}, {{nihongo foot}}, or other methods as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. This retains the information about the original Japanese title and translation but avoids creating a ""busy"" first sentence in the article. In games where there is no official English title (such as Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan), the first sentence should retain the romanized Japanese title while the remaining translation information should be placed in a footnote. If a game was originally titled using the Latin alphabet, there is no need to include its title in any other writing system. ==== Exceptions ==== When the article's title (by common name) is a transliteration of a language other than English, that language equivalent can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses or a footnote, when it would help the reader understand the title's meaning in the original language. For example: Katamari Damacy (塊魂) is a third-person puzzle-action video game ... For stand-alone games, names of franchises, and the first game within a franchise, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (which in this page is called ""romaji"") should generally be used. For sequels in a franchise that are numbered, the romaji for the original game's title is not required nor is the romaji for the numeral. For series within a franchise, treat the articles on the series and first title as if they are their own franchise. For sequel games that have idiosyncratic subtitles, the romaji for only the subtitle is required if the English name is a literal translation of the Japanese name. In place of the romaji for the original title, include an en dash (–). For sequel games that have idiosyncratic subtitles that are not literal translations from Japanese into English, the third parameter of {{nihongo}} does not need to be filled at all. For sequels with idiosyncratic subtitles that use English text in the original Japanese title, romaji is not necessary for the English text if the words are read the same in English as they are in the Japanese title. Example: Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey (真・女神転生 Strange Journey) is... For sequels with idiosyncratic subtitles that use English text but are read in a way that they would normally not be in English, the romaji is not necessary, but the fourth parameter of {{nihongo}} should include the intended reading of the subtitle. Example: Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days (キングダム ハーツ 358/2 Days, read as ""Three Five Eight Days Over Two"") is... === Video game jargon === Video game jargon is often used in reviews, Internet forums and casual conversation about video games. Like all jargon, the slang words are familiar to those closely involved with the game industry, but tend to be cryptic to others. For example, you would confuse a person you meet on the street by telling them: Ryu's 46-hit combo deathmove absolutely pwns Jin and takes away 85% of Jin's health.They would puzzle over words like ""combo"", ""deathmove"", and ""85% health"", as well as wondering who ""Ryu"" and ""Jin"" are, and how somebody can ""pwn"" somebody else. Linking the words to relevant articles can be considered, but this forces the reader to jump back-and-forth among articles to get a fair sense of the meaning. Furthermore, links serve a better purpose as additional readings for enlightenment, rather than required readings for explanation. Writing the sentences with commonly used terminology and excluding jargon would be a better solution, such as: Among the characters available for players to control, Ryu has an advantage over Jin. He has a super attack technique that deals out a long sequence of hits on Jin and is capable of depleting 85% of Jin's health points.That said, it is still possible to use jargon in an article. This could be of necessity if the game's concept deals closely and often with the jargon. The jargon would, however, have to be clearly explained (simple and clear sentences) before its first use in the article. For example, if an adventure game requires players to gather mana crystals (calling it Shwartz gems) to defeat monsters with spells, one could write, A key concept of the game is magic. Players are required to gather crystals, Shwartz gems, to increase their magic points. Shwartz gems can be collected by defeating monsters, searching through containers, and buying them at a shop. The gems also bestow additional benefits on the players, such as increasing their amount of protection, increasing their speed, and allowing them to teleport to certain places. Players must possess certain Shwartz to kill the large monsters, bosses, guarding the end of each level.Another example, Boogers can fly 60 Starspitzers, of which 55 are unlocked by executing no-hit runs.We can rewrite the bolded jargon to: The protagonist Boogers flies spacecraft called Starspitzers. On starting a game, players choose between five Starspitzers options. When they complete a mission without damaging their spacecraft, a new Starspitzer is added to their choice of spacecrafts. Up to 55 additional Starspitzers can be added in this manner.Be aware of common video game acronyms which may be well known within the field, but not outside it. For example, do not presume everyone recognizes the terms ""MMORPG"", ""HUD"" or ""CPU""; spell out these terms to avoid confusion. If the term is used frequently within an article, then it is acceptable to spell it out the first time it is used in the body, followed by the initialism or acronym in parentheses. Following this, all subsequent recurrences of the term can use the initialism or acronym. If the term is only used once or twice, this approach may not be necessary. Do not make up initialisms or acronyms just to simplify a phrase, and instead use only those that are commonly used in reliable sources. In summary: Use simpler and common terminology in all instances. Only use jargon if they are crucial or unavoidable in explaining the game to the readers. Explain jargon briefly on their first usage. Link to relevant articles if necessary. Try to get someone unfamiliar with video games to read your article and locate any jargon in it. === Article title === Title Wikipedia articles by the subject's common name: The name most commonly used in English-language reliable, secondary sources and best balance of the five naming criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Secondarily, use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) to reference common formatting and disambiguation terms for video game topics. === Short description === Mainspace pages should be tagged, if possible, with a short description, a brief summary of the topic of the page, which is used as part of the Wikipedia App and aids in how Wikipedia is seen on the semantic web. This is done by using the template {{short description}} near the top of the page, prior to the lead prose, hatnotes, and infobox templates. The short description should be, as self-evident, short, just enough to help to distinguish the topic from any possible close matches. For video games, a typical format would be "" video game"". For example, for Resident Evil 4, 2005 video game; for Super Mario 64, 1996 video game. If further disambiguation is needed, add the game's primary genre: "" video game"". Per WP:SDDUPLICATE, ""avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)"". For example, for the article God of War (2018 video game), ""2018 video game"" is already in the title, so use the short description to add the genre instead: ""Action-adventure game"". If an article covers multiple video games and is not a video game series, such as the case with the article Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen or Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, the year of the earliest release should be added. The general format should be "" video games"". For those two examples, 2004 video games and 2014 video games should suffice. For video game series or franchises, ""Video game series"" is sufficient. For video game hardware, a short description of the type of hardware. For example, for PlayStation 2, home video game console; for Nintendo DS, handheld video game console; and for DualShock, video game controller. For people in video games, use "" "". For example, for Gabe Newell, American businessman, and for Shigeru Miyamoto, Japanese video game designer. For video game companies, similarly use "" "". For example, Nintendo, Japanese video game company; for Electronic Arts, American video game company, and for Remedy Entertainment, Finnish video game developer.For any other case, use similar short terminology. The goal is a phrase shorter than 40 characters, specific enough to be clear to identify the topic if searching through a list of closely matched similar terms with these descriptions. === Infobox === The parameters and style guide for the video game infobox is explained at Template:Infobox video game/doc#Syntax guide. === First sentence === Avoid bloat in the first sentence. Restrict it to the most important aspects of the topic. The first sentence should: Include only the primary genre. Exclude themes and concepts. E.g., The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a 2017 action-adventure game, not The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a 2017 third-person open-world action-adventure game. Include the original release year as part of the introduction to the topic. Other dates, or more specific dates, may appear elsewhere in the lead but should do so only as part of summarizing the topic. Label unreleased, pre-release, and early access games as ""upcoming"". Only use a parenthetical foreign language equivalent when the game/topic is not primarily known by a Latin alphabet title. Move the parenthetical to a footnote if the non-English name is not critical to understanding the topic. Avoid ""commonly known as"" and ""stylized as"", unless the point of abbreviation or stylization has been made by a preponderance of reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wikipedia maintains a formal tone and, like newspapers and magazines outside the gamer niche, uses brief phrases instead of abbreviations. For example, the name Ocarina of Time would be an acceptable shorthand for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but OoT would not, and likewise applies with Global Offensive for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, but not CS:GO. There are some occasions where using the full name of the game is the only appropriate option, such as Team Fortress 2 instead of TF2. === Gameplay === Write for a general audience. Assume that the reader has heard of a video game but has never played one. Introduce the game in terms of the player's actions and goals. Rephrase jargon. Clarify technical concepts such as ""HP"", ""level"", ""boss"", ""combo"", ""spawn"", and ""game over"" with context clues and wikilinks. Refer to the glossary of video games. E.g., The game ends when the player's hearts are fully depleted, not Lose all hit points and the player receives a game over. Similarly, avoid confusing abbreviations. If the term recurs in the article, introduce the acronym alongside its full name. E.g., Downloadable content (DLC), non-player character (NPC), massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Avoid second-person pronouns (""you""). In addition to their ambiguity and informal tone, we cannot assume that the reader plans to play the game. Instead, use ""the player"", ""the character"", or the name of the player-controlled character. E.g., the player can jump or Mario can jump, not you can jump. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Second-person pronouns. For readability, choose either ""the player"" (singular) or ""players"" (plural) and stay consistent throughout the section. Use active voice and avoid passive voice. As with most Wikipedia content, gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources. While secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable, though articles should not incorporate too many gameplay-related details, per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. === Genre === For both the lead, infobox, and ""gameplay"" sections of an article about a video game, make sure to indicate the game's genre or genres. Avoid using more than two genres, or more than one hybrid genre (like ""action-adventure"") in listing the genres. Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose. For example, BioShock is a first-person shooter with role-playing game customization and stealth elements... rather than BioShock is a role-playing, stealth first-person shooter... Use standard genres (those defined in {{Video game genre}}), and avoid developer/publisher-created ones in these sections, though one can subsequently describe how the developer or publisher describes the game. For example, Dead Cells is properly classified as a roguelike-Metroidvania by most sources, but mention is made of the developer's ""roguevania"" self-description as a mashup of these genres. Do not include narrative genres and gameplay mechanics, such as ""science fiction"" and ""open world"", alongside a game's genre. These can instead be used later in the lead or in the gameplay/plot section. Similarly, unless a game is strictly a first-person shooter (like Doom) or a third-person shooter (like Gears of War), these perspectives are not defining genres that should be included, though can be used to describe the gameplay aspects. For example Portal is a puzzle-platform video game... and not Portal is a first-person puzzle-platform video game.... === Plot === The article's plot coverage should be proportional to the plot's importance in the game, as determined by its weight in the article's source material. For example, plot is a major aspect of Final Fantasy game reviews but a minor aspect of Mario game reviews. Include the plot within the gameplay section unless there is cause to distinguish it. Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources. Any conclusions inferred by interpretation, however, do require reliable, secondary sources. Add secondary sources whenever reasonable to (1) reliably verify the cited fact, and (2) prove that the plot detail was sufficiently non-trivial to pass the source's editorial discretion. Primary sources, such as the instruction manual, are of limited use, as a self-published source about itself. The plot should summarise content that every player would be expected to see on a playthrough of a game. Avoid including elements that require the player to follow side quests or visit secret areas, unless that information is deemed critical to understanding the plot. If such information is included, it should be referenced in a way to explain how the player would discover it for verifiability requirements. For example, BioShock Infinite references specific messages from optional collectibles to support plot elements outside the player's frame of observation. For games with divergent narrative paths, including multiple endings, consider how to summarize these to the simplest level of detail. The summary should explain that the narrative branches, but it is not necessary to enumerate exactly how to obtain each branch or events along each. Focus on divergent narratives that have the greatest impact on the story. For example, the plot summary of The Walking Dead (video game) omits many of the possible story choices, but retains the final decision and its consequences the player makes due to its impact on the narrative. Write about story elements from a ""real-world perspective"". Do not use a perspective from within the game world (""in-universe"") or describe fiction as fact. E.g., not ""It is the end of the Zelda timeline and thousands of years after Link defeated Ganondorf"", but ""Breath of the Wild is set at the end of the Zelda timeline, thousands of years after the events of previous games"". To retain focus, generally limit plot summaries to 700 words or fewer. For episodic video games, plot summaries of no more than 300 words per episode should be presented either in the plot section as prose or in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}. If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 700 words per season instead of an episode table, but an article should not have full plot summaries in both an episode table and a plot section. A brief one sentence plot synopsis is permitted in the table for articles with both, such as Tales of Monkey Island. For narrative downloadable content (DLC), plot summaries of no more than 300 words per content should be presented in the main plot section or as an additional sub-section (such as Final Fantasy XV). If appropriate, larger narrative DLC may be split into its own article if it receives significant independent development and reception coverage, such as The Last of Us: Left Behind. Split articles should follow the main plot guideline of 700 words. === Development === In describing development elements related to the release of a game, it is often easy to fall into the use of proseline on trivial details, repetitive sentences or list items in a form like ""On such-and-such date, the company teased the release of their game via a Twitter message."" Both proseline and this type of detail are generally inappropriate. Consider what secondary sources state about the game's pre-release information to determine what is appropriate to include. The use of release teasers, trailers, and social media is common throughout the industry, so specific details on these elements are generally unnecessary unless the nature of their presentation is something noted by sources. Exact dates for announcements are rarely necessary and only a rough time estimate is needed: a month/year for most games, or for those unveiled at conferences like E3 or GDC, referring to those conferences. === Reception === Organize sections thematically to juxtapose similar comments from reviewers into a coherent narrative. For example, group reviewer comments on gameplay, technical audiovisuals, narrative, and other common themes of the reviews. Signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence. A good opening sentence summarizes the paragraph, helps the reader anticipate what to expect from the paragraph, and has references to directly support the summary. Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources. If Reviewers praised the game's art direction, say so, and add the references that support the statement, but avoid Most reviewers praised... and other phrases that make the subject ambiguous unless you have a source that makes a claim about ""most"". Stack similar claims. When five reviewers write that the controls were clunky, write the claim as a single sentence with multiple refs. If the number of footnote refs following the sentence becomes unwieldy, mention all sources in a single summative footnote. Example: DK Rap ref in Donkey Kong 64 Vary sentence rhythm and avoid ""A said B"". Successive sentences in this pattern quickly become dull: John Smith opined, ""it's the best game of the year"". Juana Pérez of Reliable Blog claimed it was ""dry and boring"" and lacked focus. (Variants include ""A of B said C"" and ""A said that B"".) Rephrase and recast sentences whenever possible to keep the content interesting. Try varying sentence length, direct and indirect claims, and types of summary. For more, see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. Minimize direct quotations. Prefer paraphrase whenever possible, both for Wikipedia's emphasis on minimizing use of copyrighted content and to massage the essence of the source into what best suits the section. Almost all reviewer sentiments can be rephrased without using the source's exact words/phrases. Use quotations only to illustrate that which cannot be said better than the source. Reception sections that consist purely of quotations are treated as copyright violations. Reduce minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information. {{Video game reviews}} exists for such a purpose. Present numeric scores in {{Video game reviews}} using numerals only (e.g. 3.5/5 or 9/10). Convert star ratings and other number-based scores to the equivalent numerals without changing the scale or the score itself (e.g. use ""3/5"" for a score printed as , but do not convert it to a ten-point scale such as ""6/10""). Review aggregator Metacritic gave the PC version a score of 76 out of 100 based on 45 reviews from critics, while the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions received scores of 77 and 79, respectively. ... The first review was published by Official Xbox Magazine, which gave the game a 9.5 out of 10. IGN gave it 8.5. Similarly, reduce clutter by removing reviewer names, publications, and dates when unnecessary to the point at hand. Multiple reader polls ranked the game among the best of all time.[1][2][3], instead of The game was included in multiple top 50 games of all time lists, including that of Famitsu readers in 2006[1] and IGN readers in 2005[2] and 2006.[3] Metacritic's qualitative summary often provides a satisfactory summary of a game's overall reception. As in the image to the right, The game received ""mixed or average reviews"", according to review aggregator [[Metacritic]]. Avoid summative claims that cannot be explicitly verified in reliable, secondary sources. ""Mixed-to-positive"" and ""mixed-to-negative"" imprecisely describe reception that skews slightly more positive or negative. ""Mixed"" means ""scattered across the board"", not ""medium"", so reviews cannot be both ""mixed"" and ""positive"". For precision, ""mixed"" alone is sufficient. Supplement with specific reviews to describe various positive and negative aspects. Only consider including GameRankings in {{Video game reviews}} when a Metacritic score is unavailable (e.g., older games). But do not include aggregate scores when there are fewer than four reliable outlets used in the aggregate, which undermines the statistic. Round aggregator scores to the nearest whole number (e.g., 83.46% → 83%) (for more, see Template:Video game reviews/doc#Guidelines). It is good practice to include the number of reviews that are computed to create the review aggregator score, since it gives context and can help the reader understand how the score is averaged. The number can either be listed after Metacritic's qualitative summary in prose or footnoted in {{Video game reviews}}. Examples: Team Sonic Racing's reception section User reviews and other self-published sources are unreliable unless these are called to attention in secondary sources, such as if a game was review bombed. In such cases, cite the secondary source(s) describing the event, not the user review itself. === Sales === When documenting sales, avoid creep; you do not need to document every single sales milestone a game has surpassed. (By March 2017, the game had sold 3 million copies. By September 2017, the game had sold 5 million copies. etc.) It is recommended to limit sales information to the debut sales figures, which indicate the game's initial impact, and the cumulative/most recent figures. === Awards === Noteworthy awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section. Individual publications often use awards to distinguish a game's lasting impact. If a game has received more nominations than can comfortably be discussed without proseline (typically four or more), these should be placed in a table. For the table, only include awards where either the awards individually are notable (e.g. Seumas McNally Grand Prize) or the awards body as a whole is notable (e.g. The Game Awards); omit individual publication awards and ranked lists from the table. Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article or be vetted by the community to allow for its inclusion to demonstrate notability. Examples of formatting such tables, typically consistent with accolades from film and television, can be found at God of War and Undertale. Tables with a large number of awards or nominations should be moved to a separate article only if the game article is approaching page size concerns. Examples can be seen with The Last of Us and Red Dead Redemption 2. Wikipedians, while recognizing that screenshots of video games and box or cover art are generally not free images (see exception on screenshots below), assert that their usage are protected under the fair use provision of US copyright law. To notify others of the copyright status of such images, uploaded game cover art should include the template {{Non-free video game cover}}. Screenshots of a game should include the template {{Non-free video game screenshot}}. Some screenshots or box covers may be categorized elsewhere, in which case the uploader is still required to provide valid information on the image's source and copyright status. For rendered art or other official graphics that are not screenshots, use the general {{Non-free character}}, {{Non-free promotional}}, or {{Non-free fair use}} template and provide information (see Wikipedia:Non-free content for information on what the requirements are). Game-company logos may use {{Non-free logo}}. Do not upload screenshots that have been watermarked. In addition to the above, image use must also satisfy the all points of the core policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which has greater limitations on the use of non-free images than US law requires. Take particular care that the usage satisfies criterion 8 and criterion 3 as it is on the basis of these criteria that screenshots and box-art images are most likely to be challenged. All non-free images must be accompanied by a fair use rationale for each article in which they appear, explaining why the image is being used in that article. Any such images that do not contain a proper rationale may be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} is a simple template that can help in adding rationales to the most common types of images. For each rationale, the following items should always be present in order to provide a strong non-free use rationale: The article name the image is used in (required) - this does not need to be linked to the article though it is helpful, but the article name must be clearly present. The source of the image; this can include who owns the copyright (developer and publisher), as well as a URL from which you took the image. If the image is a self-made screenshot, the image is still copyrighted, but identify yourself as the creator of the image. That the image is low resolution or if not, the reasons why it is not low resolution. Low resolution is typically defined as being no larger than around 0.1 megapixels. An image that is 400 x 300 pixels will generally be ok, but a 640 x 480 image will not be. You may reduce the image yourself, or tag it {{non-free reduce}} and allow a volunteer to do it. If reducing the image removed necessary details to be described in the game, then explain why those details are necessary to use a higher resolution image; if possible, consider cropping the section of the image to only the core details that may be lost at lower resolution. (Reduction of resolution is not required if the screenshot is used as a free image under the exception below) The purpose of the image. This is very important to meet non-free content requirements, and the more details and reasons that can be provided, the better. Video game covers are generally used for identification of the game in its infobox but may be also used to identify characters or other aspects of the game within the game articles. Company logos are used to identify the company in its infobox. Screenshots of video games should be used to identify as many unique or notable elements as possible, and keeping the number of such shots to a minimum. The rationale should explain what elements the screenshot is showing, such as the HUD, a damage meter, or similar visual element. Make sure that these points are further described in the article text. The lack of a free replacement. Most non-free images relating to video games lack the ability for a free replacement, and thus this rationale purpose should reiterate this point. === Cover art === In most cases, cover art should be used as the identifying artwork in the game's infobox. However, when this is not available, like with digitally distributed games or type-in games, then other forms of identifying art can be used. Other sources of identifying art include: Digital store art - the digital equivalent of a cover, such as an app store icon Instruction manual art - with any information pertaining to the manual itself removed (if possible) Promotional material - advertisements, posters or art accompanying catalogue listings Main title/splash screenshot Photo of the arcade cabinet Photo of the game media - disks, cartridges and other physical mediaOnly one piece of identifying art should be present in the infobox, regardless of platform or regional differences. English-language art is preferred for identification; if no English-language option is available, then use art from the game's native language. If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, consider whether it needs replacing with a different version or if the current one is adequate. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The only editing that should be done to the original art to achieve this should be the cropping of platform banners and not the removal of any platform specific logos, publisher logos, 3rd party icons, etc. on the art itself. Covers from PC games are generally considered platform-neutral if they do not feature OS branding (such as a Games for Windows banner). The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release. While {{infobox video game}} offers a |caption= option to caption the cover image, use it if only necessary. The fact that the cover image is being used in the infobox establishes that it is cover art, so it is unnecessary to state this (do not use ""Cover art for the game""). It is best to omit the caption if it does not immediately help the reader. Captions can be used in cases where there is significant differences in cover art between release platform or region (beyond logos, labels, and other placement elements), as to identify the specific version being shown. A caption should be used if there is specific discussion of its design as in the case of Ico. A caption can be useful if the cover art can be used to help identify cast of characters discussed in depth in the article and where it is not clear this is the main or central character of the game. For example, the caption on Kingdom Hearts or The World Ends with You identifies multiple central characters in these games. However, it is absolutely not necessary on a cover like Bastion where it is clear the character shown is The Kid as one reads the lead and body. Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the specific cover itself. For example, the Wii cover of Ōkami was noted to contain a watermark as described by the text, so the cover is used to supplement this text. === Screenshots === Screenshots are used to illustrate the game's graphics and gameplay. They illustrate points that can not be adequately covered by text. As for all non-free content, editors must ask themselves whether each new screenshot adds value to the article that could not be done freely otherwise. It is generally accepted that one non-free screenshot can be used on a video game article to supplement the Gameplay section of the article, where the Gameplay section itself is sourced to third-party or secondary sources. Implicitly, any notable video game will have sourced commentary about its gameplay (this is generally a contributing factor to why a game is notable). Add this sourcing in advance of the non-free screenshot so the text can support its conclusion. Avoid adding screenshots to stub-class articles and wait until the article's gameplay has been expanded and sourced. Proper non-free rationales and licensing must be provided for these images to meet the WP:Non-free content criteria (see commonly used templates). Free screenshots are preferred to non-free screenshots, and editors should also consider if a game's screenshot is necessary if the game concepts are straightforward. For example, many first-person shooters or racing games share very common user interface elements and are otherwise unremarkable from each other, so a screenshot for such games could be omitted if there is no significant commentary on the gameplay or art style. Additional screenshots are required to have stronger justification for their use, backed by third-party or secondary sources, regardless of what aspects of a game they show. ==== Exception ==== If the video game itself uses a free license (for example GPL), that license extends to screenshots produced by the game. If the license is compatible to licenses used by Wikipedia, those images are free images for Wikipedia use, and they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and should use the appropriate free software template instead. They do not need a fair use rationale. Note that it is possible to engage with smaller developers or publishers to request them to provide screenshots and other materials under a free license. Such images can be uploaded directly by the developer to Commons, uploaded to Flickr or other photo-sharing site with appropriate free license terms, or one can following the instructions at WP:CONSENT to secure appropriate license permissions. If you need help, the WikiProject Video Games members can help guide on ways to approach these developers. There are cases where permission is made possible outside the above process. For example, the loading screen of Overcooked 2 says ""Please feel free to use any video footage or screen captures of the game in whatever way you like."", thereby giving permission to use screenshots of the game in Wikipedia. In such cases, provide proof on Commons in addition to the screenshot. === Hardware and physical objects === For released hardware and peripherals, freely licensed photographs of the subjects should be used in JPEG format. There is no need for non-free images unless the subject has been cancelled or not yet released. Special hardware with artistic designs cannot be released as free content images. While the item itself, such as the console or a standard controller is acceptable, the artwork is under copyright. Images used and hosted on Commons should be removed and tagged for deletion on their Commons page. Photographs of video game-related toys or promotional materials (such as Amiibo) which include an artistic design also would be considered copyrighted images, and can only be used with a proper non-free rationale. Freely-licensed photographs of people in video-game related cosplay outfits may be considered free images, despite showing copyrighted design elements. Per Commons, as long as the photograph is not focused on one single facet of the costume (for example, a close-up shot of a cosplayer's mask) and instead takes in the full costume, then the copyrighted elements are considered de minimis and the photograph can be treated as a free license. === Image file formats and names === For box art, JPEG is acceptable. SVG or PNG are preferred for logos. The file format used for screenshots depends on what type of image it is. JPEGs are usable for most 3D games and some 2D games. Games with a strong emphasis on pixel art or sprites should use PNG. GIFs should only be used for animated images. Provide a descriptive file name when uploading a new image. There's no required format, but including the name of the game/series and appending the type of image is very helpful for understanding the use of an image at a glance, such as File:Gears of War 3 box artwork.png. Articles related to video games must follow the requirements for verifiability and use appropriate reliable sources with inline citations to support the article. A description of what are considered to be reliable sources for video game-related articles and other specific sourcing issues may be found at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources. There are several considerations for video game-related articles in regards to sourcing: Using sites like GameSpot and IGN as reliable sources for older games (pre-2000) should be carefully considered. While such sites are considered to be reliable sources today, prior to around the turn of the century, they did not necessarily possess this same credibility. Most video games with content pre-dating 2000 should include content from print journals for information released during that time. Gameplay sections should be sourced. This can be sourced using the user's manual for the game, in addition to reviews for the game and other reliable sources. Similarly, plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs. Often, using quotes from within the game or transcript can help support statements via {{cite video game}}; however, take care to keep such quotes short and to the key points.A further complication with video game sources is that most only exist in an online form, and of late, several major reliable gaming sites, like 1UP and Joystiq, have been shuttered by parent companies. Sometimes, the archives of these sites remain, but more often than not, these sites go dark taking previous content with it. Because this can happen with little warning, our reliance on online sources can be problematic. Editors are encouraged to use archiving citations to prevent loss of such articles. This can be done either through using the Wayback Machine at archive.org, which can work for both live sites or sites that have gone dark, or using a Web citation manager such as WebCite to save the contents of the specific page as long as the site is still available. See WP:DEADREF for more information on how to use these tools. Finding critic reviews for older games may be difficult as most publication was done in print gaming magazines before the explosive growth of the Internet. Several project members have kept old copies of certain video game publications. A list of users and notable data is kept at WP:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. If you find something relevant to your article on that page, make an appropriate post (try WT:VG/RS) to request referencing. If you wish to contribute to the project, please add your username to issues you have or create new issue listings if none currently exist. Please be thorough when checking magazines, and be sure to wikify game titles. Follow the simple table format. If you prefer, add {{User WPCVGm}} to your user page to generate interest in the project. Cite sources correctly. The titles of websites, newspapers, books, magazines, TV shows, and video games are italicized as creative works with the |work= field. It is not necessary to specify the publisher of a serial publication (including an online one) unless the publisher's and publication's names significantly differ, or the citation would be ambiguous without it. Even in those cases, the |issn= and |oclc= fields (both of which can be identified through WorldCat search) would provide more specificity on the serial. Right: {{cite web |title=Hands On with the Nintendo Labo |website=[[GameSpot]] |date=...}} Wrong: {{cite web |title=Hands On with the Nintendo Labo |publisher=[[GameSpot]] |date=...}}Also, sites like Google Books and Internet Archive may host or index the work but are not its publisher. Credit those sources in the |via= parameter of the citation template. A ""See also"" section is not strictly necessary, and many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one. As a general rule, the ""See also"" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Avoid an indiscriminate list of links to ""similar"" game articles, instead linking to relevant articles as they are mentioned in the article body. The prose should be written so that readers can easily understand the relevance of the included links, with reference to reliable sources. If there is a link that might be relevant but it is not mentioned in the article body, use editorial judgment and common sense before including it in a list of internal links. External links in video game articles should follow the same convention for external links on Wikipedia in general. Certain links are recommended for video game articles, while other links should be avoided. Specifically, external links should provide information that, barring copyright and technical restrictions, would be part of a Featured Article on Wikipedia. Restricting the type of external links to be added to video game articles helps to avoid the section from becoming a link farm. Please use appropriate external link templates, such as {{MobyGames}}. Only add templates when they provide additional, or corroborative, encyclopedic information to the article. Appropriate external links: These links should be present if possible in a video game article. A video game's official home page (provided by the developer or publisher) per Wikipedia:External links#What can normally be linked (WP:ELYES) #1. Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages, per WP:External links § Non-English-language content, and § Minimize the number of links (WP:ELMINOFFICIAL). If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language. If the developer and publisher each offer a different site, include both. The developers' and publishers' home pages per § What can normally be linked #1. If, however, the official game site is housed on the developer or publisher's pages that allows for obvious navigation to the main developer/publisher site, these may not be necessary per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. A download source for games that are freely downloadable and which do not infringe copyright, if such links are completely separate from the game's official website, per WP:ELYES #2, and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, then a video game's profile page at MobyGames, IMDb, or a dedicated wiki may be added on a case-by-case basis, per WP:ELYES #3, and § Links to be considered (WP:ELMAYBE) #4. Wikis should not normally be cited, per WP:External links § Links normally to be avoided (WP:ELNO) #12, and WP:Identifying reliable sources#User-generated content.Inappropriate external links: These links should be avoided in video game articles per WP:ELNO, except where either a local consensus has decided a link may be useful, or where the link is for an official page of the article's subject. The video game's profile page at 1UP.com, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, GameFAQs, or any other commercial video game news, reviews or walkthrough sites - such links can be seen as promotion of the associated commercial sites. Fan-based sites, including those that may extend from the commercial sites listed above (for example, PlanetQuake) Forums per WP:ELNO #10 – official ones for the topic of the page may be appropriate per WP:ELYES #1, but take into account WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Links to fan remakes (homebrew clones) – these are generally included in self-promotion, and may infringe on copyrighted works. Links to storefronts, per WP:ELNO #5 (Steam, Xbox Store, PlayStation Store, Google Play, GOG.com, etc.)Unacceptable external links: These links are never allowed in video game articles and should be deleted without discussion if found. Links to sites that offer copyright-infringing downloads of video games, ROM or ISO images, or other works, per § Restrictions on linking (WP:ELNEVER) #1. This includes materials that may be considered abandonware – while the copyright of these works may be in question, policy forbids even questionable links. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games" 280 283 624 :WP:HAMMER Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law 280 "Pages of this sort usually take the naming convention ""[name of artist]'s [nth] studio album"". There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. But if all you can do is look into a crystal ball or base your information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook, then it's best not to create a page on the album until you've got something more to say. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere; it's not going to hurt you to wait. And if that wasn't enough, exacerbating the issue even more is that if the article is nominated for deletion, performing the relevant pre-checks for sources online is made extremely difficult by the fact that, by definition, no genuine search term exists. This also applies to discographies; please try to refrain from listing ""TBD"" in a list of the band's albums, unless of course the album is actually called ""TBD"". Again, it won't hurt you to wait. By extension, TenPoundHammer's law can also refer to any future subject for which a name is not yet known and no verifiable information from reliable sources yet exists. This might include ""future"" video games, movies, computer hardware, consoles, books, DVDs, software and other types of media and products. It can even apply to a future band whose name and final members aren't known, proposed constitutions, or professional sports teams that do not know what league they will play in. It could also apply to speculation about potential or theoretical, but undiscovered, chemicals. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Wikipedia:Notability (music) § Albums Wikipedia:Shirt58's Law" 281 284 625 WP:ALL Wikipedia:Prime objective 281 "According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, ""the closest thing we have to a Prime Directive"" is to: ""Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."" And that is the world that we, the Wikipedia community, as part of the Wikimedia movement, are working toward. Obviously, the body of all knowledge is far too vast to be compiled into a single work. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has never been intended to be ""the sum of all human knowledge"" (read Jimbo's quote carefully, and the rest of the interview it came from). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is intended to help provide free access to that knowledge, and be a start in the effort to bring about a world in which all knowledge is freely available to everyone. How? Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a highly useful summary of the world's knowledge. As such, it provides specialized jargon which readers may use as search terms to further explore subjects on the Internet. In addition, Wikipedia serves as a direct gateway to the world's knowledge by presenting links and references to further sources of information on all manner of subjects. In these ways—presenting summaries, search terms, links, and references—Wikipedia provides greater and greater access over time for more and more people to (the sum of all) human knowledge. Perhaps the rest of the knowledge workers of the world will follow Wikipedia's example as a free and open global resource and turn Jimbo's vision into reality. In that regard, and many others, Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community, are paving the way. To clarify his vision, Jimbo told The New York Times (in 2008), that ""'to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language,' that's who I am. That's what I am doing. That's my life goal."" It is also the goal of the Wikipedia community: to build and distribute the best encyclopedia that we can. This is a crucial role Wikipedians are fulfilling in the world. So, when editors get bogged down in a conflict while editing Wikipedia, it might help to think about another quote by Jimbo (from the same interview as the initial quote above): ""I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think."" Wikipedia:Purpose Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia The Wikipedia Creed (just another essay but you might like it) In a nutshell, what is Wikipedia? And what is the Wikimedia Foundation? - The Wikimedia Foundation Mission statement - The Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia values - The six values of the Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia founding principles - Principles generally supported by all of the Wikimedia communities" 282 285 626 WP:SIP Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses 282 "=== Sensitive IP addresses === ==== Sensitive due to public relations implications ==== If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team. Avoid long blocks of these addresses and be especially careful in formulating your block messages, which may appear in the press. Make doubly sure you're blocking the right address. Note that the IPv6 list is not complete. Therefore, always be sure to look up an IPv6 address in WHOIS to make sure it isn't that of a sensitive organization, and if so add the range to this list. If the IP address belongs to anything that might be closely related to the above, or a major corporation, for example Microsoft, Apple, or others, it may be a good idea to notify the committee. ==== Sensitive for other reasons ==== Blocking an IP address listed in this section can cause undesired effects on Wikipedia, which vary depending on the IP address in question. Please issue soft blocks on any bot coming from this address. If you are unsure as to how to do this correctly, please do not issue the block, but contact another admin. Note: 192.0.2.0/24 is not actually a sensitive address. It is included in this list for testing and training purposes and may safely be blocked with no requirement to notify the WMF. === Addresses of organizations with a responsive IRT === Some organizations have an Incident Response Team that has demonstrated willingness and ability to be responsive to reports of abuse at the source (the user). In those cases, it is preferable to contact their response team through the provided contact information rather than blocking all or part of their IP ranges – although it remains appropriate to place short blocks to interrupt ongoing vandalism or disruption. Organizations should be encouraged to be involved in managing disruption caused by their users to avoid the inconvenience to their other users. When placing a long block on an IP or IP range, a politely worded email to the organization's IT suggesting that they participate this way would be a good idea, and it is important to be liberal in unblocking ranges of organizations that collaborate. === Block lengths === Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP address, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption. However, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Many IP addresses are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically reassigned or have different users. In cases of long-term vandalism from an IP address, consider blocks over a period of months or years instead. Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents, regardless of the nature of their policy violation. IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time. Open proxies should generally be reported to the WikiProject on open proxies and blocked for the length of time they are likely to remain open on the same IP address, which in most cases is likely to be only a few months. Many open proxies have been blocked indefinitely, but this is no longer considered good practice. A large proportion of indefinitely blocked proxies are no longer open proxies. If you do indefinitely block an IP address, place {{indefblockedip}} or {{blocked proxy}} (do not substitute) on its user or user talk page for tracking purposes. === Shared IP addresses === Before implementing a long-term block on an IP address with a long history of vandalism, please check if it is shared by performing a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup query on the IP address to determine if it belongs to a school or an ISP. If a Shared IP address' talk page is not already identified or tagged as such, use either the {{Shared IP}}, {{Shared IP edu}}, or any one of the templates at Category:Shared IP header templates to do so. For anonymous-only blocks of shared IP addresses, please consider using {{anonblock}} or {{schoolblock}} as your blocking reason as it causes less offence to innocent users. Note that IPv6 addresses are almost never shared, even for large organizations, because network address translation is typically not used with IPv6. === Range blocks === Administrators can block ranges of IP addresses (commonly called rangeblocking). Use careful judgement and make them as brief as possible; they can affect up to 65,536 IPv4 addresses (for /16 blocks) or 649,037,107,316,853,453,566,312,041,152,512 (~6.49×1032, 2109) IPv6 addresses (for /19 blocks) each, potentially affecting millions of users. These should be reserved as an absolute last resort, especially very large rangeblocks. For more information, see mw:Help:Range blocks (mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for IPv6). You need some knowledge of how networks and IP address numbering work, and of binary arithmetic. If you don't, many other administrators do — ask on the Administrators' noticeboard or on #wikipedia-en connect. This essay contains advice for dealing with disruption by users on IPv6 addresses. If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral damage – that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block. Alternately, if you are unsure whether or not disruptive edits from a specific range can be matched to a single user, you can post a request at sockpuppet investigations where an administrator or a checkuser will attempt to match users with IP addresses. You can calculate a rangeblock using this tool or {{IP range calculator}}. === Shared and dynamic IP addresses === Many users operate from shared IP addresses, often those belonging to proxies used by large networks or home users with their Internet service providers. Since it is impossible to distinguish between individual users operating from shared IP addresses, blocking one may affect a very large number of legitimate users (ranging up to millions). Users operating from dynamic IP addresses change IP addresses periodically. This can compound the autoblock problem, particularly when they are also shared, because a block targeted at a malicious user may shift to a legitimate user while the target shifts to an unblocked IP address. Note that IPv6 addresses are almost never shared, even for large organizations, because network address translation is typically not used with IPv6. Although IPv6 addresses can be highly dynamic, possibly changing even more often than IPv4 addresses, a single user will generally use the same /64 range, and their IPv6 address is unlikely to be shared with other devices (although multiple people can use a single device, e.g. a shared computer). See Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs === Open proxies === Open proxies may be blocked on sight according to the policy on open proxies. The IP should be unblocked once the proxy has been closed. Because the IPs may eventually be reassigned or the proxies closed, blocks should not be indefinite, but in some particular cases can be very long term. Block lengths should typically range from several weeks for dynamic IPs and short term Tor nodes, up to several years for long term proxies hosted on static IP addresses. Administrators who block open proxies should attempt to record in the block log or on the user talk page how to verify whether the IP address is still an open proxy at a future date. Administrators who deal with unblock requests from blocked open proxies should typically seek advice from either the blocking admin or the WikiProject on open proxies before unblocking. === Indefinite blocks === Some behaviour by users, for example egregious threats and harassment, is so extreme that an indefinite block of the user is warranted. There are also some Wikipedia policies, for example Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry where an indefinite block of the user is suggested. These indefinite periods apply to users and not their IP addresses. While the user may be considered indefinitely blocked and subsequently blocked on sight, the IP addresses they use should only be blocked for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same user. === Blocking account creation but permitting editing === In some cases administrators may wish to block account creation within an IP range, but permit editing. This can be accomplished by imposing a partial block and leaving the ""Pages"" and ""Namespaces"" fields blank. WMF reply that management of the list of sensitive IP's for the English Wikipedia is the responsibility of the community, under WMF guidance Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks Wikipedia:Autoblock Wikipedia:Blocking Policy Guide to checking open proxies MediaWiki:Blockiptext, which provides the introductory text at Special:Block. Mediawiki:Help:Range blocks" 283 286 627 WP:local Wikipedia:Places of local interest 283 "A community contains places and people, including but not limited to churches, historic buildings, breweries, people, pubs, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, stations, highways and streets, that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question. Wikipedia:Notability says: ""A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all. For corporations and other organisations, the source's audience should be considered per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) § Primary criteria. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not necessarily an indication of notability. When adding information about a place of local interest, consider the following strategy: Initially, information on places of local importance should be added to an article on the community where that place is located. This information should generally be written in sentence form, but where only basic information is available about a group of places in the same community, you might consider presenting this information in list or table format. See Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:When to use tables for more information. It is usually best to not redlink to places of local interest, without first considering the potential for a nontrivial article to be created about the topic. This provides less of an incentive for others to create an article that will be nominated for AfD. When in doubt, do not make a redlink -- if the situation changes later, a link can easily be created at that time. As more verifiable information on local places is added to the community article, the article or individual sections will grow. Large articles should be written in summary style, so when this occurs, the longer sections should be broken out into articles such as ""Education in community"" ""Transportation in community"", etc. Eventually, as the article becomes overly large due to more verifiable information being added, information on individual places can be broken out into individual articles. This process should begin with those places which have the most verifiable information on them, and therefore have the strongest case for a stand-alone article. See below for suggestions on how to do this.You are certainly not obligated to follow this strategy, but it does have several advantages, including the following: Articles on communities become more comprehensive and detailed Places of local interest have better context within encyclopedia articles related to the community Fewer tiny stubs on places of local interest that may have little potential for expansion Since the community articles are highly unlikely to be nominated for deletion, the information is more likely to be kept and less likely to be disputed than if it were found only in its own article. More readers see the information, since relatively fewer readers will click through to an article on a place of local interest The information benefits from the halo effect of being placed in a well-developed article. Subjects of tiny articles sometimes feel unimportant to readers.Adding a large number of small stubs at one time tends to cause concern and is discouraged. Eventually, you'll get to the point where the sub-articles are so large that you need to spin off information about some of the places into separate articles, or maybe you just want to start a new article anyway. Here are some ideas for information that should be included in an article about a place of local interest, if that information is verifiable: Significant events in the history of that place The architectural or historical significance of the building(s), if any Well-known former residents/employees/attendees/students/etc. of the place, especially ones that are well-known enough to have an article Interesting aspects of the activities that go on at that place (e.g. for a school, interesting curricular or extracurricular activities) Features of the place that distinguish the place from other similar places, or that make the place well-known At least one image, such as a photograph or map ReferencesWhile some demographic or directory-type information is essential to provide context about the place, it tends to make for a dry article if that's all the article contains. If the only verifiable information is along these lines, you probably shouldn't create a new article specifically about the place. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. Such directory-type information might include: Location, address Numbers or lists of residents/employees/attendees/students/passengers/etc. Facilities available at the place Schedule information (e.g. hours of operation, what time trains or buses arrive, etc.) Other basic facts, depending on what type of place it is (e.g. for schools, other basic facts might include what grades are taught, the principal's name. etc.)Information that should not appear in an article about a place of local interest comprises material that violates Wikipedia's three content policies, namely Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you are well-acquainted with a place, it can be easy to inadvertently add material that violates these policies, especially if there is little verifiable information about the place, so be careful. Before creating a new article, consider whether there is enough material available that meets these content policies. Certain places of local interest, such as unremarkable subdivisions or streets, often have little such information available and so are generally not good candidates for separate articles. After creating a new article, ensure that the appropriate article about the community contains a link to the place in question, and that the new article contains a link to its appropriate community. There may also be community category, that should be added to the new article, such as category for the city, county, or suburb. Editors will generally not object to articles about places of local interest that are sufficiently long (not a stub), contain appropriate information (e.g. several of the ideas for information to include above), and are reasonably well-referenced. Such articles can be kept as separate articles, even if they weren't created in accordance with the above suggestions. However, even if everyone tries to follow the suggestions above, it is inevitable that some problem articles will exist. Many such articles existed before the above suggestions were written, and likely more will continue to be created by new users who wouldn't have read the above suggestions. If you run into an article like that, here are some suggestions to deal with it. Most of these suggestions are common sense, but are summarized here for completeness: If you can fix the problem yourself, do so, especially if the article has already been tagged for cleanup or merging. If the article doesn't appear to contain much significant, verifiable information, tag it with {{local}}, which will encourage expansion or eventual merging. Other useful tags are {{geo-stub}}, {{not verified}}, or {{merge}}. A glance at search engine results may help to determine if there is potential for expansion or if merging would preferable. If an article has been tagged for a while and it seems unlikely that more verifiable information can easily be added, consider merging it. If the article is a very small stub with no clear potential, be bold and merge it to the appropriate article on the community. If the article doesn't appear to contain any verifiable information, and none can be found, tag it with {{not verified}}. If sources are not cited after a reasonable period of time, nominate the article for deletion via {{prod}} or AfD. If an article containing verifiable information has already been nominated for deletion, consider suggesting a possible merge on the deletion discussion page, rather than outright deletion. If the user who created the article in question is a new user, consider welcoming them to Wikipedia and pointing them to this page. Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance {{local}} {{globalize}} Wikipedia:Notability (geography)" 284 287 628 WP:FLAG WP:FLAG 284 You may be looking for: The MediaWiki software feature Wikipedia:Flagged revisions The WikiProject that deals with flags and heraldry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology The flag icon templates project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template The guideline about use of such flag icons in articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags WP:BOTFLAG 285 288 629 WP:PCSI Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements 285 "Very low unreviewed pages backlog: 1250 articles, as of 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC), according to DatBot Very high unreviewed redirects backlog: 12598 redirects, as of 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC), according to DatBot WP:ACTRIAL, a proposal to limit new page creation to autoconfirmed editors, was proposed in 2011 and influenced the creation of PageTriage. PageTriage was created by the WMF in direct collaboration with some New Page Patrollers in 2012 as a feature-rich New Page Feed and Curation Tool to replace the much simpler 2006 patrolled edits feature that comes pre-installed on all wikis. This process was driven forward by Kudpung with help from Erik Moeller (WMF). The developers that created PageTriage were Kaldari and Bsitu. In 2016, the new page patroller permission was created, limiting marking a page as reviewed to these editors (and to admins). In 2018, the WMF Growth Team did some work on PageTriage, again in direct collaboration with some New Page Patrollers as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018. This resulted in ORES and Articles for Creation being added to the New Pages Feed. MMiller (WMF) was the product manager that helped implement this. In 2019, after a large backlog of Phabricator tickets developed, NPP added Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements to the Community Wishlist. It was voted #1, which helped to get the WMF Community Tech Team to add new features and to reduce the backlog of Phabricator tickets. Except for these brief spurts of activity, the tool doesn't receive much technical support. As of 2022, we are making a renewed push to collect issues (bugs and required features), create Phabricator tickets, and convince developers to work on PageTriage. Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter received 444 signatures, possibly making it the largest open letter in the history of enwiki. It has been suggested that Twinkle may be a workaround for some issues. However, Page Triage was expressly designed in 2012 to be a ""one stop"" tool to avoid switching back and forth between various menus, scripts, and gadgets. Redirects converted to articles should be in the feed but indexed by the date of creation of the article, not of the redirect, and by the username of the creator of the article, not of the redirect. This would be very useful. Probably a little more complicated to code.- MrX 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Currently, if a five-year-old redirect becomes an article today it is posted to the back of the queue and looks like it has been there for five years. The creation date in this case should be the first date substantial content was added, not the date the redirect was created. VQuakr (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC) And the automatic ""your page has been patrolled"" message goes to the creator of the old redirect; no message goes to the creator of the article unless the patroller is aware of the situation and goes to the extra trouble: Noyster (talk), 11:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Agreed, especially since when a page is tagged for deletion the same thing happens. A notification should be posted to both the redirect and the article creator (as when a page is tagged for deletion the redirect creator may have comments too.) Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Id like to see this. Lineslarge (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Phab status unclear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Perhaps more difficult: when an article is converted to a redirect and that action is then reverted, it should not appear in the New Page feed.: Noyster (talk), 11:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC) I'm not so sure about this one.- MrX 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) If an article is not in the NPP list (too old, or, I believe, also if it has been patrolled), then it either is reduced to a redirect or gets vandalized with all content removed, and subsequently is restored to its previous state, it should not return to NPP. One can set some limits here, for example, if the content is restored within a day.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Pages that have been tagged for maintenance issues (but not for deletion) andare otherwise just acceptable for inclusion, should be shown not with the green 'checked' icon, but with an orange blob that contains a capital T. It should be obvious that this would enable admins who are patrolling the quality of the patrollers themselves rather than new pages, can immediately revert any tags that have been inappropriately or erroneously applied, and replace them with correct ones or use the 'unreview button' which should then send the 'unreviewed' message automatically to the patroler, using a dropdown list of canned reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Support I second this. It would allow us to have a different message sent to the user. Currently if you green check a page that youve tagged for deletion, and send them a message telling them why it is inappropriate, they get a very passive aggressive ""Thanks so much for submitting that article! Which is crap, please don't do so again."" It should have a different user page template when sending the message to the user that goes along the lines of ""Page so-and-so has been tagged for maintenance..."" — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Support - verrrry much needed! I have actually discovered a PE who was tagging articles with Notability tags, and they were the article's creator. Imagine the gall... Atsme 💬 📧 22:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Include a button to optionally place a ""welcome newbie"" on a creator's talk page. First suggested by WereSpielChequers in 2012, this could offer a dropdown à la Twinkle of some of the more relevant wecome message templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Aside from the advantage that welcoming is known to give, some of our patrollers get into the mindset of wanting to do something with each article they look at. Welcoming a newbie as an alternative might help shift some people from the mentality of trying to work out which deletion tag or article improvement template is most applicable to a new article. ϢereSpielChequers 22:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Support - yes. I shouldn't have to click over to their talk page for this. Blythwood (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Support - Copy and pasting the subst on the csd tag itself does this, why shouldn't this be included in the tool already? Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 02:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Support this is honestly one of the reasons I prefer Twinkle for dealing with CSD. I'm giving page curation another go for CSD tagging, but welcoming simultaneously to notifying would be a huge plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Support and that's why I listed WereSpielChequers' suggestion here. For years the WP:Welcoming Committee has been abused and misused by new users themselves for whom, like other meta areas, is magnet. They hover over the new registrations and slap a welcome template on every vandal, troll, and no-edit newbie just to boost their edit counts. The WC is due for a shake up and this page for a severe pruning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Support, particularly if accompanied by a feature that flagged users who had never been welcomed and also recognised when a belated welcome would be appropriate. Lineslarge (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Support this is quite desirable and I'll be putting in a Phab ticket requesting it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Support — This would be extremely useful and would go very nicely with the in-built wikilove message to appreciate accounts who have created prolific first articles. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Barkeep49, can you follow up at Phab, because I don't have a clue what all their statuses mean. If it means that it has been put at the end of the 500+ tasks in waiting, we may have to make a new case for it in the next Wishlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, will check on it in the morning. I believe it should be somewhere in their queue of stuff and they haven't gotten to it. In general comunication explaining how they were going to approach the wishlist development work is less than I hoped or experienced when they put AfC into the queue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung looks like this didn't make the final cut of wishlist items and so would have to go on for some future development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Support, but worth it? With the track record of Page Curation development and maintenance, do we really want this? I would recommend using Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Wel (welcome). MarioGom (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Yes,it is worth it because it falls directly within the mission statement of Growth. It's been shoved aside again for the last 3 years and needs attending to. @MB and Novem Linguae:, can you subscribe yourselves to the Phab ticket please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Reproducing here the original 2012 suggestion by WereSpielChequers: There are three bits of information that would be really useful to know re the previous articles created by the same editor. For badfaith editors who've had articles deleted G3 or G10 it would be really useful if their subsequent articles were highlighted in red on the screen so that people knew to check them first. For Goodfaith articles it would be useful to know how many articles someone has previously created, or at least to have a little prompt or filter for those who've done 50 or more so you can easily spot candidates for Autopatroller status. Also if you've just patrolled or tagged an article having the option ""Look at x other unpatrolled articles by this author?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks Kudpung. We've got the list of potential Autopatrollers now at Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege so that doesn't need folding into curation, but it would still be good to bring extra skeptical attention to editors who have created G3 and G10 articles. I'm no longer quite so sold on the ""Look at x other unpatrolled articles by this author?"" button as I can see that being used by sloppy deletion taggers to tag everything else that an editor has created. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Given the lack of any secondary supporting votes, this suggestion may not have consensus to be implemented. If there is no further discussion in 10 days, it will be archived. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) This would be very useful. Perhaps we can remind WereSpielChequers of his suggestion and maybe @MB, Novem Linguae, and Onel5969: would like to chime in. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, Kudpung, and I guess I should put this page on my watchlist, huh? At the current state of the queue, this is not so important, but when the backlog gets back up to 1-2000 (and it will), this would be very useful. Especially the last part of Kudpung's suggestion. When the backlog gets long, and I came across a well structured, well cited article, I would open up another queue looking for any other unreviewed articles by that editor. This would make that simpler.Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I agree we don't need to be using Page Curation to detect potential Autopatrol candidates. The last part about an option to show other unreviewed articles by the same editor is covered in T313647 - I opened that independently of this not seeing the duplication, so I certainly think that would be useful. It can be helpful, not to sloppily tag all articles by one editor but to quickly approve all articles by one editor if a pattern of confidence emerges. The other part, notice of previous G3/10 deletions by the same editor seems useful to me and needs a ticket opened. MB 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC) This is 3 feature requests, so splitting into 3 subsections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC) === Highlight articles in red by editors who have had a G3 or G10 before === Would be technically complicated to implement. Would need a hook to listen for CSD taggings, and then an SQL table to keep count somewhere for each user. Can't use pagetriage_page_tags because that is per page. Can't use pagetriage_log because it only logs patrollers, not all users. Edge cases would include aliases of the CSD templates, and the case of untagging it instead of deleting it (false positive). –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I was hoping this would look at deletion reasons rather than tags. This isn't just that some taggers are heavy handed, but also that some taggers use a less urgent tag on articles that merit a G3 or G10 deletion. Providing we can get the proposal back to deletion reason not tag reason I think this would be useful as it would speed up the removal of attack pages from Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC) === Display count of articles a user has created (display where?) === Would be technically complicated to implement. Would need to track a user's article creation count (either using a hook, or an SQL query), and then store the data somewhere. As above, PageTriage doesn't have a table yet with the user as a primary key. An edge case would be deleted articles, which might not show up in the count depending on how it was implemented. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC) === Button/link to ""Look at x other unpatrolled articles by this author"" === Technically easy to implement. If this feature is requested by a couple people, let's make a ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC) See also #28 below. Some people (generally older users) are still patrolling from Special:NewPages and Twinkle. As here is a delay in display time of the New Pages Feed (it is only refreshed when updated by the patroler), it would be useful if a 'T' icon could be displayed indicating that the article was already patrolled from the old feed. This would help recognise articles that are copy-and-paste creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Support Twinkle is easier to use in many cases. In particular it has more granular and easier, in my opinion, tagging but I still use the NPP Tool because it keeps the Page Curation Log. As long as people use TW to review new articles we need to be able to capture stats from it. JbhTalk 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) I misunderstood the question. I still support. If we have two queues there should be some sanity checking even if one way. Jbh Talk 03:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Support - Most of my reviews are done with Twinkle.- MrX 14:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Support - I honestly do a bit of both. I use the NewPagePatrol script which shows a list of the new pages on the left side, and when I am off doing other stuff on the wiki and click to an article it doesn't always turn on the page curation tool and I'll end up using Twinkle to mark it patrolled instead. More often with the page curation tool these days though. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Support I also use both. I have noticed I tend to pick up diffent issues depending on how I look. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Support — per reasoning by Kudpung. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Comment This is largely resolved via the 'patrol log' which is now pretty much synonymous with the 'page curation log' when it comes to the page feed. It doesn't matter if a page is 'reviewed' or 'patrolled'; it will display in the new page feed as being reviewed. There is a bug though that in the All public logs for a given page, it doesn't list the Patrol log actions, but does list the page curation log actions. I'll file this in Phab as this needs to be fixed. It is difficult to figure out who reviewed a page sometimes, because if you check the public logs, it won't show up. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Barkeep49, another one to follow up or note for the next wishlist. I think this one is quite important. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, confirming you are talking about the bug ICPH noted above? Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)@Barkeep49, Insertcleverphrasehere, DGG, and Jbhunley:, No, I'm talking about a feature that shows if a patrolled item in the feed was patrolled using Twinkle. Semi automated edits using Twinkle are shown as such in edit summaries as '(TW)' so IMO if there is something that recognises this already, it should be possible to show it in the feed. The reason for this is to eep track on just what extent Twinkle is still benig used for reviewing new pages, and to encourage users to Curation instead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how much it matters if some things are looked at twice. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Twinkle Tags and reviews are not linked .... This needs quite-much work but will be a nice feature, to have the luxury of. ∯WBGconverse 05:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Mentioned several times around the site but first suggested here 13 December 2015 by czar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Support - provided a polite explanation is made, e.g. that the topic is valid but that the article is not finished yet. Blythwood (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) The tool shouldShow as 'Move to Draft' in the Curation tool actions list Move the page to Draft:articlename without leaving a redirect Send this message to the creator:Hi (USERNAME), thank you for creating a new article. Unfortunately it's not quite ready for publication but to allow you to continue to develop it without fear of deletion we have moved it to Draft:articlename. When it is ready, please submit it to AfC for review and if it's good to go, a reviewer will move it back to mainspace for you. You may wish to read WP:My first article, and if you need more help, do post a question at The Tea HouseWe will need to impress upon patrollers however that this feature should not be over used or as a get out for not knowing how to tag the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Move the page to Draft:articlename without leaving a redirect – this is technically impossible unless you are a page mover or admin. We could make it tag the redirect as WP:G6, though — MusikAnimal talk 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, I just did this yesterday, and have done it at least once or twice on previous occasions. (Note: I am not an active ""NPP"" (more of an ""old pages partroller""!), and only occasionally come across stuff like this when working for the WikiProjects like FILMBIO...) It sounds like maybe there should be a move to encourage Page movers to do NPP? (Or someway to grab the attention of Page movers to move New Pages into Draftspace without leaving a redirect? – Some kind of maintained maintenance list perhaps?... If somebody came up with such a list, I'm probably one of the PM's who might watchlist it.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Oppose. I have some concerns about this. I can see moving to draft becoming a form of unilateral ""soft deletion"" with no discussion, no admin oversight and no limits on what can be deleted. New editors (i.e. not autoconfirmed) won't have the technical ability to move their draft back to mainspace without going through AfC (which is supposed to be an optional process). Even if they did, they wouldn't necessarily know that's what they're supposed to do, or they might assume their article has been ""rejected"" and give up on it. There's a huge potential for biteyness and I think a lot of these drafts would end up abandoned and G13ed. I think if this were to become common practice, or if were to be built into Page Curation, there would have to be a wider discussion to establish a community consensus for the process and agree some guidelines on what circumstances it can be used and if any oversight is necessary. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Support - As far as I know, any autoconfirmed user can move any page to draft space, The admin oversight would come into play when the redirect CSD is reviewed by an admin. Those of us who are not admins, but are WP:PAGEMOVERs, should be trusted to move articles to draft without a redirect unless it is shown that we have abused that right.- MrX 14:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Strong Support - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Strong Support @Kudpung, Note that such a tool already exists in the form of a script: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. However, this should also be a feature of the page curation tool. If the user has the Page Mover user right, it should move without leaving a redirect, and if they don't, it should automatically tag the redirect for CSD R2. Many articles that end up PRODed or CSDed would be much better off draftified. In my experience, often up to a fifth or so of all new articles in the new pages feed would be best served by being draftified (varies by time of day). Draftifying encourages new users to continue working on the article, while tagging for deletion discourages them (why bother if it is going to get deleted anyway, especially in the case of CSD). In any case, Draftifying articles is currently difficult and time consuming as a manual process and the automated tool available is obscure and does not automate tagging as CSD R2 for non WP:PAGEMOVERs. Semi-automated Draftification should be made more available to New Page Patrollers through addition to the page curation tool. Note I originally posed a similar note to the page curation talk page before being informed of the discussion here.@Joe Most of the feedback I get from new users when draftifying their submissions has been quite positive. They often have had trouble in the past with their new, undersourced, articles getting quickly deleted, and are grateful to have their article retained with the chance to work on it further; so I don't see a big biteyness issue. Those that don't understand the draftification, despite the message posted to them, will often just immediately recreate the article, in which case it becomes a matter of simply using the normal tag/PROD/CSD/XfD process if necessary and this doesn't really pose a problem at all. It isn't a catch all, many articles are better off CSDed, PRODed, sent to AfD, or simply tagged, but it is another tool in the NPP toolbox that should be made more widely available. @IJBall I added the above script to the WP:PAGEMOVER page as well as the userspace to draftspace version, This should help Page Movers be aware of other uses of the user right. A better approach however is for admins who notice prolific and competent NPPatrollers to offer them the page mover right and explain its usefulness in NPP, and to make NPPatrollers aware of the usefulness of the user right so that they can request it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I am well aware of the script and gave been using it for some time. It's actually quite good. The problem is that the volunteers, such as Evad37 should not have to be making these tools. Of course, the Foundation will rejoice once more at the volunteers doing the devs work for them. There is absolutely no need for a major RfC to agree on this tool - Wikpedia is already stifled by senseless RfCs, What it does need however, is incorporating into the Page Curation tool so that i can only be used by accredited New Page Reviewers, and avoid being abused by unqualified New Page Patrollers, because in spite of the caveats above, based on empirical experince of tens of thousands of patrolls, they will almost certainly use it as a catch-all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC) @Kudpung This is a good point. The worst part about Evad37's tool is that it does not automatically tag the redirect as CSD R2 if the user is not a Page Mover (I tested this with my old account that doesn't have the user right), rather it just creates a normal redirect to the draft. This is an issue as unqualified New Page Patrollers who find the tool and decide to use it will not get doublechecked by admins unless they go through the extra hoop of manually tagging the redirect for CSD. Paradoxically, adding this to page curation with an automatic CSD R2 for non Page Movers would actually result in more oversight of draftification, not less. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Oppose This is contrary to the fundamental Wiki principle of developing articles in mainspace. If you have a notable topic then the draft should be in article space to make it clear that it already being worked upon. Otherwise, you are encouraging forking and generally wasting people's time by pushing stuff around rather than improving it. It is our policy that imperfect articles are welcome and this tool should not violate established policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Apart from being off topic here, Andrew Davidson, because WP:PERFECTION doesn't mention anything of the kind, and besides which, new users can't create in mainspace anyway, the choice is clear: pages that might have some potential but are suffuciently imperfect that they cannot possibly reside in mainspace are usually deleted; given the opportunity to develop their articles in a safe haven might not only result in a reasonble new article, but also one less new user gets bitten by having their article harshly deleted before it has been hardly begun. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Support Automates a process that is handled manually at the moment. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC) If we already have a good script, we should use it. I think it is a good idea that volunteers make tools. I think it's a good idea that we not rely on the paid developers unless they are actually needed. The more of the programming is done by regular WPedians, the better. But I certainly do use move to draft -- the main thing that's needed is that Evad37 or someone work on the current script further to make it easier to give different reasons. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Given what it takes to update something built into the toolbar for areas like this which are complex, I agree with DGG that we're better off having a user script, especially one that has as capable of a developer as Evad maintaining it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Comment: I don't see much value in adding this to the toolbar, given that we have User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. It would probably be easier to improve the user script to mark the R2 deletions as reviewed. MarioGom (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I first mentioned this about a year ago; but it would be nice if, when NPP patrollers find an article that is decent and mark it patrolled without adding any clean up tags, there was an easy way to either nominate it for DYK or at least send a message to the contributor informing them of the existence of DYK as a showcase for their article. Actually nominating it might be a bit much because of the burden on the nominator to do a QPQ, but if we have new users contributing good content the opportunity to have their work showcased on the main page is incentive to continue contributing, and NPPers should be informing them of that possibility. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Nice idea, ONUnicorn, but NPP is supposed to be a system for checking whether or not new pages pass the bar (sorry about the private pun). It we start using it for DYK suggestions it wil add clutter to the interface and people will want to use it for GA and FA suggestions. Generally the vast majority of new articles are from new or very inexperienced users and are practically all of very low standard. What we are generally looking for are articles that will be kept because they would probably survive AfD, and articles that must be deleted for non compliance with important policies, and to a lesser extent, articles that are not fit for publication but have potential and can be moved temporarily to draft space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC) @Kudpung: I have done a fair amount of NPP. I am aware the main point is to keep unacceptable content out. However, Wikipedia has a problem keeping new editors who are good. There is no effective reward for a new editor who submits a new article that meets our guidelines. Most new editors are unaware that new articles can be featured on the main page, and have no idea how to navigate the complex system that is DYK. All I'm asking for is the ability to click a box that would put a message on a new editor's page that says something to the effect of this. This should only be done if there are no problems with the article; if the patroller marks the page as reviewed without adding any clean up tags and elects to send the message. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC) I think this is a reasonable suggestion actually, especially with college editing Wikipedia projects that are meant to widen Wikipedia coverage on marginalised topics (women, ethnic minorities, etc.). It's a reasonable encouragement - a stretch further, but not unreasonable, to tell new contributors ""This is really interesting. I think this information could easily be put on the front page of Wikipedia if you did a bit more work. Go here and it will tell you how."" I am developing some form messages based on my own NPP experience and may add one for this situation. Blythwood (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Blythwood, You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Together with Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#50._Proposing_Autopatrolled_for_user_creating_new_articles_of_a_very_high_quality, I have put these through as a request to be added to the 'Wikilove' section as templated options for High Quality Submissions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC) You could use User:SD0001/DYK-helper to file DYK nominations easily. However, note that the DYK process includes a ""QPQ"" requirement which is time-consuming and not something IMO new page reviewers would be interested in. SD0001 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC) SD0001, QPQ strikes in, only after 5 DYKS, IIRC ..... But, that's a nice script:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC) So that I don't have to wear out my finger pressing the accept button twice, and then advancing the next page. Wikipedia is not a video game, and if it is, controllers should be sent to all page patrollers for ease of use. L3X1 (distant write) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC) perhaps a script could take care of this? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC) L3X1, what shortcuts do you want and for what stuff? Make a list ... ∯WBGconverse 11:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, I was thinking: C, minimizes or expands curation toolbar I, brings up or closes Page Info popout L, opens WikiLove popout R, opens review popout A marks as reviewed or unreviewed, depending on case (IDK if this one is possible) D, opens or closes deletion menu N, advances queue. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)IMO, a button to advance queue, and a button to review the page are the most important, if adding all of them is a burden. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I would like one shortcut. Sometimes when reviewing redirects, I find a whole series created by the same editor and after checking several I determine that I am going to pass them all. I would like one-click review option. Perhaps SHIFT-click on the check button for ""mark as reviewed and advance"" or maybe CTRL-SHIFT-click to make if more difficult to do by accident. Alternatively, some way to review all articles in the (filtered) feed with one click would be even more efficient - but that would need to have a confirmation, something like ""Are you sure you want to mark all 23 as reviewed?"" MB 14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC) filter the content by a score that arbitrarily estimates public interest (pageviews x # of editors?) that way I would know that I would be spending time on the complicated judgement calls that count (I am an eventualist when it comes to backlogs: it doesn't really scare me that the backlog is massive, as long as the higher priority bits get taken care of first). I do article assessment for WikiProject Novels, and use the score filter, to prioritize which ones to assess of the multi-thousand article backlogs. This gives me the sense of hacking away at the relatively important, even if the backlog is never ending (for example, I would use this queue to pick the stubs that I would assess for relative importance to novels). Sadads (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Support This has also proven very useful in working on WikiProject African diaspora--updating the popular pages report surfaced some unexpectedly highly visible pages that needed attention, and I agree that info really helps motivate work on them. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Support - This is a perfect example of triage and automation that could vastly improve NPP productivity. - MrX 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Support adding this functionality to the New Page Feed. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Support — Not a bad idea in the least. However, I don't regard this as something that would have a high priority for me, personally. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Note:- This is not happening due to resource-constraints and I avidly dislike, what they are doing currently; this data feels like sheer bloat to me, absent a sort. Page Barkeep49. ∯WBGconverse 12:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, sorry I'm not clear on what you dislike. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC) I think it could it be very helpful if the Page Curation Tool could permit a patroller who has decided to review an article to then temporarily flag that page as being 'on hold', and for it to be automatically removed from the review list for, say, a period of 10 to 15 minutes. This should give a review enough time to do their work and would avoid a lot of overlaps and frustrating duplication of effort if it did. This seems to be quite a common experience at both the 'very recent' and the 'very old' end of the review list. By the time I've reviewed or tagged an article - and drafted helpful feedback for its creator - I commonly find another patroller has also reviewed that same page. I get the impression I'm not alone in experiencing these edit conflicts. If this is happening a lot, then it must not only be confusing for page creators, but is surely an inefficient use of limited volunteer resources, too. Is this a need perceived by others? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Not a bad idea, but technically possibly complicated to design. I too sometimes have situations when I am researching a new page, another patroller has tagged it for deletion and an admin has already deleted it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC) If we could have a live updating NewPageFeed (phab task T207437), this could be added and the page could be marked with a colour code to indicate that another patroller is reviewing it (set to expire after 5 min). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere, Kudpung, and Nick Moyes:, I cannot alter the color code (and frankly don't think the feature to be extremely beneficial in light of the amount of work, needed to be invested) but it would be easily possible to design a button in the curation toolbar that would slap a banner mentioning that a page is under review. Would it suffice?∯WBGconverse 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)@Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah that would probably work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Barkeep49, another one unilaterally shunted out of site probably by Aklapper. How important is this request? It's a 'nice-to-have' but is it worth making a fuss about? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, I did create a way-out (months back) but, the downside is that one needs to manually un-review the page after slapping the template, as described at T221514. DannyS712 had proposed a generic workaround over T148353 which seeks that tagging a page (with any template) shall not automatically lead to a review, as default behavior. We (supposedly) need to check, as to whether the NPP community agrees with this generic fix, since it will incur an extra click on the tick-icon as a regular part of the workflow ..... ∯WBGconverse 11:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC) The work described by Winged Blades of Godric has been programmed but has not yet gone live. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49, that will not go live unless someone reviews and (+2) it, which won't be likely unless there's a community consensus in favor. ∯WBGconverse 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Include a ‘declined PROD/BLPPROD/CSD’ feature the choice of these messages.This would bring Curation in line with Twinkle and go a step further: Hi. I’m just letting you know I have declined the CSD you placed on xxxxxxx because either it is either not covered by a criterion or this was not the approriate criterion. If you still feel the article should be deleted please use a different CSD rationale, or PROD it (recommended), or send it to AfD Hi. I’m just letting you know I have declined the BLPPROD you placed on xxxxxxx because the article already has a link. If you still feel the article should be deleted please PROD it (recommended) or send it to AfD Hi. I’m just letting you know I have replaced the PROD you placed on xxxxxxx with an appropriate CSD tag because the article is a clear case for speedy deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also Requested above at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#16._Decline_CSD.This is badly needed. Barkeep49, could you check out its status at Phab, and otherwise note it for the next Wishlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, this is indeed unresolved and would have to go on a future wishlist. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Barkeep49, can this request be merged with No.16, and followed up at Phab? I'm sure it was on the wishlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, I think 16 was merged here (they show the same phab ticket regardless). The scope of work that came out of the wishlist is on meta. In checking the original wishlist asks I don't see this ticket on there. While I was aware of what you and Insertcleverphrasehere did I was not really following along closely enough to know where this fell off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49, we only dispatched the high-priority tickets, after a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_30#Task_List/Prioritising_tasks .... ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Given that twinkle doesn't feature actually declining the CSD, just sending a warning, I think we can keep using twinkle for that and not prioritize this request --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Some editors still use Twinkle to record their CSD taggings and editors can only look at logs made by using Twinkle. I think adding this feature will be a good idea for most editors. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I always use twinkle for this reason. Is there not a way of logging CSD with page curation? If so that is a major flaw.— InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)@KGirlTrucker81 and Insertcleverphrasehere: already exists. Go to your logs and then click ""deletion tag log"". You can view mine here. Its all deletion tags (so for me PROD and CSD except G12, because I much prefer Twinkle for AfD and G12). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)@TonyBallioni: We're discussing about CSD tag logs being stored to user subpages, not this one. And also Insertcleverphrasehere, page curation and huggle don't actually log CSD tagging in a user subpage. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC) I know, but we already have an easily accessible deletion only log for it that also has the advantage of not being deletable via U1. I'd oppose spending developer time on this feature when there is a log already and there are other features above that are already in Phabracator that seem like they'd make the functionality of reviewing new pages easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC) For those of us that like to edit or organise our CSD log, it forces us to use Twinkle. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Note This same request is duplicated as #40, #55, and #64. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)The deficiencies of the page curation's logs are (as I see it, from a Twinkle user's perspective): They are in fixed locations. With Twinkle I can (and do) opt to log CSDs & PRODs in the same file. When I see a recurrent title I only need to check one place. The PC logs record the fact that the reviewer requested deletion. Twinkle records that the article being deleted was created by its author. When using the logs it's far more useful to know the identity of the previous author than the previous reviewer. A repeat author may be a sockpuppet, a repeat reviewer may be, um, a reviewer?? Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)I strongly agree with implementing support for the Twinkle logging system in addition to the page curation log. Userspace CSD and PROD logs are widely looked at to determine suitability for advanced permissions and while it can be doctored or even deleted, doing so is still logged and can quickly throw up a red flag that can be checked into. Additionally, other tools like the AfC helper script have implemented support for the Twinkle log format while the page curation log is by definition limited just to the page curation toolbar, which is not universally used by all reviewers. Nathan2055talk - contribs 06:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC) I also support integrating this into user pages, so that it can be easier to look at all of your CSD/PROD tags at once, rather than having them split into 2 locations. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC) DannyS712, how's the progress on this locus? AFAIS, T230455 is nearly done ..... ∯WBGconverse 11:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Now that T230455, this change can be implemened in Twinkle? See discussion on T207237. MarioGom (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Serious BLP violations, swrious spam, serious vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC) It would be good to have this flagged as an option when tagging with relevant CSD criteria. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC) What prevents you from using Twinkle? In any case, you shouldn't be reporting someone to AIV without looking at their contribs first. And if you are at the contribs page, Twinkle's ARV is readily accessible from there. So, I'd say that this would be a pretty redundant feature. SD0001 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC) This Phab ticket hasn't been addressed since it was filed. I don't think it's a priority. Comments , anyone? Barkeep49, SD0001? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC) I would agree because of Twinkle this is a lower priority. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC) The page curation list should show if a new page could have a potential COI issue or notability due to someone being a close subject. It should detect the tag or use a filter judging by things such as the username. Example a page created called ""ExampleIncorporated"" was made by a user called ""JohnatExampleInc"". A match program could be used to detect if a COI issue could be a problem with the page. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @AmericanAir88: good suggestion. This could be done potentially very easily by incorporating data from Filter 148 as well as potentially data from Filter 149. I'll File a Phab Ticket. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC) The NewPagesFeed can get very long and require considerable effort to navigate to point in the queue that is not ""newest"" or ""oldest"". I would like an easier way to find unreviewed articles that I haven't seen yet. I often look through large numbers of articles to see if I note something that requires urgent attention. I also skip a lot of articles, especially when there are many on a topic where I would need to re-acquaint myself with subject-specific notability guidelines to review properly. I would be able to navigate the NewPagesFeed faster if I could skip articles that I have already seen but for some reason decided not to review. That issue is most apparent in the curation toolbar, where the next button may take me to a a page I have already seen, but do not want to review. It can take a very long time to find articles that I am interested in reviewing by clicking next in the Curation Toolbar, and it can cause me to ""get stuck"" on a group of articles that remain in my queue. I then have to return to the NewPagesFeed, ignore the visited links (using a local CSS) scroll down to where I want to work, and continue with the Curation Toolbar from there. Eventualy, I keep returning to that same group of articles I do not want to review at that time. I would like to see a new feature that allows me to see only those articles that I haven't seen yet. It does not require a change in the curation toolbar interface: clicking next always means skip this article; if I just reviewed it, it is also not shown to me again. The UI change that is required is an option box in the NewPagesFeed that lets me ignore those articles where I have clicked the next button. Call that ""hide viewed"" or ""only show unseen"" or something similar. It would make my reviewing more efficient by facilitating a quick scan of unreviewed pages I have not seen yet, and selection of the ones I think need the most urgent attention. --Vexations (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC) While I am more of a generalist, and prefer to review every article I come across one by one, I realise that this is very difficult to do, and most reviewers 'specialise' in one or more areas or aren't comfortable reviewing some articles. Being able to flick through to problem articles or past articles that you don't feel comfortable with and not have to see them again would be very useful. Logged in Phab. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Useful, but IMO not an urgently required feature. The original poster is not, or is no longer a New Page Reviewer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the tip about the https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. I found the ability to search by keywords to be very helpful. I don't see this functionality in the Special:NewPagesFeed. It does include AfC but seems to lack the functionality / view of tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser. Is there perhaps a way to have the same keyword search for AfC drafts? The current options are Show: (_) articles; (_)redirects; (_) bothIt would seem to be fairly straightforward to add a ""(_) drafts"" option, but I'm not sure what would be involved. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Information I found with Google suggests that Rentier is the person responsible for the NPP Browser software. I don't know how to submit a feature request, a message to Rentier may suffice. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)I've copied this from the AfC noticeboard as it seems to be a New Page Feed request that would also be of interest to NPR. Adding it to the feed seems smarter than trying to add all drafts to the new page patrol browser. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Right now the feed relies on ORES related criteria for certain labels in the feed, eg SPAM, attack, etc. That's all well and good and we should keep making use of ORES' abilities. However, it might be nice, spurred on by recent discussion around adding a COI label, if the community had some ability to add its own labels, perhaps through tie ins to Edit Filters, so that development of this feature were not dependent on criteria that we have to go to the foundation to get updated/changed/etc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49, if you're talking about all the options for comments and tags, etc the Curation flyout, what we need are: CSD delined, PROD declined, user warning for UPE, etc. Can you list in detail here the additions you would like to see? On another note entirely, I'm not sure that ORES things are displaying in the AfC feed and that was the main reason for creating the AfC feed. Could you check that - it might be just my browser. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Well we're soon going to get a potential COI tag added to the list of potential issues. They're going to use edit filters 148 and 149 which are fairly rudimentary but nice enough. At some point in the future we might have some better COI detection tools available. At that point we'll need to go back to the WMF to get them to change. I would like the community to be able to ""own"" development of the toolbar as much as is feasible so we don't need to go back to the wishlist in a year, two years, 5 years, whatever in order to have the next round of updates done. It seems clear that the WMF isn't interested in supporting page curation except so far as we drum up support from the wishlist. So be it. In that case I would like the community to be able to own it in the same way we do so many other processes.As for AfC it's working for me but it appears in a different place than for NPP. Are you looking right under the review button? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49, there's an ORES model currently under development for detecting COI/(U)PE. The end result is expected to highly exceed the currently rudimentary methods of automated COI/(U)PE detection but I have no knowledge about the precise timeline and it does not help that the department is currently understaffed. Now, that I don't expect EFs to grow any more efficient than they are currently are, the next better COI detection tool will be near-certainly this ORES-COI-model, for the integration of which, we (obviously) need to go back to WMF. So, I am inclined to think that the premises of your demand is a bit ill-founded. Also, while I have not followed their work on integrating abuse filters to the system, I can confidently assume that integrating EFs will be a tougher deal than just doing the elementary checks through it's own code-base. I agree 'bout the necessity of moving away from the hard-code style but that was a question which has been already answered wrongly, years ago. ∯WBGconverse 09:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, I had not heard about the ores development. That's good news. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, being understaffed is not an argument. The WMF is greatly over funded. All they need to do is augment their capacity and reduce some of the deadwood. Do you know which department is developing this, and more importantly, who is in charge of it?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Kudpung, it's the Scoring Platform Team. I have known this via off-wiki sources for quite some time but now see T217232 which states :- Scoring Platform Team is very understaffed with no dedicated product support. FWIW, since then, the team has got reduced even more and Halfaker has been mentioning of the need of a bigger budget, of late. On the broader locus, I have had highly interesting discussions between Danny, IFried, James and me, as to funding CommTech and other departments. Will note them, somewhere .... ∯WBGconverse 03:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, will you ping me when you do? I'd love to read about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC) The way the funds our unpaid work generates are used is a bubble about to burst. The WMF is under fire on several fronts right now. Stay tuned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49, I will try to pen them down, when I get some time. Will ping you:-) ∯WBGconverse 04:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC) This has been copied over from Kudpung's writing here: When an article is created from a redirect the ""was created by"" data should be whoever created the article not the redirect. This both allows for correct filtering and also closes a loophole where a reviewer could reviewe their own articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC) phab:T157048 DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Support Mccapra (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Support MarioGom (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC) At present, on disambiguation (dab) pages the ""Page info"" symbol, , is covered by a little white ""1"" on a red square background, and the ""Possible issues"" section comments: ""No citations - This page does not cite any sources."" Since reference citations are not allowed on dab pages, it seems that there should be a way to sense the dab page and not specify a need for the citations. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) There are examples of this at the Chicago Storm – Bringing It Back – Kill Devil Hill – J Street (disambiguation) (dab) – Formal semantics (disambiguation) (redirect) and Lil Bit (disambiguation) (dab) pages. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) After checking several dab pages, I see that the bar on the right side that holds the various icons sometimes no longer appears. So the solution was to remove that sidebar from the dab pages? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 13:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose that in the New Pages Feed, AfC drafts will also be able to be filtered by having no citations, having been previously deleted, created by new users, created by blocked users, etc., as opposed to just filtering them based on potential issues and ORES-given ratings. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC) (Brought here from reviewers talk page) As suggested by Bada Kaji - Could we include an option on the Page Curation toolbar to add the tag Expand (language), give us a list of the most common languages translated from and a space to add the foreign language title(s)? I am noticing more pages needing this template lately. Thank you JW 1961 Talk 22:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, this feature would be great. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 13:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC) What is the name of the template that you want added? There is already an ""Expand Language"" tag that is available in the toolbar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) My main use of the New Pages Feed involves filtering for Were previously deleted. At the moment these are highlighted in red as Previously deleted. Nowadays, however, a high proportion have been cycled from mainspace to Draft then back to mainspace (ideally with AfC eyes in between, but often not), which triggers this filter. It would be helpful if the Previously deleted text could be expanded to identify particular circumstances, for example: 1. Showing Previously deleted (previous AfD) for article XY if one or more Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XY pages exist, helping identify potential reposts. 2. Showing Previously deleted (draft exists) for article XY if a Draft: XY page exists, often indicative of a copy-paste to mainspace.Both of these would involve just file-exists tests based on the article title. A more ambitious option 3 would involve appending an icon alongside all Previously deleted texts, to allow the user to click through to a new tab showing Special:Log?page=XY so that the actual history of prior instances can be viewed. Each or all of these changes could I think increase the effective scrutiny of articles recurring into mainspace. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Agreed. The recreation of redirects, recycled Drafts, and refunded/recreated articles have always been contentious. They should systematically pass through the New Pages Feed feed again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @MPGuy2824 and Novem Linguae:. With the recent patch, the number in the footer now closely matches the number of unreviewed articles in the queue. Right now, I see the footer says 7 and the feed says 5. That is a minor difference due to the caching issue. No big deal. But the queue actually contains 48 unreviewed articles right now - there are another 43 with Prod tags. So the count in the footer doesn't actually match the review status (green check or not); it is actually the number of unreviewed articles that are not currently nominated for deletion. Do we want to ""fix"" that to make it technically accurate? On the other hand, there is nothing to do with those articles. Which number is picked up in {{NPP backlog}} and the report/graph? Which number to we want to ""publicize"" as the queue size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Consistency: NewPageFeed footer and {{NPP backlog}} both get their info from the PageTriage's stats API. The backlog chart's source isn't very obvious, but the numbers are different (See [1] (41) v/s [2] (68)). What number to publicize as queue size?: Your point that reviewers don't need to do anything more with PROD-ed articles is right. I'd say the current number in the footer is the one that we should show everywhere. ""Fixing it to make it technically accurate"": I assume that you mean some text changes to the footer stats. Sure makes sense. ""XXXX articles and YYYY redirects are waiting to be reviewed"", maybe? I'm sure you guys will think of something better. BTW, PROD-ed articles aren't shown as unreviewed (blue exclamation) but as nominated for deletion (black trash can), so there may not be any need to change the text at all. If we decide that the numbers shown by the graph need to change, we'll have to talk to MusikAnimal, the bot's operator. -MPGuy2824 (talk) What I meant by technically accurate is that that there are only two reviewed statuses - reviewed and unreviewed. The black trash can means nominated for deletion, that is independent of review status. If there is no green checkmark, it is unreviewed. The number in the footer that is labeled unreviewed articles is actually the number of unreviewed articles that are not currently nominated for deletion, but not quite the total of unreviewed articles. Right now, with the numbers so low, there are twice as many unreviewed articles as reported in the footer - there are around fifty prod/csds. Its sort of like having two different definitions of unreviewed. MB 05:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Mainspace articles should be NOINDEXED until reviewed per 2012 RFC. See Phab ticket for links to related discussions. MB 23:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC) MB, as I warned, this might not be easy to convince the devs. History has demonstrated that they often see themselves as the gatekeepers of all the local projects or they don't understand the priorities. Your best ally there is MusikAnimal, at least he knows what it is to be a Wikipedia editor and he's an excellent technician. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I see you have commented on the ticket, so you saw that Novem_Linguae added MuskikAnimal as a subscriber. I see you have added yourself too. Thanks. MB 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC) You guys are moving a bit faster than I was planning. A 10 year old consensus, no recent village pump discussion yet, the # of days not firmly decided, and unanswered technical questions I was still asking MA about. Could be a bumpy ride. We'll see how it goes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I have answered your question to the best of my ability. The folks servicing site requests are probably not super experienced with PageTriage and any side effects, they just want to see clear consensus. Please assume good faith. Since this effects all articles created by non-autopatrolled users, I feel like we could use at least a ""see this discussion"" kind of notice at WP:VPT. A year is kind of a long ṫime… I know NPP is backed up, but maybe let's try a shorter duration first, such as three or six months? Assuming many NPPers work from the end of the queue, if that much time goes by and no one has marked it an article as reviewed, that might suggest it's one of those really 'tricky' ones. If enough eyes still can't make a decision, perhaps it's not too farfetched to assume the article is worthy of inclusion? I am fairly confident that a 365 day hold on indexing will have no technical issue, but the social impact is worth giving thought to. I've seen first hand how many go to WP:VPT to ask about why their article isn't being indexed. Do we really want to keep them waiting for up to a year? As an aside, I did see this request with regards to the top new article reviewers report, and hope to work on it soon. — MusikAnimal talk 22:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the answers. I know NPP is backed up, but maybe let's try a shorter duration first, such as three or six months? Quick FYI, both enwiki __NOINDEX__ (per the documentation) and enwiki PageTriage $wgPageTriageMaxAge durations are currently set to 90 days. I assume they are separate settings. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC) I figured it was something specific to enwiki, as I could not find anything about automatic indexing on mediawiki.org (but the docs could also be incomplete, something not unusual for mediawiki.org!). Anyway, my reading of the code suggests PageTriage acts completely independently. There is some logic to respect a __NOINDEX__ if it is present on a page, but even then it still checks against $wgPageTriageMaxAge in determining whether to noindex the page, so there should be no concern here. Did someone want to advertise this at WP:VPT? MB perhaps? I suggest making a concrete proposal for the number of days, starting with a smaller value (180 days, perhaps). I think 180 days would be safer -- both in terms of social and potential technical impact. We can always increase it later if need be. I do not think we should jump straight to indefinite even if possible, and certainly not without broader input. — MusikAnimal talk 14:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) A follow-up NPP discussion rejected extending the period from 90 to 180 or 365 days and was clearly in favor of indefinite. Additional feedback was solicited from WP:VPP and in two days there were no comments. MB 05:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Since ACPERM was rolled out, 'Were created by newcomers (non-autoconfirmed users)' can be removed, because they no longer can anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Support: I'd guess that those appearing when the filter is set currently are all AfC accepts. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) I'm hesitant to remove filters from the menu. In this particular case, there is a range of filters, and I am concerned that removing one will make the range incomplete. Also, articles do sometimes show up in this range, for example, accepted AFC drafts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Display 'Predicted class' and 'Potential issues' in the feed list by default and remove these options from the panel to reduce clutter and banner blindness. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Is phab:T195545 the correct task? Doesn't seem related. I fully support adding an autopatrolled articles filter. I'm a bit more hesitant on removing features, especially the ""potential issues"" filters as I use those to look for low hanging fruit sometimes. I will also note that the filter ""Were created by newcomers (non-autoconfirmed users)"" has dozens of articles, mostly accepted AFC submissions that need NPP review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Novem Linguae, T41547 was first requested at Phab in 2012 by a staffer who often started and promised features for NPP and then conveniently forgot them. T195545 also concerns the panel. It was the 2018 refurb that included the feed and filters for AfC; I included it here but as they seem to have completed it, it might no longer be relevant. You may be right about the non-autoconfirmed users, but even if they were created through AfC, they would probably have reached the 4 days/10 dits by the time the article hits the New Pages Feed. My suggestion for 'Predicted class' and 'Potential issues' was to include them permanently and remove the options from the panel to reduce clutter and banner blindness. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Just a note that $wgPageTriageEnableOresFilters in IntializeSettings.php is what controls whether or not ""predicted class"" and ""potential issues"" are displayed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC) I don't think there's much point in us discussing code here - or even at Phab for that matter. The WMF is awash with funds and as Page Triage is a WMF project, they should be addressing the bugs and the feature requests. The New Page Reviewers have got enough to do without exploring or rewriting the MediaWiki code for those who are being paid for it. In case anyone has still not understood what is being asked for, its to remove the checkboxes for the ""predicted class"" and ""potential issues"", and have that information displayed in the feed entries by default. The effort is to make Curation as simple and effective as possible and hence an attractive job for the reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Novem Linguae, coming back to Display 'Predicted class' and 'Potential issues' in the feed list by default and remove these options from the panel to reduce clutter and banner blindness.I am reminded of something Kaldari (former WMF Head of Engineering) said a few years ago with a link to an external article: An abundance of user preferences, however, can lead to decision fatigue. So it's important to only provide preferences that will actually be used.[3] It is indeed something I was taught at uni in Berlin 36 years ago on a lecture called Qual der Wahl. I think we should open a ticket on this or perhaps you can write a patch yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Novem Linguae, have you filed a ticket for this? Checking up on what Kaldari said, I found some notes from my post-grad studies in 1985 (10 years before the Internet) that it had also been one of the topics of a lecture about the design of forms, polls, and other questionnaires. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC) I'm mildly opposed to this one. If someone else supports this change, I will file a ticket. I pause for consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC) After reviewing one article/redirect, I often want to see others created by the same user. In the filters, there is the choice to specify a username. It is a bit arduous to copy/paste the username into this field. I would like another option (probably to the right of the user name box) that if checked, will fill in the field with the username from my last patrol. Comments? MB 04:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Decent idea. Could do this by setting and reading a cookie (easy). Maybe have the link be the name of the last person... that keeps it short and makes it clear who is being selected. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC) It would be good if the edit summaries for articles when adding an AfD tag could mimic Twinkle and read ""Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName"" - ditto RfD, MfD, etc. Make it optional to post the message to the talk page. Some messages are appropriate for the creator only. I'm not as prolific nowadays as many reviewers, but I do find very often that I don't want the message posted to the talk page especially when I'm offering advice to a new user which I do quite often. If posting the message to the talk age is opional, perhaps more reviewers would leave a message of advice or encouragement for the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC) This edit shows a tag added before the {{short description}}, which is out of order per WP:ORDER. This is really minor and makes no real difference, but would be moved by AWB, so better to put in the right place to begin with. MB 15:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure at what point this would occur but I'm of the mind that once an article is added to the NPP queue, a TP should automatically be created with header and relevant WikiProjects listed in the banner, if it doesn't already have one. By doing so, some of the project teams can help with article clean-up instead of leaving that chore for NPP. Atsme 💬 📧 20:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC) The AFC helper script lets the AFC reviewer pick WikiProjects when accepting, and then generates a talk page with the correct banners. We could model it off of that. Keep in mind that adding WikiProject banners is now optional for NPPs as of about 6 months ago when we changed the flowchart, with the goal of faster reviewing. But this would still be nice to have. I'll make a ticket on phab. phab:T315930. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Wonderful news, Novem L., thank you!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC) I use Rater which does the same. It even makes a reasonable guess of the class. Yet another script that is not integrated into the NPP toolset. MB 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC) @Atsme, Novem Linguae, and MB:, The lack of project banners, especially the BLP template, is one of the most infuriating things about the creation of new articles by lazy editors, but possibly understandable by newbies who might not even know what a Wikproject is. I always add them when I patrol, but unless I am a member of that project I leave the rating up to the Wikiproject people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC) I don't think adding WikiProject choices to the Page Curation toolbar is too valuable for this use case. Rater works well, and a new and different implementation within Page Curation will probably have its own bugs or lack of features. I'm not opposed to the feature if others really consider that integrating in Page Curation is valuable compared to using Rater separately, but I think we could explore some other options here. I wonder if we can make articles in the NPP queue prioritized in some other backlogs, like something advertised in the Wikipedia:Task Center. I think there's a few people doing this kind of gnoming: can we steer them towards the NPP queue, rather than random pages? MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC) The quicker we get all the time consuming menial tasks automated, the better. An article TP with project banners should be created at the point of article creation in main space (by auto-patrolled editors) or when moved from draft to main space. If auto-patrolled editors are not creating TPs when they create articles, then perhaps revocation of the right will encourage them? Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Just a quick note that all the bottom/gnomish parts of the flowchart, including adding maintenance tags, adding categories, adding stub tags, and creating talk pages, are optional now for NPPs. If NPPs don't have to add talk pages, not sure it'd be fair to require that of autopatrollers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC) I agree, but my reference was to editors who create articles in their own user space or in main space, have autopatrolled rights, but don't bother to create a TP for their newly created articles which are automatically marked as reviewed. Those articles tend to escape detection in the NPP feed. At AfC, reviewers can make sure the authors create a TP w/WikiProject banners, but we're less likely to catch it for autopatrolled article creators. Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)...not sure it'd be fair to require that of autopatrollers, I beg to differ, NL. Like Atsme I've always been convinced that the talk page shoud be processed at the point of creation. While there's an excuse for newbies, an autopatroller is generally expected to produce 100% complete articles (except for eventual future expansion). At least that's what I do and I'm rather proud of it. Or am I wasting my time making clean articles? Not that anyone bothers to read them so it's not even leading by example - unless I link to them when I'm teaching others. Having a tool for NPPers to do it would be handy, but I don't think it's high on the priorities until at least the PageTriage codebase has been rewritten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC) If we had a report that is the reverse of Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages, then I'm sure some gnome group would attack it with vigour. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC) We have ways to fix it that are time consuming – what we need more is prevention. It's a time sink, and should not require human gnomes if it can be automated. Keeping up with the technology and providing what volunteers need is far more efficient than depending on volunteers to fill the need. Atsme 💬 📧 11:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Since AFDed articles can be marked as reviewed with just a quick check that there is a valid deletion discussion, it would be handy to find easily find these. The page feed has the option ""Nominated for deletion"", but that includes CSD & PROD. I just went through all those and found around 60, and about 2/3s were AFD meaning I had to skip through 20 others. It would be more convenient to be able to filter on just AFDs (don't see a reason to need only CSD or only PROD). MB 20:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC) Workaround: Here's an old quarry query of mine I use to find these. Fork and re-run the query to update its data. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) @Tamzin: your 'zinbot does this reviewing for redirects. Can it be used for articles with valid AfDs, as well? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Not sure if these should be auto approved. What if a new user files an AFD, but misses a copyright violation (doesn't run Earwig on it), or misses a CSD G10 attack page? These may require human review. Much less steps than the whole flowchart, but at least the CSD part at the beginning, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Does anybody use Special:NewPagesFeed to patrol userspace? Are we even supposed to patrol userspace? I propose removing it. Benefits: Decrease the maintenance burden (for example, there's some ancient MFD code that I have no idea if works or not) Discourage NPPs from using valuable patrol time to patrol a namespace that we don't normally patrol Shrink the size of some PageTriage SQL tablesEffects: Would remove the page curation toolbar from userspace pages (instead there would be a ""Mark this page as patrolled"" link at the bottom right of the page) Would remove ""In namespace: User"" from the list of filters in Special:NewPagesFeed.Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) From the tutorial: Namespaces subject to review – Mainspace and userspace are the two namespaces where the page curation toolbar displays. NPPs do not need to patrol userspace. Maybe User:Kudpung knows why userspace was added to the NewPagesFeed's purview, and if it is needed anymore. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC) @Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824: I do not know, nor do I recall why this is - although I created the user right and was directly involved in the creation of the prefs panel and the major author of the tutorial, it's too long ago. I guess that it was probably because user pages and user subpages are sometimes used against policy. Is there a query that could be run that would reveal how often/how many reviewers patrol the user pages? As it is nevertheless only an option in the filter preferences at Special:NewPagesFeed, unless the purely technical reasons mentioned by NL are truly compelling I would be inclined to leave it as it is rather than create yet another ticket in Phab. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Here's a count of # of userspace patrols per month. Averages out to 118. Many of these may not be methodical patrolling, but rather NPPs marking userpages as reviewed as they randomly stumble on them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Query:[4] mostly patrols, but some curation as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC) NPPs do not need to patrol userspace. I think I added that recently to reflect reality. I posted about it at WT:NPPR one time and I think people responded that we shouldn't spend our time patrolling userspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Maybe I'm naïve but I still fail to understand the technical difference in the 'review' and 'patrol' user logs. As far as I know, we're only concerned with the use of PageTriage, for which the user log is 'Page Curation'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Doesn't patrolled also include those pages by autopatrolled users who are not part of NPP? Atsme 💬 📧 11:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC) It's not 100% clear to me either. But my understanding is ""patrol"" is 1) people who click the ""Mark this page as patrolled"" link at the bottom right of non-mainspace, non-userspace pages, and 2) most but not all of PageTriage ""mark as reviewed"" button presses, because PageTriage usually marks in both logs, but not 100% consistently. In general, we almost always want to check the Page Curation Log instead of the Patrol Log. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC) I think we are agreed that as far as NPP is concerned, 'Page Curation log' is authoritive ifnot 100% accurate. It's the one that NPP coords need to know. Looking again at 'Effects' above, the curation toolbar is only seen by accredited reviewers (or should be) , and maybe occasionally a reviewer might want to make a random stab at ""In namespace: User"" so personally I think it might as well be left as it is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC) In Twinkle, pressing ""Mark this page patrolled/reviewed"" also seems to update both. MB 03:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Support - If NPP is instructed not to bother patrolling the userspace, and no one actively does so, then why bother keeping it? It's an unnecessary backlog. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Would this be technically easy to implement? Nobody is actually using Special:NewPagesFeed to monitor userspace, I'm reasonably certain; I just mark userpages as reviewed when I happen to encounter them. So it's not hurting anything, and unless it would be an easy deployment, I don't see reason to waste what little technical support we get on implementing this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) The advantage would be time saved by reviewers because it'd be clearer they don't need to patrol that namespace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Support - A small change, but a reasonable one. ASUKITE 17:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Support - Before the PageTriage software was created, no one patrolled user pages anyway. Why should they now? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)I have used this before for: Searching for WP:G11 and WP:U5 candidates Proactively searching for minors posting personal details Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @Dreamy Jazz. Thanks for your comment. If we do end up removing this (probably will eventually unless consensus changes), the uglier Special:NewPages will still allow seeing a list of recent new userpages. And a [Mark this page as patrolled] link will appear at the bottom right of user pages. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah. I would note that for the first that page would work and for the second a search using Special:Search performed on the user namespace usually covers what I look for. That means this isn't necessarily a loss in functionality for me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Autopatrolled articles are becoming increasingly problematic - either that or we are getting a bit better at serendipitously finding them. Alreadty the Autopatrolled righ has been removed from the Admin privileges. Keep 'from Autopatrolled' in the filter options but: Display all articles by autopatrolled users in the feed by default. Display an alert 'Autopatrolled' in red. Display the other usual alerts.This would inform the reviewers of any issues and leave them to take a closer look at their discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC) The purple colored check marks are a feature I added with the autopatrol filter patch. Autopatrolled articles have a purple check mark, and marked as reviewed articles have a green check mark. So we may not need to display ""Autopatrolled"" in red text, since we can just look for a purple check mark. Is there consensus for ""Display all articles by autopatrolled users in the feed by default""? If other users are in favor I will create a ticket. I pause for consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC) NL, I think you missed the point entirely. Some patrollers are considering even more radical solutions such as for example, doing a systematic sweep of all Autopatrolled users' articles to see if anyone is breaking the rules. Now that would need a consensus, just like an extraordinary CU search would. There's no need to seek consensus however for every minor enhancement to the tools. If that were the case, I would never have got them developed in the first place, or again in 2018 when we added ORES, or a tool that flags up COPVIOs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Kudpung, with your changes, the default-setting feed would show 14,000 articles right now, instead of 9,500. I wouldn't call it a minor change. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC) MPGuy2824 you're confusing the feed content with the backlog The autopatrolled articles are not part of a backlog - they have already been Autopatrolled! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC) On these tickets where I am asking for consensus, it is because I have reservations, so I'd prefer to get some additional opinions to help make a more informed decision. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Do you at least understand the rationale behind my suggestion? Maybe I have not described it adequately. I did add an image. I don't see anything in the slightest contentious about this feature that it requires the new trend in needing a major RfC for every minor tweak on the website. In fact it's such a no brainer I can't understand why I didn't think of it way back in 2012 when it would have been included along with all the other original features without a debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Just to clarify, this requires more than changing defaults of currently available filter options. If you select ""Were created by autopatrolled users"", the feed shows nothing because they are still filtered out by state: ""Unreviewed pages"". You have to add state: ""Reviewed pages"", but then you have all reviewed pages in the feed. I think you want the default to be all unreviewed pages + autopatrolled-reviewed, which is a combination you can't get today. I think that complicates the current filter setting, probably requiring a third option for ""state:""I'm not sure who would use this. I am a task-oriented person and tend to do one thing at a time - just review redirects, just review articles. If I wanted to check some AP articles, I would look at just those (which you can see today). Wouldn't having 5k more articles in the feed just get in the way of people trying to review articles and reduce the backlog? If the majority of people would turn off the AP articles so they could get on with their reviewing, it really shouldn't be the default. I'd like to hear more people say they would want APs in by default. MB 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC) I'm not concerned with the pure technology of it. 'Default' means 'default' and that doesn't mean it can't be turned off. My point in having this feature is that reviewers could ignore the autopatrolled articles displayed in the feed and move on unless ORES has flagged up an issue, and that's what it's all about; at least they would notice when one has some issues. I don't believe there are many reviewers who bother to select the autopatrolled articles in the filter (which incidentally doesn't seem to work at the moment). I check them out and my empirical findings tell me it's time it were done more often, and hence my suggestion to make it somewhat easier and more encouraging for reviewers to do so. Of course, we could go the whole hog and hold a debate for having the Autopatrolled right deprecated entirely, but it would be voted down because like NPP most of them regard it as a medal of merit - which it absolutely is not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC) which incidentally doesn't seem to work at the moment. Did you try ticking the check box for ""State: Reviewed""? That needs to be paired with the autopatrolled filter for it to display results. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC) That must have slipped my mind, in which case, perhaps adding 'check check box for Reviewed' to that radio button's description would help users who are even less NPP savvy than me ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)OK. So that works now, but still needs my suggested red alert in the feed, otherwise there's no point in having the radio button 'Were created by autopatrolled users' at all. As this only affects the work of reviewers and is only visible to them, a site-wide or any other RfC is superfluous. As I said earlier, we don't need consensus for every minor improvement to the GUI of a specialised tool. Believe me, if I knew how to do it I would boldly do it myself as I have many other things in the past (and recently) on templates and tools. We can refine the selection options further, and how they are displayed in the filter panel, but at least let's discuss it rather than ruling it out - I'm not one for making usage suggestions just for the sake of it. We're all agreed that to save NPP we need to start thinking outside the box, and streamlining the work is part of making NPP sexy enough for editors to want to do it. That said, I'm not ignoring the fact that a lot of articles and redirects are created by autopatrollers and it is a help not to have to review them (generally), but we are well aware that it is abused and even by admins - that's why it was removed recently from the admin toolset. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC) I'm totally on board with putting autopatrolled articles in the feed, so we can more easily spot check them, but why make that the default? Surely patrolling already patrolled articles is a niche and occasional task, not something the average NPPer is doing on a day to day basis? Also, when will they be removed from the feed? Do they have to be re-reviewed? Or just after a certain time has elapsed? – Joe (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @User:Joe Roe, you can see AP articles now. Go to filters and select ""were created by autopatrolled users"" AND select ""reviewed articles"". Like other reviewed articles, they are in the queue for 90 days. This is existing functionality and supports spot-checking by anyone inclined to do so. That is not exactly the intent of this request though. MB 14:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @MB, Novem Linguae, and MPGuy2824:. Proposed here. --Kudpung When all or a very large proportion of an article's content is overwritten with new material, the article should be marked as unpatrolled and added to the NPR queue. This is virtually creation of a new article, but can be done by IPs and new accounts, and is often a sign of conflict-of-interest editing: Noyster (talk), 11:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC) That is a very good idea, Noyster. What number of bytes do you think should trigger the alarm? Join the development discussion n the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018 before it's too late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_162#Flagging_overwriting_of_articles for more technical details. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)It certainly looks as if T36912 would provide the means to detect these edits. That task has been sitting since 2012 with low priority and no-one assigned. Could it be boosted up the priority scale, or do we have to wait to put it on our Santa Claus wishlist coming up to next Christmas?: Noyster (talk), |TB| 5:04 pm, 22 January 2018 (UTC+7) Can it be made possible to message the creator without reviewing the article? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง This feature was lost due to the bug mentioned in the above section. It will be back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) There was an earlier request to make the message to the article talk page optional with a check box. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง This is already being tracked in phab:T313645, and in #Curation panel: Send message to creator/Talk page above. -MPGuy2824 (talk)There was a request to send a message to every creator on 'Mark as reviewed':Thank you for creating xxxxxx. Your article has been passed by a New Page Reviewer. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask at the Teahouse This lets the creator know that s/he is not an island, and it serves to let them know that their work has been noticed. Just one of those nice little things that no one has ever thought of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) I like your last suggestion, but the creator already receives a notification about their article that has just been reviewed. If there is more support for this, i'll create the phab ticket. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)MPGuy2824, Page Curation does not inform the creator that their article has been successfulky reviewed. I have mentioned this many times over the years and to me it seems logical as a friendly gesture to the creator. To me it's a no brainer. It's so obvious, it does not need an RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Kudpung, i should have been clearer. There is no automatic talk page message added when a creator's page is reviewed, but they do get an echo notification. See screenshot attached. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC) MPGuy2824, I never knew abut that notification, but I'm autopatrolled and have been for over 12 years; it's not quite the same kind of thing though, ist it? It looks obviously software generated. My thoughts were to make page creators more welcome and let them know that a human is behind their work. It would be nice. Wikipedia is always yelling about being nice to the extent of tripping over themselves. But never mind if it's too much bother. I'll probably start a famous site-wide RfC for for such a small feature and see what interest it generates, it will get a consensus but it would be much ado about nothing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC) MPGuy2824, This suggestion of mine was suggested entirely independently and without knowledge of this by Sageross of the WMF during our video conference with the Director of Product. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC) I'm fairly certain this used to exist, but maybe it's wishful thinking. There are plenty of cases where a reviewer might message the creator without wanting to mark the page as reviewed. For example, by the time the next reviewer arrives, the creator may have addressed the issue. In any case, it will warn the reviewer that the creator has already been messaged. See the example of the added alert in red. This request has some overlap with an older ticket. I've changed the ticket details to encompass this scenario too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)As an extension to this feature - but on the 'Mark as reviewed' pane, apparently creators get a notification when their article has been reviewed, but are they automatically informed if a successful review is also accompanied by some tags on the article? The tags might not be a deal breaker for a review, but they are there because they nevertheless need to be addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC) When an article is tagged from the ""tags"" pane, a notification is shown to the creator. This is also an echo notification and not a talk page message. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)MPGuy2824, I'm not so sure that the creators we have to deal with even know what notifications are. The yellow banner for notifying of talk page messages is one thing (it was reduced in size a few yeas ago) but the little bell and the computer icons are really too small to be of any use. I propose that they should be RED and BLINK when there are notifications to be read. This is not a NPP specific suggestion, but it would NOT need a RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC) That would need a phab ticket for mw:Extension:Echo. I think it would need a discussion and consensus somewhere. Anything that visually affects every logged in editor would need consensus so that there isn't a major backlash when it is implemented and disliked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC) According to this quarry, the top-10 most commonly used tags are (in descending order): notability, stub, refimprove, one source, orphan, linkrot, unreferenced, uncategorized, copy edit and primary sources. The 'common' section of the toolbar has the following tags: under review, linkrot, copy edit, more footnotes, refimprove, unreferenced, stub, uncategorized and orphan. I'm not sure about 'under review', but we should remove ""more footnotes"" and add ""notability (General)"", ""one source"" and ""primary sources"" to the common section of the toolbar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Support. It's hard to argue with empirical data. Feel free to make an edit request at MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Maybe ""under review"" could warrant a discussion. It has been used only 17 times in 2 months. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Support - also agree that the ""Under review"" could be removed. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)" 286 289 631 WP: record charts WP: record charts 286 "This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts. It does not provide specifics of formatting tables, which is the subject of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts. === Suitable charts === A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets all of the following characteristics: It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Latin America, are legitimate sources of charts. It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources. It is static, that is, the data in the chart cannot change. This excludes dynamic ""all-time"" charts, such as the ones published by Hung Medien. === Single-vendor/single-network charts === Charts which rank material from a single vendor or network are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles. They should never be placed in discography tables or tables of charts. They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it. ""Special circumstances"" include notable controversies alleging chart manipulation, or cases where eligibility requirements prevented standard charts from recognizing the sales. This would include, for example, the noted resurgence of Michael Jackson related sales at the time of his death, when many chart rules prevented any of his album sales from being credited towards a chart position. Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located. Note, however, that while single-network charts do not satisfy the charting criterion, some network charts may fulfill other NMUSIC criteria instead. For example, CBC Radio 2's Radio 2 Top 20 chart in Canada is not considered a pass of the charting criterion, but does constitute a pass of NMUSIC #11 as proof that the artist has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Do not use this chart to support statements about specific chart positions or weeks-on, do not create or maintain ""List of number-one hits on the Radio 2 Top 20"" articles, and do not include it in discography listings as a record chart — use the chart solely to support statements about airplay on R2. === Dependent (""component"") charts === Charts are frequently related to one another mathematically. For example, the Billboard Hot 100 is derived by weighting positions on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, the Billboard Hot 100 Sales and Digital Songs, and the Billboard Hot 100 Streaming Songs. This means that in the vast majority of cases, any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on the other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article. In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales. This would be unusual enough to potentially warrant mention. Examples of dependent/component/mathematically related charts: Billboard Hot 100 Airplay – related to Billboard Hot 100 Billboard Hot 100 Sales charts – related to Billboard Hot 100 Billboard Hot 100 Streaming Songs – related to Billboard Hot 100 === Certifications === Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database. When such a database is not available, other reliable sources may be used, but they must directly state that the certifying agency has granted the certification. Many popular press articles will contain statements such as ""... has gone gold ..."" or ""... has gone platinum ..."" based on a sales figure, when, in fact, the certifying agency has not yet verified those sales and granted a certification. === Chart trajectories === A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the chart may be mentioned within the article text, but should not be included as routine data for all charts. === Charts with more than 200 positions === In general, chart positions over 200 should not be listed, as this usually represents a minor amount of sales and is considered excessive detail. This applies to any chart, be it single or album, weekly, yearly, decade or all-time. Amazon: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. America's Music Charts: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. ARC Weekly Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Argentina Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Argentina Singles Top 100 from charly1300.com. Per the chart description ...otros factores que cada semana varían y se modifican en el Ranking. Los datos que proporcionamos no son 100% verificables (Other factors that vary from week to week modify the rankings. The data is not 100% verifiable). Argentina Top 100 at argentinatop100.com.ar. Anonymous chart, with no explanation of methodology or source. Singles chart appears to be a one-week old copy of the chart from charly1300.com. Note: a valid Argentine albums chart exists at capif.org.ar and a singles chart at billboard.com.ar. Australia Country Tracks Top 30: This chart has been determined as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology; see Talk:2009 in country music. Note: The Australian Country Albums chart is published by ARIA and therefore acceptable for use. Australia does not seem to have a valid country singles chart. (Australia) hot100au.com: See hot100au.com/about/. This is an iTunes chart. See iTunes listed below. Beatport: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. The Big Top 40 Show Chart primarily based on iTunes data. Brazil Hot 100/Hot100Brasil: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the chart archive in this PDF file is a mirror of Brazil Hot 100. Note: see #WP:GOODCHARTS for a discussion of the Hot 100 Airplay chart from Billboard Brasil which, if properly sourced, is acceptable. Brazilian Singles Chart from allcharts.org is a mirror of Brazil Hot 100's ""Hot 100 Songs and Tracks"". Bulgarian National Top 40: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the chart at αCharts.us is a mirror of the Bulgarian National Top 40. Note: A legitimate Bulgarian chart is located at http://www.prophon.org/display.php Canadian Country Albums published by Jam!/Canoe. Chart positions are not archived and therefore impossible to verify. Chile Hot 100: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Chilean Singles Chart from Americatop100.com. This chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Colombia Top 100 from Americatop100.com. This charts was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Creative Disc. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Croatian Airplay Chart. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Croatian Singles Chart at ehot50.blog.hr : blog sourced chart. Croatian Singles Chart at www.soundguardian.com. No apparent notability. Validation of this chart compared to the airplay charts it claims to aggregate does not validate the chart. Cyprus Super Radio Chart This chart is a radio chart and it has not received an official status. Euro 200/APC-stats: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: the following charts are known to be mirrors of these charts:Portugal Singles Top 50 at αCharts.us Italian Albums Top 50 at αCharts.us Italian Singles Top 50 at αCharts.usNote: a valid Portuguese albums chart, based on AC Nielsen data, can be found portuguesecharts.com. Note: valid Italian albums and singles charts, can be found at www.fimi.it FDR Charts This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Greek Hot 75,Greek Dance, Greek Hype, Greek Pop, Greek Rock, Greek R&B & Latin, Greek Radio1 DJs: These charts from www.radio1.gr are all single network charts. Hungary Editor's Choice Top 40 at MAHASZ. The Editors' Choice Top 40 should not be used: this is a critic's list, not a reflection of sales or airplay. Indonesian Top 50: see ""Creative Disc"". Infodisc.fr : For singles (and albums before 1985 at http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_Historique.php), site uses various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, fictional chart positions. ISMAIV. The chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart. Italian Singles at αCharts.us: see Euro 200/APC-stats. Israeli Singles Chart at www.charts.co.il, http://www.glgltz.co.il/, http://pizmonet.co.il/ or https://90s.co.il/israel-number1. These charts are all single network charts, and incorporate user voting. iTunes: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Latin Areschart: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Latvian Airplay Top, Latvian Singles Chart This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. LCC Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and other Lithuania Charts Company charts: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Lithuanian Airplay Chart: This chart's article were deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Lithuanian Top 40 from music.lt. This chart is based on membership voting, and does not reflect verifiable sales or airplay. Los 40 Principales. Single network chart documenting playlist frequency on the same network. México Top 100 from Americatop100.com. This chart was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Mu-Mo: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. MYX Hit Chart, MYX Daily Top 10, Pinoy MYX Countdown: These charts were deleted by deletion discussion as non-notable charts with dubious methodology. Odyssey Albums Chart: Single vendor charts should not be used. Philippines Hot 100 prior to June 2017: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion (multiple times) as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. However, from June 2017, charts were provided by Billboard Philippines. In January 2018, the charts were discontinued and are now inactive. Polish National Top 50: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Note: a valid Polish albums chart can be found at olis.onyx.pl. Portuguese Singles at αCharts.us: see Euro 200/APC-stats. Radio Disney: Charts from countdown shows should not be used as they are not derived from verifiable sales and/or airplay totals. Now defunct. Recochoku: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Record Land: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Rolling Stone Top 200 Albums: Chart allows albums to chart prior to release based solely on song streams and sales. See: discussion. Serbian Pop Top Lista: ""TOP 50 SRBIJA"" chart at poptoplista.com. Rankings are apparently combinations of radio airplay in Serbia with votes of Web site visitors. Spanish Singles Chart on allcharts.org. This is a mirror of Los 40 Principales, which is listed above. Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Tokio Hot 100 Single network airplay chart. Top Latino: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. Ukraine: see FDR Charts above. United States Billboard Twitter Real-Time charts: See WP:SINGLENETWORK. United World Chart, Global Top 40 Albums, Media Traffic: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology. This chart is also used to compile the data for the winners of the World Music Awards, which as of 2021 have been on a seven-year hiatus. ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks Countdowns (VH1 Top 20 Video Countdown, TeenNick Top 10 and CMT Hot Twenty, among others): Both the CMT and VH1 programs (the VH1 program ended in December 2015) formerly used a mix of network airplay and radio popularity with some minor viewer feedback to compile their lists, but now only depend entirely on viewer text messaging and internet voting to compile their lists and encourage multiple votes, along with a limited pool of videos chosen by viewers to fill the list. TeenNick's countdown was subject to the same issues, along with producer and host input (the host, Nick Cannon, had a full executive role with the network and has used the network to promote his produced acts in the past) to influence how the videos chart; it ended in 2018, leaving CMT Hot Twenty as the only active program among the three. Vietnamese YanTV We10: A music chart which is published by YanTV and based on viewer's choice. Worf Music Awards: Probably non-existent award, mass-added to various artist pages at one point. See deleted by deletion discussion. World Albums Top 40/World Singles Top 40: These listings on acharts.us are mirrors of the United World Chart. Charts Around the World: Reproduces information that can be found on other reliable sources or sources whose origins are unknown. See discussion. americatop100.com – Sourcing for these charts is indeterminate. Charly1300.com – Reproduces some data available from Recommended charts. Other available chart information is of unsystematic or uncertain origin. Chartblue.com – Indeterminate methodology. chartdata.org – Reproduces some data available from Recommended charts. Other available chart information is of unsystematic or uncertain origin. Also applies to their Twitter account. chartmasters.org – Falls under WP:SPS, and there's no indication of where the figures are from. hitparadeitalia.it – Hobbyist web site, uses various sources to recreate, through his own methodology, fictional national charts. kworb.net – Mostly compiles airplay data from Mediabase along with normalized popularity values for tracks in the iTunes Store; in particular, the sales estimates page should not be cited under any circumstance, as the provided figures on the page are merely estimated and are not based on official data. Madonna-charts.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. Mariah-charts.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. mediatraffic.de – Unclear methodology, unknown sourcing. slokylie.com – Fan site, indeterminate methodology. top40-charts.com – Unclear methodology, unknown sourcing. Tsort.info/music/ – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Exceptions appear to be sourced from single-station airplay or single-vendor sales figures. twitter.com/chartnews – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Sales figures appear to be obtained from a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, including mediatraffic.de; in some cases, provided sales figures do not match those from recommended sources provided concurrently. uk-charts.top-source.info, www.uk-charts.co.uk – Hobbyist web site, indeterminate sourcing and methodology. UKchartsplus.co.uk – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources. www.worldmusicawards.com – Although this is an actual (sometimes) televised awards show (with an admittedly shaky history), the articles found under the ""News"" section of its official website should not be cited, as the text of these articles is copied verbatim from mediatraffic.de, including the dubious sales data. chartsaroundtheworld.com – Reproduces information that can be found on other reliable sources or sources whose origins are unknown. See discussion. The following charts are recommended for use, although some archives of these charts are specifically deprecated. These are charts which are believed to meet all requirements for inclusion, and have reliable, licensed archives of positions which allow for stable and reliable referencing. Many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems. The Romanian Top 100, for example, appears to be a reliable chart, but no stable searchable archive is available. These charts can be included so long as care is taken in providing a reliable source for the information. If only the latest version of a chart is published online, please add it to Wikipedia:Record charts/List. The list is archived to the Wayback Machine at least twice every week. Many countries have a digital songs chart compiled by Nielsen SoundScan International and published in Billboard Magazine in the Hits of the World page. The following charts are acceptable and are deemed as reliable sources for use. However these charts do not have a searchable database or are archived by the website. In order to prevent WP:LINKROT, the source must be manually archived using the Internet Archive or another similar service. === Billboard charts === For a complete list of Billboard charts and general information see Billboard charts. In the United States Billboard publishes songs and albums charts based on data from Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen BDS. This guide is designed to help editors to determine which charts are acceptable for use on Wikipedia in which circumstances. Below is the chart matrix for this purpose. The guide contains the official and current names for the charts as of April 2010, with the exception of the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), also known as either the Mainstream Top 40 or the Pop Songs chart. On Wikipedia, it is located at a page using both names (one as a disambiguator). When listing the chart in chart tables list it exactly as its page is named: Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). Billboard magazine is the provider of US charts; however, its use on Wikipedia when mentioning charts should be limited: i.e., charts should simply be referred to as US followed by the chart name. The only two exceptions to this rule are the Billboard Hot 100 and the Billboard 200, which should include Billboard as it is a part of the actual chart name. Sourcing Billboard chartsAs with all record charts, you should first try to source each chart directly from the Billboard.com website. Ideally, the citation should link to the Billboard page for the song in question, through the artist's discography / chart history page there. Note, however, that the Billboard archives are sometimes incomplete, particularly on older and/or lesser-known artists. Any of the books by Joel Whitburn may also be used to verify chart positions. On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to a Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the corresponding chart [i.e., Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (do not add 50 to a Bubbling Under peak on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs after October 2012)]. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e., the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable. If an artist has had Bubbling Under entries but no songs that entered the Hot 100 proper, or has had multiple Bubbling Under entries, discography tables may use a separate ""Bubbling Under"" column to save on footnotes. Also, when creating singles tables, do not include charts on which the artist has never appeared—a Hot 100 column is not mandatory if the artist never charted on the Hot 100. It is recommended that you use the {{single chart}} template where possible. ==== Song charts ==== ==== Album charts ==== Notes" 287 290 632 WP:LISTCRUFT Wikipedia:Listcruft 287 "Listcruft is a term some editors use to refer to indiscriminate or trivial lists. The term derives from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program. The term is a neologism largely restricted to Wikipedia and its mirrors; as such, it is inappropriate for use in the text of articles (per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references), although it is freely used in certain article tags and on article talk pages. In general, a ""List of X"" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. In particular, if X is an encyclopedic topic, the X page should not consist only of a ""list of X"", in effect ostensively defining the topic. Effort should be made to write an article which verifiably defines and characterizes the topic first.Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out. On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics. Embedded (within-article) lists may also be crufty, especially when they are indiscriminate collections of unimportant or irrelevant miscellanea (trivia). If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it generally indicates they believe the list would not be expected to be included in an encyclopedia. More specifically, an editor's use of the term listcruft generally indicates they are asserting that one or more of the following are true: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information The content is unverifiable: the underlying concept is non-notable or poorly defined The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas. The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic.Generally speaking, the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it might not be the sole factor. In such cases, this perception is generally challenged by those voting for retention. List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker List of people who have ears List of dog names List of groups of eight people List of listcrufty lists Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to many people with disabilities Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN) Wikipedia:Too much detail Wikipedia:Fancruft Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Wikipedia:Overlistification Wikipedia:Example cruft List of lists of lists" 288 291 634 WP:UKDISTRICTS Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts 288 "The article naming policy, particularly WP:Common name and WP:Precise, indicates that we should use the name commonly used in reliable sources, and that if we need to disambiguate that we use a natural title if possible before we resort to brackets. We also have the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) guideline, which for Administrative subdivisions suggests ""do what English does"". For example Hundreds should be written and titled as Hundred of Foo, Foo Hundred, or simply Foo (if unique), rather than Foo (hundred). Isles of Scilly and City of London are unique London boroughs take the form London Borough of Hackney Royal boroughs take the form Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (overrides London borough) Metropolitan boroughs without ambiguity are just the name, such as Trafford Metropolitan boroughs with ambiguity take the form Metropolitan Borough of Oldham Non-metropolitan districts (including unitary authorities) without ambiguity are just the name, such as Allerdale or Thurrock Non-metropolitan districts with local ambiguity depend on the district/borough status, such as Bolsover District (with no status) or Borough of Bedford (with borough status) Non-metropolitan districts with non-local ambiguity have the county name suffixed as in South Holland, Lincolnshire Unitary districts with local ambiguity with no status take the form Shropshire (district) A district that has city status is named City of Westminster or City of Salford (overrides all the above) except Brighton and Hove In around 38 cases the district is considered to occupy a similar area as a settlement and in these places the article name follows the WP:UKPLACE convention for settlements, with only one combined article for the district and settlement (this overrides all the above): Abolished districts, Bath, Somerset, Bournemouth (unitary), Brighton, Christchurch, Dorset, Gillingham, Kent, Great Grimsby, Hereford, Hove, Northampton, Poole (unitary) === Districts that are also settlements === In most cases two articles are used. The district takes the form as outlined above and the settlement takes the name according to normal naming conventions. Single articles are generally created where the settlement/district matches most of the following criteria: The built-up area closely matches the boundaries of the district with little or no rural hinterland There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district The ONS population for the settlement is roughly the same, or larger than the district The current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974 There are very few or preferably no civil parishes in the districtSome tables can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/District split for some controversial/borderline ones. Sometimes the district is not named for the largest settlement, such as Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley and Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, in which case two articles should be used. Where one article is used, WP:UKCITIES gives guidance about article structure. === Districts that are also counties === Bristol, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, County Durham, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, City of London, Northumberland, Rutland, Shropshire and Wiltshire are special cases as they are ceremonial counties as well as districts. WP:UKCOUNTIES gives guidance for those articles. Other unitary authorities should be dealt with in a similar fashion to other districts. County Durham (district), Dorset (district) and Shropshire (district) have separate articles to their ceremonial counties, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, East Riding of Yorkshire and Wiltshire currently do not though their councils such as Buckinghamshire Council exist and Bristol, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, City of London, Northumberland and Rutland have the same area as their ceremonial counties and do not need separate articles. A variety of infoboxes have been used in the past. However, all district articles should be using {{Infobox settlement}}. Most districts' boundaries date from 1974 (or 1965 for London boroughs) meaning that is the start date for the scope of the article. However, some districts were reconstituted with exactly the same boundaries or only minor changes, when this is the case the article's scope should deal with the previous district as well. Examples: Borough of Chorley and Municipal Borough of Chorley, major boundary changes so current borough only from 1974, if older district doesn't have a separate article it should redirects to the settlement namely Municipal Borough of Wokingham goes to Wokingham not Borough of Wokingham, unparished area category given to settlement Chorley Borough of Blackpool, no changes in 1974 so older County Borough of Blackpool redirects to current district and thus does not get a separate article, unparished area category given to district Borough of Slough, changes in 1974 that may qualify as major so Municipal Borough of Slough exists, there were some changes in 1995 but stayed as a non-metropolitan district so 1 article from 1974-present, unparished area category given to settlement Slough City of Gloucester, no changes in 1974 but Quedgeley parish moved in 1991, if split district should deal with the pre-1974 County Borough of Gloucester as well however the settlement should deal with the unparished area (the pre-1991 boundaries) and should have the unparished area category Epsom and Ewell, no changes in 1974 so deals with the older Municipal Borough of Epsom and Ewell as well and is given the unparished area category Blaby District, same boundaries as older Blaby Rural District so deals with pre-1974 as well Stevenage, no major changes in 1974 so if split would also deal with the older urban districtAs noted above many reconstituted districts such as Eastbourne are combined with the settlement but this point deals with how the article should be structured if it is decided to split. Some like ""Epsom and Ewell"" are not settlements but are still reconstituted. An exception is York since the 1995 order said ""The existing city of York shall be abolished"" when the boundary changes and unitary status came in. This means election articles prior to 1996 should link to the settlement (or older district) not the post 1996 City of York. When district articles become large enough, details about the local authority (council) often get moved to a separate article. This should be avoided until there is enough content to support two articles as they can easily become forks or mirrors of each other (for example Colchester Borough Council redirects to Borough of Colchester) unless like Eastbourne/Eastbourne Borough Council (see above) the district doesn't have a separate article. Each article has a related category within Category:Districts of England. All articles relating to things within the district are contained within the category. The categories are further subdivided by features (i.e. Transport in X, Buildings and structures in X) not by further geographic precision." 289 292 635 WP:CITEUNSEEN User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen 289 "Cite Unseen is a user script that adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, providing readers and editors a quick initial evaluation of citations at a glance. This helps guide users on the nature and reliability of sources, and to help identify sources that may potentially be problematic or should be used with caution (key word is may - see the usage guide below). Cite Unseen's categorization dataset currently holds over 3,400 domains in 18 categories. These categories include: Perennial sources list statuses (generally reliable; marginally reliable; generally unreliable; deprecated; blacklisted) Advocacy groups; books; blogs; user-generated news; editable sites; state media; news; opinion pieces; press releases; social media sites; tabloids; and TV and radio programs Predatory journals listed on the predatory source listInitially developed at CredCon in November 2018, Cite Unseen was jointly developed by Kevin Payravi (SuperHamster) and Josh Lim (Sky Harbor), with support from the Credibility Coalition and the Knowledge Graph Working Group. The project saw more development at Wikimedia Hackathon 2019. == Installation == The script is located at User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js. You can add the script to your Wikipedia browsing experience by editing your common.js file and adding the following line: {{subst:iusc|User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js}} Cite Unseen will automatically run whenever you open a Wikipedia page. Before using, please read the usage guidelines below. It's particularly important to keep in mind that while Cite Unseen is here to guide you, it does not evaluate context and should not justify editing decisions. === Configuration === By default, all icon types will be shown except for resources that are considered generally reliable per the perennial sources list, to reduce clutter. You can toggle icons on or off by pasting the following in your CiteUnseen-Rules.js page, and adjusting the true/false values however you wish. cite_unseen_ruleset = { ""advocacy"": true, ""blogs"": true, ""books"": true, ""community"": true, ""editable"": true, ""government"": true, ""news"": true, ""opinions"": true, ""predatory"": true, ""press"": true, ""rspDeprecated"": true, ""rspBlacklisted"": true, ""rspGenerallyUnreliable"": true, ""rspMarginallyReliable"": true, ""rspGenerallyReliable"": false, ""rspMulti"": true, ""social"": true, ""tabloids"": true } == Usage == Once installed, Cite Unseen will automatically analyze and annotate references you come across. When it finds a match in its categorization dataset, it will add a categorical icon (refer to the chart below). You can hover over an icon to get more details about the categorization. Important points to keep in mind while using Cite Unseen: Context matters. Sources that are considered generally unreliable can still have valid use. For example, while we typically avoid citing social media, social media posts may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. And while we typically try to avoid self-published blogs and other user-generated content, they may still be acceptable when authored by established subject-matter experts (see WP:SPS for more). Evaluate. The point of Cite Unseen is to highlight the nature of sources, and to prompt you to think about potential concerns with a source. Just because a source has a concerning mark does not automatically mean it is being used inappropriately. You should never justify removing or adding a source solely because of information that Cite Unseen provides; you need to do your own homework as well. It does not cover everything. There is an endless trove of resources out there, and we can't categorize all of them. You'll find many citations that Cite Unseen won't mark up; this does not indicate anything other than that it either (a) does not fit in an existing category or (b) more commonly, it simply hasn't been categorized. It is not always right. Cite Unseen looks at citation types and does string-matching against URLs. While generally successful, it's possible for Cite Unseen to misidentify a source. Sometimes reliable sources are hosted on an unreliable site. For example, editors citing a book may link to its listing on Amazon.com, which is classified as generally unreliable. This will cause the citation to be marked as generally unreliable even if the book itself is fine. Situations like these are something to keep in mind while investigating the usage of a source. === Classifications === Cite Unseen classifies sources into eighteen categories. == Contributing == We're always looking to expand and tune our categorizations. Please place any questions or ideas on the talk page. If you're interested in touching the code itself: GitHub Repository categorized-domains.json (for categorized domains) categorized-strings.json (for categorized non-domain strings) Phabricator Board === Next steps === Some of the next big goals for the project: Expand our lists of identified domains In particular, news sites and government-controlled sources Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (WP:A/S) (music-related sources) Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (WP:VG/S) (video game sources) The Wikipedia CiteWatch (WP:CITEWATCH) Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide (WP:NPPSG) (sources encountered by new page patrollers) Support multiple language versions of Wikipedia == Technical implementation == Cite Unseen performs string matching on URLs, as well as checks for different types of citation templates, in order to identify the kind of work and any potential ideological leanings. Cite Unseen is implemented in JavaScript. When Cite Unseen is run, it does the following: Iterates through every citation in a given Wikipedia article and pulls URLs. Checks each URL against a pre-defined list of domains and strings that are categorized by nature (biased, press, news, opinion piece, etc.). Injects icons next to citations accordingly. == See also == Perennial sources list on Wikipedia, documenting community consensus on the reliability of sources. The Sourceror API by User:Newslinger, delivering the perennial sources list in structured format. User:Headbomb/unreliable, another user script that highlights links based on the perennial sources list, {{Predatory open access source list}}, and WP:CITEWATCH." 290 293 637 WP:FAN Wikipedia:Fancruft 290 "Fancruft is a term sometimes used on Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program. While ""fancruft"" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by them being a fan. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contain original research. These issues may contribute to deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be ""indiscriminate collections of information"". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research. The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole. Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is, nevertheless, in common use there. However, this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies. The question of what material is encyclopedic is likely to remain hotly debated. That said, the issue becomes more muddled when the topic is (part of) a piece of fiction. The term ""fancruft"" is most commonly applied to fictional works and pop culture. It is, of course, possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism). Some works of fiction are particularly likely to inspire articles that may be criticized as fancruft, particularly works with a great number of characters, places, events, and important objects, such as the Star Wars universe, which spans several feature films as well as hundreds of novels and other media; the Star Trek universe, which spans several TV series comprising multitudes of episodes, films, and countless novels; and the Pokémon universe, a popular media franchise which has more than 1200 characters, including more than 800 species. Fan fiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopedic. === Popularity === Debates often arise between contributors who point out that the topic on which they are writing is popular (and thus important) and those who believe that, regardless of a fictional universe's popularity, having well over 500 articles devoted to specific episodes of The Simpsons, an American animated television series and a single article on Paradise Lost makes Wikipedia appear biased towards pop culture and against ""serious"" subjects such as the Western canon. Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor. However, the issue of systemic bias is a real one, as is the issue of bias in the form of deletion of verifiable material on the vague grounds of it being ""unencyclopedic."" === Tone and focus === One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception. In fact, an article should not be entirely composed of summaries or biographies of fictional characters. Articles can often avoid being labeled fancruft if they avoid focusing on their subjects as fiction. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more about how to achieve this. There is also a positive side to the act of describing an article as containing cruft; those who would keep the information in it are stimulated to produce a better article to avoid deletion, or merge several unviably small articles into one with clearer focus. Concentrating, say, minor characters in a series can be good for them, as giving them what some may consider the ""appropriate"" amount of attention may avoid their complete removal from the encyclopedia. If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved. If there is an insufficient amount of reliable source coverage on the topic, the focus of the discussion should be WP:Notability. More likely, the article will lack a hook—one or more interesting facts to attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic. Here, the general focus of the discussion should be What Wikipedia is not (importance conveyed by sources) rather than WP:Notability (coverage by sources). In the context of WP:NOT, the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish. The WP:NOT question then may be whether the problem is merely a failure to include available, interesting facts (e.g., style of writing) or whether the article should be deleted under What Wikipedia is not. Instead of immediately listing a potential WP:NOT article for deletion, it may be better to prompt those interested in the article to improve the article. There are many style of writing templates available, one of which probably will best fit the situation. {{Advert}}, {{essay-entry}}, {{fansite}}, {{gameguide}}, {{howto}}, {{likeresume}}, {{newsrelease}}, {{fanpov}}, and {{quotefarm}} are just some of the templates available at style of writing templates. Post an appropriate template on the article page and set up a discussion on the talk page. If the article is not moved out of fancruft status in five days, then consider listing the article for deletion." 291 295 640 WP:cruftcruft WP:cruftcruft 291 "Cruftcruft or meta-cruft (a reduplication of the word cruft to mean ""cruft on the topic of cruft""), is a term used to refer to editorial and policy issues often encountered in the course of dealing with Articles for Deletion (AfD). Before moving on to ""cruftcruft"", one must first analyze ""cruft"" on its own. An example !vote at AfD might say: Delete as cruft. –Crufthater 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)""Cruft"" originated in hackerdom, where it was used to mean ""something which [is] badly designed, poorly implemented, or redundant."" It was picked up in popular culture, where it has been defined as ""useless junk or excess materials"", and ultimately to describe ""material which is typically lacking in quality, selectively biased, of a poor nature and of interest only to a small audience."" Unfortunately, this definition's lack of any objective criteria leaves ""cruft"" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully unencyclopedic, ""cruft"" can become any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in. === Don't call things cruft === While declaring something to be ""cruft"" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Although ""cruft"" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not necessarily be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information, use of the word can cause offence as it is ""needlessly aggressive and needlessly insults the contributors ... It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes civil discussion."" Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be ""cruft"", should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed. Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's cacophony is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again, unless a policy is adopted that prohibits fair use material on Wikipedia, the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the ""cruft"" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called ""cruft"" has potential. Almost always used as justification for a delete !vote in an Article for Deletion discussion. Options other than delete not often considered. Often accompanied by the two-letter abbreviation ""NN"" (non-notable) as a justification for deletion. Use of the word ""Cruft"", commonly found in portmanteau forms, such as ""listcruft"", ""gamecruft"", and the nearly all-inclusive ""Vanispamcruftisement"". Wikipedia policies and guidelines are seldom referenced. Various essays have been created to describe supposed variations of the ""cruft"" problem: Wikipedia:Discussing cruft Wikipedia:Fancruft Wikipedia:Listcruft Wikipedia:Schoolcruft Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Cruftcruft covers editorial and policy issues including the following, though anything corresponding to relevant Wikipedia policy is traditionally ignored: Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Copyrights What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Criteria for Speedy Deletion Conflicts of interest Guidelines on external linking Wikipedia:Copyrights === Other Wikipedians' commentaries on this area === Wikipedia:Complete bollocks Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon User:Jamyskis/Wiki-Hell Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell Wikipedia:Listcruft Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia:Article development Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 35#Why inclusion matters Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 24#Why inclusion of fictional subjects matters Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion" 292 296 641 WP:NA Wikipedia:WikiProject North America 292 Welcome to WikiProject North America. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of North America and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. To balance articles with transnational scope, which currently have focus on one region or country To reduce content conflicts from national points-of-view on shared issues between nations of North America To expand coverage on North American topics that predate the establishment of the countries and states of North America North America (including Canada, United States, Mexico, Greenland, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Gulf of Mexico, the Grand Banks, Georges Bank, Laurentian Abyss, continental shelf (outside of Russia)). Covers historical entities that existed before the modern nations and states came about. Covers transnational issues and regions that cross international borders. Offers regional supranational coordination for North American issues that are not restricted to one nation. ? === Active participants === To join WikiProject North America, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of participants. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. Sven Manguard - I'm in. 07bargem - Here to help! Alex Covarrubias - With my doubts... I join this project. Mexico + Canada + US = North America. Hell yes! ^_^ Matthewedwards : Chat - Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk (Mostly US of A, tiny bit of Canada) Tlakuache (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I really want to help Mario from Guatemala AKA Guate-man Guatemala Wackywace converse | contribs 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ray from Arizona AKA Ray (I am interested in joining this group)20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Alpha Quadrant talk Matt Clementz - I'm interested in all aspects of the project, but particularly those involving the US of A. HiLo48 - Geography and history nut here. And keen to shrink US- and English language-centrism when it happens. JC Mena - I'm intersted to join, in all stuff involving Mexico,USA, Canada, Greenland and other North Atlantic islands. The Interior - Excited by the concept, we (Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans) need to encourage more neighbourly goodwill. The Interior(Talk) HospitalityGuru Im sold! KarniFro( Talk to me) (U.S. and Mexico mostly) KF5LLG I live in North America. Wikih101 I live in the United States but also visit Canada frequently. Darlaspek (talk · contribs) (I'm interested in all aspects of the project, but mostly those involving US and Canada International relations). Calidum (talk · contribs). Mainly U.S., Canada, Caribbean. Calidum 04:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Callyn120 (talk · contribs) Interested in the geographical, historical, and political impact of greater North American cooperation. ferminmx (talk · contribs) (Mostly interested in The Californias (region) and Mexico, but I'm also interested in improving the coverage of North America as a whole.) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Royalmate1 (talk · contribs) Evancahill (talk · contribs) I come from Wikiprojects California, Guns N' Roses, Star Wars, Ecology, Animals, Mammals, and United States, and the task forces Southern California and Santa Barbara County. Lightningmist (talk · contribs) I might help with Santa Barbara County, California, USA nature related stuff. North America1000 22:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Buaidh 22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC) geography, geology, and mountains. See List of mountain peaks of North America NYCRuss (talk · contribs) Prisencolin (talk · contribs) Yy958 (talk · contribs) I'd love to join the project, and see where I can help out with maintaining articles on 20th century North American culture. Wiki129 (talk · contribs) USA TigerScientist (talk · contribs) Mostly animals but some geology and dinosaurs WikiIsKnowledge Anything US of A or Canada related :) TheGables I've been doing a lot on South Florida but interested in other areas too. Mostly focused on people, organizations, universities, buildings, transportation, etc. IamFilipinoProud (talk · contribs) 21:56:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC) I am not Filipinese Zpro1408 (talk · contribs) 14:02:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Keystone18 (talk · contribs) U.S. states, cities, towns, companies, organizations, and people, mostly in the Mid-Atlantic region. 06:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC) === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. === Participant identification === WikiProject North America participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject North America participants. For other North America user templates see Category:North America user templates. === Featured content === ==== Candidates ==== === Recognized content === ==== Featured articles ==== ==== Former featured lists ==== ==== Good articles ==== ==== Former good articles ==== ==== Did you know? articles ==== ==== Featured pictures ==== ==== Featured portals ==== ==== Former featured portals ==== ==== In the News articles ==== ==== Main page featured articles ==== ==== Picture of the day pictures ==== ==== Featured topics ==== ==== Good topics ==== === New articles === Please feel free to list your new North America-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,500 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. === Article alerts === === Article cleanup === A cleanup listing is available. See the complete list or ordered by type ==== Unreferenced BLPs ==== ==== Articles needing attention ==== === Assessment === Assessment === Peer review === Peer review === Statistics === === Logs === === Periodicals === The following periodicals are indexed on subscription databanks for the time periods indicated. The specific material may be available in audio, video, citation, abstract, or full text versions. To obtain information, send me an e-mail with your e-mail address and the specific subject of interest, and I will forward to you the information I find. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Americas: A Quarterly Review of Inter-American Culture and History (1977-on) === Sisterlinks === === Related WikiProjects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Wikipedia:WikiProject Greenland Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 293 297 642 WP:CAE Wikipedia:Candidates and elections 293 "This page is a style guide for articles on campaigns and elections and a notability-criteria guideline for articles on candidates for public office. Wikipedia is neither a news service nor an almanac. Many Wikipedia editors believe elections themselves are worthy of inclusion, as evidenced by the dozens of articles about elections in the project. If elections are worthy of inclusion, it logically follows that information on the candidates in those elections should be included. That does not mean, however, that all candidates for office should automatically receive their own articles in Wikipedia. Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability. In the past, election seasons have resulted in floods of articles on candidates for office. Some of them have contained little more than brief biographies of the candidates, sometimes taken directly from campaign websites. Articles for Deletion has been clogged with such articles. This page is an attempt to bring some order to the situation. As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, it would be preferable if articles on elections were written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written. This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. Merger of the candidate articles into the election article may well improve Wikipedia. Articles on elections fall into two categories: elections in which candidates are as important as parties (such as nonpartisan races and all American elections) and elections in which parties are more important than candidates (such as parliamentary elections in the UK and Canada). For the first type of election, each individual race should receive its own article. They should be named as follows: U.S. Senate election: U.S. Senate election, Michigan, 2006 U.S. House election: U.S. House of Representatives election, New York 20th district, 2006 State-legislative election: Arizona state Senate election, 14th district, 2006For Westminster System elections and other elections in which parties are more important, basic information on candidates should be included in articles listing a party's candidates for the election. For example: Green Party candidates, British Columbia legislative election, 2005 For many candidates, a good deal of independent, verifiable information should be available. It can include: Current and previous jobs and work experience Views on issues (briefly; major, notable issues only) Endorsements from notable groups Campaign strategies Amount of funds raised and funds on hand Major, notable donors, or summary information about where campaign funding has come from News events from the campaign Opinion-poll results Personal information: birth-year, college education, military service, what spouse doesTry to stay away from too much detail on the candidate's life outside of politics unless it is relevant to the election or otherwise noteworthy. That a candidate was named Funeral Home Owner of the Year and was president of the local PTA might make for good campaign-brochure text but is unlikely to be of interest to readers of the encyclopedia. If this kind of information is all that's available on a candidate, you can include it in an article on the race or party, but you shouldn't create an article on the candidate himself or herself. Sources for information on candidates and elections can include local newspaper stories, information from community organizations, politics websites and many other media. Campaign literature and websites may be used for some things; if an official campaign website says a candidate opposes abortion, you can say the candidate is against abortion. Be wary, though, that a candidate's own literature will leave significant gaps in information. It is no substitute for independent information. If a candidate lacks a standalone article, you can make a redirect from the person's name to the article on the election or party. For example, if Joe Schmo is running for parliament on the Anti-Metric Party ticket, you can redirect from Joe Schmo to Anti-Metric Party candidates, 2006 Fredonia federal election. Even if a candidate runs in more than one election, there might not be enough independent, verifiable information available about him or her to merit a standalone article. In that case, you can make the page at the candidate's name a disambiguation page, as follows: Joe Bloe is an American politician who ran or is running in the following elections: U.S. Senate election, Ohio, 2004 Ohio 10th congressional district election, 2006 One concern about articles on elections is that biographical information on candidates may change after the election. If you write, ""Smith is a lawyer,"" the information will become incorrect if Smith changes careers. It's unrealistic to expect future editors to follow the careers of every defeated candidate for office. If you change the sentence after the election to read, ""Smith was a lawyer,"" it may lead readers to believe Smith is no longer a lawyer, even if he still is. The best way to avoid this situation is to avoid verbs for biographical information that might change in the future. In the above case, you could write, ""Fred Smith, a lawyer"", when you mention the occupation of Smith, as part of a listing of candidates. (Another example: ""Jones is running against Smith, a class action lawyer."" After the election, the word ""is running"" can be changed to ""ran"" without any concern as to whether Smith remains a lawyer.) Sample article about party candidates Sample article about an electoral race Wikipedia:Political endorsements Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics" 294 298 645 WP:CHEMISTRY Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry 294 "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to chemistry. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there. The Chemistry portal is maintained at Portal:Chemistry and the project banner is {{WikiProject Chemistry}}. We also have a structure drawing workgroup and a Gold Book workgroup. Chemistry articles considered of vital importance to Wikipedia are listed on the expanded vital articles list. This Wikiproject strives to incorporate the collaborative efforts of those with interests within chemistry and related areas into the articles and therefore the overall quality of the Wikipedia. In order to maintain a high-level of scientific and encyclopedic articles, and as members of this wikiproject, and even Wikipedia itself, we have a duty to provide accurate verifiable information. We allow anyone to participate within the wikiproject, collaborate, edit and participate in our article development drives, under the following conditions; When new information is added, try to find at least one reference of where you got it from. When you're adding new information... Make sure it's not already in the article or Wikipedia. Make sure that you verify it yourself with at least ONE other source before adding. Verify ALL formulae before adding. === Goals === The overall goals of this project are to coordinate activities relating to chemistry, and to improve the quality of chemistry-related articles. Based on initial comments from project participants, the following SMART goals are proposed for the project (December 5th 2005). All articles will be assessed for their quality and completeness, and this will be tracked on the worklist. Please leave comments in the goals discussion on the talk page. Write a full page for each of the major sub-disciplines within chemistry. Write a full page for 30 important concepts such as solution, from a variety of areas of chemistry. Write a full page for a selection of 40 ""giants of chemistry"" such as Antoine Lavoisier, covering all history. 15 of these should be historical figures from early history up to the 18th century, while another 15 should have been active during the 19th century. The last 10 should be from the 20th and 21st century. Write a full page for 10 major classes of chemical reactions such as nucleophilic substitution. Write a full page for 10 important chemical processes used in industry, e.g. Contact process. Write 20 complete articles on common laboratory techniques (e.g., filtration) and analytical techniques. Write a full article covering the 12 major organic functional groups using the class name, such as aldehyde. Write a full article for 12 ions, including the ammonium ion and 11 major anions such as chloride. Write a full article for 10 major topics in physical chemistry,principally in chemical kinetics and chemical thermodynamics. === Articlebot alerts === Did you know 18 Mar 2023 – Tina Brower-Thomas (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 19 Dec 2022 – Organoargon chemistry (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fram (t · c) was closed as merge by Vanamonde93 (t · c) on 02 Jan 2023; see discussion (9 participants; relisted)Proposed deletions 02 Jan 2023 – Cheapium (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Rorshacma (t · c) was deletedCategories for discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Category:Iraqi physical chemists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Estopedist1 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Category:Lithuanian physical chemists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Estopedist1 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 14 Jan 2023 – Category:Decommissioned nuclear power stations (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Jnestorius (t · c) was closed; see discussionFeatured article candidates 14 Jan 2023 – La Salute è in voi (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by Czar (t · c) was promoted; see discussionGood article nominees 03 Mar 2023 – Electron backscatter diffraction (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FuzzyMagma (t · c); start discussion 11 Oct 2022 – Europium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussionGood article reassessments 09 Feb 2023 – Persistent carbene (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 08 Feb 2023 – Amino acid (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 07 Feb 2023 – Oligonucleotide synthesis (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 07 Feb 2023 – X-ray crystallography (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 07 Feb 2023 – Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 07 Feb 2023 – Atomic theory (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussionRequested moves 14 Mar 2023 – Still (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Still (distillation) by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Gasoline (talk · edit · hist) move request to Petrol (gasoline) by Sri Harsha Bhogi (t · c) was withdrawn; see discussion 06 Mar 2023 – Heinrich Debus (chemist) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Heinrich Debus by BilledMammal (t · c) was closed; see discussion 06 Mar 2023 – Christoph Kohl (chemist) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Christoph Kohl by BilledMammal (t · c) was closed; see discussion 03 Jan 2023 – Asphalt (talk · edit · hist) move request to Bitumen by EchidnaLives (t · c) was closed; see discussion 29 Dec 2022 – Manganese(III) chloride (talk · edit · hist) move request to binary manganese(III) chloride by RoBunsen (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 26 Dec 2022 – Salt (chemistry) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Salts by Rreagan007 (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 25 Dec 2022 – Electric battery (talk · edit · hist) move request to Battery (electric) by 121.98.204.148 (t · c) was not moved; see discussionArticles to be merged 14 Jan 2023 – Cumomer (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Isotopomer by Ost316 (t · c); see discussion 29 Oct 2022 – Homology (chemistry) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Homologous series by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2022 – Monosaccharide nomenclature (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Monosaccharide by CrafterNova (t · c); see discussion 26 May 2022 – Non-faradaic electrochemical modification of catalytic activity (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Electrochemical promotion of catalysis by Herravondure (t · c); see discussion 26 May 2022 – Electrochemical promotion of catalysis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Non-faradaic electrochemical modification of catalytic activity by Herravondure (t · c); see discussion 15 May 2022 – Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Residual topology by Herravondure (t · c); see discussion 15 May 2022 – Residual topology (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures by Herravondure (t · c); see discussion 09 Feb 2023 – Biosequestration (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to carbon sequestration by EMsmile (t · c) was closed; see discussionArticles to be split 01 Jun 2021 – Lithium metal battery (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Thomaszwilling (t · c); see discussion 08 Nov 2020 – Photoacid (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 14 Jun 2019 – Dow process (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 86.99.23.142 (t · c); see discussion 16 May 2019 – Peptidomimetic (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Okhil Kumar Medhi (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Daredevil 19888 (t · c) 26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Green solvent (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Evexia15 (t · c) 09 Mar 2023 – Draft:Evgen Multia (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 28 Feb 2023 – Draft:Ammonium hexachlorotellurate (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Vibzzlab (t · c) 27 Feb 2023 – Draft:BioTechnology Corporation of America (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Pghmedicine (t · c) 09 Feb 2023 – Draft:Ellen Inutan (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Zerotwo.bern (t · c) 29 Jan 2023 – Draft:Yafang Cheng (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by SusanneBenner (t · c) 06 Jan 2023 – Draft:Anna K. H. Hirsch (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by CML0815 (t · c) 05 Dec 2022 – Draft:Kathryn Peddrew (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Patrick439 (t · c) 02 Dec 2022 – Draft:FITTED (Software) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by OuthouseDecorator (t · c)(42 more...)" 295 299 647 WP:GBT Wikipedia:Google Books and Metadata Errors 295 "Google Books is an extremely valuable resource for research and reference identification. It is essential to use this tool with caution, however. Google Books is prone to errors, some of which can be extremely substantial. For some sources, especially those that are only available in Snippet View, it is difficult or impossible to verify that the data Google provides is accurate. When the source being consulted is actually a magazine or journal article that has been treated like a book, errors are far more likely. In these cases, Google Books can be a trap. There are four tiers of Google Books access, depending on the rights Google has available. Works in the public domain can be displayed in full. These are (generally) faithful scans of the originals, and for Wikipedia's purposes are a convenient archive of works that are often difficult to access in their physical form. The second tier is the one most familiar to casual users of Google Books; copyrighted material from a publisher participating in Google's Partner Program is displayed as a Preview. Previews include full pages (sometimes with a placeholder graphic removing photographs or illustrations). The amount of the book that can be accessed depends on the terms of the partnership, but it is often substantial, allowing claims to be verified and evaluated in context. Below the Preview tier is Snippet View, where Google does not have rights to display the work. Snippet View relies on the concept of fair use for educational purposes, to make small fragments of a page visible in response to searches. There are substantial restrictions as to what can be seen via Snippet View. The final tier is for works which Google has indexed but not scanned (as well as a few works whose publishers specifically opt-out of Google Books); these provide only the metadata, and do not permit the actual content to be viewed at all. Google Books' metadata—its determination of title, author, publisher, publication date, and so forth—is often flawed. Google uses an algorithmic process to identify this data. Problems with the reported metadata are common, but the general public rarely encounters them. Wikipedia editors performing in-depth research using Google Books are more likely to encounter these errors, and are more likely to encounter more serious errors. In general, older sources are probably more likely to have problems. But it is always worth checking the copyright page of anything accessed exclusively through Google Books. Copyright dates are frequently incorrect, especially when dealing with reprinted or re-versioned books; in the terms used by Wikipedia's cite templates, Google often confuses year and origyear. It is also often close, but not quite correct on publishers. Especially when a publisher has changed names over the years, been acquired by now-parent companies, or published some books under different imprints, Google Books may fail to identify the correct publisher credit. This is perhaps more frequent for those publishers participating in Google's Partner Program, as the companies are known to Google, understandably, under their current name. The ""Pages displayed by permission of..."" credit that appears at the bottom of the left sidebar for many sources is particularly prone to this problem. Snippet View, needless to say, makes everything worse. It is almost never possible to view the copyright page via Snippet View, at least not in its entirety. This means that errors in the metadata can escape scrutiny. Snippet View also makes it difficult to examine claims in context; it is very easy for material accessed in this method to be misinterpreted, even when viewed with the best intentions. === Journal articles === Far and away the most serious problems occur when Google digitizes something that isn't a book, but makes it available through Google Books. Google has digitized a nontrivial number of magazines and scholarly journals. Unfortunately, its metadata algorithms often fail catastrophically while processing these works. Even when they succeed, they generally discard information considered mandatory for bibliographic entries on Wikipedia. In many cases, working from bound volumes or collections, Google will treat all the issues in a single volume of a journal as though it were a single book, a volume of a multi-book set like an encyclopedia. Invariably, Google will produce a malformed title. Often, it will identify someone (or some organizational entity) as the ""author"", making it appear as though the entire work was written by a single hand. These mistakes are easy to make. These examples were taken from content that was submitted to the Featured Article Candidates process. === Example 1 === Source A statement from page 1 was used in the article Bentworth. This work is entirely in the public domain, so it can be viewed in full. But that doesn't mean Google got it right, nor is it immediately evident what the problems are. If Google were trusted, our reference might be: Proceedings. Vol. 4. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Survey. 1905.But that's incomplete at best. This is actually a scan of a bound volume of the collected issues of a journal. There are probably a couple ways to cite this, depending whether you want to format the citation to the journal issue or the bound volume. Because whoever scanned this obscured much of the copyright page of the bound work itself (by scanning their hand), I would opt to cite the issue. Needless to say, this doesn't look that much like the previous reference: Shore, T. W. (1899). ""Bentworth and its historical associations"". Papers and Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society. 4 (1): 1–15. === Example 2 === Source A statement in the article Palmyra was cited to content in an English-language work published in Japan, and available via Google Books' Snippet View. The claim itself isn't relevant here, and Snippet View search was sufficient to justify use of the material, which appeared on page 19. Based on what Google has to say about that work, a Wikipedia reference for it, using the cite family of templates, might look like this: Sentā, Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū (1995). Space Archaeology. Research Center for Silk Roadology.Unfortunately, that's entirely incorrect. The limitation of Snippet View make it almost impossible to realize the problems. The work itself is not represented by its cover or title page, but by the Table of Contents, but downsampled sufficiently that it's impossible to make out meaningful text. What this material actually is is a scholarly journal. This is the 1995 volume of Silk Roadology, the bulletin of the Research Center for Silk Roadology, in Japan. ""Space Archaeology"" is the primary topic of this issue, and appears in large letters on the cover; Google's algorithm misidentified this as the title of the ""book"". ""Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā"" might look like a person's name, but in fact it's an English transliteration of a Japanese transliteration of ""Research Center for Silk Roadology"" - ""Shiruku"" is ""Silk"", ""Rōdo"" is ""Road"", ""Sentā"" is ""Center"", ""Kenkyū"" is ""Research"", and presumably ""-gaku"" is ""-ology"". Finding this information in the first place is nontrivial. In any case, once you know the actual paper being cited, its possible to dig it out of the contents via Snippet View. A correct citation for this work would look more like: Izumi, Takura (1995). ""The remains of Palmyra, the city of caravans, and an estimation of the city's ancient environment"". Silk Roadology. 1: 19–26." 296 300 648 WP:DELETIONIST WP:DELETIONIST 296 meta:DeletionismThis page is a soft redirect. 297 301 649 WP:EXISTING Wikipedia:Navigation template 297 "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Editing of a navigation template is done in a central place, the template page. There are two main varieties of navigation template: navigation boxes (or navboxes), designed to sit at the very bottom of articles, and sidebars, designed to sit at the side of the article text. The two are complementary and either or both may be appropriate in different situations. The usual way to create navigation templates is to use the {{navbox}} or {{sidebar}} master templates. This simplifies the process of creating a functional and consistent template. Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers. See Phabricator ticket T124168 for progress on the mobile issue. Navboxes are categorized under Category:Navigational boxes. Some WikiProjects maintain a list of their navigation templates. The two main types of navigation template are navboxes and sidebars. The two serve similar purposes: to allow related subjects to link to each other easily in a consistent manner. Navboxes are footer templates that sit below the standard article appendices and are laid out horizontally. They are created using the {{navbox}} template. An example navbox template is shown below: Sidebars sit alongside content, in the same manner as infoboxes, and are predominantly laid out vertically. They are created using the {{sidebar}} template. An example sidebar is shown to the right: The two types are used interchangeably, and either or both may be appropriate in different circumstances. The primary differences between the two are: Navboxes are laid out horizontally, and so work best for longer lists of links in a small number of sub-categories. As they are placed at the very bottom of articles, they are better for broader lists of links than would be appropriate in a sidebar. Articles often have more than one navbox and content may overlap to a degree: nevertheless, not everything needs a navbox, so navbox templates should only be created when they would be genuinely useful as navigational tools. Sidebars are laid out predominantly vertically, and are placed relatively prominently in the body of articles alongside the text. This makes them useful for smaller amounts of directly relevant links. Tangential information should be kept out of sidebars. Few articles have more than one sidebar. The style of any navigation template depends on its articles, how they are most intuitively presented, and previously established convention. === Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia === They are intended to link articles to each other. That is, every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page. The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider: Split them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic. For example, {{EMD diesels}} lists all models of diesel locomotives built by one manufacturer, but is too large to be transcluded on each of their articles. Instead, the individual sections of {{EMD diesels}} were split out into their own templates: {{EMD GPs}}, {{EMD SDs}}, etc. Do the above with only one template using ParserFunctions. Link only the immediately related articles while hiding the rest, like in the case of Johnny Cash. Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template. They should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by ""See also"" sections, or relevant {{main article}} and {{see also}} links within the articles' sections. (See essays ""Not everything needs a navbox and ""A navbox on every page"".) Navigation templates do not provide external links to other websites. === Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles === Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first. Likewise, redirects should also normally be avoided for the reasons outlined in WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. The general exception to this is when the redirect represents a distinct sub-topic of an article rather than simply being an alternative name. For example, {{MSPA}} links to Jailbreak (webcomic) despite it not having its own page for the sake of completeness. Unlinked text should be avoided. Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable. === Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles === If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. For complex topics in science, technology, history, etc., a navigation box can provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic. For example, {{Wind power}} links to subsidiary and supporting topics that provide background and context necessary for understanding the main Wind power article. While the main Wind power article already contains inline links to the subsidiary articles, the subsidiary articles themselves are smaller and their prose may not place them into the overall context with each other. Editors who work on the subsidiary articles in isolation may be unaware of this context. The navigation template provides an easy way for the subsidiary articles, even when they begin as stubs, to instantly inherit the conceptual structure of the main article. === Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative === There should be justification for a template to deviate from the colors and styles contained in MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.css (and the other skin.css pages). Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. Just like colors and styles, they should have a justification to appear. Specifically, there should be no national or regional flags or coats of arms. A rare example of an appropriate image is this: a map shows (in green) the location of a region within the state of Kazakhstan, and this is consistently implemented for all state's regions. There are two basic layouts: On the right side of page—for example {{History of China}}. For meta-template, see {{sidebar}} Footer boxes—for example {{Health in China}}, designed to appear at the bottom of each article, stacked with other similar templates. See also: Wikipedia:Footers for information on placement For footer boxes, {{Navbox}} is the standard. Existing hard-coded collapsible elements should be converted to one of the templates in Category:Collapse templates. This standardizes the look and eases future maintenance. The width of footer boxes should be 100% unless the convention for that type of article is otherwise. It looks inconsistent if multiple boxes in the same article have varying widths. Advantages of using navigation templates rather than listing all the links under ""See also"" sections include: reduction of clutter in that area of the article before ""References"" and ""External links"", compactness of the template compared to a standard list or table, in the case of many links, if the most immediately related links are kept under ""See also"", the reader has a better idea of scope, less directly related links are out of the way or in some cases hidden by default, ease of maintenance in updating the template as articles get created or deleted, aesthetically pleasing appearance to many users, new articles in a subject area immediately gain the basic link structure of existing related articles, eliminating the need for many editors to individually build up their own links and rewrite background material. when a new article or an older article that was orphaned is placed in a navbox, the page instantly has a large number of links to it In certain cases, there are alternatives preferable over the creation of a new navigation template. If the group of articles overlaps significantly with an existing category or stand-alone list, consider adding a link to one of these to the see also section. For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{succession box}}. Variant templates for persons who have held several notable offices are discussed at Template talk:Succession box. For relating articles across different categories in a logical sequence, use a succession template. Use one of these Hatnotes: {{Broader}}, {{Further}} or {{Main}}. Create an outline: a hierarchical list. There are limits to the number of templates an article may have. When a page exceeds this limit it may look fine in preview but, after the edit is saved, one or more footer navboxes display as wikilinks to the now excess navboxes (for example, displaying a link to ""Template:Navbox"" rather than the Navbox template itself). Solutions for this problem include (a) removing a template, and (b) setting up the footer navboxes so the least important one becomes the ""extra"" navbox (the one the reader will have to navigate to a separate page to in order to view). Wikipedia:Template namespace for an introduction to templates Wikipedia:Requested templates for help in editing templates Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, for an actual guideline on the subject Wikipedia:Template index, for other types of templates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes Wikipedia:Article series, related information Wikipedia:Series templates, related information Wikipedia:A navbox on every page, an essay Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, another essay Wikipedia:Navigational boxes redirects here; to view the historical archive, see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes (archive) Wikipedia:Redirect#Bypass redirects in navigational templates Wikipedia:WikiProject Navigation templates {{Quicktemplates}}, a table of templates {{Wikipedia editor navigation}}, an amalgamation of navboxes" 298 302 650 WP:DW WP:DW 298 Wikipedia:DW may refer to: Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians Wikipedia:Derivative works Wikipedia:Due weight Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld 299 303 656 WP:FLSR Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Florida 299 "Hello and welcome to the Florida State Roads Task Force of WikiProject U.S. Roads! If you would like to help, please jump in and start adding or editing. All state-maintained highways in Florida, including all Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and Florida state-numbered roads, and any other road-related transportation articles of note. The goal is to organize, standardize, and expand the articles on highways in Florida to be a broad, comprehensive, and recognized resource. The following highways can have entire articles dedicated to them: Roads that are constructed, traversable, state-maintained, and signed with their own route numbers. Roads that are partly constructed or partly signed. Deleted roads with significant information worthy of an article. Interstates that run entirely in Florida (mostly spur and loop routes). Ideally, these should also be part of this WikiProject. Florida specific U.S. and Interstate articles. For example: Interstate 10 in Florida County routes with significant information worthy of an article.For routes that have been entirely deleted and whose number has not been reused, these should be merged onto a following articles, Former State Roads in Florida The following are task force goals: Write articles Write good articles Write featured articles Make redirects listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Florida/Completion list === Good articles === === Did you know? articles === Unsigned routes /National Highway System /pre-1945 list Straight Line Viewer for mileages Media related to Roads in Florida at Wikimedia Commons Articles will follow Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards. === Naming convention === Articles are to be named according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). County route articles should be in the form ""County Road X (Y County, Florida)"", where X is the route number and Y is the name of the county. For roads in multiple counties, the article should be in the form ""County Road X (Florida)"". === Shields === The various shield graphics are located in Category:Florida State Road shields on Commons. {{jct}} can create the various links to highway articles with the appropriate shield graphics for use in the infobox or junction lists. === Categories === All articles are placed into a category: either Category:State highways in Florida, Category:U.S. Highways in Florida, or Category:Interstate Highways in Florida. The sort key is a three digit number representing the route number. For county routes, use Category:County roads in Florida for list pages only. For all county road articles, use [[Category:County routes in X County, Florida|YYY]]where X is the county name and Y is the three-digit route number (ex. CR 1 would be 001). === Infobox === Use {{infobox road}} or {{infobox road junction}} as needed for articles. The state parameters should contain the state's postal abbreviation. The type codes are the same as for the junction template below. === Junction template === Use {{jct}} to create the entries in a junction list section for the article, or the junction list in the infobox. To use, insert {{jct|state=FL|type|number}} into the article. If two to four highways are needed, use {{jct|state=FL|type|first number|type|second number}}. Types can be I for Interstates, US for US Routes, or FL for state routes, or CR for county routes. Further instructions can be found on the documentation page. === Stub === Use {{Florida-road-stub}} === Project banner === {{WikiProject U.S. Roads|state=FL}} Designates the current article as part of the Florida task force. Should go on the article's talk page. {{WikiProject U.S. Roads|state=FL-CRTF}} Designates the current article as part of the former County Roads task force for Florida. Should go on the article's talk page. === User templates === {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Florida/Userbox}} Userbox for this WikiProject For a list of project announcements and news, use: {{USRD Announcements}}" 300 304 657 WP:HUH Wikipedia:Alert 300 "There are many ways to get alerts, news, and answers about Wikipedia issues. Almost any question imaginable has already been answered by someone, at sometime, in Wikipedia's thousands of project-space pages (named as in ""Wikipedia:xxxx""). Search below (using the browser menu ""Find"" option) for various details: about Wikipedia system news, about help pages, about surveys or polls, about wiki-technology & servers, about wiki-software updates, about Wikipedia size and users, about Contacting admins, or about MediaWiki markup language. Many wiki-related news events are described, briefly, in part of the monthly WP:Signpost document, under subpages for ""news and notes"", such as: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-24/News and notes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-02-16/News and notes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-20/News and notes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-22/News and notesNote that the publication dates vary, and the news is not updated every week, but rather every several days, with no definite schedule. Those pages are not part of Wikinews, which is instead about general world events. The wiki-technology is described, briefly, in part of the monthly WP:Signpost document, under subpages for various publication dates, such as: WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-24/Technology_report. ...2009-01-31/Technology_report, ...2009-02-16/Technology_report, ...2009-03-30/Technology_report, ...2009-04-20/Technology_report.Topics include the computers used as wiki-servers plus the MediaWiki software that stores pages, processes templates, formats wikitables and displays the wiki-images. The MediaWiki updates are described, in brief tech jargon, in part of the monthly WP:Signpost document, under subpages for various publication dates, such as: WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-24/Technology_report. ..2009-01-31/Technology_report, ..2009-03-30/Technology_report, ..2009-04-13/Technology_report, ..2009-04-20/Technology_report. ..2009-07-20/Technology_report, ..2009-08-03/Technology_report.Each Technology_report lists bug fixes or changes, such as: By 13-April-2009, wikisearch on MSIE had been fixed to list multiple search-results rather than go to the one named title. And, URL qualifier ""&action=purge"" now works for image/file pages.In January 2008 (over 15 years ago), the MediaWiki software was upgraded with a major change to the parser (which reads Wikipedia files) for faster formatting: the new software allows almost unlimited page-size, and huge templates, by using a recursive descent parser. Formerly, large templates could only be used a few hundred times per article, such as when a template contained the help-text documentation or several HTML comments. However, now any documentation text can be skipped by using """" at the sections to skip. The Wikipedia articles, talk-pages and project pages are displayed as typical browser screen windows. However, they can be customized, for each user, such as setting the page-skin layout, by selecting ""my preferences"" at the top of any page. For example, consider the following options: Go to page Special:Preferences (or click ""my preferences"") In section ""Appearance > Skin"" select page layout, such as ""MonoBook"" to allow right-click buttons (default: Vector). In section ""Files"" select Thumbnail size (120px–300px). In section ""Date and time"" select time format (or: No preference). In ""Advanced options"" checkmark [x] ""Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"" to avoid accidental save of edit. In ""Advanced options"" uncheckmark [_] ""Show edit toolbar"" for faster editing. In ""Recent changes > Display options"" set Number of edits to show: 80 (default: 50). In ""Misc > Diffs"" checkmark [x] ""Do not show page content below diffs"" to speed comparison of changes. In ""User interface gadgets: editing"" checkmark [x] ""Allow up to 50 more characters in each of your edit summaries"" (works in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera (browser). At bottom section, click ""SAVE"" to save new preference settings.There are many more options, depending on each user, which might be more beneficial for displaying some types of pages or images. Sometimes, a Wikipedia page has unusual, garbled sections, or out-dated text, despite recent updates. A page can be forced to reformat when viewed in edit-preview, to see the latest text, images and templates on the live page. Also see: WP:Advanced article editing. However, on rare occasions, a page's stored cache files simply need to be purged by appending ""&action=purge"" after the URL's ""index.php"" as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zzz&action=purgeThat option forces the page to reconnect to image thumbnails or other data, which is typically the automatic result when pages are requested for reading. Purging the cache often works to re-display a page in current format, without the need to totally reformat the page using edit-preview. The main manual is the ""Wikipedia:Manual of Style"" (WP:MOS), with another document describing typical article-format, under ""WP:Guide to layout"". There are periodic updates, described (for 2 years) in update-news pages, such as: Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during December 2008 Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during January 2009 Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during February 2009. Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during May 2009. Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during June 2009. Wikipedia:Update/1/General style changes during July 2009.Unless a month is already finished, the related update-news page, typically, will not exist yet, only after the month has ended. The main person writing update-news has been administrator Dank. Besides the 6.6 million article pages, there are more than 23 other types of pages stored within the English Wikipedia namespaces. The vast, remaining 51.2 million pages, stored in those other namespaces, include WP:templates, article-talk pages, user pages, user-talk pages, category pages, image/data file pages, help pages (prefix ""Help:""), project pages (prefix ""WP:""), summary pages, WP:Portal pages, and others (see table at right). The most common pages are the articles, and their article-talk pages. There are strict rules for having template pages, so there are fewer of them, and even fewer of their template-talk pages. The many special-pages are for system information, such as login with Special:UserLogin, show a random page by Special:Random, set preferences by Special:Preferences, show a user's contributions by running Special:Contributions, or search other pages by Special:Prefixindex/xx, etc. A few surveys have been conducted over the past 6 years, for the English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia, to determine reader opinions about WP content and performance. About wiki surveys: Wikipedia:Survey 2008 – the recent November 2008 survey Wikipedia:Survey (disambiguation) – results or instructions to run a survey/poll Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls The Wikipedia help pages (at WP:HELP), which cover many wiki aspects, also link to the MediaWiki help pages (under META:HELP) about the underlying software and database servers that store the Wikipedia data. Also consider: WP:FAQ – those frequently-asked-questions & answers. WP:Help desk – lists new questions about using Wikipedia. WP:Teahouse – a friendly place to help new editors. Wikipedia:Tutorial – an overview as education about features. WP:Reference desk – directs questions about article contents (these are grouped in: Science, Humanities, Entertainment, etc.).There are many thousands of other WP project pages to consider, as well. Although the Wikipedia project has existed since 2001, many aspects have remained at a neophyte, or novice, level. The problems of uneven quality are critical to understand: there have been large gaps in Wikipedia's collaboration procedures, and in various fields of study, some major topics went years without being covered in an article. Some of the subjects which have lagged the most are: legal terms, financial topics, and African studies. While there are over 800,000 articles about sports, there might be only limited articles on other subjects. Also, although some Wikipedia policies are very thorough, as written, many active users make decisions while still unaware of the actual policy details, and some imagine that Wikipedia ""invents all rules"" regardless of the real world. On the contrary, Wikipedia does, indeed, follow many mainstream ideas, and articles must be verifiable against the real-world sources. However, the neophyte aspects and uneven quality help to answer why Wikipedia has many hollow areas, either overlooked or purposely hindered by some users dodging policy controls (see WP:Gaming the system or WP:NOTCENSORED). Some aspects of Wikipedia might seem shocking due to those long-term neophyte issues. For example, per WP:CONSENSUS, a ""consensus"" is basically a unanimous decision (of users acting in good faith), but many people treat it as a majority rule (as ""consens-Us-versus-Them""). There are many official Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so don't be surprised if long-term users are not familiar with all of them. Some people try to treat guidelines as being far inferior, to policies, but most guidelines have been developed by careful editors who are trying to provide solid advice, to simplify the writing of articles, while working with other users. The navbox below links to the various policies and guidelines. New guidelines are sometimes created by expanding Wikipedia essays into broader, and more formalized wording. The size of English Wikipedia and the user base is as follows: Articles: 6,636,113 Total users: 45,273,650.The count of users is the registered users (not IP addresses). Pages can access those size statistics by using specific variable-names (see: mw:Help:Magic_words): for example, the total articles is {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} and total-users is in the variable: {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}. For calculations, use the raw-data form "":R"" (such as {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}). Many other usage statistics can be listed by: Special:Statistics. In early 2009, the user base increased at the rate of 8,900 new registered users per day (from 9,025,765 to 9,061,316 during February 23–27, 2009). On 2 July 2009, the total of registered users exceeded 10 million; on 29 March 2010, registered users should exceed 12 million. The new-user rate is currently: 7030 per day, computed hourly (current hour as 16). The total number of articles (currently 6,636,113), in the English Wikipedia, was predicted to exceed 3 million by mid-August 2009 (actual date: 17Aug09) and exceed 3.5 million in December 2010 (date: 12Dec10). Since 1 January 2010, the new-article rate is currently: 723 per day, computed hourly (current hour: 16), with the rate typically 15% lower during the Spring months, but higher in August. For detailed discussions of the size of Wikipedia, see the essay pages: WP:Size of Wikipedia, or WP:Modelling Wikipedia's growth, or WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth. There are many methods to avoid edit-conflicts. For talk-page discussions, consider using menu option ""New section"" to cleanly append a new section to the talk-page. Years of tests have confirmed, even in 2012, that editing the bottom thread, to append a new section thread will still cause edit-conflict, against ongoing replies inside the prior thread. There is no ""non-overlapped merge"" of the prior section with the added bottom section as ""==xxx=="". Instead, editing to add a bottom thread is treated as a conflicting reply. Hence, use the menu option ""New section"" to reduce the common edit-conflicts at the bottom of a talk-page. For article pages, users can request control of editing by saving a tag-template, when finishing an edit, to alert future readers: {{inuse|25 minutes to fix footnotes}} – up to 3 hours.However, realize the tag is only a request. Instead, if only 1 SAVE is made (by pre-combining all changes), then other editors will only be alerted to check that page when your entire edit is done. In the event of overlooked typos, it might be safer to visit another page for editing, and return after an hour when other users are done editing the page (they might also fix those typos). However, once a page is saved, other editors might update it every 3 minutes, because many will change a word and save, change a word & save, even though they know it's sloppy: the fear of losing multiple changes makes some people SAVE after every tiny change. Those people should learn to request control by {{inuse}}, even if only for 1 hour. See essay: WP:Advanced article editing. When a user tries to save an edit that a prior editor has meanwhile updated, the entire page is rejected, during ""edit conflict"". To avoid losing data, before a SAVE, the edit-buffer should be copied (Ctrl-A/Ctrl-C) into another window, or edit-previewed to save the back-window, and then parts of that text could be restored during a later re-edit. Also, editing just 1 section, at an ""[edit]"" tab, can reduce some types of edit-conflict. See essay: WP:Pruning article revisions. The lists of changed articles or new articles are shown by: ""Special:RecentChanges"" – list of articles, changed by whom & when ""Special:NewPages"" – list of new articles, as saved by whom & whenEach list can contain several thousand articles. Generally, each admin should not be contacted directly, unless they request your input. Wikipedia has the help desk to answer most questions, beginning at WP:HELP or WP:FAQ. Some technical questions are answered by volunteers at the Village Pump branch WP:PUMPTECH, or policy questions at WP:VPP. New page deletions, requested by edit-tagging each page, are handled in several page-category queues linked by inserting, at the top of a new-article page, the template line ""{{db|1=my reason for deletion}}"". A user's private copy of an article can be delete-flagged, by that user, inserting the line ""{{db-u1}}"" at the top of a page. Older articles must be debated with other concerned users at: ""Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"". The queues for reporting abuse are explained, at each link below, in the following table of Wikipedia policy topics, focused around the active list in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. Each type of problem has a separate noticeboard. If multiple editors argue too much about some articles, the official ruling might not be a clear-cut decision of right/wrong, but instead, all of those editors might be banned from editing those articles for 6 months (or longer). Escalating a confrontation usually hurts the good guys the most, because their time is wasted as much as those who actively invent trouble. Avoiding the troublemakers tends to be a good method to reduce abuse. Wikipedia pages are written in the MediaWiki markup language, which supports some HTML coding, such as or
tags, but which also allows special coding for wikitables, infoboxes, navboxes, and templates (see: HELP:Template or Help:A quick guide to templates). Any page can contain live calculations using the parser-function ""#expr"" as follows: {{#expr: 100 * 7 + 2*35 + 10-3 + 1/7 round 2}}The expression will be evaluated and displayed on the page. As of February 2011, local variables are still not allowed: {{#expr: x=42}} is invalid (Error: Unrecognised word ""x""), although local variables would be trivial to implement for a college student. For more about the MediaWiki markup language, such as catching invalid calculations (with #iferror) or using other if-statements, see: mw:Help:ParserFunctions. The if-test functions include: The if-expr-test: { The if-equal-test: {else not 5Some of the 20 parser functions can format commas, pad to align, or convert lowercase: Format a number (add commas): {{formatnum:15650.60}} ==> 15,650.60 Unformat a number (w/o commas): {{formatnum:15,650.60|R}} ==> 15650.60 Unformat a number (w/o commas): {{formatnum:35,0px|R}} ==> 350pxLeft-pad an item (width & character ""0""): {0000156 ==> 0000156 Right-pad an item (width & text ""xy""): {ABFxyxyx ==> ABFxyxyx Pad both ends: {{xx37.4 ==> xx37.400 Pad dots: {{padright:{{padleft:37.4|8|.....}}|10|0}} ==> ....37.400Format text with first character as uppercase: {{ucfirst:yes}} ==> Yes Format text with first character as lowercase: {{lcfirst:UseLess}} ==> useLess Format text as all lowercase: {{lc:New yorK CITY}} ==> new york cityThe web functions include: Encode a web URL string: {{urlencode:www.goo/search=""xx yy""}} ==> www.goo%2Fsearch%3D%22xx+yy%22The nesting of templates or if-else logic has been limited (during 2009-2011) to the severely tiny limit of 40 levels, as the expansion depth limit (a hotly debated limit). Many articles about mathematics are monitored by WP:WikiProject Mathematics for very precise formatting standards. The Portal:Mathematics is an extensive featured portal. The formatting of most mathematical formulas uses special TeX markup in the HTML tags: ... (see HELP:Math). However, there is also a Template:Math (using different coding) to typeset formulas within a line of text, such as: y = ax2+bx+c - √2, coded by using template ""math"" as: {{math|1=y = ax2+bx+c - {{radical|2}} }}.Greek letters can also be generated by using the standard HTML font face ""symbol"" (with the English alphabet) as in the Greek text: ABGD-abgd-OPR-opr-XYZ-xyz, (not guaranteed to work in all browsers and systems) generated by using: ABGD-abgd-OPR-opr-XYZ-xyz.For more, see: HELP:Math. In the past, Wikipedia has avoided the use of detailed maps or road maps, in favor of limited, blank maps containing mostly shaded areas to indicate general borders, counties or provinces. Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Commons area contains many maps for all nations or territories, in the form of the ""Wikiatlas"" pages, covered with numerous maps, such as in: Each Atlas page can vary slightly, but each contains multiple maps, such as a general map, blank-outline map, terrain map (elevation map), a precipitation map, a cities map, population map, earth-quake fault lines, and others. Also see: Wikiatlas, for a common map of Europe, map of USA, map of Italy, map of England, map of Germany, etc. [ The following are footnotes for the text above.]" 301 305 658 WP:NOTLEX Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer 301 "When edit wars occur over the lead paragraph of a controversial topic, people may turn to more NPOV sources, like the dictionary. The dictionary is one source among many that is generally considered more authoritative than personal opinion. Sometimes, for complex topics like homophobia, marriage, or truth, the dictionary seems inadequate. Wikipedians can and do argue over whether the definition is accurate, or which sense of a word is prevalent in mainstream usage. You may not like the dictionary definition, but if it is a reputable dictionary, it generally carries more weight on Wikipedia than your personal opinion. On average, you can't make it disappear from the article simply by claiming that ""it is a bad definition"" based on your (explicitly or implicitly asserted) status as an expert on the writing of dictionaries. This is because you are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer. Let’s face it, you are probably not trained in lexicology or lexicography. You may have opinions about semantics (how words are defined or used within a lexicon), or how you would have written the dictionary, but your opinion does not countervail the efforts of trained lexicographers. When faced with a dictionary definition that you disagree with, your alternatives are limited; you can either find a better dictionary with a better definition, or you can cite reputable sources that discuss the changing meaning of a given word. What you cannot do is discount the definition by claiming to know a lot about words and dictionary writing. You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer. Even if you are, you still need to cite sources. Not all Wikipedians agree with these sentiments. Several arguments are as follows: Modern dictionaries are likely to be in copyright, and a definition may or may not be acceptable fair use (Wikipedia's guideline on non-free content states that ""brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea""). Older, public-domain dictionaries may have anachronisms or outdated definitions. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT), some editors think that using dictionary definitions to start an article makes it sound more like a high school essay than a reputable encyclopedia. Stylistic opinions count in Wikipedia, so this is a legitimate point that should not be dismissed lightly. Dictionary definitions, though accurate, often do not convey the full connotations and context of the use of a word. The large space we dedicate to each article allows us to explore these details. While a dictionary definition may be an appropriate component of a lead paragraph, it is rarely a sufficient exposition of the subject. Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. Original sources may have a more nuanced and in-depth treatment of definitions; for example, Plato's Republic and other philosophic inquiries into the meaning of justice may occasionally outweigh dictionary citations. Then again, Plato is a published source, and you are probably not Plato. Wikipedia:Citing sources – how to do it right Wikipedia:Verifiability – including burden of proof, sources of dubious reliability Wikipedia:No original research – including misuse of sources, especially primary ones Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources – defining what is a reliable source Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides (essay) – use as sources in articles and in MoS debates Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources (essay) – including dictionaries Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources (essay) Wikipedia:Dealing with dictionary definitions (essay) Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy (essay) – dictionaries do not magically trump other sources, policy, and reasoning Argument from authority" 302 306 664 WP:content forking WP:content forking 302 "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate pieces of content (such as Wikipedia articles or inter-wiki objects) all describing the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided, as the goal of a single source of truth is preferable in most circumstances. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genre of an aspect of culture such as a musical style. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. === Redundant content forks === Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article. === Point of view (POV) forks === In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a ""POV fork"" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a ""POV fork"" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as ""POV"" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. For example, if an editor has tried to include in an existing article about aviation a theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but the consensus of editors has rejected the attempt as complete nonsense, that fact does not justify creating an article named ""Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight"" to expound upon the rejected idea. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a ""Criticism of..."" article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using ""criticism"" and instead use neutral terms such as ""perception"" or ""reception""; if the word ""criticism"" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a ""Praise of..."" article was created instead). There are things that occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking. Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not preclude something from also being a content fork. === Project-level forking === There is a difference between article forking within Wikipedia and the legitimate practice of project-level forking. The latter occurs when someone wishes to create their own wiki, according to their own standards and practices, but they want to use Wikipedia's content as a starting place. As long as the new project adheres to their legal obligations under the CC BY-SA or GFDL in exchange for use of this content, as set out at Wikipedia's copyright policy, this is perfectly acceptable. Project-level forks are not bound in any way by Wikipedia's community policies or customs, like the five pillars. Project-level forking is discussed in more detail at Wikipedia:Forking FAQ. === Article spinoffs: ""Summary style"" meta-articles and summary sections === Sometimes editors ""spin off"" part of an existing article to create an article focused on a sub-topic. This is done through the Wikipedia:Splitting process. There are two situations where spinoff articles frequently become necessary: Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem: Death of Michael Jackson was spun off from Michael Jackson. O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case were spun off from O. J. Simpson. Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal was spun off from Jimmy Savile. Multiple television-related media like the characters, the title sequence, and the music were spun off from Game of Thrones. Multiple related tragic events like the timeline, the casualties, and the aftermath were spun off from the September 11 attacks. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections Film The Last of Us (franchise) Physics United States UnchartedIn both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s). Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. When done properly, the resulting articles are not content forks, and both the original and the spinoff article will comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. See Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Splitting, and Wikipedia:Summary style for procedural information. CautionArticle splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident. For this reason, Mel Gibson DUI incident was folded back to this Mel Gibson article section, and Development of Uncharted 4: A Thief's End was folded back as well to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End article section. However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies. === Articles whose subject is a point of view (POV) === Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Criticism of the Bible, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, ""Criticism of"" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. === Related articles === Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences. In such cases, one of the articles will be prefixed by the text ""Introduction to ..."", for example General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) === Temporary subpages === One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed rephrasing or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is – without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version. However, just as ""spinout"" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. New drafts should be written in the ""user:"" or ""talk:"" namespace and not in the main namespace; however, accidents happen and those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it. === List formats === Stand-alone lists can be formatted as tables or without using the table syntax. Tables don't work well on various devices (hand-held screens, omitted when using Wikipedia's PDF export function,... and the ""sortability"" advantage is lost in some cases). For that reason it is often a good idea to retain a structured list (or bullet list, or numbered list, ...) even when a table is provided with basically the same content. However, having two list pages with roughly the same content, one of them presenting the list content in a ""sortable table"" format, and the other not using table syntax for the list content, is only possible when: There is no other way to avoid a WP:PAGESIZE problem There is a true advantage to presenting the list as a sortable table It is worthwhile to put (usually considerable) maintenance efforts in two pages that roughly cover the same topic There is no notability issue for either of the pagesAlso, provide a link to the differently formatted list high up on the page, preferably before the TOC or first section header, so that readers can switch to the other format if that works better for the device with which they are accessing the list. Example (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Lists): List of compositions by Franz Schubert (sortable table format) and List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre (structured list). Template:Duplication Template:Move portions and Template:Move portions from Wikipedia:Content forking/Internal – related advice about forking of Wikipedia-internal content, including discussions and policy pages Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels Wikipedia:Be neutral in form Wikipedia:Criticism (essay on the way criticism can be included in Wikipedia articles) Wikipedia:Splitting Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Integrate Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate m:Content forking and m:Separatism MeatBall:ViewPoint (original proposal) === Tools for automatic detection of content forks === WP:Duplication detector Duplicate content report for en.wikipedia.org Similar page checker to find duplicated content on two Wikipedia pages" 303 307 666 WP:CFBWEST Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/West precedent 303 "This essay contains the WikiProject College football project response to the ""West Precedence"" argument (or sometimes called the West Incident) and outlines reasons to overturn any and all articles deleted based on the deletion of the article Walter J. West. It includes a historical view of deletion discussions, results, and shows the new trend of overturning articles deleted by the so-called ""West Precedence"" argument. Although this topic is in place in the college football project, it can have impact outside of this project. As Chick Bowen put it: ""As a longtime DRV closer, I've observed, and have indicated in my closing statements a number of times, that AfD doesn't—and can't—work by precedent. Consensus about a particular category of articles can certainly develop over time—so any debate can have a bearing on others as part of a larger discussion—but (unlike in a court of law) the order of nominations shouldn't matter; previous debates indicate but never define consensus, and it is inevitable that as consensus emerges over time AfDs on fairly similar articles will be decided differently..."" Duplicate deletions (such as the A.C. Ransom articles) are counted as one article. Merged articles that were deleted and then merged to another existing article on the same coach are counted as restored. Articles restored and then re-deleted (such as Joe Banks) are removed from ""restored"" category"" regardless of reason. Articles restored as redirect and information included into lists are also included. An articles for deletion discussion took place concerning the article Walter J. West (herinafter referred to as West) and the end result was that the article was deleted. The deletion of this article led to a string of nominations of similar articles referencing the deletion West, some going so far as to refer to what was called the West Precedent. A total of at least 24 discussions took place directly from the West precedent with several more indirectly from the same group of nominations. These discussions resulted in the deletion of at least 62 articles. The following AFD discussions referenced by link the West discussion: === Large number of AfD nominations/discussions citing West === A large number of AfD nominations and/or discussions took place in a short period of time that cited West either as precedent or at least as a reference for a reason to delete. There is evidence that using this one discussion had clouded the judgement of editors during their discussions and even of administrators who based deletion of articles at least in part on West. For example: At least 62 articles were deleted citing West as a reference for previous deletion discussions At least 40 artciles were deleted citing West as precedence for reason to delete At least 17 articles were deleted citing West as one of the reasons for the deletion by the deleting administratorThat adds up to a total of 119 direct references in AFD discussions using the West incident as a source. === Precedence to Keep was ignored === At the time of the West discussions, the recent AfD trend was toward keeping similar articles. A good amount of similar articles had gone through AfD discussions and were closed as keep or no consensus by the closing admin. These discussions were largely ignored by the editors at the time, and any attempt to bring them up resulted in a simple ""consensus can change"" statement. The following articles and AfD discussions should have been considered but were not: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton Nomination Withdrawn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Stevens Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam B. Taylor Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches No Consensus Larry Dorsey Clifton Gilliard Greg Johnson Hensley Sapenter Ronald Beard Haney Catchings Conway Haymen James McKinley Cornelius Cooper Theophilus Danzy Alexander Durley Fred T. Long L.T. Walker Arthur J. Willis Jim F. Law H.B. Hucles C.L. Whittington === Increased number of AfD nominations after West was initially deleted === After West article was deleted, a large number of bulk nominations began using West as the primary driver. Some had been previously nominated for deletion but were not deleted. This was discussed at AfD Talk Page and at Kittybrewster's Talk Page. === Domino Effect === After West was deleted, a domino effect took place. After nominators began using West as a precedent, additional deletions based on West were also referenced in AfD discussions as a form of ""consensus"" or ""precedent"": The following AfD discussions reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Ransom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alured Ransom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. W. Harrington Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. William Williams Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally Bullington Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) The following AfD discussions reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) The following AfD discussions reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) The following AfD discussions reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) The following AfD discussions reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) === Volume of AfD discussions === Initial requests for more time to work on the articles or to reduce the number of nominations were met with harsh responses from several editors. Eventual intervention based on the volume of AfDs led to the downturn of the nominations for deletion led to the nominations being reduced to a more manageable number at any given time. Once this happened, articles questioned began to be improved through collaboration with additional sources cited and many more were kept. === Immediate impact of restoration of West === Restoration of the West article has contributed to a marked reduction in the number of deletions which can be observed in the table above. It seems that no head coach article has been nominated for deletion for over two weeks (as of 30 Oct 2008). In addition, articles once deleted under the West precedent have been improved in user workspace and are beginning to be restored by the deleting administrator. === Result of non-West related discussions === Similar articles that do not reference West have a much lower result in deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Russell Murphy No Consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. W. Griffith Keep Lance Hinson (football coach) Prod Removed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Pipal Keep Simon F. Pauxtis Initially deleted via prod then Restored Scott Frear (football coach) Prod Removed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton (2nd nomination) Keep === Additional article improvements === Besides West other articles have been improved during this time as a result of research completed on the West articles. Those articles that were improved and subsequently kept include: S. W. Harrington Victor Payne Elmer A. Lampe Harry Huston Willis Bates Larry Dorsey Clifton Gilliard Greg Johnson (American football) Hensley Sapenter Ronald Beard Haney Catchings Conway Haymen James McKinley (football coach) Jake High Don Lee (college football) Scott Highsmith Norman JosephOther improvements are ongoing in user workspace and can be found at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach. Restore any article that was deleted based on influence from the West discussion because it is evident that deletion discussions were highly influenced by the original root discussion. These articles include (but may not limited to) the 62 articles listed in the table above. === Promotes collaboration === Articles that begin as a stub can, through collaboration, be dramatically improved. As a small sample, here is a list of many articles that began much like those that were deleted and were enhanced through efforts of collaboration and grew to robust articles: Harold Elliott, Bob Spoo, Oscar Dahlene, Mike Gardner (football coach), Ralph Graham, Homer Woodson Hargiss, George Allen (Cumberland), Art Kahler, Jerry Kill, Eddie Kriwiel, Craig Schurig (football coach), Ed Sweeney (football coach), Samuel Colgate, Jr., Gwinn Henry, Wayne J. McConnell, Bill Schnebel, Arthur Schabinger, Chris Creighton, Glenn Thistlethwaite, Dave Clawson, Douglas Legate Howard, Josh Hartwell, Chick Meehan, Bob Seaman, Ralph Graham, and Bill Stewart (football coach). The Wikipedia College football project has put extensive effort toward this goal. Of course, articles being prepared in a user space can be edited by anyone--but by placing the articles in the ""open"" we can add proper categories and tags (not only for the college football project, but other projects such as projects for History, Biography, United States or sub-state projects, and any other project that may apply). === Potentially enhances existing articles === Some articles already existed, but have become more robust due to the college football project efforts. Some of these articles include: Andrew Frank Schoeppel, head coach at Fort Hays State University and later governor of Kansas Douglas Legate Howard, United States Navy officer and coach at Annapolis Ralph McKinzie, college football coach of Ronald Reagan Dennis Franchione started at Southwestern College Percy W. Griffiths coached at Dickinson College then entered the United States Congress The following pre-emptive arguments are made to assist with consideration of this proposal. === The arguments behind West still stand === It is true that many of the arguments made during West were done in good faith. However, the influence of those arguments on other articles has been weighted toward delete. This is most evident when viewing the trend of deletions and how, once West was restored (and even when word of West being reconsidered) resulted in fewer successful deletions of articles. Editors supporting deletion based on West would tend to just say ""because of West"" instead of articulating the argument specifically for the article in question. Further, the influence of West as precedent may have influenced editors who would have joined discussions but chose not to when they read that a precedent already existed. Finally, the influence of West as precedent definitely influenced at least one closing admin, as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel, a discussion that resulted in the deletion of 17 articles. If the arguments behind West truly do still stand, then they could withstand unprejudiced exposure in a new forum. === There were other reasons for deletion of the articles === Yes, there were other reasons both for and against deletion outside of West. However, there was a marked trend toward deletion after West was deleted that was not present before. Full, proper consideration must be given without improper influence. === Restorations not linked to original topic === The main argument being made here is that all of the articles restored were restored because they found a pro football career or something notable outside of the original scope of the article, which was college football coaching. This, however, is a false statement. Certainly some of the articles were restored when a professional career was found, and others were restored when other outside notability surfaced. However, others such as J. William Williams, Forrest Craver, William McCracken, and Wally Bullington were restored because of thier contribution to college football--it was merely the addition of more sources and details to the page on the same topic. The timeline table above has a brief review of why and how each article was restored, along with pertinent links." 304 308 668 WP:INSECTS Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects 304 "The aim of this WikiProject is to set out broad suggestions about how to organize data in the articles relating to all insects and their relevant subdivisions. We also hope to encourage the development of important stubs and articles following these suggestions. In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them. This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life WikiProject Science WikiProject Biology WikiProject Tree of Life WikiProject Animals WikiProject Arthropods WikiProject Insects Science portal Biology portal Animals portal Arthropods portal Insects portal WikiProject Lepidoptera WikiProject Diptera WikiProject Insects/Hymenoptera task force WikiProject Insects/ant task force WikiProject Phasmatodea (inactive) WikiProject Mantodea (inactive) WikiProject Beetles (semi-active) Add your name === Active participants === === Inactive participants === StanTheWu Did you know 21 Mar 2023 – Sasajiscymnus tsugae (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Thriley (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 15 Mar 2023 – Tabaninae (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Horse fly by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Deer fly (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Chrysops by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Chrysopsinae (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Deer fly by KoA (t · c); see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Horse-fly (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Tabanidae by KoA (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Kosswigianella denticauda (talk · edit · hist) move request to Acanthodelphax denticauda by Roy Bateman (t · c) was moved to Acanthodelphax denticauda (talk · edit · hist) by Hadal (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged 12 Dec 2022 – Insectoids in science fiction (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Bug-eyed monster by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion 02 Sep 2022 – Notogramma cimiciforme (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Notogramma cimiciformis by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 02 Sep 2022 – Notogramma cimiciformis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Notogramma cimiciforme by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 18 Aug 2022 – Prophalangopsis obscura (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Prophalangopsis by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 04 Jun 2022 – Cockchafer (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 26zhangi (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 17 Mar 2023 – Draft:Uropsylla tasmanica (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by GaiaMortier (t · c) undated – Draft:Entotrust certification (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 29 March 2023 by HotArticlesBot. ==== Userbox ==== Add {{User WikiProject Insects}} to your userpage, and you get: For the subtler types, you can try the topicon, or add [[Category:WikiProject Insects members]] to your userpage directly. ==== Topicon ==== Just add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/topicon}} to your page and an icon will form at the top of your page. Insect articles can be on any level that makes sense in context. Most will be about particular taxa. For example: Regnum: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Lepidoptera Family: Papilionidae Genus: Iphiclides Species: Iphiclides podaliriusOther levels of taxonomy may be added if necessary: subclass, infraclass, suborder, infraorder, superfamily, subfamily, etc. In many cases, it makes sense to combine several taxonomic levels in a single article. For example, the genus Limulus contains only one species, Limulus polyphemus, so the one article covers both levels. Some large families, such as the Papilionidae and Carabidae, will need to be broken down at some stage because of the number of species. For this, lists of species by subfamily may be created. In some cases, geography, logistics, familiarity with fauna, and convenience may require a study to be restricted to a region or political boundary. Spider taxonomy and List of butterflies of India (Papilionidae) are good examples of attempts to achieve this. It may be useful to start with a high-level article, such as a family article, and then split off genus and/or species articles as the material builds. If possible, create links to articles on the levels immediately higher and lower. An article on a genus such as Bombus should link back to the family Apidae and order Hymenoptera, and down to species articles where they exist. Considering the vast number of species in some genera (or genera in some families, etc.), this may not always be possible, but should be tried as often as possible. At what level is it worth having a separate Wikipedia article for a particular insect? Any level you like. If we write individual articles for all one million-odd described species, we will be at it for a long time! The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go to it! As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later. Also, it's preferable to start at a higher taxonomic level and work our way down to particular species than the reverse. What about extinct insects? At the very least, we should include insects that have become extinct within historical times: within the last 5000 years or so. Most extinct insects will be much older however, but there seems to be no obvious reason to exclude any of them: there is already a nice page for trilobite; if an expert on fossil insects comes along and wants to contribute more, all the better. In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. Note the following guidelines in using scientific names: Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized— Drosophila, Homarus, Limulus. Specific epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus or an abbreviation of it— Limulus polyphemus or L. polyphemus, but never plain polyphemus, since such identifiers need not be unique (e.g. Gopherus polyphemus, Antheraea polyphemus). They are never capitalized. Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized— Limulidae, Orthoptera, Crustacea.Common names of insects, like other organisms, are given in lower case. In cases where a group only contains a single subgroup, the two should not be separated. If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the group, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference. However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial. For instance the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides. Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later. A useful heuristic is to create articles in a ""downwards"" order, that is, family articles first, then genera, then species. If you find that information is getting thin, or the family/genus is really small, just leave the species info inline in the family or genus article, don't try to force it down any further. This is likely to be the single most difficult part of the project. Not only does arthropod taxonomy vary significantly from one authority to another, but it is in a state of constant change. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list. === General references === Online: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Arthropoda - Tree of Life website. This is slightly outdated already (it is not updated on a regular basis), and somewhat idiosyncratic at times, as a single person is often responsible for a given portion of the tree. The most problematic feature is that it uses a rankless classification - taxon names that do not have a place in the Linnaean hierarchy are regularly used in the TOL, because ranks are not assigned, and the only requirement is monophyly. In other words, taxon names appears in the TOL which have no counterpart of equivalent rank (e.g., ""Macrolepidoptera"" or ""Aculeata""). This can make it very difficult to convert the TOL names into Wikipedia pages! If you can find a more recent, authoritative classification for a single order, this might sometimes be a better approach than trusting a generalized site such as this, and definitely better than trusting any popular sources, such as field guides or even college-level textbooks.http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=82696 - ITIS Arthropoda. One of the most authoritative sources online, and compatible with Wikipedia in that it uses the Linnaean hierarchy. Not always up-to-date, however, and missing many lower-level taxa.http://entsoc.org/common-names - Entomological Society of America Common Names of Insects Database A global resource for the public, teachers and scientists seeking to standardize insect common names.Secondary references: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/arthropoda.html - Nice introduction to arthropods, including a somewhat useful glossary and basic systematics (useful down to order). http://www.ento.csiro.au/education/insects_allies.html - Very nice description of orders for insects (and a bit about arachnids).Print: Charles A. Triplehorn, Norman F. Johnson Borror and DeLong's introduction to the study of insects, 7th edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2005 - Respectable but already somewhat outdated reference (there is a lag of several years between editing and printing) for insects, including Entognatha with keys to family. Keys also to family for arachnids and myriapods. The keys are for North America but can apply also to European arthropods. Grimaldi, D., M.S. Engel. Evolution of the insects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xv + 755 pp. 2005. === Specific references === Lepidoptera references: LEPINDEX. General consensus amongst Indian aurelians is that LEPINDEX, a project of the Natural History Museum at London, UK is THE reference to check Lepidoptera taxonomy. The site can be accessed at: [1] HOST. Another project of the Natural History Museum is the database of larval foodplants of butterflies. You can search by butterfly_name, butterfly_family_name, plant_name, plant_family_name and country/region. Access it at: [2] Another interesting taxonomy project from Finland! The gentleman, Markku Savela, uses perl scripts to generate rough distribution maps from the text data on distribution. The site is at: [3] Hymenoptera references Chalcid wasp references Universal Chalcidoidea Database - – a project of the Natural History Museum at London, UK. A checklist which is actively maintained, following recent higher level taxonomy. Formicidae (ants) references: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force#Resources === CC-licensed publications === Note:""Open Access"" does not always mean ""free to use"". Media licensed ""CC-BY"" can be used without restriction, while ""CC-BY-NC"" or -ND (non-commerical or non-derivative) cannot be used on Wikipedia. (See Commons Licensing for more details)Below are some publishers and journals that often have CC insect related content, but others exist. The text images in these journals are free to use on Wikipedia when authors are attributed, unless otherwise noted. BMC Evolutionary Biology European Journal of Taxonomy Pensoft Publishers ZooKeys Zoosystematics and Evolution Biodiversity Data Journal PLOS One PeerJ Zoological Letters Zoological Studies Hindawi Publishing Corporation (Open Access statement) Advances in Zoology Psyche: A Journal of Entomology International Journal of Biodiversity International Journal of Ecology International Journal of Zoology Journal of Animals Journal of Insects The following items are desirable for articles of all levels, although the detail will vary depending on several factors. These items do not need to be separated into distinct sections; text should flow in continuous prose so far as possible. The order this information is included is also relatively unimportant, although the order listed is generally preferred. Description (physical, behavioral) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives? Include here evidence about cognitive capacities. Habitat - where does it live? how broadly does it roam? maps are good Cultural, Religious, Economic, etc. Importance - what impact has it had on humans? Include here use for experimental purposes that do not relate to other headings. Classification - how does it fit into the tree of life? In general, each insect article should have a taxobox, a feature we inherited from the Tree of Life WikiProject. Using an automatic taxobox or speciesbox simplifies future maintenance as a taxon will automatically inherit its parents; see Template:Automatic taxobox and Template:Speciesbox. Manual taxoboxes (Template:Taxobox), which must be updated one-by-one if the higher taxonomy changes, are still available as well. There is an introduction to and step-by-step guide to using automatic taxoboxes, but see also the basic parameters below: Automatic taxobox (for genera, families, and higher taxa): Speciesbox (for species): Minor housekeeping issues : Please add articles or stubs that you think need reviewing or expanding here: Insect morphology - top priority please! Acrophylla titan Beehive – much of article written by non-English speaking editor(s), needs grammatical work Cephalothorax Cicada (mythology) Exoskeleton Gnat - internal contradictions, confusing overlaps with midge Holometabolism Hemimetabolism Hypermetamorphosis - made some changes, please check M. A. Broussard (talk) Instar Mentum Melaloncha – bee-killing flies Nymph (biology) Termitaradus – genus of termite bugs Termitaphididae – termite bug family Phalangopsinae – cricket subfamily (spider crickets) differentiate palpus from pedipalp Archimantis monstrosa - not sure on references etc - needs citing. Adotela - needs expansion. Adotela concolor - needs lots of expansion Corylophidae - multiple issues; relies on one reference, in need of expansion, subgroups unknown Ranova - needs lots of expansion, has 3 stubs attached to it as well Dyschirius szeli needs lots of expansionMISSING INSECTS: Top 1,000 insects with no wikipage (ranked by # mentions in books; created Jan, 2015) Adult (insect) - Help needed: Is this R from synonym? === Requested articles and photos === Requested articles related to insects and other arthropods now have their own page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article requests. Please put them there. Photo requests can be made by adding |needs-photo=yes in the assessment template or using {{reqphoto|insecta}}. If you'd like to contribute images to Wikipedia, the first place to search is Wikimedia Commons, for example Category:Insecta. Images may or may not be categorized, so a keyword search can sometimes be more fruitful than browsing categories. If you can't find a suitable image on Commons, other sources include CC-licensed journals (above) or Public Domain images. Searching the Biodiversity Heritage Library may yield images that have entered the public domain (e.g. first published in the United States before 1923, and/or whose creator died more than 70 years ago). For a list of entomologists with biographies on other language Wikipedias missing an entry in English please see here. === Stub templates === Remember to mark up stubs with the appropriate template. Where specific templates do not exist, use {{insect-stub}}. Otherwise, see below. ==== Stub templates by order and family ==== ==== Other stub templates ==== === Talk pages and grading scheme === Please place {{WikiProject Insects}} at the top of an article's talk page so articles can be assessed. What this template does: It will help to lead new editors to this project. If complete with quality and importance grading (see Article classification and grading scheme), it helps us to stay on top of the huge number of insect-related articles. ==== Statistics ==== Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/Popular pages Top 1000 WikiProject Insects tagged articles by previous month page views === Categories === Please make sure to add articles to the appropriate categories among the ones listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Categories. If there are any categories that you think should be created, please request them here or on the talk page. In some cases, there might be more appropriate ways to group articles than categories, such as lists or article series boxes. For more information, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Aleeta curvicosta Ant Banded sugar ant Chrysiridia rhipheus Grasshopper Henry Edwards (entomologist) Horsefly List of Odonata species of Great Britain List of ant subfamilies Mantis Mayfly Nothomyrmecia Thopha saccata Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. === External watchlist === Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Insects" 305 309 669 WP:RDL Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language 305 "= March 22 = Do following languages have /j/ sound?Portuguese Greek GeorgianDo following languages have diphthongs?Swedish Russian Georgian Armenian French JapaneseIs there any Celtic language with neuter gender? Does Swedish have any native words with letter combinations ⟨ji⟩ and ⟨jy⟩? Why do Spanish, Catalan, Italian and Portuguese forbid sound combinations /ji/ and /wu/? Why did none of the Romance languages inherit word equus for horse? Is there any non-Romanian, non-Creole Romance language which has retained noun cases?--40bus (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Your numbering is confusing, but Portuguese has a /j/ sound, whereas Greek has a fricative allophonic variant, and Georgian seems to lack it. This could easily be looked up in the Wikipedia articles.Swedish has jisses (gee) and jycke (cur, runt), although as they're natively modified variants of loanwords, they might not count. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The relevant Wikipedia articles are named Portuguese phonology, Modern Greek phonology, Russian phonology, and so on. --Lambiam 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding #4, Portuguese has égua for ""female horse, mare"". CodeTalker (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Spanish yegua. wikt:yegua says Compare Catalan euga, Spanish yegua, Galician egua, Portuguese égua, Romanian iapă. --Error (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I believe I've seen a map of French dialect words for 'horse', some of which look like cognates of equum. Likely, though, the intervocalic weakening of the only stop in the word often led that word to be abandoned for homophony. —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I would assume that, through regular phonological development, it would become something like *'eue' /ø/, and could might counfusion with 'eux' (they) or' œufs' (eggs). Or *'l'eue' /lø/ (the horse) would be confused with 'le' /lə/~/lø/ (stressed the), so the listener would expect some noun to follow. Besides, a word like Gaulish *caballos had been widely borrowed throughout Romance, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) You have been admonished before about questions of the form ""Why doesn't language-X do this differently?"" But anyway: if they ever had /ji, wu/ (from what source?), likely they either became plain /i, u/ (perhaps lengthened, as the semivowel assimilates to the full vowel) or dissimilated to something like /je, wo/. —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)40bus -- Old Irish had neuter gender, but as far as I can tell, none of the other attested Celtic languages of the British Isles does or did (I don't have information about Breton). As for [ji] and [wu] sequences, [j] is the consonantal version of vowel [i], and [w] of vowel [u]. In many languages, either [ji] and [wu] are forbidden, or [ji] and/or [wu] are allophonic variants of the simple sounds in certain phonological contexts. (In other systems, [ij] and/or [uw] sequences are allophonic variants of the simple sounds...) AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Swedish has ""gift {n} /jɪfːt/"", ""gikt"", ""gips"", etc, which is pronunced equally as the the ""ji"" in the informal ""jisses"". It also has ""gyllene"", ""gycklare"", etc. In terms of dipthongs, ""Swedish is the only Germanic language which does not have any phonological diphthongs in its Standard Swedish variation."" (glottopedia). This is were some of the popular dialects vary a lot. --Soman (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 40bus was asking about the spelling/ orthography, not the sound combination. Oh, well... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The Euro is the European unit of currency, and the Franc used to be the currency unit of France. Other currency units like dollar, mark, peso, yen, pound, etc. don't sound anything like the names of the places where they are used. Are there some that I'm missing? I guess the Swiss Franc kind of sort of counts for historical reasons. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:C255 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The Boliviano. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The dollar is a corruption of ""thaler"", which derives from Sankt Joachimsthal, or St Joachim's Valley, a silver mining town then in the Kingdom of Bohemia, but now known as Jáchymov in the Czech Republic. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The euro is also used in places which are not in Europe, as its article shows. Bazza (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note that ""Franc"" is not named after France (or French) but (like those two names) derives from the Franks. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The guinea is named after Guinea. Shells-shells (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I assumed at first that Mark could have been derived from a place name, but then it seems that ""mark"" only got the sense of ""ground, soil"" in North Germanic languages, so it seems that i was wrong. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Thanks all. Boliviano is a good one. I can't count Thaler except in Joachimsthal itself. Guinea counts if it was actually used in Guinea. I.e. if Mexico had a currency called the ""Canada"" and vice versa, those wouldn't count either, but if would count if they were switched. Naming it after the people still counts though, I guess, so Franc is still there. Similarly if Scotland had a currency called the Scot, or the like. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:C255 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) There's also the afghani, the monetary unit of Afghanistan, if ""naming it after the people"" counts. Deor (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) There are former currencies: Latvian lats, Lithuanian litas, Zairean zaire. --Theurgist (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Score! I wanted to find something and bam: The Florin, once minted in Florence, surviving until today as Hungary's Forint. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC) If florin goes, so should bolognino 82.166.199.42 (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Among former currencies, there were also Angolan angolar, Geneva genevoise, Português, Somalo and Venezolano 82.166.199.42 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)History of Australian currency#Decimalisation tells us that the Austral was proposed as a name the forthcoming decimal unit of currency in that country, but dollar won the day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) That name was later adopted for Argentine austral 82.166.199.42 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) How about Sierra Leonean leone 82.166.199.42 (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Florins (and, after them, forints) are named after the flower that is the canting arms of Florence. I thought that the ekuele could be related to ""Ecuatorial"", but it isn't. The name ""Naira"" was coined from the word ""Nigeria"" by Obafemi Awolowo.[13][14] However, Naira as a currency was launched by Shehu Shagari as minister of finance in 1973. Livre tournois, livre parisis, European Currency Unit. Eusko is an local currency in some parts of the Basque Country. The ducats from the duchy of Apulia. Local currencies (Complementary currency) usually have local-resounding names. --Error (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)The Eritrean currency Nakfa, is named after a city in Eritrea called Nakfa. It is official Eritrean currency introduced post-independence in 1998 and it has historical connection as the nakfa region was where Eritrea freedom fighters began to gain victory in the 30 years armed struggle against Ethiopia in the independence movement (Currency and exchange facilities). Furthermore, there are three faces per currency, on the $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and$ 100) of Eritreans from the nine ethnic groups on one side of the currency. On the opposite side of the currency, it contains images of historical moments, places, and infrastructure. Splinter, H. van der. (n.d.). Currency and exchange facilities. Nakfa - Eritrean currency. Retrieved from http://www.eritrea.be/old/eritrea-nakfa.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.2 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) = March 23 = The following Perso-Arabic letters have their sounds changed in Persian. Furthermore, the sounds that they were changed to are sounds that other letters already cover. The letter ث was changed from a voiceless dental fricative in Arabic to an S in Persian. The letter ح was changed from a voiceless pharyngeal fricative in Arabic to a voiceless glottal fricative (same sound that ه makes) in Persian. The letter ذ was changed from a voiced dental fricative in Arabic to a Z (voiced alveolar sibilant, same sound as ز, ض, and ظ) in Persian. The letter ص was changed from a pharyngealized S in Arabic to a regular S (voiceless alveolar sibilant, same sound that س and ث make) in Persian. The letter ض was changed from a pharyngealized D in Arabic to a Z in Persian. The letter ط was changed from a pharyngealized T in Arabic to a regular T (same sound as ت) in Persian. The letter ظ was changed from a pharyngealized version of the voiced dental fricative in Arabic to a Z in Persian. The letter ع was changed from a voiced pharyngeal fricative in Arabic to a glottal plosive (same sound as the hamza ء) in Persian.Using this information, I’ve devised a theory that these letters are primarily in loanwords from Arabic. My theory also predicts that these letters should not appear in native Persian words (Possible exceptions being the ayn because the homophonous hamza is not really one of the 32 letters of the Persian alphabet and the tha because the sound had the Old Persian cuneiform symbol 𐎰). So far, none of the words I have tested this theory on seem to contradict it. Is this theory generally correct? Primal Groudon (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Certainly in broad terms when the Arabic alphabet was used to write the Persian language, a number of the letters were found to be superfluous for the purpose of writing Persian words, but when Arabic words were borrowed into Persian, they kept their original Arabic spelling. However, the letter ض was not likely pronounced as a pharyngealized [d] in the form of medieval Arabic which influenced Persian. Pharyngealized [d] is mainly a modern tajwid pronunciation, created so that modern Arabs can have a way of pronouncing ض and ظ differently using sounds which are somewhat natural for them... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Is there a specific term for the nephew of a nephew (Justin II and Justin I)? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC) If you have three individuals, where A is the uncle of B and B is the uncle of C, then if A's father is the same as B's grandfather and also the same as C's great-grandfather, then A is the great-uncle of C. Otherwise, I'm not sure any special name exists... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Here's a chart that may or may not help:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[Sound of head exploding] Never mind. Now that I think about it, ""nephew of a nephew"" is actually easier to understand. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) In the case where my nephew's nephew is his sibling's son, that sibling is also my nephew or niece, so the son is my grand-nephew. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Baseball_Bugs -- We have similar, sometimes better graphics on Commons: File:Relatives Chart.svg, File:CousinTree.svg, File:Canon law relationship chart.svg, File:CousinTree kinship.svg, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Hello, again! I have a quick question on how to form comparative and superlative forms of 2-syllable, English adjectives (not including ones ending in the /i/ sound). Namely, the Oxford American Dictionary, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, and American Heritage Dictionary all list approximately 70 such adjectives that take the -er/-est declension and recommend the more-/most- comparison for the all others. e.g. able abler ablest common commoner commonest stupid stupider stupidest Wiktionary, however, lists hundreds more. e.g. painful painfuler painfulest foolish foolisher foolishest complex complexer complexest Now, my intuition tells me to use only the -er/-est inflexions recommended by the mainstream dictionaries and take Wiktionary with a grain of salt. Do you agree? Would native speakers accept forms such as ""silenter"" and ""frequentest"" as proper? Thank you for reading this. Pine (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 'Native speakers' is a very broad category – this BrE native speaker would (a) understand them but (b) assume the user was either foreign or a young child or older but uneducated or (most likely) joking: so, not ""proper."" It's possible that Wictionary lists them as having been observed ""in the wild"", taking an extreme Descriptivist stance. The problem with using such non-usual forms is that although they might be both understandable and possibly not ""wrong"" as grammatical constructions, their unfamiliarity distracts the listener's/reader's attention from what is being said. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.160.67 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Wiktionary actually gives the forms painfuller and painfullest. Note that 19th-century authors had little qualms using painfuller: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. But as prescriptivist proscribe these forms, their use may dwindle. --Lambiam 23:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Translator of English and non-native speaker here. Being 41 this year, I've been learning and using English since I was five. Well, I believe there would be a context, e. g. a loose, informal or perhaps jocular conversation, where I wouldn't shy away from using 'foolishest' or 'complexer', but I don't think I would ever come to use such forms in the professional context, intuitively going with 'more complex' and so forth. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Thanks for all of the responses!It would be nice, in my humble opinion, if Wiktionary made more of an effort to distinguish between tongue-in-cheek inflections and standard ones. But I suppose that I mustn't complain since (unlike its competitors) it's completely free of charge, and as the old saying so rightly goes, ""beggars can't be choosers.""Apropos painfuller, it might have actually made sense back when painful was sometimes spelled painfull before Johnson, Webster, Jameson, et al standardized English spelling. (Cf. full fuller fullest.)But nowadays, it actually transfers its intended meaning to the poor reader as well as toward the written character. :) Pine (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I was expanding some Bsharri related wikipedia articles with this source published by the Lebanese army. Per their image policy all images are public domain so I normally upload them. The problem is I don't know what church it is or where it is. I was thinking it most likely says in the article but I don't speak Arabic and a lot of translations don't make any sense. If there is a better place to post this please tell me. Just to clarify I am looking for these 2 churches. Church 1 & church 2 Here is the article PalauanReich (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Here church 1 is captioned as ""Lebanon - Bechary District, Tourza – Mar Sarkis Wa Bakhos Church"", meaning it is located in Tourza and dedicated to Saints Sergius and Bacchus. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this identification. --Lambiam 23:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Here is an independent confirmation. --Lambiam 10:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Church 2 is identified here as Qannoubine Monastery, Qadisha Valley, Lebanon. So it is not a church. --Lambiam 23:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC) If the second picture is uploaded, the article Qannoubine would benefit by having it added. -- Verbarson talkedits 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC) There is a theory that George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers of America spoke in British accents. The people living on Tangier Island and the rest of Islands off Pamlico Sound, Outer Banks, and Chesapeake Bay speak in British accents, which according to scholars and linguists dated back to the Colonial era. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Which British accent? The forms of spoken English... vary considerably more than in most other areas of the world where English is spoken and so a uniform concept of British English is more difficult to apply to the spoken language. Bazza (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I mean did all Americans during the Revolution sound similar to ""Hoi Toiders"" or the residents of Tangier Island. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)95.144.204.68 -- During the 18th century, there was a process of Koineization in British North America / the USA, which is what happens when speakers of different dialects of the same language are in extensive contact. Certain dialect peculiarities get levelled out, so that people who came from the UK speaking one narrow local UK dialect had children who grew up in America speaking a somewhat unified form of English which is not identical to any of the source dialects in the UK. The traditional speech of Tangier Island is an example of a local American dialect which was not much affected by broader American Koineization. In the 1800s, there was a kind of accommodation between the speech of Whites and the speech of Blacks in the U.S. South (large numbers of Southerners were raised by Black nannies or ""mammies""), which is how the Southern accent arose. I'm not sure whether much is known about George Washington's individual speech, but he grew up in the 1730s and 1740s, when Koineization probably hadn't developed as far as it later would (not sure why he would have had any Tangier Island particularities)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Americans of this era came from all parts of the British Isles and colonies, so you would have heard accents shaped by the origins of the local settlements, as influenced by the neighbors (the koineization process AnonMoos talks about). But yes, the Americans of that time would sound closer to a generic mix of Hoi Toiders, high-mountain Southern Americans or various British rural dialects of the sort that are currently declining, than they would like ""Americans"" of our present era. I recommend any of the websites you can easily find which compare and contrast modern-day Shakespearean English to the English of Willie's own day. The latter probably gives you a clearer impression of how the typical American's grandparents would have spoken. As one site puts it, ""like a funky combo of Irish, Scottish, and Southern American accents"". That pronunciation was already shifting towards something more like modern British by the time of the Revolution (especially in the Court and in London), but the American immigrants, as usual, were not going to be shaped by the modern developments in the Old Country. (Ask any Italian who encounters ""Italian-American"" cultural events.) Remember that the Founding Fathers, being of the gentry or at least prosperous, would not want to sound like peasants or backwoodsmen. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) To be honest with you guys, I think 18th-century Americans would have sounded more closer to 21st-century Brits rather than 21st-century Americans. The Hoi Toider and Tangier Island accents sound nothing like the rest of American accents. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Again, which ""Brits"" are you talking about? There is no ""British"" accent. Bazza (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) But there's a bunch of accents that clearly identify the speaker as British. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Nearly half of the residents of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution were either German immigrants or of German ancestry. Most spoke the German dialect called the Pennsylvania Dutch language and presumably spoke English (if they knew it) with German accents. Cullen328 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC) From a certain point of view, all the Americans at the time had British accents no matter what their exact accent.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The vast majority, those who descended from British colonizers, but not those with other ethnic backgrounds, not a negligible number. --Lambiam 00:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Wouldn't living in a British colony make them British subjects? And the accent of a British subject is, in some sense, a British accent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) When speaking English, Kissinger has a pronounced accent that makes me think of Dr. Strangelove. I think he would surprised to hear that he has, from a certain point of view, a pronounced American accent. --Lambiam 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Henry's brother Walter shed all trace of his Bavarian accent. When asked how he had done so while his brother retained such a thick accent, Walter said ""Well that's simple. Henry doesn't listen!"" DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC) That should be Franconian, not Bavarian. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @JackofOz: ""Clearly"" is up to the listener, and is often anything but. I have been assumed, by English-speakers from other countries, to be Australian, a label I'd be happy to carry were it not a falsity. Bazza (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Are Cockney and Geordie and Glaswegian and Scouse accents not British accents? —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Actually, in the period of British Colonization of the New World, most British people spoke with rhotic accents. Received Pronunciation, which made non-rhoticity the standard for British English, didn't come about until something like a century after the American Revolution. This video explains some of this very well. Many of the British dialects of the time (and by extension, many the American ones as well) would have more closely resembled West Country English than any of the more stereotypically non-rhotic British accents of modern times. Again, watch the video I linked above. While it is called ""A tour of U.S. accents"", it explains the historical context of those Accents, and goes into some detail of the sources of and likely features of colonial American English. --Jayron32 00:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) = March 24 = When looking at, say, English, mainstream linguists will tend to write of verb phrases, preposition phrases, noun phrases, and more. Or of a VP, a PP -- uh, and would it be ""a NP"" (backed by the claim that this will be read as ""a noun phrase"") or ""an NP"" (backed by the claim that this will be read as ""an enpee"")? My question is both wider and narrower than it looks. Wider, because it's not specific to linguistics: ""NP"" was merely an example that sprung to mind; one could just as well illustrate this minor conundrum with an example from mechanical engineering or wherever. Narrower, because I'm wondering what, if anything, the MOS prescribes for use here in en:WP; and I (sleepily?) can't find this minor matter mentioned there. (If MOS doesn't prescribe, I'll happily choose for myself.) Though I'll very soon disappear from the interwebs for a couple of days.... Hoary (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think it is a MOS issue, any more than the rule by which we write ""a unicorn"" but (in American English) ""an herb"". The choice of ""a"" versus ""an"" is governed by the pronunciation of the following word (except, in an old-fashioned style still followed by some, for a few select words like ""historical""[7]). And MOS is not about pronunciation. --Lambiam 03:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC) If we Yanks pronounced the ""h"" in ""herb"", we would say ""a herb"". And if we pronounced the mythical beast like ""UHN-icorn"" instead of ""YOON-icorn"", we would say ""an unicorn"". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)""governed by the pronunciation of the following word . . . (except, in an old-fashioned style still followed by some, for a few select words like ""historical"". This 'style' (at least as used by older BrE RP-aspirant Brits like myself) is also governed by pronunciation: if the initial-h word begins with a stressed syllable, e.g. ""history"", the 'h' is pronounced and the preceding article is ""a""; if it begins with an unstressed syllable, e.g. ""historical"", the 'h' is not pronounced and the article is ""an"". Its usage is particular to certain combinations of regional accent, class and register. It might hearken back to the Victorian and Edwardian eras when the upper and educated classes all spoke (or purported to speak) French and imitated the French treatment of initial 'h'. It is of course at odds with other modes of speech: in my un-conscious default spoken register, derived from Cockney, initial 'h' is never pronounced and is always preceded by ""an"", but I would never write in that register unless deliberately representing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.160.67 (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)I think that if a writer refers to ""an NP"", they want it to be read as such. They know that the reader probably knows what an NP is, but that's kinda beside the point. The words and symbols actually in the text, and their pronunciation, not the pronunciation of the words those symbols represent, govern the choice of a or an. Of course, these days, many internet users and actual human beings in live conversation do away with ""an"" entirely. ""A"" suffices for all subjects - a apple, a orange, a apocalypse, and other soul-destroying utterances. Global Tin Ear Syndrome, I call it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ""The corn is as high as a elephant's eye..."" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Charles Dickens told us that ""The law is a ass""... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 8#Avoidance of ""an"". Deor (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This came up a couple of months ago, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz 07:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Well, my ""couple of days"" of absence dragged out for an extra day, for one reason and another. Thank you all for your input. I'm sorry I hadn't realized that the matter had already been discussed; especial thanks to Viennese Waltz for pointing this out both helpfully and with possibly undeserved politeness. -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) No apology required; querents are certainly not expected to search through the archives to see if a topic has been covered in the past. Searching for a topic involving the words ""a"" and ""an"" would be a challenge indeed. I only happened to remember the previous discussion because I was the one who launched it. --Viennese Waltz 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) = March 25 = Russian sources, such as here, translate Finnish book title ""Putin tulee kylään"" as ""Putin is coming to us"" (""К нам едет Путин""), but Google Translate has it as ""Putin is coming to the village"". I don't speak Finnish, so which one is correct? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Both. While the literal meaning of the Finnish noun kylä is ""village"" (a small settlement in a sparsely populated area), it is used idiomatically for any private place, typically someone else's home, which someone is visiting. So the best translation is perhaps ""Putin is coming to visit you"". --Lambiam 09:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ""Putin comes to visit"", I think? Present indicative mood. Card Zero (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The English present continuous form is coming is also in the present tense and indicative mood: it is stated as a fact, not something that might happen. Unlike English, Finnish usually does not indicate a continuous aspect explicitly. It shares this with many languages; the English phrase I'm coming! is expressed in French as je viens! and in German as ich komme!; turning this in the other direction into English I come! is generally not the most appropriate translation. As we can see above, Google Translate gets this aspect right. I added ""you"" to express the fact that the idiom is used for visits to someone's home, not for state visits and such. --Lambiam 17:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I've just added a lot of metaphors to the article. There was a comment at the top of the list demanding every item have a reference: but only one of the existing items had a reference. And I suppose really it means that the reference should say ""such-and-such is an example of a dead metaphor"", but only a handful of my additions have a reference like that. What I discovered when searching for references: Columnists bloviating about language in magazines will say anything, such as that ""dead metaphor"" is a dead metaphor. ""The fifty fatal flaws of essay writing"" is a book that gives a list of cliches, e.g. ""avoid like the plague"", and calls them dead metaphors. P. Newmark, who wrote books in the 1980s on the subject of translation, says a dead metaphor frequently relies on the universal terms used to describe space and time, such as field, line, top, bottom, foot, mouth, arm and so on. Those may not sound like metaphors at all, but some sources say dead metaphors have ceased to be metaphors ... or not, because the same source quotes somebody else's example of ""she is very cold (emotionally)"" as a dead metaphor: ""from this alternative point of view ... the difference between dead and conventional metaphors becomes fuzzy"". Yourdictionary.com starts its article about dead metaphors with similar examples, leg of a trip and body of an essay, but then goes on to give lots of examples which closely match those in the article and are probably due to WP:citogenesis. However, many of them were never in the the article, so perhaps this is a good source? This kind of ""dead metaphor"" refers to obsolete technology or forgotten customs. Unfortunately the question of what is or isn't forgotten is highly debatable, so it might be wrong to include, for instance, pull out the stops, given that pipe organs and organists still exist. Then there's oddities such as balls to the wall, which is obscure only because most people never encounter aircraft engine controls, or groundbreaking (listed by yourdictionary.com) which is to do with construction. There's also laughing stock, which Wiktionary says is not about being put in the medieval stocks and laughed at, but is merely a somewhat obsolete sense of the word *stock* as in ""supply"". The first reference in the article (Pawalec) is a long pdf which doesn't seem to contain any examples. It does however reference Winfried Nöth at one point, so I guess I could look at his ""Handbook of Semiotics"". I already have one example from Nöth: News magazine: originally magazine meant ""storehouse"". In this conception of a dead metaphor, the meaning has to have shifted so that an original meaning is forgotten. I think he's saying that this is a matter of degree, which may help with disputes about the inclusion criterion. We may recall the original meaning for rhetorical purposes, or ignore it: so pull out all the stops would count after all. Card Zero (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) What the article calls ""literalization of a metaphor"" should be called ""lexicalization of a metaphor"".[8][9][10] This is the opposite of literalization, which means taking a lexicalized metaphor literally, a technique used by comedians to create a punchline. Searching for ""lexicalized metaphor"" instead of ""dead metaphor"" may help. I expect Caitlin Hines' ""What's so easy about pie?"" contains more examples than easy as pie. --Lambiam 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sceptical of a number of the examples in the article, and in the sources. Most of those look to me to just be regular metaphors. Just because people are unlikely these days to have to literally hold their horses, or hear a broken record, doesn't mean they cease to be metaphors. As examples of truly dead metaphors, I'd nominate describing someone as having a good (or bad) temper or humour - these being references to metallurgy and an ancient medical theory respectively. Iapetus (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The head and the members of an organization. The body of an article and a note at the foot of a page. The hands and face of a clock. The legs of a trip. One reason why Silicon Valley Bank went belly up: wasting time on endless navel-gazing when direct action was required. --Lambiam 08:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Can there be so-called post-uvular or pre-pharyngeal consonants, similarly there are post-velar / pre-uvular and post-palatal / pre-velar consonants? For example, post-uvular / pre-pharyngeal voiceless fricative would be [χ̠ ] or [ħ̟], and voiced version would be [ʁ̠] or [ʕ̟] --40bus (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Articulation is a continuum, so finer and finer gradations can be made if you want to, however, I know of no language that uses such sounds as distinct phonemes and not as allophones of an already existing phoneme. Which is to say, while one can make symbols or names for such sounds, if no language exists which makes such a sound a distinct unit of meaning-making (which is to say, there is no language which has a minimal pair of words where such sound distinctions matter), then there's no purpose in describing such sounds as worthy of note. --Jayron32 14:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC) = March 26 = I am currently on chapter 4: The Imperfect and Perfect Tenses of The Everything Learning Latin Book by Richard E. Prior. On pages 32 to 34, it talks about how to assemble an indicative active form of a verb in the imperfect tense, taking the continuous aspect root plus the tense indicator ba plus the personal ending. Page 34 shows a table of the imperfect conjugation for the verb dō (infinite dare, continuous stem da-). First person singular: dabam. First person plural: dabāmus. Second person singular: dabās. Second person plural: dabātis. Third person singular: dabat. Third person plural: dabant. Why do three of these lengthen the A of the imperfect tense indicator ba? Primal Groudon (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Actually a long vowel has been shortened in several contexts (before a consonant cluster, before a word-final stop, etc). You can see much the same in the present indicative of a normal 1st conjugation verb (amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant), except there's no final -m environment there... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC) = March 27 = Why does the English pronunciation respelling not differentiate between long and short variants of same phoneme, e.g. [i] and [iː] are both ee, and they are not assigned different respellings? Is there any modern Germanic language which uses some form (doubling, diacritic) to indicate long vowels consistently like Old Norse did with acute accent? So, is there any language where bare single vowel letters cannot stand for long vowels? Can consonants be geminated after long vowels in Estonian? So, if words of type tak, taak and takk are possible in Estonian, are words of type taakk also possible? Is there any language which marks all its geminate consonants with diacritics, like languages which mark all their long vowels with diacritics?--40bus (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding #1: In english vowel length is allophonic, which is to say that English does not draw meaningful distinction between, say, [i] and [iː]. There a no natively English words for which there is a minimal pair where the difference between [i] and [iː] would result in different meanings. There may be dialectical differences, where one dialect may use [i] and another [i:], or they may exist in free variation with each other. You'll find more on this at Vowel length#In English; to wit ""Vowels show allophonic variation in length and also in other features according to the context in which they occur."" There are a few dialects, such as noted Australian English in that article, which does have a few cases of non-allophonic vowel length, but those are rare, even in dialects where they occur, and even in Australian English, the distinction is mainly due to the difference in historical R-coloration, where Australian vowels went from, say /ər/ --> /ɚ/ --> /ə:/. --Jayron32 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)40bus -- Hebrew and Arabic mark gemination with diacritics (dagesh and shadda respectively), as does Ursula K. Le Guin's fictional Kesh language. Note that the Hebrew dagesh diacritic is ambiguous (but only for the six letters writing the sounds p, b, t, d, k, g) since it has the dual function of writing gemination, and also indicating lack of fricativization of those six sounds... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)2: The spelling of Dutch is pretty consistent when it comes to indicating vowel length: so much so that even forms of the same word sometimes are spelled with single letters and sometimes with double ones. See Dutch orthography#Morphological alternations. Short vowels (except the schwa) must always be checked, so bare single vowel letters actually stand for long vowels. 4: Greenlandic did so until 1973. Different diacritics above the vowels indicated gemination of either the vowel itself, of the following consonant, or of both. See Greenlandic language#Orthography. --Theurgist (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding #1: because there was no impetus to distinguish them. Writing systems are (usually) not planned or designed, and as long as they serve the needs of their users, there is no reason to change them. (Note that there is also usually no impetus to alter them to assist learners, whether children or foreigners). As for #2: Old Norse did not consistently mark this. In normalized texts, and sporadically in the manuscripts, long vowels are distinguished by an accute accent except æ and œ, which are always long - Gordon, An introduction to Old Norse, p. 266 (emphasis added). Again, a writing system needs to be good enough to meet the needs of its users, not to meet anybody's idea of how it should be patterned. Number 4#: Arabic and biblical Hebrew both mark geminates with diacritics. ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)ColinFine -- That makes Old Norse sound not very different from Old English, where there was an acute-like ""apex"" diacritic to indicate long vowels, but it was rather sporadically used... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Although one talks about long and short vowels in Dutch, it's more a difference in quality than in length. Vowel length isn't really phonemic in most Dutch dialects. It may have been in the past. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Speaking of this, why long vowels in Finnish and Estonian are not considered to differ in quality, unlike in Swedish and other Germanic languages?--40bus (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I think you use the word ""considered"" incorrectly, here. Anyway, the quality/ length distinction is shared with Norwegian, so I guess it might be a Late Old Norse development. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)5. Is there any language which pronounced the Cyrillic letter Х (Kha) as /h/? Sure: Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet --2A02:5080:2D12:B00:F5F1:E1B0:669F:A977 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)6. Off-topic: can titles of content pages contain non-Latin characters? In Finnish Wikipedia, articles of Cyrillic letters have letters themselves as names, but in English Wikipedia, they have their English names as names, like Ш in Finnish Wikipedia versus Sha in English Wikipedia. 7. Are there any loanwords in Estonian ending with Ä? Here are words in Estonian ending in Ä: [11]. Some of these words are native monosyllables and their derivatives, others are foreign geographical names. Perrä is labelled as a dialectal word (probably from South Estonian), the geographical names Küllätüvä and Sännä are also South Estonian.Burzuchius (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)8. Are there any native suffixes in Estonian with O? --40bus (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Re 6: It is technically possible, but would go against policy. --Lambiam 22:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)About item 5, I recall reading in Harpo Marx's autobiography that in Russia they spelled his name the Cyrillic way, i.e. it looked like XAPПO MAPKS. That X would have been like a guttural ""H"". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Oh? They didn't write it Нагро Магх so that it would be pronounced Nagro Magkh? Amazing. — I have heard that not all Russians are aware that the linguist Ноам Хомски is related to the polemicist Ном Чомски. —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disregarding the sarcasm, Russian regularly transcribes or readapts borrowed words with initial h- as either kh- (the ach-laut found in Scottish loch or German Achtung) or g-, although there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason for whenever which sound is chosen, so it's gamburger for hamburger (food) and khip-khop for hiphop (music), also, it seems to be Garri Potter and Khagrid, for some reason. My knowledge of Russian is very basic, and I have a poor grasp of native speakers' linguistic connotations, so it might need some check-up. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) See this previous thread, as well as the other threads linked therein. Deor (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The main reason (mentioned in that previous thread too) is that the Standard Russian pronunciation mandated Г=/ɣ/ until the Bolshevik Revolution, at which point the colloquial pronunciation as /g/ was promoted to become the new standard, and the /ɣ/ branded as belonging to Church Slavonic, and mocked together with everything else church-related. So, words in common use by 1917 (such as Harry) kept their Г-spelling, whereas words unheard until after 1917 (such as Hagrid) got an Х-spelling. A notable example: Aldous Huxley, who started writing in the 1920s, is ru:Хаксли, Олдос, whereas his father Thomas Henry Huxley, who died in 1895, is ru:Гексли, Томас Генри 81.218.172.220 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) And... ""gamburger"" got a g (Г), due to the relationship with the German town ""Gamburg"" ? ... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) On the periodic table: гелий (helium), гольмий (holmium), and гафний (hafnium), but хассий (hassium). On the other hand, hafnium was discovered in 1923, so maybe the Г-convention was not abandoned all at once, but slowly. Double sharp (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Note also that the G/H ambiguity applies in both directions, thus a currency of Kyivan Rus is Grivna, but the identically named currency of modern Kyiv is Hryvnia 213.137.66.10 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Well, the transliterative systems of Russian and Ukrainian are not identical. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) = March 28 = What are the chances that the following languages will switch to Latin alphabet in the future? Russian Greek Arabic Japanese Georgian Armenian Persian Hindi Burmese All other languages of India--40bus (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate."" AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) There have been historical proposals to switch Russian to the Latin alphabet: see Russian Latin alphabet (although I think it is a machine translation from the Russian article). For context, see Latinisation in the Soviet Union. But it never went anywhere because Stalin ordered to halt the project in 1930. For Arabic, see Romanization of Arabic#Arabic alphabet and nationalism for historical attempts in Egypt and Lebanon. Both failed. According to the article, it failed in Egypt because of cultural ties felt to the Arabic script, and in Lebanon because it was interpreted as an attempt at Western (or Zionist) takeover. BTW, one might argue that Maltese is sort of what you want. Japanese writing reform in favour of romaji was proposed in the Meiji period by Japanese scholars, but it failed to catch on. Apparently, it was also considered during the Allied occupation, but it was abandoned. Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)40bus -- The traditional scripts of at least Greek, Arabic, Armenian, Persian, and Hindi have immense literary, historical, and religious prestige within their own cultures, so it's quite unlikely that they would be abandoned in the foreseeable future. Many Arabic and Persian (Farsi) speakers who are Muslim would identify abandoning the Arabic alphabet with renouncing Islam. As for Japanese, the result of writing it with a Latin transcription would often be very ambiguous if the text transcribed went beyond basic spoken Japanese, or was not confined to a very narrow topic. See Geoffrey Sampson's ""Writing Systems"" (ISBN 0-8047-1756-7) for detailed discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC) For Persian, Latin-script Tajik also existed in the early Soviet years. But our article points out (agreeing with AnonMoos) that part of the point of that was distancing from Islamic influence. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)To answer the question directly, any language could switch to the Latin alphabet. They likely won't, but there is nothing stopping them. The most recent major language to do so was Turkish, which did so less than a century ago, see Turkish alphabet. Previously, it was written using the Ottoman Turkish alphabet, which was Arabic-based. A special note should also be made for Gaj's Latin alphabet, which is used in conjunction with Serbian Cyrillic alphabet to write the Serbo-Croatian language (the two scripts vary in their use depending on the cultural and political background of the user). Gaj's Latin alphabet was introduced less than 200 years ago. AFAIK, those are some of the more noteworthy transitions into the Latin alphabet from other scripts. --Jayron32 12:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Why does Swedish and Norwegian not double long vowel letters? --40bus (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Since it's mostly superfluous according to the orthography. This has been answered before. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) = March 29 = In English, does Balzac stand for something indecent??? Because I remember my high school history teacher (who was Polish, with the last name Walczak) telling us that his pet peeve was when students call him ""Balzac"" -- and, just a couple days ago, when me and a lady friend of mine were at a museum and saw a post-Cubist painting titled ""Balzac"" (which, TBH, did not look very much like a portrait of the writer), she giggled hysterically as if she had just heard a super-dirty joke which was only intended to be told in all-male company. So, does it really stand for something else besides the writer's name??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C63:7399:2917:AFB (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Ball-sack. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Philosopher Immanuel Kant has a similar problem. If you want to avoid such ambiguity you can use the full name ""Honoré de Balzac"" or use the French pronunciation[12] (not unreasonable for a French name). Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC) It's kind of the opposite problem. Kant's name sounds offensive to English ears if pronounced correctly in German, while Balzac's is fine in the original French. —Kusma (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Whichever way you pronounce Kant isn't flattering to him. Either obscenity or hypocrisy. DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Pronouncing the name of the writer the French way ([balzak]) does not help much in Holland. --Lambiam 09:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Your teacher was peeved by people misnaming him? I think most people would be. DuncanHill (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) The OP didn't say ""misname"". It was likely a nickname. Bazza (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Calling him by a name that was not his and which he expressed a dislike to being called by? That's misnaming. DuncanHill (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)" 306 310 670 WP:PUR Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico 306 "WikiProject Puerto Rico is a WikiProject that aims primarily to collaborate on the articles related to Puerto Rico. This project was formed on (2006-01-11) January 11, 2006. === Cleanup listing === See box for listing: The Standards page has information on how to manage specifics on Puerto Rico articles. Puerto Rico style guide Puerto Rico portal === Active participants === To join WikiProject Puerto Rico, add your username to the following template. === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs) economy, executive branch, politics Buaidh (talk · contribs) 20:34:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC) – WikiProject templates and categories. Caballero1967 (talk · contribs) colonial, emancipation, environmental, and the rest Caribbean H.Q. (talk · contribs) - Early colonial history, biology, medicine, assorted sports. Ljvillanueva (talk · contribs) - ecology, fauna Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs) - sportspeople, biographies, politics Yuki37 (talk · contribs) - biographies, municipal histories === Participant identification === WikiProject Puerto Rico participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants. To be awarded to dedicated users whose contributions and dedication to articles regarding Puerto Rico are above and beyond from what is normally expected and have helped provide a positive image of the island. ""Recipient should have at least one featured article about Puerto Rico"" or ""Has created a significant amount of Puerto Rico related articles"". As a way of attracting more participants, WikiProject Puerto Rico asked Miranda to create an ad. This project thanks Miranda for her work. You can find the banner below. Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America" 307 311 672 WP:PUBLIC Wikipedia:Public Catalogue Foundation 307 The Public Catalogue Foundation has a catalogue of all the publicly owned oil paintings in the United Kingdom. This is freely available online, but also exists in book form and they have given a limited number of books to Wikipedia editors via Wikimedia UK (but you don't need to be in the UK or a WMUK member to get a book). In 2014 the Public Catalogue Foundation generously agreed to give complementary books to 12 Wikipedia editors to use, distributed at the discretion of the community. Editors need to have written content in the Art field in order to qualify, but you don't need to be in the UK or a WMUK member - books have already been sent to editors in Australia and California. === Requirements === You do not have to be in the UK or even a Wikimedia UK member to qualify for one of these books You must have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia; (see Special:Preferences) You must be active in content generation, research, and/or verification work in a relevant field to the book that you request, and have added properly cited content in that area. === Expectations === If we send you a book, you May use the book to cite facts on Wikipedia and as a reference source to add new facts to Wikipedia May not make printed or electronic copies of the book Are requested to give feedback such as quotes and blogposts as to what you have used the book for.Private and confidential informationIf you apply you should understand and agree that your name, address and email address will be processed by staff at Wikimedia UK and the Public Catalogue Foundation in order to send you your requested book. Email glamWikimedia.org.uk stating your Wikimedia username, your choice of book, where we can send it and giving an idea as to what you will do with it. As we need a physical address to send you a book please don't apply on this page. We've used our quota of donated books. 308 312 674 WP:redirect WP:redirect 308 "A redirect is a page which automatically sends visitors to another page, usually an article or section of an article. For example, if you type ""UK"" in the search box or click on the wikilink UK, you will be taken to the article United Kingdom with a note at the top of the page (or on mobile, in a black message bar at the bottom): ""(Redirected from UK)"". This is because the page UK contains special wikitext which defines it as a redirect page and indicates the target article. It is also possible to redirect to a specific section of the target page, using more advanced syntax. Redirect pages can contain other content below the redirect, such as redirect category templates, and category links (which provide a way to list article sections in categories). Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read; this page contains guidance on how to use them properly. For technical help relating to how redirects work, see Help:Redirect. Other relevant pages are Wikipedia:Double redirects, Wikipedia:Hatnote § Redirect and WikiProject Redirect. Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title (for example, Edson Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé). Plurals (for example, Greenhouse gases redirects to Greenhouse gas). Closely related words (for example, Symbiont redirects to Symbiosis). Adjectives or adverbs point to noun forms (e.g., Treasonous redirects to Treason) Less specific forms of names, for which the article subject is still the primary topic. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, whereas Albert is a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, since no Albert is regarded as the primary topic for that name. More specific forms of names (for example, Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union redirects to Articles of Confederation). Abbreviations and initialisms (for example, ADHD redirects to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). But often an abbreviation will have multiple meanings, none of which is a primary topic—in that case a disambiguation page should be created rather than a redirect. Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases. For example, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences : CMLS redirects to Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, based on its PUBMED entry. Alternative spellings or punctuation. For example, Colour redirects to Color, and Al-Jazeera redirects to Al Jazeera. Punctuation issues—some titles containing dashes should have redirects using hyphens, and vice versa. The proper title depends on official spelling (in the case of a name, such as Olivia Newton-John), or established Wikipedia policy and naming conventions (such as Spanish–American War). Representations using ASCII characters, that is, common transliterations (for example, Pele also redirects to Pelé while Kurt Goedel and Kurt Godel redirect to Kurt Gödel). Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). Note: this criterion typically does not apply to redirects from typos in template space; consensus is that such typos, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. Likely alternative capitalizations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection). This is not necessary for user searches made via Wikipedia's search engine, but may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry. To comply with the maintenance of nontrivial edit history, pursuant to Wikipedia:Merging#PROMERGE for copyright licensing requirements. Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) Redirects to disambiguation pages that do not contain ""(disambiguation)"" in the title (for example, Durham (disambiguation) redirects to Durham). These help maintenance by allowing deliberate links to disambiguation pages to be distinguished from links that need to be disambiguated. See WP:INTDAB for a fuller explanation. Shortcuts (for example, WP:V and Wikipedia:V redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability). This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space. Old-style CamelCase links (if already in existence) (AnnaKournikova redirects to Anna Kournikova). Links auto-generated from Exchangeable image file format information (Adobe Photoshop CS Windows redirects to Adobe Photoshop). Finding what links to a section, when links are made to the redirect rather than the section.There are redirect templates to explain the reason for a redirect. Note that redirects to other Wikimedia projects, other websites, or special pages do not work. These should be avoided or replaced with a {{soft redirect}} template. Soft redirects are also used in category space (using the {{category redirect}} template). Redirects from list titles to categories (e.g. a redirect from [[List of things]] to [[Category:Things]]) are highly discouraged. === Editing the source directly === To create a basic redirect using the source editor, type #REDIRECT [[target page name here]] as the only text on the page. The capitalization of the word REDIRECT doesn't matter. For instance, if you were redirecting from ""UK"" to ""United Kingdom"", this would be the entire body of the ""UK"" page: #REDIRECT [[United Kingdom]] === Using VisualEditor === To create a redirect using the VisualEditor: Open the ""page options"" menu (icon with three parallel horizontal bars) at the top right of the editor Select ""Page settings"" Check the box marked ""Redirect this page to"" Enter the name of the target page in the text box below the checkbox Click on the blue ""Apply changes"" button Save the page. You may enter an edit summary, or an automatic summary will be generated. === When moving a page === Redirects can also be automatically created when you move (rename) an existing page. === Requesting a redirect === If you can't create pages, you can request redirects at Wikipedia:Redirect wizard. Sometimes an existing redirect should really be handled by a full article, per Category:Redirects with possibilities. For example, the name of a notable musician (who does not yet have an article) may instead be a redirect to an existing article about a band of which the musician is a member. In this case, you can edit the redirect to make it into an article. Also, if an existing redirect points to the wrong page, you can edit the redirect to point to a different page. If you want to edit a redirect page you must use a special technique in order to get to the redirect page itself. This is because when you try to go straight to the redirect page and edit it, the redirect page will automatically redirect you to its target page (because this is what a redirect page is meant to do). Below is an example of why you might need to go to a redirect page itself (to do a small edit) and how to actually get there. For example, say Trygve Halvdan Lie did not have his own article, and so this link was a redirect to the page Secretary-General of the United Nations. If, later on, the page Trygve Lie was created as a biography, the page Trygve Halvdan Lie should be changed to redirect to Trygve Lie per WP:COMMONNAME. To do this, go to the redirect page by clicking the existing redirect note on the target page, which in this case would read ""(Redirected from Trygve Halvdan Lie)"". Once there, you may click the ""Edit"" tab, and change the page from #REDIRECT [[Secretary-General of the United Nations]] to#REDIRECT [[Trygve Lie]] When adding or changing a redirect, always verify the links that already point there. For instance, if another person named Trygve Lie becomes very well known, it would make sense to make Trygve Lie a redirect to his page (after renaming the existing Trygve Lie page). Such a change cannot be made without changing all the preexisting links to Trygve Lie; these links can be found by clicking on What links here in the left hand menu. Most redirects are untargeted, i.e. they lead simply to a page, not to any specific section of the page. This is usually done when there is more than one possible name under which an article might be sought (for example, Cellphone redirects to the article Mobile phone). For deciding which should be the actual title of the article, see Article titles. It is also possible to create a targeted redirect, i.e. a redirect to a particular point on the target page—either a section header or an anchor. For example, the page Malia Obama contains the code #REDIRECT [[Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama]], which redirects to the Malia and Sasha Obama section in the article Family of Barack Obama. Therefore, entering ""Malia Obama"" will bring the searcher straight to the content that deals with ""Malia and Sasha Obama"". Consider that when the target page is displayed, it is likely that the top of the page will not be shown, so the user may not see the helpful ""(redirected from... )"" text unless they know to scroll back to the top. This is less likely to cause confusion if the redirect is to a heading with the same name as the redirect. The text given in the link on a targeted redirect page must exactly match the target section heading or anchor text, including capitalization and punctuation. (While spaces and underscores are interchangeable in the current implementation of the Wikimedia software, it is generally good practice and aids maintenance to use exactly the same spelling in links as is used in the corresponding targets also for these characters.) (In the absence of a match, the reader will simply be taken to the top of the target page.) It is often helpful to leave a hidden comment in the target text, to inform other editors that a section title is linked, so that if the title is altered, the redirect can be changed. For example: ==Vaccine overload== To ensure that a redirect will not break if a section title gets altered, or to create a redirect to a point on the page other than a section heading, create an explicit target anchor in the page, e.g., by using the {{anchor}} template. Alternative anchors for section headings are ideally placed directly in front of the name of the heading (but after the equals signs): =={{subst:Anchor|anchor name}}Section title== Substitution ({{subst:Anchor}}) is preferable to simply using {{Anchor}} because otherwise, when the section is edited via its own ""[ edit ]"" link, the anchor markup and alternative section title(s) will appear as undesirable clutter at the beginning of revision history entries. Please see MOS:RENAMESECTION for further discussion of this. The anchor text will not be visible on the page, but it will serve as a permanent marker of that place on the page. Editors should generally not remove or alter such anchors without checking all incoming links and redirects. If several logically independent aspects of a topic are discussed under a single section header and should be linked to, it is sometimes useful to define separate anchors for them, if the current amount of information doesn't justify a division into multiple sections already. This makes it easier to rearrange contents on a page as it develops since those anchors can be moved with their corresponding contents without a need to fix up incoming links. For example, in the Google Search article, the text {{Anchor|calculator}} is placed at the point where Google Calculator is discussed. The title Google Calculator can then be redirected to Google Search#calculator. When a section title is known to be the target of incoming links, the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests creating a redundant anchor with the same name as the section title, so that such links will continue to work even if someone renames the section without creating an anchor with the old name. Technically, the redundant section and anchor names result in invalid HTML. However, when a document contains multiple tags with the same id value, browsers are required to return the first one, so in practice, this is not a problem.Be careful with anchor capitalization, as redirects are case-sensitive in standards-compliant browsers. The software will not follow chains of more than one redirect—this is called a double redirect. A redirect should not be left pointing to another redirect page. Double redirects often arise after a page is moved (renamed)—after moving a page, check whether there are any redirects to the old title (using the link on the move result page, or using ""What links here""), and change them to redirect straight to the new title. Double redirects are usually fixed by a bot in a few days; however, an editor should not leave behind any self-created double redirects. You can link to a redirect page just as you can link to an article page by placing the redirect page name within a set of double brackets, such as: replacing Redirect page name with the name of the redirect page to link. To link to a redirect page without following the underlying redirect, use: {{No redirect|Redirect page name}} replacing Redirect page name with the name of the redirect page to link. Clicking on a no-redirect link will send the reader to the redirect page rather than the final redirect destination. Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories. There are three types of redirect categorization that are helpful and useful: Maintenance categories are in use for particular types of redirects, such as Category:Redirects from initialisms, in which a redirect page may be sorted using the {{R from initialism}} template. One major use of these categories is to determine which redirects are fit for inclusion in a printed subset of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages for functional and alphabetical lists of these templates. A brief functional list of redirect category (rcat) templates is also found in the {{R template index}} navbar. Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category, e.g. Honey Lantree redirects to the band article The Honeycombs, but the redirect is placed in Category:1943 births and other categories which relate to Lantree as an individual. (Redirects appear in italics in category listings.) Discussion pages. If a discussion/talk page exists for a redirect, please ensure (1) that the talk page's WikiProject banners are tagged with the ""class=Redirect"" parameter and (2) that the talk page is tagged at the TOP with the {{Talk page of redirect}} template. If the discussion page is a redirect, then it may be tagged with appropriate redirect categorization templates (rcats). === Redirects from moves === When a page is renamed/moved, a redirect that is titled with the replaced page name is created and is automatically tagged with the {{R from move}} template. This sorts the redirect into Category:Redirects from moves. To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it on redirects for discussion. See the deletion policy for details on how to nominate pages for deletion. Listing is not necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article, or change where it points: see these instructions for help doing this. If you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request help from an admin in doing that. === Reasons for deleting === The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for ""New Articles"", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for ""Articles"", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if ""Adam B. Smith"" was redirected to ""Andrew B. Smith"", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" to ""Joe Bloggs"" (unless ""Joe Bloggs is a Loser"" is legitimately discussed in the article), or ""Joe Bloggs"" to ""Loser"". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.) The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting ""Apple"" to ""Orange"". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.) It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. ""MOS:"" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.) If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.) If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. === Reasons for not deleting === They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the ""Keystone State"" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form. === Neutrality of redirects === Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons: Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression ""Attorneygate"" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. Wikipedia follows the ""principle of least astonishment""; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: ""Hang on... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?"" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Normally, we try to make sure that all ""inbound redirects"" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this. For example: Alice Bradley Sheldon (August 24, 1915 – May 19, 1987) was an American science fiction author better known as James Tiptree Jr. ... James Tiptree Jr., redirects from Alice SheldonIf the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote (examples) should be placed at the top of the target article or targeted section that will direct readers to the other meanings or to a relevant disambiguation page. This is usually done using one of the redirect disambiguation templates (examples). It may also be helpful to search the List of Categories for related terms. Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.To make it easier for other editors to find the history of the blanked article, it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article, even if no content has been merged there. This is especially useful if the blanked article had few visits and infrequent edits. If the redirect replaces an article that has been deleted by an administrator, this notice is the only way for editors to know that a previous version of the article existed at all. === Content of the replaced article === The template {{R with history}} should be added to the resulting redirect. If the topic of the article can be reasonably thought to describe a notable topic, mark the redirect with the template {{Redirect with possibilities}} to indicate that it could be expanded in the future. You may also consider turning the article into a stub by removing all unsourced content and keeping the valid references, instead of blanking it. Note that certain forms of blanking are not allowed. Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing. Other forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable. If you want to rename the article by cutting and pasting text to a new article with a different title, you should instead move the page with the Move option. If you want to keep some content from the blanked article and add it to the target article, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging § How to merge. Both processes will create proper links to the edit history, which is required by the Wikipedia license for legal reasons to preserve attribution of content to its authors. There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to ""fix a redirect"". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that ""Franklin D. Roosevelt"" actually appear in the visible text. Editors should also not change redirects with possibilities like [[Journal of the Franklin Institute]] to [[Franklin Institute#Journal of the Franklin Institute|Journal of the Franklin Institute]], so that readers arrive at the more pertinent article in the eventuality that it is created. Reasons not to bypass redirects include: Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{R with possibilities}}). Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Non-piped links make better use of the ""what links here"" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links. (The Rdcheck tool is extremely useful in such cases for finding which redirects need to be changed after an article is updated.) Intentional links to disambiguation pages always use the title with ""(disambiguation)"", even if that is a redirect. If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic ""fixing of redirects"" may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the ""best"" article title.Good reasons to bypass redirects include: It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US Presidents}} at the end of George Washington). When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template. It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint or tooltip that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading (see Principle of least astonishment). Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. This does not necessarily mean that the misspelled redirect should be deleted (see {{R from misspelling}}). Links on disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Piping and redirects for rationale and exceptions. Radio and TV station call letters, since call letters given up by one station can be used later by a different station. In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move or merge should be updated to the new title for naming consistency. Links on the Main Page, to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting high-traffic redirects. (But note, as above, that redirects to article sections should never be bypassed.) === Self-redirects === Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found. This situation may arise if a redirect is created from a red link on the page, or if the title was once a separate page but was merged. However, linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article (redirects with {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}) is acceptable, as it facilitates navigation in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. In addition to readability benefits, when such redirects are marked with {{R with possibilities}}, they have the potential to become independent articles in the future. However, consider using section links instead, when such redirects do not already exist. A template can be redirected to another template in the same way, e.g., by entering the following markup at the top of a template T2: #REDIRECT [[Template:T1]] This allows the template name T2 to be used instead of the actual template name T1. All the parameters of T1 will be respected by T2. A redirect categorisation (rcat) template such as {{R from move}} may be added to T2 (on the third line below the #REDIRECT line) as follows: #REDIRECT [[Template:T1]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from move}} }} While template shortcut/alias redirects are common, they may infrequently cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template NT1, articles must be searched for {{T1}} and a separate search must also be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example). Moreover, changes to syntax, corrections, scans and other processes (for example tag dating) must take into account all applicable redirects. Sometimes, a redirect to an article pertaining to a very controversial topic will be fully or, more rarely, semi-protected indefinitely. This is done when any of the following criteria are met: There is no reason for it to be edited It is frequently expanded into whole articles It is an obvious vandalism target It redirects and/or refers to a very controversial topicRedirects that are protected include Obama, Hitler, and 9/11. Soft redirects that are protected include obvious vandalism targets like dumbass and fatass. Redirects in other namespaces may be protected for technical reasons or are protected under existing guidelines. For example, a template redirect (shorthand) used thousands of times qualifies it as a highly visible template, eligible for template protection. Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line #REDIRECT [[:Category:target category]] to a category page. Articles added to a ""redirected"" category do not show up in the target category, preventing proper categorization. What's worse, since redirected categories do not become ""red links"", editors won't be aware even when they add an article to a redirected category. For an attempt to fix this issue in MediaWiki, see T5311. Instead, ""soft"" redirects are used. It can be created by placing {{Category redirect|target}} in the category page. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories. When a page is moved, a redirect is automatically left behind. Some groups of users (those who possess a suppressredirect right) have the ability to prevent the redirect being created, by unchecking the box labelled ""Leave a redirect behind."" Currently these groups are administrators, bots, page movers, and global rollbackers. In some circumstances, a page should be moved, but a redirect from its current name is inappropriate, such as reverting page-move vandalism. Suppressing the redirect can avoid an extra action (page removal) and save time in these cases. However, in general, the redirect will be a useful entry in the history, and it is best to leave it behind, unless there is a good reason to suppress the redirect, such as vandalism, userfying recently created malplaced items or freeing a title to be occupied immediately by another page (e.g., moving term to accurate term and term (disambiguation) to term). Redirects leave a trail to help readers find the old article, in case a new article is created at its previous location, and to prevent linkrot. Therefore, we usually neither suppress nor delete redirects. As Brion Vibber said, ""Not breaking links helps everyone, especially us first and foremost"". He also said that the removal of (file) redirects is ""extremely user-hostile and makes the project less useful"". A Wikipedia redirect is not the same as an HTTP redirect—it does not generate an HTTP 302 (or other 30x) response. Instead, a page with almost the same content as the target of the redirect is generated by the MediaWiki software, differing in that a small-text note appears below the title of the page, identifying the name of the redirect used to get there (and linking to it in such a way that it can be accessed without the redirect, e.g. so it can be changed). When a user clicks on a redirect such as housecat, the page URL initially will be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housecat, but the URL shown by the browser will change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat after the page loads. On one hand, this allows links like housecat#Anatomy to work as expected, but it also requires redirects to anchors to be implemented as a piece of JavaScript that jumps to an appropriate section after the page has loaded. For example, second-stage boot loader, which is rendered as the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-stage_boot_loader, is a page defined as a #REDIRECT to Booting#SECOND-STAGE. ""SECOND-STAGE"", in this case, is a manually defined anchor (using the markup ""=== {{anchor|SECOND-STAGE}}Second-stage boot loader ==="") which will persist even if the section is renamed. However, whether a redirect points to a manually defined anchor, or an anchor defined implicitly via a section name, the behavior will be the same: the page will automatically be scrolled down to the pointed-to anchor only after the page finishes loading (at which point the URL bar will also change to reflect the redirected-to URL, including ""#anchor"" portion, rather than the redirected-from URL). Category:Redirect templates Category:Wikipedia redirects Wikipedia:Moving a page Help:Redirect Redirect technical help at Meta-Wiki Special:ListRedirects Special:BrokenRedirects Special:DoubleRedirects Template:Redirect Template:No redirect Template:Is redirect Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, to suggest a missing redirect Wikipedia:Hatnote (see above) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Soft redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace and by non-redirects/redirects Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection Capricorn, a Wikipedia gadget for categorizing redirects Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap Wikipedia:Redirects are costly" 309 313 678 WP:SEWAGE User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond 309 "Voting ""Keep. Wikipedia already has pages just like this one so this one should stay too"" or ""Keep. Wikipedia already has lots of articles that are very similar to this band, so this band should be kept as well"" is a fallacy. Let's use a real-world example. If you move to the countryside and find a nearby pond is full of sewage, do you dump yours in there too simply because it's already polluted and so it won't matter? ""Of course not"", you say? Well then, Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. If other pages are just as unencyclopedic and non-notable, nominate them for deletion too. == See also == Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" 310 314 679 WP: M Wikipedia:Mediation 310 "Mediation is a component of the Wikipedia content-dispute resolution process. During mediation, a content dispute between two or more editors is subjected to the involvement of an uninvolved third party (who is the mediator). The role of the mediator is to guide discussion towards the formation of agreement over the disputed elements of content. Mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content. As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing ""for the sake of disagreeing"" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal. Mediation in any form will have the following features: Editors enter into mediation voluntarily and may withdraw from mediation at any time The role of the mediator is to facilitate consensus-building discussion, not to arbitrate or adjudicate disputes or issue binding decisions The mediator is a neutral third-party in relation to both the dispute and all the involved parties Mediation must relate exclusively to disputes over the content of a Wikipedia page: grievances relating to the conduct of another editor are not suitable for mediation Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, the mediator will not subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution Editors acting as a mediator should have a clear ability to foster an agreement (clearly incompetent or seriously inexperienced users should not mediate). Mediators should have no personal prejudice about the issues or topics in dispute. Mediators should have no significant prior involvement with the users involved. You can ask any neutral editor to act as a mediator for you. You can also request mediation on Wikipedia by using the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Disbanded locations for soliciting a mediator include: informally, the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and formally, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. One purpose of mediation is to provide a controlled venue in which a discussion can proceed towards consensus without the incivility, disruptive elements, and drama which sometimes accompany discussions on article and user pages. To achieve that control, a user who agrees to be a mediator may establish procedural and behavioral rules under which the discussion will proceed on the mediation page, the mediation page's talk page, and any subpages of those pages. All participants in the mediation are required to either conform to those rules or to withdraw entirely from the mediation. A mediator may not, however, impose any restrictions on any participant's actions at any other place within Wikipedia, including the place at which the dispute being mediated was taking place. In order to further control the discussion, a mediator may also edit the mediation page, the mediation page's talk page, and any subpages of those pages in the same way and to the same extent that a user may edit their own talk page. Additionally, a mediator may strike out, collapse, delete, or otherwise close all or any part of any posting on those pages which is incivil or which comments upon or seeks to discuss user conduct. Any administrator may upon request by a mediator, and after a single warning by either the mediator or the administrator, block, ban, or otherwise sanction a participant who continues to participate in mediation in a manner which violates the rules established by the mediator or the editing rights granted to the mediator. In addition, a mediator may also condition the continuation of the mediator's participation in the mediation upon whatever conditions the mediator may see fit to require, and those conditions may include restrictions upon participants' actions in other places within Wikipedia. Rules, conditions, edit control, and closures of incivility or conduct comments may restrict the manner and sequence in which participants in a mediation present their positions and the manner and sequence in which discussion is conducted. But rules, conditions, and edit control must not be otherwise formulated or applied in a manner which prevents a user from participating in the mediation or which prevents a user from fully presenting their position regarding their content issues. If a user feels that a mediator is formulating or applying the rules in an unfair manner, the user should first discuss the matter with the mediator. While rules and conditions should, to the greatest degree practical, be clearly stated as part of the mediator's offer to accept the mediation, a mediator may modify or supplement the rules and conditions during the process of the mediation to meet new or unforeseen difficulties or to better manage the mediation. The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia. meatball:ConflictResolution has good suggestions on how to handle conflict as a third party" 311 315 684 WP:CURRENTLY Wikipedia:As of 311 "The ""as of"" technique is a method to deal with information that will quickly become dated. Some articles have information that is valid only at a specific moment in history, such as population statistics and current events. If you suspect that a fact in an article will become dated at some point in the future, and want to ensure that people will update it, include a tag of the form {{As of|year}} or {{As of|year|month}}with the year of validity in place of year and the month number in place of month. See the {{As of}} template for additional options and detailed examples. Every individual, non-contiguous statement in an article that may date quickly should be so tagged, even if there are several such statements that link to the same year. Otherwise, it is possible that when one statement is updated, other statements in the article might be overlooked, and no one will realize that they need to be checked also. Usually ""as of"" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available and will need a future update. It should not be used for historical information that will not change. For example, a mention that the historical ""population of Toledo, Ohio, was 13,768 as of the 1860 Census"" should not be tagged, as it is a historical fact which will not change. It is appropriate to tag ""the population of Toledo as of the 2020 Census was 287,208"", as this figure should be updated when a newer census is conducted. The date used for a given statement should be the date of the most recent reliable source (for currently valid statements), or the date on which the data were obtained (for example, when using census figures). ""As of"" should not be used with future dates, as it will place the article in nonexistent categories. Instead, use {{Update after}} to mark when the next event will occur. Here are two ways to correctly mark statements with future dates: {{As of|2023|post=,}} construction is expected to finish in 2033 and cost US$28 billion. Construction is expected to finish in 2033 and cost US$28 billion.{{update after|2033}} Remember to always use precise language when writing about future or current events. The statement should make sense to a reader years into the future, even if the information has changed. If it is possible to predict when a statement will need updating, use the {{Update after}} template to indicate when it should be updated. In the above statement the most obvious date is 31 December 2033, after which time construction will have finished or the statement will have become inaccurate. In either case the article should be updated to reflect this. When the ""as of"" phrasing is not ideal, it should be changed to improve encyclopedic prose in either of two ways: {{As of|since=y|2023|03|post=,}} the head of the congregation has been the Rev. Ann O. Nymous, which gives: Since March 2023, the head of the congregation has been the Rev. Ann O. Nymous {{As of|alt=Beginning in early 2023|2023|01|post=,}} production of the series moved to Toronto, which gives: Beginning in early 2023, production of the series moved to TorontoAvoid beginning a series of paragraphs or sentences with repeated instances of the wording ""As of"", as this can produce a distracting list-like effect. Both ""As of"" and ""Since"" can be made lower-case for use in mid-sentence, by addition of the |lc=y parameter, and any use of |alt=... can contain text beginning with lower case. In general, editors should avoid using statements that will date quickly. This does not apply to quotes, which must remain true to their source. Where possible, avoid terms such as ""now"" and ""soon"" (unless their intended meaning is made apparent), ""currently"" and ""recently"" (except on rare occasions where they are not redundant), or phrases such as ""in modern times"" and ""the sixties"" (unless their frame of reference was previously made clear). One exception to this is in articles that are regularly updated, such as those that cover current events. Do not use variables to automatically update the date, such as ""as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}"", unless the information being referenced is automatically updated each time the page is parsed, such as {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. When writing about past events, use more precise language, such as ""during the 1990s"", or ""in August 1969"". For future and current events use phrases such as ""as of March 2007"", or ""since the start of 2005"", which indicate that the information is time-specific. The ""as of"" technique/template described above can be used to assist fellow editors in keeping information up-to-date. However, this technique is not intended to replace precise language. When statements are tagged using {{As of}} the article they are in is automatically added to one or more of the categories in the table below. This allows editors to browse the statements by date of origin. Statements from 2005 onwards will be sorted into categories by month and year if a month is specified, otherwise they will be placed in the parent year category. Statements from 1990–2004 will be categorised by year only, and all other statements will be placed in a separate category. New categories should be created every month using the {{Category as of}} template, and the navbox below should be updated to reflect the changes. No other maintenance should be required for these categories. === Article maintenance === If you are looking for work and are interested in helping this project there are a number of routine tasks that you can perform. The most demanding, and also most important, is to go through the above categories checking the statements that have been tagged, updating the statement or ""as of"" tag wherever possible. You may not be able to update some data at this point in time, for example census figures. You may find it easiest to work through the subcategories chronologically, or you may prefer to look through all tagged articles or work on today's focus letter. When checking articles for updates you may find it helpful to add one of the following lines of code to your common.css page: This displays a link to the location specified by the url parameter in the article, if given, which should lead to a webpage containing an updated version of the statement. The URL is visible in the edit window if available, this technique is intended to provide a faster way to check information. For an example see the template documentation. If the url parameter is not specified, this will display a link to edit the page, indicating the implementation of the template and allowing editors to quickly update pages. === Project maintenance === If you have less time to spare, you can check if this month's maintenance category has been created yet. If it hasn't, create it using the {{Cat ASOF}} template, and update the above navbox to include it. You can also help by adding ""as of"" tags whenever you come across an appropriate statement while editing articles. Also see the next section for tasks relating to converting articles from the previous ""as of"" method. {{subst:Historical}} Before July 2008, an alternative method for handling these statements was in use; they were linked to ""As of [....]"" pages that would redirect to the article for that year, like this: [[As of 2008]], construction is expected to finish in 2012 and cost 28 billion USD.Since the {{As of}} template works just as well (without creating misleading and unhelpful redirects that provide no benefit to readers), these links have all been replaced. If one such link led you here, please either change it to reflect the above policy using the {{As of}} template, or report it on the project talk page. Usually, replacements can be done like this: Old: [[As of 2021|As of February 2021]], all [[Special:WhatLinksHere]] pages for the yearly ""as of"" pages are empty, and the replacement has been complete. New: {{asof|February 2021}}, all [[Special:WhatLinksHere]] pages for the yearly ""as of"" pages are empty, and the replacement has been complete.Some of these might be more difficult. The process of converting the old links to the new tagging system is complete, but a few as of links may reappear from time to time. The ""As of..."" redirects have also been deleted, and should not be recreated; if you find links to pages that do not exist convert them to the new tagging system instead. Any recreated redirects will be listed automatically at Special:Prefixindex/As of, and should be deleted immediately. Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Timing-related messages Wikipedia:Updating information, for updating information at a known future date, and: The accompanying {{Update}} template. The accompanying {{Update after}} template. {{Recentism}} {{Show by date}}/{{subst:Show by}}" 312 316 685 WP:BNA WP:BNA 312 "The British Newspaper Archive (BNA) is a newspaper database gathered from the British Library's holdings of newspapers (for more information on what gets digitized see the discussion of the partnership). This database includes the newspapers listed at the ""Available Newspapers"" subpage and these resources are particularly suited for 18th, 19th and early 20th century British and Global news events and people content: their current collection includes mostly regional papers and very few titles go beyond the 1950s, many stopping in the early twentieth century. There were a total of 200 accounts available to distribute, and all accounts were issued for a full year. === Userbox === Add {{Wikipedia:BNA/Userbox}} to your userboxes! This helps us share our project with other experienced users. === Example citation === {{cite news |title=Terrific Gale |work=Burnley Gazette |date=2 October 1875 |accessdate=14 March 2023 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000280/18751002/009/0007| via = [[British Newspaper Archive]]|url-access=subscription }}""Terrific Gale"". Burnley Gazette. 2 October 1875. Retrieved 14 March 2023 – via British Newspaper Archive.If you discover something valuable or of public interest, the British Newspaper Archive is interested in having guest bloggers on their blog (see http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/). Guest blogging has many benefits: it gives the opportunity for both The Wikipedia Library and BNA to profile our partnership, it gives the guest bloggers a new platform to share their editing experience with others (which is good for the Wikimedia community), and BNA will change the access of the newspaper page in question to Open Access (which is good for public knowledge). To find out more, contact our volunteer coordinator. Alternatively, if you keep your own blog: BNA is willing to release newspaper images for your use on your own blog (with appropriate copyright statements of course). Add yourself at the bottom of the list with a line starting with #{{user8|USERNAME|Project=code}} (eg. {{user8|Example|Project=en}}) to be notified if this partnership is restarted. dirtyharry667 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I don't know how many edits or contributions I have, but I have been a member for many years. I have written several articles and have helped clean up several others. My primary interests have to do with corporate history and retail history. My most recent contributions were the August Wagner Breweries page and I am in the process of reworking the Gamble-Skogmo page. Having access to these data bases would be very helpful in nailing down acquisitions and mergers and their dates.dirtyharry667 (talk) 3:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @Dirtyharry667: I see you've requested access to many of The Wikipedia Library's resources covering many different categories. I looked at your edit history, and from what I can see, you've done little to no work on any article related to Britain. This resource is available do find historical newspaper clippings generally from British Newspapers. How would you intend to use this resource if given access? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @Dirtyharry667: Are you still interested? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC) LowSelfEstidle (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I enjoy researching to improve English articles of a variety of favourite topics of mine, including films, biographies, and music related articles. Having a resource such as this would be a tremendous help and would encourage me to spend more time researching and improving content to the articles I enjoy working on! Many thanks. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @LowSelfEstidle: I see that you've applied for many of our wonderful resources. I just want to make sure that you have the need and use for the British Newspaper Archive. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @LowSelfEstidle: Are you still interested? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Have over 4,000 edits, I spend most of the time looking for references to try and save prodded or AFD articles, this newspaper archive would help with pre internet subjects and topics.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) @Atlantic306: Approved Expect an email shortly with further details. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Hi, unfortunately was only given feebased access instead of free access, please advise. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Pavan santhosh.s (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I have nearly 15,000 + edits on Telugu Wikipedia. And I am writing articles on Indian history and related aspects in the language. I wanted to improve articles using this resource. Thank you. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Clithering (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I have joined the Chinese Wikipedia since 2006 where I have contributed nearly 40,000 edits. Over the past 10 years, I have been specialising in biographies of people from British colonial history. A vast majority of these people had roots in Britain. Free access to BNA would allow me to search family notices of newspapers as covered by BNA for birth, death and marriage records, which could hardly be obtained from other sources. These records would greatly improve the quality of relevant biographical entries in Wikipedia. Many thanks. --Clithering (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I have been a member since November 2015 with 6500 edits. I usually work with the history of Singapore related articles and since Singapore was a British colony, access to colonial era British newspapers would help me in researching facts. My main work is often sourcing obscure facts about etymology and biographies which do not seem to be available anywhere else and BNA would be a useful research tool. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Hi, was approved for this back in April, still have not been given membership. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC) === Renewal requests === Mendaliv (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Expired around July. I have more time now and am editing more, looking to get more background on legal case articles I'm fleshing out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC) @Mendaliv: Approved Your account should be updated shortly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) @TLSuda: I'm still not renewed on BNA. Any word on when I should expect this to go through? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC) @Mendaliv: Same response as above to WTT. I'll keep trying until we have better information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something on my end. Thanks for your hard work! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Farrtj (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Hi my subscription has recently ended. Could you please renew it? I have found BNA to be an excellent historical source. Tom (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Farrtj: Approved Your account should be updated shortly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Murma174 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My account has expired in Nov. 2015. I'd be glad if I could use this source again. --Murma174 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC) @Murma174: Approved Your account should be updated shortly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I've just noticed my account has expired, just while I was about to use it to do fact checking on a GA review :-/ ... could I get access again? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Keri (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Would it be possible for a renewal? I find this a very useful source for my editing in areas of pre-internet social history. Keri (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Tony Holkham (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My subscription expires next week. Could it be renewed, please? I have found it most useful in expanding and creating articles. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Iantheimp (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Hi, my subscription runs out next weekend, could it possibly be renewed please, it has been a great help, Thank you. Iantheimp (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email). My subscription expired last year. If it's not too late to renew it, I would like to do that. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Thincat (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Yes, my subscription has now lapsed too. Can I be included in again, please? Thincat (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Apwoolrich (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My subscription has just expired. Can I renew, please? Its most useful resource for research, which I use constantly. Many thanks.Apwoolrich (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Struway2 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My subscription just expired. Please let me know if access to this becomes available again so that I can renew. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Philg88 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Ditto. Philg88 ♦talk 09:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Cccefalon (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My subscription just expired. If possible, please renew. --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) My subscription expired a week ago. I would very much like to renew it, if possible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Miyagawa (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Expired a couple of weeks ago. It has been extremely useful for a host of British-centric articles. Miyagawa (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Emeraude (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Expired a few weeks ago - didn't realise until I wanted to start some more new articles on 1800s British MPs. Emeraude (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Rodw (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Expired a few weeks ago. Used for lots of local (Somerset & Bristol) articles.— Rod talk 20:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Jeff5102 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) expired at 07/08/2016. Used for creating, expanding and filling in references for British and Russian politicians. Also for correcting articles at BNA itself.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Curlymanjaro (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Subscription expired recently. I'm looking to continue on projects pertaining to Nottinghamshire's local history, would be very grateful for a renewal. Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Jellyman (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Have used in the past primarily for research relating to football history, access expired in 2016. Jellyman (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Expired a little while ago, found it extremely useful, wrote about a dozen good articles using it. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)" 313 317 686 WP:AUC Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian crime 313 "Welcome to our WikiProject Our goals are create more quality articles on historical and recent crime in Australia (such as convicts, bushrangers, Aboriginal massacres, rebellons, riots, terrorism, and deaths in custody), Australian criminal biography, and crime-related media. We also aim to fill in, organise, and standardise articles about related topics (such as law enforcement in Australia, punishment in Australia and indirectly, the judiciary of Australia and Australian crime studies and statistics). We need your help! If you are familiar with Australian crimes, please feel free to: Join up! Add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian crime/Members. Attract attention... from editors interested in crime and Australian criminal-related topics. Discuss the project... on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian crime. Expand a stub. See Category:Crime stubs and Category:Australian crime biography stubs. Create an article... where a knowledge gap exists. Start a new area of the project. See the list of current areas below. You can view all articles related to this WikiProject here. === Featured articles === (4 August 2019) Death of Ms Dhu (17 May 2019) Waterloo Bay massacre (3 September 2018) Avenue Range Station massacre (30 October 2015) Fremantle Prison (18 December 2014) Murder of Leigh Leigh (17 February 2006) Yagan (8 February 2006) Sydney Riot of 1879 === Featured media === (17 December 2017) ""Fremantle Prison inmates and main front"" === Good articles === Aaron Saxton Architecture of Fremantle Prison Bali Nine History of Fremantle Prison Michelle Leslie Old Melbourne Gaol Trial of Lex Wotton Underbelly (series 1) === Did you know? === (20 May 2018) Death of Ms Dhu (12 May 2018) Jessie Hickman (15 November 2017) Avenue Range Station massacre (30 January 2016) Survival Island 3 (5 January 2015) Cairns child killings (21 October 2011) Brett Sutton (22 November 2010) Connellan air disaster (4 April 2010) Aaron Saxton (3 July 2009) Gold Stealing Detection Unit (2 June 2009) Amy Roselle (21 November 2008) Trial of Lex Wotton (4 September 2008) Mount Rennie rape case (3 April 2008) John Vincent Barry (2 December 2006) James Alpin McPherson (23 November 2006) Leisha Harvey (18 September 2006) Ansett Airlines Flight 232 (14 June 2006) Perth Gaol (14 November 2004) Disappearance of the Beaumont children Good article nominees 25 Mar 2023 – Ray O'Connor (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Steelkamp (t · c); start discussionArticles to be split 04 Feb 2023 – Julian Assange (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by NadVolum (t · c); see discussion 29 Mar 2022 – 'Ndrangheta (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Gusfriend (t · c); see discussion Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject:Australian crime: Expand: HM Prison Pentridge, Murder of Sheree Beasley, Russell Street bombing, Snowtown murders Stubs: Acacia Prison, Casuarina Prison, Don Hancock Images: Emu Plains Correctional Centre, Fulham Correctional Centre, Hopkins Correctional Centre (Ararat), St Heliers Correctional Centre To add this template to your own pages, add {{Australian crime opentask}}. The areas covered by this project are listed below. Each area has its own page for the discussion and formulation of guidelines and conventions, as well as for listing examples of the best articles. If a page does not yet exist for a particular area, feel free to create it and propose how that part of the Project might be organised. {{Crime in Australia}} {{User WikiProject Australian crime}}Specific templates {{Infobox prison}}{{ACTPrisons}} {{NewSouthWalesPrisons}} {{NorthernTerritoryPrisons}} {{QueenslandPrisons}} {{SouthAustralianPrisons}} {{TasmanianPrisons}} {{VictorianPrisons}} {{WesternAustralianPrisons}}Others {{BaliNine}} {{Bushrangers}} {{Convicts in Australia}} The parent of this WikiProject is the WikiProject Australia. === Similar Wikiprojects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law Wikipedia:WikiProject British crime Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles." 314 318 687 WP:PLAGUE User:Moreschi/The Plague 314 "Why, that's not difficult! Plague is here and we've got to make a stand, that's obvious. Ah, I only wish everything were as simple! Wikipedia's very own plague is nationalism. The troll who is here solely to push his ethnic or nationalist point of view poses a colossal threat to Wikipedia's content and standards of user conduct. Religiously motivated editors can often, though not always, be included in the same category. However, those of religious motivation cause fewer problems than the out-and-out nationalist: it is only when religious faith blends with mysticism that problems arise, usually in cases of a national ""manifest destiny"" where pseudoscience is used as justification. == The infection == Why do nationalists come to Wikipedia? What is a nationalist, anyway? As Muhammad once said, I believe, the nationalist is he who supports his people in an unjust cause. On Wikipedia, this translates to rewriting history, and tampering with facts and verified information. The nationalist will attempt to justify the current activities of his ethnic group or nation, but most particularly he will attempt to expunge those blots that all nations have from Wikipedia's recording of history. With a few exceptions, much of our nationalist editing focuses on historical subjects. The nationalist views himself as on a crusade (enter at this point mysticism and pseudoscience), and being sanctified by God, he is immune to reason. Wikipedia represents a singularly attractive and open target for nationalists, and it is worth thinking about why. Historical revisionism of a particularly fringecruft-esque type is, as a general rule, the aim of the nationalist (not that he thinks of it in this way: the nationalist views himself as seeking The Truth). It is his opportunity to set the historical record straight (straight from his point of view, that is). He is unlikely to be able to get a book published that will affirm his claims, and certainly not by a major publishing house that will have the ability to spread his views to a wide audience. Sure, he could self-publish, or make his views available elsewhere on the Internet, but such isolated ravings rarely get read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, offers a vast readership, has no formal editorial oversight, and requires no qualifications to begin. Not only that: Wikipedia is a vastly influential website with significant socio-political clout on a global scale, is widely used as a first reference, and among the more foolish is taken as an ultra-reliable source. The attractions for those tempted to push a nationalist point of view are obvious. == The symptoms == Disruptive editing along nationalist lines is marked by several characteristics. The inclusion of fringe theories, original research and original synthesis in order to promote the point of view in question. This is the feature of the nationalist: denying fact and academic consensus, he must search elsewhere. The fringe theories of his fellow crank provide a fine resource. See this and then compare that to the current lede. Edit warring, incivility, and personal attacks. When one is sanctified by God, Wikipedia's rules are insignificant by comparison. The viewing of other editors exclusively through the prism of nationality and/or ethnic group. Those who oppose the nationalist simply have to be ""biased"". Tendentious editing in all its forms. Examples. This includes accusing others of ""vandalism"" and ""censorship"". The nationalist truth will out! The absolute rejection of all scholarship not coming from authors of the same nationality that our nationalist is whitewashing. See here for a fine example. The propounding of pseudoscience (often genetics-related lies, see eugenics). This accompanied by a certain mysticism that triumphantly eliminates logic. Misrepresenting reliable sources. Removing references to peer-reviewed books by reputable academics in favor of random blogs off the internet. == The failure of the immune system == Wikipedia is singularly ill-adapted to deal with nationalist troublemaking. Overmuch of the mentality of the Arbitration Committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the administrative corps. Living-persons issues apart, most admins are too scared to block for POV pushing, even though neutrality is supposed to be our most important principle. Nor are such blocks readily endorsed, no matter how justified, largely because the majority of those expressing an opinion are not familiar with the subject matter, and either cannot or will not properly check the issues concerned. As a result, admins are unable to deal with pure POV-pushing, and can only address the other symptoms of the nationalist disease. Typically the nationalist troll does, in fact, infringe user conduct rules, but this cannot be universally relied upon. Even if he does, the nationalist cannot be relied upon to violate the user conduct regulations to the extent that he can be removed permanently. It is also worth noting that most nationalist editing focuses on humanities-related subjects, where Wikipedia does not possess the same volume of expert editors that we do when it comes to science-related topics. As a result, the number of those able to refute nationalist crankpottery head-on is smaller. == The cure == There are no easy solutions, but I have tried to show that you cannot reason with the nationalist: simple stick-and-carrot will not work, and nor will instruction in the ways and ethos of Wikipedia, no matter how detailed and protracted. Such things are insignificant to the nationalist. Short blocks, particularly for 3RR, are equally futile for the same reason. The nationalist, devoted to his cause, simply doesn't care. With the nationalist, the only good block is the indefinite one. There remains the indefinite block, the ban, and limitation. Bans (both from topics and from the site) and limitations are almost never enacted except by the arbitration committee, though this may be changing. Arbitration is an incredibly time-consuming process that wastes time, drains energy, reduces contributions to the encyclopedia, and is invariably an ugly scrap. Unsurprisingly, and with justification, many users confronted with nationalist trolling give up rather than go for formal arbitration. This is unlikely to change. Topic bans are probably the best way of combating nationalist editing, as with single-purpose nationalists this is often equivalent to a siteban: if not, however, the nationalist can find something else to edit, and can hopefully do so productively. Supervised editing and revert limitation only address symptoms, not causes. Article probation is useful with such articles as Falun Gong, and an article revert limitation would probably be helpful for such articles as Islam and Armenia. However, such remedies are not applied nearly frequently enough, and only then after a good deal of drama. Much greater use should be made in this respect of the community sanction noticeboard, and I have also proposed a radical alternative system here. The main criticism of this is that it puts too much power in the hands of administrators, and perhaps it does: but in reply I would quintuple the number of admins. Circa 1000 barely keeps our backlogs clear, and is certainly not adequate to tackle the iniquities of POV-pushing. This also requires clueful admins able to cope with content issues: 5000 +sysop twinklebots will be no good to anyone. However, drastic measures are required to combat the threat from the nationalist horde. If this means a slight expansion of sysop power, so be it. Formal content arbitration that can issue binding solutions is a must. How such a system would work, at the moment I don't know. However, it is something we must think about. Too often the nationalists win simply by shouting loudest until all opposition is driven away, when reasonable people find that the trolling will simply not cease. == See also == User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism User:Dbachmann/Parliamentary nationalism User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin2 An open debate on how to resolve nationalist conflicts My own bubo detection can be found here. A collection of useful links is here. Wikipedia:General sanctions Wikipedia:Editing restrictions User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing An adaptation of mine, nicely illustrating some of my themes == Notes == == External links == Orwell on nationalism (Notes on Nationalism)" 315 319 688 WP:UKWNB Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board 315 Board | List | Portal | Projects | To-Do | Tools 316 320 689 WP:vandalism WP:vandalism 316 "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued). Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits ""vandalism"" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term ""vandalism"" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a user warning template. Choose the template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct. Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone, warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by blocking such editors. Users whose main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning. Useful ways to detect vandalism include: Recent changes patrolling, using the recent changes link to spot suspicious edits Keeping an eye on your watchlist The edit history of an article can be checked for recent suspicious edits. Article size, as given in bytes, usually increases slightly with time, so a sudden large decrease may indicate a section blanking. Similarly, if an article's size change is inappropriately large for the stated edit summary (e.g. ""Fixing typo"" while removing 100 bytes), it's an indication of vandalism. In all the three methods above, examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses, red linked, or obviously improvised usernames. A good way to start is to click on every edit in watchlists, histories etc. with the least suspicion of being vandalism. Increased experience will probably give a sense of which edit descriptions are worth to check further and which may likely be ignored. Some descriptions like ""Fixed typo"" may be vandalism as that is one of the default edit summaries. IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are great contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the edit summary. See the what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text and Example Image to detect test edits. (See also {{toolbar experiments}}). The auto-summary feature can also help users spot vandalism. Viewing the abuse log or this version[1] if the regular abuse log is cluttered by spambots. Watching for edits tagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit. Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism. Changing numbers, sometimes by 1, is a common stealth tactic. If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove or undo it, but sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism. With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred. This can make it harder to detect and delete the vandalism, which is now hidden among other edits. Sometimes bots try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check the page history to make sure you're reverting to a ""clean"" version of the page. Alternatively, if you can't tell where the best place is, take your best guess and leave a note on the article's talk page so that someone more familiar with the page can address the issue—or you can manually remove the vandalism without reverting it. If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your watchlist), then revert it immediately. You may use the ""undo"" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify. For a new article, if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it for speedy deletion by tagging it with {{Db-g3}}. To make vandalism reverts easier you can ask for the rollback feature to be enabled for your registered Wikipedia account. This feature is only for reverting vandalism and other obvious disruption, and lets you revert several recent edits with a single click. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click ""User contributions"" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise, you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then decide whether to block the user. For repeated vandalism by an IP user it is helpful to trace the IP address (e.g. http://whois.domaintools.com/) and add {{whois|Name of owner}} to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be a shared IP address, add {{SharedIP|Name of owner}} or {{Shared IP edu|Name of owner}}. The OrgName on the IP trace result should be used as the Name of owner parameter in the above three templates. === For beginners === For relatively inexperienced Wikipedians, use these simple steps to quickly respond to what you consider vandalism. This is essentially an abridged version of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Assess whether the edit was made in good or bad faith. If in good faith, it is not vandalism as such, so question the accuracy of information on the talk page or add an inline cleanup tag, such as a ""{{dubious}}"" tag, to the disputed edit. If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it. Revert the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism. Use an edit summary such as 'rv/v' or 'reverted vandalism' and click on 'Publish changes'. Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, a series of warning templates exist to simplify the process of warning users, but these templates are not required. These templates include Level one: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning. Level two: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to this Wikipedia policy. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block, however it uses the wording ""loss of editing privileges"" rather than ""block"". Level three: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block while actually using the word ""block"". Level four: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning. Level four-im: {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} This warning template should be used only in the worst conditions of vandalism. It indicates that this is the only warning the target will receive, and that further disruptive edits will result in a block without warning. Watch for future vandalism from the vandal by checking the user's contributions. If bad faith edits continue, revert them and warn them again, letting the users know that they can be blocked. Note that it is not necessary to use all four warning templates in succession, nor is it necessary to incrementally step through warnings. Report vandals that continue their behavior after being warned to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. While not strictly required, administrators there are most likely to respond rapidly to requests which include at least two warnings, culminating in the level-four ""last chance"" template. === Template and CSS vandalism === If no vandalizing edits appear in the page's edit history, or the vandalism obscures the page tabs so you can't easily access the history or edit the page, it is probably template or Cascading Style Sheets vandalism. These are often not difficult to fix, but can be confusing. To access the page history or edit the page when the ""View history"" or ""Edit"" tabs are inaccessible, use Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts. You can also access the history through a vandalism patrolling tool if you're using one, or from your watchlist if you are watching the page), or from your user contributions if you have edited the page. Or, enter the URL manually into the address bar of your browser: it will take the form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article?action=edit or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article?action=history. If vandalizing edits do not appear in the page history, the vandalism is likely in a transcluded template instead of the page itself. To find the template page, edit the article (using Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts if necessary); toward the bottom of the edit page is a list of all templates transcluded into the page. Look for vandalism in the transcluded templates not protected. Alternatively, look for {{Template name}} or {{Template name|parameter ...}} in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template:Template name and revert any vandalism. When you return to the original page, the vandalism should be gone, though you may need to purge the page. === Image vandalism === Images are occasionally used for vandalism, such as by placing shock or explicit images where they should not be. When an image has been created exclusively for vandalism, it can be requested for speedy deletion: under criterion G3 if hosted on Wikipedia or as vandalism if hosted on Commons (a file repository for Wikimedia Foundation projects). When an image is used for vandalism due to its explicit nature but has legitimate encyclopedic uses (Wikipedia is not censored) or is hosted on Commons and has legitimate uses on other projects, it can be requested for being added to the bad image list, which precludes its addition on any page except those specified. Do not nominate a page for deletion because it is being vandalized. If a page is persistently vandalized, consider requesting protection of the page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do not feed the trolls. Fanning the fire will only serve to make the situation worse. Similarly, do not insult the vandals. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, it is not a battleground, and two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue. Avoid the word ""vandal"". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a ""vandal"", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the user's conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the user's compliance. Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions. A warning may even dissuade a user acting in bad faith from continuing, particularly as the warnings escalate and the user is informed of the consequences of continuing. Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism. === How to warn vandalizing users === A list of user warning templates, with descriptions and instructions for their use, is at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. In addition to a series of user warning templates for vandalism, there are series for specific types of vandalism. Use the most specific user warning template for the conduct. The existence of these templates is intended as a convenience, and their use is not required. A specifically tailored note, written personally and directly addressing the problematic behavior is equally as acceptable as a form of warning, and in many cases, will often result in better engagement with the user in question. Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines) unless it is clear that the user is deliberately harming Wikipedia from the outset, such as the use of abusive, vulgar, or juvenile vandalism. If you do choose to use warning templates, please choose templates that are appropriate to the type and level of problem in question. If edits are questionable, but not clearly vandalism, consider using lower-level templates (level 1 or 2) and wait for a few further contributions to see if the other editor responds or changes their behavior. If the behavior continues, or if it is clear the edits are in bad faith from the outset, the use of a higher-level template (level 3 or 4) may be appropriate. If, after receiving multiple warnings, the behavior persists past the point where good faith can be extended, or it becomes clear that the user has had the opportunity to notice they have been warned, and they still persist with the problematic behavior, consider reporting them to the Vandalism noticeboard. === Administrator response to vandalism === Response from administrators at the vandalism noticeboard varies depending on the type of vandalism and the specifics of the report. Keep in mind: Admins are unlikely to block a user who has not been warned at all, or who has been warned, but has stopped editing since being warned. It must be clear that the user has been told to stop vandalizing, and still persists despite such warnings, except for egregious cases. Reports of vandalism from registered accounts are handled differently than that from IP users, and reports from newly registered accounts are handled differently from accounts of experienced Wikipedia users. IP addresses may or may not be kept by the same person for long periods of time; a dynamic address which appears to have stopped vandalizing will probably not be blocked, while one that is actively vandalizing will likely receive a short (1–2 day) block. If there is evidence that an IP address is being used by the same person over a long period of time to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia, or if it is clear the IP address is being used by multiple people to vandalize Wikipedia (such as a school-based IP, which can sometimes attract lots of juvenile vandalism over long periods of time from many different people) then an administrator may block the IP for a longer time period (several months to a year). IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely. Brand-new accounts who repeatedly vandalize despite multiple warnings are usually blocked indefinitely, especially when there is no history of quality editing on the account. Reports which involve experienced Wikipedia users rarely result in blocks for vandalism, as these reports are usually mislabeling other problematic behavior (such as misrepresenting sources, or removing text, or edit warring) as vandalism. The vandalism noticeboard is not designed to litigate disputes or to investigate complex behavior problems. Instead, other noticeboards such as the edit warring noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard are more appropriate to deal with those issues. Check back in to the vandalism noticeboard to see how your report has been dealt with. If an administrator declines to block someone you report, they will always leave a note explaining why they did not respond as you requested. Often, this does not mean the person you reported is behaving properly, or should not be dealt with, but merely that the mechanisms of the vandalism noticeboard are not well suited for handling many types of reports. Consider taking the issue up at a more appropriate noticeboard, which has been tailored to the specific type of problem you are seeing. Other times, a report is declined for being stale (blocks to abandoned accounts, or to IP addresses which have been dormant for some time are rarely done), or to the admin being unable to easily identify the edits as vandalism. If the vandalism in question is ""sneaky vandalism"", is being committed by a person who was blocked under a prior account or IP address, or requires in-depth and direct knowledge of a prior problem, consider taking the report to the incidents noticeboard instead. There are hundreds of Wikipedia administrators, and many of them are unfamiliar with the intricacies of past cases. Unless it is the sort of vandalism that needs no explanation at all, it should be taken elsewhere and not WP:AIV. === Reminding responding users to correctly warn === Because warnings for vandalism are generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention, it is important that users responding to vandalism warn vandalizing users. To inform responding users of this responsibility, use the user warning template {{uw-warn}}. Likewise, incorrect use of user warning templates, even if well-intended, should be identified to the mistaken user. The {{uw-tempabuse}} series of user warning templates may be used, but a detailed talk page message is better. The owners of IP addresses can be found using: ARIN (North America) RIPE NCC (Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia) APNIC (Asia Pacific) LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean) AfriNIC (Africa) IPLigence IP-adress.com [sic] Find-IP-address.org who.isIf an address is not in one registry, it will probably be in another. === Identifying associated IP addresses === If you're trying to determine whether a set of IP addresses involved in vandalism are related, a command-line WHOIS query will generally list this information, or can be shown using the Routeviews DNS name server asn.routeviews.org reverse IP look-up to find the CIDR and ASN for a set of IP addresses. This can be done using IP lookup tools. A WHOIS query will typically return NetRange, CIDR, NetName, NetHandle, and OriginAS, all of which identify specific network spaces. Data and labeling vary considerably by WHOIS registrar. The Routeviews data is far more uniformly structured and returns ASN and CIDR as a reverse-lookup TXT query result. It is more useful and faster than WHOIS when checking multiple IP addresses and can be scripted or automated. CIDR identifies a set of related addresses (""network space"") and ASN identifies an Autonomous System—that is, a single administrative entity with control over multiple (and often very many) addresses. Some (though not all) abuse from multiple sources does come from such unified spaces—possibly corresponding to a set of hosts within a single facility. Abuse originating in a short period of time from different IP addresses within the same CIDR or ASN may indicate a dedicated non-distributed attack, as opposed to a distributed denial of service attack. === Proxies, VPNs and Tor exit nodes === It's possible that a user's source location is being masked by routing traffic through a Proxy server, VPN or the Tor network. Such addresses typically serve many, not just one, person, and though they can be valid present challenges when used for abuse. A proxy VPN is not necessarily detectable, but commercial services may be indicated by the hostname when resolving an IP address. Users of the Tor anonymity network will show the IP address of a Tor ""exit node"". Lists of known Tor exit nodes are available from the Tor Project's Tor Bulk Exit List exporting tool. Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories: === Abuse of tags === Bad faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{db}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags. === Account creation, malicious === Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. === Avoidant vandalism === Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. However, this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue. === Blanking, illegitimate === Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries. === Repeated uploading of copyrighted material === Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action becomes vandalism only if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user. === Edit summary vandalism === Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be ""reverted"" and require administrative action if they have to be removed from a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation. === Format vandalism === Changing the formatting of a page unreasonably and maliciously. But many times, editors might just make an unintended mistake or are testing how the wikicode works. Sometimes it might be a bug in the Wikipedia software. Some changes to the format are not vandalism, but rather either good faith edits of editors who don't know the guidelines or simply a different opinion on how the format should look, in which case it is just a disputed edit. === Gaming the system === Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the {{construction}} tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets. === Hidden vandalism === Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see. === Hoaxing vandalism === Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism. === Image vandalism === Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value). === Link vandalism === Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling. === Page creation, illegitimate === Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. It also includes personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. There are many other types of pages that merit deletion, even speedy deletion, but which are not vandalism. New users sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism. Blatant advertising pages, and blatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted. === Page lengthening, illegitimate === Adding very large (measured by the number of bytes) amounts of bad faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (see Wikipedia:Article size). === Page-move vandalism === Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names. Only autoconfirmed or confirmed users can move pages. === Redirect vandalism === Redirecting or changing the target of redirect pages to other pages that are vandalism, nonsense, promotional, non-existent pages, or attack pages. This also applies when a redirect or its title is created only to disparage its subject. Pages that redirect to non-existent or deleted pages are also applied with G8. === Reverting to vandalism === Reverting edits to the latest revisions that are nonsense, promotional, personal attacks, and/or harassment. === Silly vandalism === Adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. This is one of the most common forms of vandalism. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious. === Subtle vandalism === Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and reverting only one), simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address also constitutes sneaky vandalism, but take care not to confuse this with appropriately correcting an unsigned edit made by another user. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states ""Rv vandalism"" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted. === Spam external linking === Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially. === Talk page vandalism === Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve. === Template vandalism === Modifying the wiki language or text of a template in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, so they are permanently protected from editing to prevent vandalism. === User and user talk page vandalism === Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and generally should not be edited without the permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN. This is why there is an edit filter that prevents new and non-(auto)confirmed users from editing user pages other than their own. Related to this is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. === Vandalbots === A script or ""robot"" that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages. Although at times the following situations may be referred to colloquially as ""vandalism"", they are not usually considered vandalism within the context of Wikipedia. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. === Boldly editing === Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus. === Copyright policy violations === Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies is prohibited, but is not vandalism unless the user does so maliciously or fails to heed warnings. It is at least as serious an issue as vandalism and persistent offenders will ultimately get blocked, but it is well worth spending time communicating clearly with those who add copyvio as they are far more likely to reform than vandals or spammers. === Disruptive editing or stubbornness === Some users cannot come to an agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing. Starting a deletion process in bad faith is disruptive editing, but is not vandalism. However, misusing deletion template messages with no intention to start a deletion process is vandalism by abuse of tags. In short, all vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism. === Edit summary omission === The edit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper Wikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism. === Editing tests by experimenting users === Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page. Pages created as test edits outside of userspace may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G2. Editing tests are considered vandalism only when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings. === Harassment or personal attacks === Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently. === Incorrect wiki markup and style === Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards, such as how to create internal and/or external links or which words should be bolded or italicized, etc. Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what the standard style would be for the issue at hand, perhaps pointing them towards the documentation at How to edit a page, and the like. === Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia === Some users are not familiar with Wikipedia's purpose or policies and may start editing it as if it were a different medium—such as a forum or blog—in a way that it appears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users. Although such edits can usually be reverted, it should not be treated as vandalism. === Misinformation, accidental === A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it. === NPOV contraventions === The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand. Even Wikipedia veterans occasionally introduce material which is not ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected to a greater extent than we estimate by our beliefs. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself. === Nonsense, accidental === While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language). Also, connection errors, browser extensions, or edit conflicts can unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith. === Policy and guideline pages, good faith changes to === Editors are encouraged to be bold. However, making edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines pages, such as this one, does require some knowledge of the consensus on the issues. If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism; rather, it would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with them, and help them understand the consensus. === Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material === Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Make sure that the removed content is consistent with Wikipedia's standards before restoring it or treating its removal as vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-22/Vandalism User:ClueBot NG - A bot specifically designed for fixing vandalism. === Tools === Huggle – Cross-platform application for dealing with vandalism (requires rollback permission). Twinkle – JavaScript gadget allowing reversion of vandalism from page diffs. Ultraviolet – User-friendly Javascript-based diff browser and counter-vandalism tool (works with or without rollback permissions). Igloo – JavaScript-based browser window for reverting vandalism. (requires rollback permission). STiki – Cross-platform and Java-based anti-vandalism application. Connects to a remote, non-Wikimedia server. (requires rollback permission). mobileUndo is a userscript which allows you to revert vandalism on mobile. === Guidelines === Administrator intervention against vandalism – intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers Cleaning up vandalism – introduction to cleaning up vandalism Criteria for speedy deletion – English Wikipedia policy Do not create hoaxes – content guideline Most vandalized pages – articles that have undergone repeated vandalism Recent changes patrol – Wikipedia communal patrol Requests for page protection – for protection against long-term attacks Template messages/User talk namespace – grid of templates for user talk page warnings and notices Vandalism-only accounts – advice for dealing with vandalism from registered accounts WikiProject user warnings – internal project for creating a complete, standardised set of user warning templates WikiProject Vandalism studies – internal project for conducting research related to unconstructive edits on Wikipedia (currently semi-active) === Essays === Avoid the word ""vandal"" – essay on the differences between vandals and those who make adverse edits Deny recognition – essay on not feeding the trolls Do not insult the vandals – essay on vandals and civility Don't be trigger happy – essay on care, courtesy, and professionalism when performing recent changes and new pages patrols Don't call a spade a spade – essay on civility and difficult editors Don't template the regulars – essay on how to use warning templates carefully Identifying test edits – essay on the difference between editing tests and vandalism IP address editors are human too – essay on assuming IP address editors are able and willing to make positive contributions Make protection requests sparingly – essay recommending not overusing page protection Not every IP is a vandal – essay on the common assumption that IP address editors are vandals On assuming good faith – essay on the relationship between the Vandalism policy and the Assume good faith behavioral guideline The motivation of a vandal – essay on ""Why would anyone wish to vandalize a source of information that benefits people?"" Vandals versus Trolls – essay on the distinction between vandals and trolls User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism – one administrator's view === Meta === m:Anti-vandalism ideas m:Vandalbot m:What is a troll? m:Small Wiki Monitoring Team – cross-wiki anti-vandalism Statistics about reverts by bots, Huggle, Twinkle in wmcharts ""How I Used Lies About a Cartoon to Prove History is Meaningless on the Internet"". 15 June 2020." 317 321 690 WP:advert Wikipedia:Advertising 317 "On Wikipedia, advertising may refer to: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, policy on Wikipedia not being used for advertising Wikipedia:Spam, guideline on how to avoid different types of spam in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising, about the perennial proposal to fund Wikipedia through advertising Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements, essay on whether Wikipedia should carry advertising Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, guide on how to advertise discussions inside Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia ads, banner-style advertisements for internal Wikipedia projects and practices Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a wikiproject for improving coverage of encyclopedic articles dealing with marketing Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, where to report advertisement spam found on Wikipedia Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers § Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia?, explanation that malware on the reader's computer or a fork hosted by someone else may display ads Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising, an essay on how to identify articles and talk pages that are blatant ads Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11, the speedy deletion criterion on advertising {{Advert}} - ""This article contains content that is written like an advertisement."" {{Promotional source}} - A list of inline templates for various promotional issues." 318 322 694 WP:UNCLEG User:Uncle G/On notability 318 "Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia. The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects. For certain classes of subjects, we augment that primary criterion with secondary inclusion criteria that ensure that our coverage of certain topics is coherent. == Wikipedia is not a directory == It is a widely accepted principle that Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, like the Yellow Pages. That's Yellowikis' job. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. That's Wikitree's job. Wikipedia is not a directory of World Wide Web sites. That's Wikidweb's and AboutUs's job. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, if the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia were solely the strict application of our Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies, a directory (rather than an encyclopaedia) is what would result. This is for the simple reason that directories exist that can be used as reliable sources. Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to businesses. Every business that has a listing in the Yellow Pages is verifiable, at least as far as its address and telephone number. And it is not original research to say ""Acme Corp is a business with telephone number 1-555-555-1234."". Original research is about novel syntheses and novel information; and about the fact checking and peer review processes. It would be original research to state that ""Acme Corp's phone numbers are mostly concentrated in area X, therefore their headquarters is located there."" It is however reasonable to expect that a telephone company checks the facts in the Yellow Pages. Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a business directory. Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to people. Every person that has a passport or a green card is verifiable, at least as far as their names, occupations, nationality, and distinguishing features. It is not original research to say ""John Smith is a Canadian dentist with a mole on his left cheek."". Again, it is reasonable to expect that governments check the facts on passports and on green cards. Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a database of all existing people. Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to web sites. Every second-level domain name that is registered with a domain name registry is verifiable, at least as far as the details listed in the registry, such as the contact names, expiration dates, domain name registrars and so forth. It is not original research to say ""microsoft.com is a domain name registered by Microsoft Corporation that expires in 2014."". And again, it is reasonable to expect that registries check the expiration dates on domain registrations. Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a directory of all registered domain names. == The primary notability criterion == The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. There are several important considerations behind this criterion: Independence of the sources from the subject The requirement that sources be independent of the subject ensures that notability is not gained through self-promotion. A company, for example, can have thousands of its own press releases and other material re-printed in magazines and newspapers. But it is only when a source other than the subject produces and publishes a non-trivial work about the company that the primary notability criterion is satisfied. A person, for example, can publish xyr autobiography on the World Wide Web. But it is only when someone else writes and publishes a non-trivial work about that person that the primary notability criterion is satisfied.1 Non-triviality of the published works The requirement that the published works be non-trivial ensures that simple directory entries, catalogue listings, guidebook listings, and so forth do not satisfy the criterion. The published work must be more than a simple directory entry, or an incidental mention of the subject. There must be more secondary source material available in the work than would constitute a directory entry on the subject. The scope of published works What constitutes a published work is specifically not limited by the notability criterion. A journal article, a newspaper or a magazine feature article, a television documentary, a book, a consumer report by a watchdog organization, or even a widely recognized Internet FAQ document2 all count as published works. The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. == Secondary notability criteria == For certain classes of subjects, the primary criterion is augmented by secondary inclusion criteria. The intention of these criteria is to ensure that our coverage of certain subjects is coherent, even when the primary notability criterion would fail. === Businesses === main article: WP:CORPWe want our coverage of stock market indexes to be coherent. Therefore our notability and inclusion criteria for businesses comprise secondary criteria that ensure that every company that is used by a stock market index (that isn't simply taken from the whole market) is included, even if there are no independent published works about that company and the only information about it is business directory listings and corporate autobiography. === People === main articles: WP:BIO and WP:MUSICWe want to include an article on a band, musical group, or musician that has had a top 10 hit, even if there are no independent published works about that band/group/person and the only information about them is the chart listings and autobiography. (Articles on bands/groups/musicians comprise both biography and discography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.) Therefore our music notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that bands/groups/musicians who have had hits are included. We want to include an article on an author that has published widely read books or articles, even if there are no independent published works about that person and the only information about them is the list of what they have published. (Articles on authors comprise both biography and bibliography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.) Therefore our people notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that authors who have published widely read books/articles are included. == Tips for editors == === Writing about subjects close to you === main articles: Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas and Wikipedia:Autobiography See also: Wikipedia:Amnesia testYou can write about subjects that are close to you, but you must be very careful indeed. The primary requirement is this: When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.So, for example, if you are writing about yourself or about a family member, then use independent biographies as sources, not your own autobiography. If there aren't any independent biographies, don't write about yourself or your family member. Similarly, if you are writing about your company, then use independent articles written about your company as sources, not your company's autobiography and press releases. If there are no such sources, don't write about your company. This approach has two benefits: You'll find yourself automatically excluded from writing about non-notable subjects. The question of notability will not arise. It will be self evident from the article, which will cite the independent biographies as sources, that the subject fulfils the primary notability criterion. === Giving rationales at AFD === When giving rationales for keeping or deleting articles based upon notability, please learn the lesson of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. A bare ""nn, delete"" or ""n, keep"" are not good rationales. In fact, they aren't really rationales at all, and of no use to a closing administrator in making a decision. A good rationale: links to the notability criteria (WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and so forth) that one is employing — This shows novice and single-article editors where the criteria actually are. explains in detail how the subject either satisfies or does not satisfy those criteria, including what research was done to determine this doesn't use the abbreviation ""nn"" — Novice editors are highly unlikely to know what this abbreviation means.See also User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. == What notability is not == There are several things that are commonly conflated with notability, or that editors erroneously accuse notability of being. === Notability is not fame nor importance === Notability is not the same as the concepts of fame or importance. A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important. The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion. Whilst someone may become famous because lots of people read an article about them in a mass-market tabloid newspaper, what makes that person notable, or rather what demonstrates that that person is notable, is the fact that the journalist, editor, and publisher at the newspaper went to the effort of researching, writing, and publishing an independently sourced non-trivial article about that person. === Notability is not subjective === Notability does not equate to ""I've heard of it.""/""I've never heard of it."" or ""I think that it is notable.""/""I don't regard it as being notable."". An editor who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion. Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. As is the case in other aspects, when it comes to notability Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in the world. The notability of a subject is not judged by Wikipedia editors themselves. It is judged by the world at large. A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable. Wikipedia editors determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable by applying the primary notability criterion. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Wikipedia editors determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject. === Notability is not verifiability === Notability does not equate to verifiability from reliable sources. As discussed earlier, many directories are reliable sources and have been fact checked. Verifiability from reliable sources yields a directory. The purpose of notability is to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a directory, and leaves the creation of directories of businesses, all people who have ever lived, web sites, and suchlike to those projects that have those as their goals. Some editors artificially restrict what constitutes a ""reliable source"" in order to yield the same results as the primary notability criterion. However, this does not work, because in order to achieve the desired results it is not only necessary to eliminate unreliable sources, but it is also necessary to eliminate sources that are not only reliable, but are authoritative. That is clearly wrong. An example should make this clear: The plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house is verifiable. It is recorded in publicly accessible, government maintained, records. Those records include regulations that apply to the land, a history of its ownership, detailed maps, and photographs. Not only are these records reliable sources, they are authoritative. There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article on this plot of grassland. It is just an area where grass grows. It is not Mill Ends Park. But verifiability from reliable sources cannot exclude this plot of grassland without excluding authoritative sources along the way. However, the primary notability criterion does. No-one has created or published a non-trivial published work, e.g. a detailed history or analysis, about the plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house. But they have about Mill Ends Park. Therefore the latter is notable and the former is not. === Notability is not a blanket === It is tempting to infer ""All X are notable."" from observations that many ""X"" have been found to satisfy the primary notability criterion, and thence proclaim that a precedent has been set. Precedent is an ""If article X then article Y."" argument, which is fundamentally flawed. Every subject must be considered on its individual merits. Inferences that ""All X are notable."", and indeed that ""All X are non-notable."", are invariably wrong. Shortcuts like this may be tempting, but must be avoided. One example: It was long proclaimed by some editors that ""All real places are notable."" as an inference derived, in part, from the discussion that came about when Rambot began creating articles on United States cities. But that isn't actually correct. The plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house is a real place, but it isn't notable. Danmark (island) (AfD discussion) and Hoy (Lake Constance) (AfD discussion) are real places, but there's nothing written — no histories, geographies, geological reports, demographic studies, and so forth — about them. The primary notability criterion isn't satisfied. The reason that a lot of real places turn out to be notable is not that ""All real places are notable."". It is that because of their natures cities, towns, and villages are discussed in multiple non-trivial published works such as history books; demographic, economic, and sociological studies; census reports; and so forth. It is wrong to say that ""All real places are notable."", and then to employ that as a blanket criterion in future. It is correct to say that because of their very natures almost all cities, towns, and even villages in the world will satisfy the primary notability criterion. == Dealing with non-notable things == Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content.3 That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article. There are, in the main, two ways in which subjects can fail to satisfy the primary notability criterion whilst still being mentioned in published works: There are no published works about the subject that are from sources independent of the subject itself. In other words, the only information about the subject is from autobiographies, advertising, self-publicity, press releases, and so forth. There are published works, from sources independent of the subject, that mention the subject, but they are not non-trivial. They deal with the subject superficially, or tangentially when actually addressing a different subject.In the first case, Wikipedia should not have an article. For example: If the only sources of information about a person are xyr autobiographies, then Wikipedia should not have an article on that person.4In the second case, the fact that the subject is non-notable means that having an entire article is the wrong way for Wikipedia to be presenting what information there is on the subject. That doesn't necessarily mean deletion, however. One way of presenting the information correctly is merger into an article with a wider scope, the same scope as the published works outside of Wikipedia, for example. Some examples should make this clear: The only information that was available about the English Independence Party (AfD discussion) from sources independent of the party itself comprised a single line in election results tables published by news organizations. That the subject only has a single line in an election results table outside of Wikipedia implies that the subject should only have a single line in an election results table inside Wikipedia. The subject that the published works themselves actually address is the election, and the party is only addressed insofar as it is the party affiliation that one of the candidates in the election stated. Therefore that is how Wikipedia should address the knowledge, too. And indeed Wikipedia does exactly that at Gravesham (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections. Synnax (AfD discussion) is a planet in a work of fiction that is not only not discussed in published works independent of the work of fiction and its author, it isn't even discussed in the work of fiction itself. The only information about the fictional planet to be found anywhere comprises a single sentence in the opening paragraph of the opening chapter of Foundation. Per the WP:FICT guidelines, the correct way to address that subject is not to give it an entire article all to itself but to mention it in an article with a broader scope, such as list of minor Foundation universe planets. The school band and jazz combos (including Three Blind Mice) that Bill Clinton played for do not satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria. Their only mentions in published works independent of the band are trivial ones, in biographies of Bill Clinton, which are not in-depth articles on the bands themselves.5 Therefore that is how Wikipedia should address those subjects: as mentions in Bill Clinton, not with articles in their own rights. The Electras, a garage band whose bassist was John Kerry and who only sold 500 copies of one album, has had more published works written about it than Bill Clinton's bands have. However, it does not satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC secondary criteria, and most of what has been written about the band is in reference to how expensive copies of its albums became as a result of Kerry's political career. Again the information is best presented by Wikipedia in the same manner as it is presented outside of Wikipedia. The band is only discussed tangentially, in relation to John Kerry, outside of Wikipedia, and so should only be discussed as a sub-topic within John Kerry inside Wikipedia. (Because it is a sub-topic, per Wikipedia:Redirect there should be a redirect from the sub-topic title to the article containing the sub-topic.) Individual McDonald's restaurants that fail to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria (as most, and probably all, of them do) do not warrant having their own articles.6 Those that are documented in published works (whose sources are independent of McDonald's and the restaurants) at all, are not documented in depth, as anything other than business directory listings. The verifiable information that there is, after business directory listing information is excluded, about those individual restaurants belongs collected together in McDonald's restaurants, an article whose wider scope encompasses all of the restaurants. == Notes == ^Note 1 : The fact that the ultimate source of the information in such a biography is the subject xyrself is irrelevant. The point is that the other person has deemed the subject notable and demonstrated that by going to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial work of xyr own about the subject. ^Note 2 : i.e. one that has been published by faqs.org, for example. ^Note 3 : See User:Uncle G/On sources and content for a discussion of Wikipedia's content policies. ^Note 4 : See Julien Foster (AfD discussion), for example. ^Note 5 : See for examples the mentions of the bands that can be found in Ann Lloyd Merriman (1995-04-17). ""First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton — book reviews"". National Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), Martin Walker (1992-01-06). ""Tough love child of Kennedy"". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), and ""President Bill Clinton's Hometown Homepage"". Hot Springs Promenade.. ^Note 6 : Contrast this with business directories such as Yellowikis, where every individual restaurant can have its own individual article, containing its particular contact information, opening hours, and so forth. == References == == See also == Wikipedia:Notability" 319 323 696 WP:IH Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways 319 "Hello and welcome to the Interstate Highways Task Force! If you would like to help, please jump in and start adding or editing. This task force covers all Interstate Highways in the United States. The goal is to standardize the format of the Interstate Highway articles, and to generate some featured articles as well. === How you can help === === Featured articles === === Featured lists === === Good articles === === Former good articles === === Did you know? articles === === Featured pictures === === Former featured pictures === === Featured article candidates === === Good article nominees === === A-Class articles === === Main page featured articles === === Main page featured lists === === Picture of the day pictures === === Featured topics === === Featured sounds === Completion list List page: List of Interstate Highways History of the IH System: History Standards checklist: Checklist See WP:USRD/STDS for the preferred structure of this project's articles. === Naming conventions === Interstate x - main and auxiliary interstates that are not nationally duplicated. Interstate x (state) - auxiliary interstates that have duplications and are single state. ""Interstate x"" becomes a disambiguation page. Interstate x (state-state) - secondary interstates that have duplications and enter multiple states. Western/southernmost state is listed first. If the Interstate enters more than two states, then list all states in the name, beginning with the western/southernmost state. ""Interstate x"" becomes a disambiguation page. Interstates 76, 88, 86, and 84 also use this convention, since there are two of them. However, only the states at the termini should be included in the article title. ""Interstate x"" becomes a disambiguation page. For articles about a state-specific segment of a longer Interstates, state-detail Interstate pages are to be named ""Interstate X in Y"", where X is the Interstate number and Y is the state name. Exceptions: Interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico are listed under Interstate Highways in Alaska and Interstate Highways in Puerto Rico. === Categories === Category:Interstate Highway SystemAll primary interstate highways go here with a 2 digit sort code (08 for I-8, 85 for I-85, etc.)Category:Interstate Highways in California (or Arizona, etc... there is even one for District of Columbia and Puerto Rico)All interstates that run through that state go here. For 2dis, use a 2 digit sort code as above. For 3dis, follow this example: 05-7 for I-705. 25-8 for I-825. Warning: some of these categories still use the lowercase H.Category:Three-digit Interstate HighwaysAll 3dis go here with the 05-2 sort key (for example).Category:Business Interstate HighwaysFor Business Loops and Spurs.Category:Interstate X (where X is the number of a major 2di highway)Used to identify that other articles in addition to Interstate X (state detail pages for X, bridges, U.S. and Interstate Routes that runs along X) can be categorized in the same collection as Interstate X. Example: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and Interstate 80 can belong to Category:Interstate 80. === Infobox === The infobox for Interstates is {{Infobox road}}, with type=I. If it is intrastate, add a state= line. === Shields === Shields for Interstate Highways have been created in the format I-X.svg, where X is the Interstate number. See Commons:Interstate shields for a gallery. === Stub === {{Interstate-stub}} Designates this article relating to the Interstate Highway System as a stub. Articles are listed in Category:U.S. Interstate Highway stubs. === Barnstar === {{The WikiProject Interstate Highways Barnstar}} === Browse numbered routes === For Interstates entering two or more states only. Type the following code at the bottom of the article after {{Interstates}}. {{start srbox}} {{end box}} In between the start and end templates, the state browse templates should be added. These templates exist in the form {{XX browse|previous_type=|previous_route=|route=|next_type=|next_route=}} where XX is the two-letter abbreviation of the state in lowercase (California is ca, New York is ny, etc.). For the above parameters here's what you should fill in: previous_type: previous route (by number) in that state. Interstate, US (for U.S. routes), and (2-letter state abbrev.). previous_route: route number. route: a link to the list page for that state's highway system. next_type: the same as previous_type, but for the next route. next_route: same as previous_route, but for the next route. === Project notice === {{USRD|type=I|state1=state1|state2=state2}} Goes on talk page of each article. For assessment, see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment. Only include states if there are no separate articles about the route in those states (like Interstate 95 in Virginia). === Navigation === {{3di}} Goes on each primary highway (except 76, 84, 86, and 88) that has three-digit Interstate highways, and also goes on each three-digit highway. (For Interstate 10 use {{3di|10}}, etc. {{3di}} Use an additional parameter for Interstates 76, 84, 86, and 88 (east and west for all). Example: Use {{3di|84|east}} for the I-84 in the east. If the box is empty (or incomplete or inaccurate), then create (edit) Template:3di 84 (east). The format for Template:3di xx (xxxx) is the same as the format for Template:3di xx. {{Interstates}} Goes on every article on a primary highway. === User templates === {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Userbox}} The resulting userbox is shown below. But you can also add a number... {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Userbox|80}} to add a number to the shield." 320 324 697 WP:ROUGH Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection 320 Semi-protection is a measure commonly used on Wikipedia to protect popular pages from vandalism or editing disputes. A semi-protected article can only be edited by accounts which are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits (autoconfirmed users). The official policy related to applying and removing semi-protection is located at Wikipedia:Protection policy § Semi-protection. This rough guide describes how the semi-protection policy is currently being applied by administrators. Note: Every case is different. Even if a page matches each of the § General considerations and § Criteria for semi-protection, it doesn't mean that page must be protected. Administrators may use their discretion on a case-by-case basis. Semi-protection is useful for pages that are highly visible on Wikipedia. An example of a semi-protected page on Wikipedia is September 11 attacks. Both an editor considering requesting semi-protection for a page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) and an administrator considering applying semi-protection must assess each situation individually before deciding on a course of action. Is the problem vandalism or an editing dispute? How much vandalism is taking place? Is the vandalism from a wide range of new accounts/IP users? Are any constructive edits being made to the page, especially from unregistered users? Is the problem on a high-profile, widely watchlisted page? Does the problem have a detrimental effect on how Wikipedia looks to the public? Is the subject of the page a notable living person? What is the quality of this article? Higher-quality articles are more damaged by vandalism than similar low-quality articles, and there's also less likelihood that a given edit will improve the article. In addition, since higher-quality articles are bigger, there is less likelihood that the article will be edited.The template {{pp-protected}} is usually placed on protected pages to display the padlock. Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism can be semi-protected. There are no explicit rules that determine the level of vandalism that is necessary to trigger semi-protection. Administrators should use their best judgment to determine if semi-protection is warranted. Here are some criteria that may be helpful to determine if semi-protection is appropriate: All or almost all the vandalism is coming from IP addresses. Unregistered editors should be making very few quality contributions to the article compared to the amount of vandalism coming from unregistered editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism. There are regularly many new vandals, therefore it would be a huge, unending task to notify and warn all the vandals individually. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 § Conclusions, on average 5% of edits to a page are vandalism. So, 5% is the level of vandalism to be expected, and semi-protection should not be applied in this case. More than usual levels of vandalism occur when anything over 5% of edits constitute vandalism. If each vandal edit was followed by a revert, without any further edits to the page, then 50% of edits would be vandalism. More than 50% is rare, but may occur when multiple vandalism edits are reverted by a single edit, or when multiple vandals are engaged in an edit war. The higher the percentage of vandal edits, the greater the need for protection. Consider a lower threshold for protection for articles on living people as vandalism is potentially more damaging in these cases. If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few hours, a few days or a week depending on the type of page being protected and the level of disruption. If vandalism continues after the protection expires, it can be re-added and for a longer duration. At some point, an administrator might determine that the semi-protection should be made indefinite. This is reserved for only the most vandalized articles, and any administrator is free to lift 'indefinite' protections or reduce them to a duration that will eventually expire. Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously. This shows that the problem is ongoing, and that temporary semi-protection does not have a lasting effect. Vandalism that resumes very shortly after semi-protection is removed demonstrates that the page is a popular target for random vandalism. Such pages are likely candidates for indefinite semi-protection. If vandalism is related to a current event, the semi-protection should be lifted after the event is out of the public eye. === Shortening or removing protection === Since effective page protection stops disruption, the only way to know if protection is still needed is to see if disruption returns without the protection. For this reason, all pages that are indefinitely semi-protected can have their protection removed from time to time. The administrator should monitor the page after removing the protection. 321 325 698 WP:COMMONSENSE "Wikipedia:What ""Ignore all rules"" means" 321 "Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind. Rules are for fools. By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist. The code is more what you call ""guidelines"" than actual rules. The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling. Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum. Be a sinner and sin boldly[...] Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia. You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below). Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled ""guideline"" or ""policy"", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus). Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy). Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles). Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility). Ignore all rules is one of the oldest rules on Wikipedia, written by Larry Sanger in 2001. The original wording was a bit different from today's version. It said: ""If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."" Note that while ignoring all rules is all right, it is subtly but importantly different from deliberately breaking them. Meditate on that carefully before you actually apply this rule. Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. Despite its name, ""Ignore all rules"" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated. ""Ignore all rules"" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies. For example, you cannot violate Wikipedia:No legal threats without being blocked. ""Ignore all rules"" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a carte blanche. Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus. ""Ignore all rules"" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgement may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was (see also Wikipedia:Assume good faith). ""Ignore all rules"" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. ""Ignore all rules"" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors. ""Ignore all rules"" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia (see also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). ""Ignore all rules"" does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule. A typical copyright violation, for instance, does not make for a better free encyclopedia. ""Ignore all rules"" is not a Get Out of Jail Free card. If you are blocked or sanctioned for a rule-breaking edit that does not improve the encyclopedia, then you may not use ""Ignore all rules"" as a reason to be unblocked or unsanctioned. Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider ""rules"". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution ""violates"" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate ""common sense"" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't ""use common sense"" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. === There is no common sense === Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess. When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to ""just use common sense"" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, ""it seemed like common sense to me"", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. Wikipedians come from diverse ethnic, religious, political, cultural and ideological backgrounds and have vastly different perceptions. Other editors are likely to ascribe very different meanings and values to words and concepts than you, so try to state your arguments as fully as possible. Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing ""common sense"" and leaving it at that. Suppose you have an idea… Are you sure that your idea is a good one by common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia? No: DON'T DO IT Yes: Does it break the rules? No: DO IT Yes: Is that because the rules are wrong? No: Ignore the rules and DO IT Yes: Change the rules and DO IT Wikipedia:Be bold Wikipedia:Understanding IAR Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact Wikipedia:Taking the road less traveled Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule Wikipedia:Follow all rules Spirit of the law" 322 326 699 WP:WINARS Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source 322 "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Additionally, it is possible that some errors may never be fixed. It is also possible for an edit correcting an error to later be reverted. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, and non-English Wikipedias. The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance. Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or ""middle-page"" in this case). Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, biases, education, and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors, and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added. Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions. Reliability of Wikipedia Wikipedia:General disclaimer Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong" 323 327 700 WP:MILLS Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills 323 "Welcome to WikiProject Mills. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Mills and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to do list below. To improve the coverage on Wikipedia of Windmills, Watermills, animal powered engines, cotton mills, millwrights and other related subjects. The WikiProject will cover windmills (including modern wind turbines), watermills, and animal-powered machines. Traditional millwrights and millers also fall within the scope of the project. It also covers steam, internal combustion engine, and electrically-powered mills such as cotton mills as decided by consensus of the projects' members. Other articles may also fall under the scope of the WikiProjectThese areas specifically fall outside the WikiProject - modern factory millwrights, steel mills, modern large paper mills, hydroelectric power stations. Importance ratingsTop - Windmill, Watermill, High - Lists of windmills by country, some windmill, watermill and cotton mill articles, a very few millwrights and millers, horse mill, animal engine, Cotton mill, Wind turbine Mid - Lists of windmills by county (or equivalent sub-division), Lists of textile mills by county (or equivalent sub-division), the majority of windmill and watermill and cotton mill articles, some millwrights and millers Low - The majority of millwrights and millers, other related articles, imagesArticle structureWindmill articles to have the following structure:- History Description Millers (if applicable) Public access (if applicable) Culture & media (if applicable) References External linksTextile mills (and other mills) provisionally should have the following structure:- Infobox Lead Location History Construction (Architecture)Power Equipment Later extensionsUsageOwners (if applicable) Tenants (if applicable)Public access (if applicable) Notable events/culture & media (if applicable) See also References/Notes Bibliography External links Top priorityTag all mill related articles with at least one of the four parent wikiprojects as appropriate. Grade all articles for class and importance. Ensure all windmill articles have an infobox. Agree infobox for textile mill buildings. Ensure all textile mill articles have an infobox.In the shorter termComplete the various lists of windmills for each county in England. Done except for Westmorland (no known windmills). Create the various lists of textile mills for each borough in Greater Manchester. Done These lists need to be populated, and checked. Create the various lists of textile mills for each county in England. Create list of windmills in Wales (separate list for Anglesey). Done Create list of windmills in Ireland (covering all 32 counties). Done Add all dyks to list on this page Done as far as all tagged articles added to list. create userbox Done Medium termCreate articles on all surviving windmills in UK. Create lists of windmills for USA, Denmark, Sweden, Poland. Create lists of textile mills for USA, Belgium, Germany, France. Expand List of windmills further Expand UK river articles to cover mills, add diagrams to such articles. Expand UK canal articles to cover mills, add diagrams to such articles.Long termCreate lists of windmills for Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Create lists of mills for US New England states with mill towns (especially early Mass. mills) Create lists of power canals associated with mills per state Expand all non-uk lists to include lost mills. Create articles for all surviving windmills worldwide. Expand coverage of individual millwrights and millwrighting firms, starting with those currently practicing, then historic millwrights. Expand non-UK river articles to cover mills, add diagrams to such articles Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. To add a userbox to your user page use {{User WP Mills}}. Mjroots (talk · contribs) (windmills, watermills, animal engines.) 11:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Ning-ning (talk · contribs) (windmills) 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ClemRutter (talk · contribs) (cotton mills) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Doncram (talk · contribs) I am interested in ones that are listed on historic registers, anywhere 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Smallbones (talk · contribs) (Most interested in Watermills, their history and how they affect the surrounding area, as well as the stream itself)17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Yousaf465 (talk · contribs)yousaf465' EdJogg (talk · contribs) (steam engines !! and industrial archaeology in general :o) ) 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) Interested in British mills, especially non-corn mills, and particularly those for metal working. Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs), interested in ancient and medieval milling, watermills and windmills alike Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC) JeffreyTBest (talk · contribs) (Mills, milling and industrial archaeology in general and High Salvington Windmill and Glynde Wind Pump in particular.) 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Quistnix (talk · contribs) (talk) - Interested in wind and water mills, active in the nl.Wikipedia mills project 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) KVDP (talk · contribs) Interested in all-round topics, particularly those with interest to contemporary use in irrigation, providing of mechanical power (for a multitude of tasks) and energy generation. Also interested in link to sustainable development Leszek Jańczuk (talk · contribs) - Dutch and Polish windmills. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Janeyjo (talk · contribs) 20:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)) Where are all the textile Mills now? What's all this about Japan? mvdleeuw (talk · contribs) I'll keep an eye on the Dutch windmills. Mvdleeuw (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC) France3470 (talk · contribs) - Hoping to contribute some articles on London mills and UK grain mills France3470 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Reboelje (talk · contribs) Interested in windmills worldwide, but volunteer miller in the Netherlands Reboelje (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Jane023 (talk · contribs) Interested in the history of Dutch windmills, but also watermills and old New England mill towns. Jane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC) RevelationDirect (talk · contribs) Focused mostly on industrial history/company history. More experienced with categorization than with editing articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) LaurentianShield (talk · contribs) I wrote the article on the Eclipse windmill based on some history research interests, which is how I found out about this project. As it turns out I am an engineer, and have worked in two paper mills, a sawmill, a wire mill and an extrusion mill, so I might have something to contribute to the project over time. LaurentianShield (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) DThomsen8 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I keep the assessments up to date. Leeds United FC fan (talk · contribs) (Windmills in the Netherlands) 21:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Malcolm Boura (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Currently working on water wheel. Work in progress is at Draft:water wheel some of which has been transferred back to the article. === Admins === These members are Admins. Mjroots (talk · contribs) Most articles of the project are indexed in: List of windmills List of watermillsand other list articles. They are also categorized in: Category:Lists of windmills Category:Lists of textile mills in the United Kingdomand other categories. === Featured content === Scout Moor Wind Farm ==== Candidates ==== Currently there are no featured article candidates within this WikiProject. === Good Articles === De Akkermolen Derwent Valley Mills Fabyan Windmill Murrays' Mills Thelnetham Windmill Watermill at Opwetten === DYK === ""Did you know?"" articlesThe following WikiProject Mills articles were featured on Wikipedia's main page in the ""Did you know?"" section. Category:Non–Main Page Did you know pages === Requested articles === Please list here articles which you think should be created and why the subject is notable to this wikiproject. Bronson Windmill, i think only windmill in Fairfield County, CT, US. Shudehill Mill, Manchester, the very first steam powered mill. Done Albion Mills, Southwark, the first steam powered corn mill. Done Stephen Hooper (millwright), who invented the Roller Reefing Sail. De Schoolmeester, Westzaan, only wind powered paper mill in the world Done === Articles listed for deletion === Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Mill, Stamford To add an article to this WikiProject please use {{WikiProject Mills|class=|importance=|b1=?|b2=?|b3=?|b4=?|b5=?|b6=?}} on that article's talk page.Peer reviewAssessmentThe project categorizes articles according to the WP 1.0 criteria: Featured Articles: need little or no work. 'A' class: need a very small amount of work, followed by FA nomination. Good Articles: a little more work required. 'B' class: a lot of work done, but a lot of work left to do. 'C' class: a lot of work done, but is missing content. Start class: short, lacks details, key facts, illustration, etc. Stub class: very short, lacking important details. List class: list of mills.Articles needing assessment are listed under Category:Unassessed Mills articles B class criteria1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of tags is encouraged. 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be ""brilliant"". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.GuidanceThe article need to meet all six criteria to be classed as B Class. If it fails one or more, but meets 3, 4, and 5 then it can be classed as C Class. If one or more of 3, 4 and 5 are not met, then it is Start class. === Assessment progress === Done 15 October 2014All articles in Category:Lists of windmills assessed. All articles in Category:Millwrights assessed Done 24 June 2009All articles in Category:Lists of windmills assessed. All articles in Category:Millwrights assessed All individual windmill articles linked from the various UK county lists tagged.25 JuneAll articles in Category:Watermills by country and sub cats thereof tagged. All article in Category:Lists of textile mills in the United Kingdom assessedJune 29Over 700 articles tagged, with only 6 unassessed. === Reassessment needed === To get an article reassessed, simply remove the class from the template on the talk page, which will add the article to the Unassessed Mills articles category. === Log === A log of assessment changes in the last 30 days is available here . Articles to be merged 07 Mar 2023 – List of windmills in Rhode Island (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of windmills in Rhode Island by Doncram (t · c); see discussion 07 Mar 2023 – List of windmills in New York (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of windmills in New York by Doncram (t · c); see discussion 07 Mar 2023 – List of windmills in Illinois (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of windmills in Illinois by Doncram (t · c); see discussion {{Infobox Windmill}} {{Windmills in England}} {{Windmills by Country}} {{Dutch Windmills}} {{Kent Watermills}} {{French Windmills}} {{Belgian Windmills}} {{German Windmills}} {{Windmills in the United States}} {{Irish Windmills}} {{Windmill-stub}} {{Danish Windmills}} The head categories of this Wikiproject are Category:Windmills Category:Watermills Category:Textile mills === Related projects === WikiProject Mills is a child project of WikiProject Historic Sites WikiProject Technology WikiProject Architecture WikiProject EnergyTemplates for talk pages covering all parent project. {{WikiProject Mills|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Historic sites|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Technology|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Architecture|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Energy|class=|importance=}} Although the project does not have its own barnstar, there is one that may be used, The Cast Iron Engineering Barnstar.{{subst:The Cast Iron Engineering Barnstar|message ~~~~}} The following sources have been debated by the Wikipedia community. Norfolk Mills - deemed reliable if the info being used is referenced. De Hollandsche Molen - deemed reliable. Molendatabase - Not resolved, but probably reliable. Probably better to use the De Hollandsche Molens website as the primary source of info, and the Molendatabase as a filler. The Dutch language Wikipedia has a Wikiproject which mainly covers Dutch windmills. See sidebar for link to it." 324 328 701 WP:BUS Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses 324 "Use this on your User: page to show you are part of this project: Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Doc Dimaus (talk · contribs) (Ukrainian and Soviet buses and trolleybuses) MaynardClark (talk · contribs) (The emergence of the electric bus and trucks, and of electrified transportation and distributed drycharging infrastructure) Mingyu Tang (talk · contribs) (Buses in Germany and in the rest of Europe, sometimes in China) MTATransitFan (talk · contribs) (Buses in NYC and the surrounding areas. Occasionally different buses. NE2 (talk · contribs) (New York City, and sometimes other cities) Alansohn (talk · contribs) (New Jersey, New York City, Long Island) The Port of Authority (talk · contribs) (New York City and various North American cities) Sebwite (talk · contribs) (Baltimore, and occasionally Washington, DC area) Kneiphof (talk · contribs) (primary buses in former Soviet Union and trolleybuses everywhere) Sparrowman980 (talk · contribs) (Worldwide buses) Trulystand700 (talk · contribs) (New York City Buses) Lamborghini man (talk · contribs) (MTA Maryland) Bluegoblin7 (London Buses) Dudleybus (talk · contribs) (Working on West Midlands stuff, plus anything to do with Rotala) Simply south (talk · contribs) UK Buses but generally London DocRushing (talk · contribs) [Greyhound and Trailways in the USA; local transit in Nashville, Tennessee, USA; I grew up at Greyhound; I'm a native of Nashville, a retired professor of business, a motor-coach historian, and a one-time second-generation Greyhound coach operator, long ago, based in Nashville and in Orlando, Florida, USA.] SteveCof00 (talk · contribs) (School buses in the United States and Canada, and school bus models and school bus manufacturers) MetroFan2009 (talk · contribs) Bi-State Development Agency in St. Louis JoelRussell - Talk Contribs I'm in Poole, Dorset, England. If anyone from outside my area needs an article improving in dorset, tell me on my Talk Page Folklore1 (talk · contribs) (MTA Maryland and Washington DC Metrobus) Welshleprechaun (talk · contribs) Cardiff and Newcastle upon Tyne Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) Hanjie (talk · contribs) Pittsburgh Buses Useddenim (talk · contribs) Toronto, London, bus manufacturers Triglav 2000 (talk · contribs) Bus service in Slovenia Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) England bus services SmrtBusesLuver (talk · contribs) Singapore Buses (SMRT & SBS Transit) Mark999 (talk · contribs), Bristol UK Checkmatechamp137 (talk · contribs), New York City, NY and surrounding suburbs Orsd (talk · contribs), NFI, Orion Ind.,Novabus,Vancouver (Translink),Orange County (OCTA),LA Metro, West Vancouver Blue Bus Adam mugliston (talk · contribs) (UK, lists of bus routes) Wilbysuffolk (talk · contribs) Any East Anglian pages Davey2010 (talk · contribs) Generally buses in England / Kent WWGB (talk · contribs) Sydney, Australia Coachcapt (talk · contribs) Queensland, Australia Nordic Dragon (talk · contribs) UK buses and eastern bloc models. Stephen Allcroft (talk · contribs) UK bus manufacturing and imports into the UK (not routes) and especially now-defunct manufacturers and coachbuilders. Packerfan386 (talk · contribs) Midwest, lists of bus routes Kiewii (talk · contribs) Dundee and Angus buses WikiLeon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Bay Area based bus routes specializing in Solano and Napa counties. DJ MC CJ (talk · contribs) (Florida buses including bus models and numbers.) C16sh (talk · contribs) NYC and DC metro areas Ibadibam (talk · contribs) Seattle, Washington, interested in bus rapid transit creep SBS9834C (talk · contribs) Singapore and Hong Kong buses in general. Also interested with London and Australia urban buses Sni56996 (talk · contribs) (Anything about Singapore bus network.) Bren Harding (talk · contribs) (Buses in England, Essex) Balablitz (talk · contribs) (Bus transport in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere) BFerson (talk · contribs) (Arriva Northumbria buses) Drumlineramos (talk · contribs) (Bus Services in New Mexico, mostly ABQ RIDE, but working on the rest of the state too) KevinCuddeback (talk · contribs) US Passenger Buses SounderBruce (talk · contribs) Seattle-area transit Arbustum (talk · contribs) Polish buses including Solaris, including writing Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid from the very beginning. TwilightKing81 (talk · contribs) Connecticut-area buses (they're essential for the area economy to work), including CTtransit and CTfastrak. Æthelred (talk · contribs) (England & Wales buses, mostly West Midlands) Ryan 868 (talk · contribs) Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Happy to know that there are other freaks like me out there. Also, I am the 50th member :) RES2773 (talk · contribs) I do bus list and company page edits in New York City, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Westchester County, all in New York. Bergenga (talk · contribs) Bus/coach and chassis models from the Nordic countries and Germany, with a worldwide perspective Class455fan1 (talk · contribs) British Buses, mainly London Buses Pianist4 (talk · contribs) Canberra and Sydney buses KU (talk · contribs) Kansai region and Tokyo, Japan Buttons0603 (talk · contribs) Sheffield and surrounding areas, and UK bus and coach models and manufacturers TJH2018 (talk · contribs) Greater Los Angeles area, and anything involving the LACMTA Imahesh3847 (talk · contribs) Andhra Pradesh and Telangana regions. Bumbl loid (talk · contribs) Proud member of Pinoy Bus Fanatic, the largest bus enthusiast group in the Philippines Cnvery (talk · contribs) Malaysia Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) NYC area buses Toreightyone (talk · contribs) - Brampton Transit, Miway, TTC, and other Golden Horseshoe agencies DreamLinker (talk · contribs) Bus transport in Delhi but also other places as required at AfD Commyguy (talk · contribs) Bus transport in the UK, in particular Stagecoach and Stagecoach Gold services as well as transport around the Oxfordshire area Vanstrat (talk · contribs) Covers Edmonton Alberta Canada bus routes operated by Edmonton Transit Saltn'Pepper (talk · contribs) Public transportation in Canada, especially in Vancouver. MediKron (talk · contribs) Hungarian buses, mostly Ikarus. Map Collector (talk · contribs) Indian and UK Buses, specially Double - Deckers. Schoolbus777 (talk · contribs) School buses, as evidenced by my username. Central Corridor (talk · contribs) Twin Cities and Minnesota, Chicago Hkbusfan (talk · contribs) Hong Kong buses, and possibly other buses SBS2828S (talk · contribs) Singapore bus enthusiast Grandtubetrains (talk · contribs) England bus services Exodus662 (talk · contribs) Bus routes in London and Cumbria, also bus types in the UK Vkem (talk · contribs) Bus routes in Finland Hullian111 (talk · contribs) General clean-up of bus-realted articles in UK, though my special focus is on buses in the Hull, East Yorkshire and perhaps greater East Midlands area. Caleb M1 (talk · contribs) Bus Routes in the Midwest BOO109 (talk · contribs) No Description Avalible DMJames98 (talk · contribs) Bus transport in the UK, particularly in the West Midlands. Quoll662 (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC) DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC) - Bus Transport in China and Japan. User:Jon Alten US municipal bus systems SK2242 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC) - UK related bus articles User: AirFan19 Mainly buses in Singapore, occasionally Shanghai Berrely (talk · contribs) almost exclusively London buses! Geof Sheppard (talk · contribs) South West England and UK open top services TheTransitFanNY (talk · contribs) NYC Metro Area and North America in general. MJ9674 (talk · contribs) South East England, particular focus on Sussex. Middle river exports (talk · contribs) buses in Baltimore and their parent streetcar lines but interested in anything and everywhere NotOrrio (talk · contribs) buses in Melbourne and other parts of Australia === Promoted content === O-Bahn Busway Kelvin Scottish London Country North East Lothian Buses Tillingbourne Bus Company A selection of bus-related Did you know articles may be viewed at Portal:Buses/Did you know. ==== Candidates ==== === Review === Assessment === Collaboration === Electric bus Create and expand Hybrid bus (mainly from diesel-electric). The UK bus operator quality drive The UK bus route quality drive Template:WikiProject Buses for talk pagesNote that new stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P. Instead of using the standard {{stub}} template, you may want to use one of the following more specific vehicle stub tags, some of which are: {{vehicle-stub}} for stubs about general automotive topics. Unfortunately, this category contains many articles, so use of one of the more targeted subcategories is recommended: {{bus-stub}} - for stub articles about buses {{motorvehicle-company-stub}} - for stub articles about automotive companies {{auto-factory-stub}} - for stub articles about automotive factories {{automotive-part-stub}} - for stub articles about automotive parts or components {{automotive-tech-stub}} - for stub articles about automotive technologies {{road-stub}} - for stub articles about general road transport Category:Bus transport Category:Bus routes in England Category:Lists of New York (state) bus routes Category:Bus Transport Articles in Draft Stage Note that most of these are not reliable sources, but may be good ""starting points"" for narrowing down what to look for. United StatesChicago Transit & Railfan: histories of bus routes in many cities Baltimore Transit Archives Philadelphia Trolley Tracks Is there a bus-specific infobox? If not, that would be a good addition to have, since the Infobox automobile allows for some information to be displayed, but buses differ from cars in other ways that the automobile one doesn't do a bus justice. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)There is one for an overall bus service, Template:Infobox bus transit, and one for individual bus routes, Template:Infobox busline. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 13:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC) While those two are useful for articles about bus routes and services, there are articles being written about the vehicles themselves...Template:Infobox UK Bus is somewhat of a starting point, but it probably isn't used much outside of UK-related bus articles (for obvious reasons), and it seems to be more specific about buses on a specific route than a vehicle type. I was wondering if there was interest in an developing a bus specific infobox or using the automobile one for article like the Gillig Phantom, GM New Look, Blue Bird All American, etc...-SteveCof00 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Template:Infobox UK Bus was moved to Template:Infobox bus, which is now a redirect to Template:Infobox automobile. Template:Infobox bus may be considered the less confusing name to use, now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC).Is there any standard format for fleet lists/rosters? (The ones I've seen on different Wikipedia pages seem to be a slap-dash mash-up of the very detailed information that appears on bus-specific web sites.) Useddenim (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (add yours) Proposal to add a draft articles section so others can help and give advice to articles which have not yet been created related to bus NotOrrio (talk) 2:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Related WikiProjects: Trains, Transport, Streetcars, Rapid transit, Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Green vehicle task force (electric buses); Commons:Commons:WikiProject BSicon." 325 329 705 WP:BDD Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts 325 Biographies of living persons dos and don'ts Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines Simple rule set Simple style manual Style tips 326 330 709 WP:NOTDE Wikipedia:En.Wiki is not De.Wiki 326 Every now and then, an editor will come along and cite the German Wikipedia's policy disallowing any fair use images or their inordinate preponderance of quality articles or their success in compiling and publishing a DVD. DE.WIKI IS NOT EN.WIKI. Verdammt. We have our own policies, our own culture, and our own processes to explain and cover stuff. We don't need a clear and indisputable policy on copyrighted content. Our process of encouraging and maintaining Featured Articles works just fine. And hey, we did put out a CD-ROM! (see http://www.wikipediaondvd.com) The German Wikipedia may have a better ratio of quality free content, but we have three times as many articles, four times as many Good articles, five times as many Featured lists, and 70% more Featured articles than the German Wikipedia. As an aside, English does not use German capitalization style, and hasn't since some time around the late 1700s. When in doubt, do not capitalize. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters for more information. (GFDL note: this essay entirely ripped off from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not MeatballWiki) Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful 327 331 712 WP:SPELLING Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling 327 "The following is a handy reference for editors, listing various common spelling differences between national varieties of English. Please note: If you are not familiar with a spelling, please do some research before changing it – it may be your misunderstanding rather than a mistake, especially in the case of American and British English spelling differences. This table gives the accepted spellings (following government guidelines and major dictionaries). It is by no means exhaustive, but rather an overview. When two variants appear in the same cell, the one listed first is more widely used. (For example, in New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and Ireland, ageing is more common than aging; in Canada, Australia and the US, aging is more common.) The spelling systems of unlisted Commonwealth countries, such as India, Pakistan and Singapore, are generally close to the British spelling system, with possibly a few local differences. Some non-Commonwealth English-speaking countries, such as the Philippines and Liberia, have spelling systems closer to American spelling. With some exceptions, boxes in green show use of British spellings and those in violet show use of US spellings. Boxes in pink indicate that both spellings are used. See Notes for explanations of the references above. Throughout this section, the variants here regarded as ""British"" are also used in Australia (in most cases), as well as in other Commonwealth countries and in Ireland. Canadian spelling combines British and American. === Preferred variants === In both British English and American English, many words have variant spellings, but most of the time one variant is preferred over the other. In dictionaries, the preferred spelling is listed first among the headwords of an entry. Examples follow: acknowledgement vs acknowledgment: acknowledgement is preferred in British English, acknowledgment in American English. judgement vs judgment: judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred), judgment in American English. per cent vs percent: per cent is preferred in British English, percent in American English. dialogue vs dialog: In a non-technical context, the spelling dialogue is preferred in American English. In Webster's dictionary, dialogue is given first, and Chambers also indicates dialog is less used in North America. catalogue vs catalog: Webster's treats this case differently, as does Chambers—catalog is the preferred spelling in American English. glamour vs glamor: The spelling glamour is preferred in both British and American English. (Glamourous is sometimes found in American English, but is usually considered incorrect in British English, where glamorous is the only accepted form.) foetus vs fetus: In American English, foetus is never used. In British English, usage is divided. In academic literature, fetus is preferred. aluminium vs aluminum: aluminum is the prevalent spelling throughout North America; however, in scientific literature aluminium should be used, as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. (The two spellings also have different pronunciations.) sulphur vs sulfur: sulphur is the prevalent spelling outside North America; however, in scientific literature sulfur should be used, as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. (see Sulfur#Spelling and etymology) caesium vs cesium: cesium is the prevalent spelling throughout North America; however, in scientific literature caesium should be used, as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. === Archaic spelling === Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances (for example, quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts). When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references. For example, the text of an article might read ""Thomas Ady attacked the Demonology of King James..."" while the citation should read Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx, 1597...."". Adding a may help prevent well-meaning editors from correcting the spelling ""mistakes"". As per WP:Manual of Style § Quotations, archaic glyphs should be modernized, including within quotations and titles (e.g., æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the). Archaic spellings (including capitalization, punctuation, and emphasis that would be non-standard today) are retained in quotations, and we rarely need to provide any translations into Modern English if the source material is Elizabethan or later. For Middle English, treat it on a case-by-case basis, but always provide translation for Old English. === Different spellings, different meanings === Several words change their meaning when spelt differently. cheque – check: to check is to ensure; outside the US, a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand is a cheque. kerb – curb: In British English, kerb is the edge of the road or pavement (UK) where kerbstones can be found. In the US, it is spelled curb, and may be attached to a sidewalk. To curb is to limit or control in either dialect. disc – disk: Outside of computing, in British English the usual spelling is disc (meaning a thin flat circular object); in American English disk and disc are normally interchangeable. However, in computing (in both British & American English), disk usually refers to magnetic disks, as in hard disk drives, dating back to the first magnetic disks used by US-developed mainframe computers. Disc usually refers to optical discs, beginning with the Compact Disc (developed outside the US) and continuing with DVD (the last ""D"" of the acronym usually meaning disc regardless of its uncertain etymology), Blu-ray Disc, and even defunct formats such as HD DVD. draught – draft: In the UK draft is a preliminary version of a document, while draught is a drink or a current of air; all are usually spelled draft in the US, but draught has been making a comeback in reference to beverages. enquiry – inquiry: for most British writers, an enquiry is a request for information, but an inquiry is a formal investigation. ensure – insure: To ensure is to make sure. In British English, to insure is to take out an insurance policy. In American English, to insure is sometimes used instead of to ensure. judgement – judgment: In Australian and British law, a judge's decision in a case is always spelt judgment. On the other hand, the forming of opinion or conclusion by an ordinary person is usually spelt judgement. metre – meter: in most countries other than the US, metre is the metric unit of length, and meter is a measuring device; in these dialects metre is also the rhythm of a line of verse, but the word as part of the technical name of a given metre (pentameter, hexameter, etc.) is spelled -meter. programme – program: In British English, the spelling program can be used for computer program. In all other cases, programme is invariably used. storey – story: a story is a tale; outside of the US, upper floors of buildings are spelt storey. theatre – theater: Many uses of either spelling can be found in American English. Both theater and theatre are commonly used among theatre professionals. The spelling theatre can be seen in names like the Kodak Theatre and AMC Theatres. However, the spelling theater is used for the various venues at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and all major American newspapers, such as The New York Times's theater section to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to the buildings where performances take place. The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that theater is used except in proper names. tyre – tire: In American and Canadian English, tire is used to refer to fatigue and the inflated rim of a wheel. In British and other forms of English, tire means ""to fatigue"" and tyre is the inflated rim of a wheel. There are three major English spelling standards used by international organizations and publishers: === British English with ""-ise"" === Spellings: centre, programme, labour, defence, organisation; recognise, advise, devise, advertise, and analyse Language tag (a code identifying the language used): en-GB. Examples of organizations adhering to this standard: European Union (EU), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Commonwealth Secretariat (Commonwealth of Nations), African Union (AU), Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), International Olympic Committee (IOC), UK Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). The UK government does not seem to have an official position on spelling, though it often uses this variant in communications. Major publications: The Economist, The Times, Financial Times, New Scientist, The Lancet, BBC, The Guardian. === British English with ""-ize"" (Oxford spelling) === Spellings: centre, programme, labour, defence, organization; recognize, but: advise, devise, advertise, and analyseLanguage tag: en-GB-oxendictOxford spelling is based on the Oxford English Dictionary, and followed by Collins and Cassell's dictionaries, whereas Chambers lists both ‑ize and ‑ise for British English. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary notes that ""the form ize has been in use in English since the 16th century. The alternative spelling ise (reflecting a French influence) is in common use, especially in British English"".Examples of organizations adhering to this standard: United Nations organizations (UN, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, ITU, ILO, etc.), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Amnesty International, World Economic Forum, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Major publications: Nature, The Times Literary Supplement, Encyclopædia Britannica (despite being an American publication since 1911) === American English === Spellings: center, program, labor, defense, organization; recognize, but: advise, devise, advertise, and analyze Language tag: en-US Examples of organizations adhering to this standard: the US government, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organization of American States, NAFTA Secretariat. Major publications: International New York Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Science, Scientific American User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB – Script to convert the entire contents of a page from American spelling to British spelling (with an option for using Oxford spelling – the default operation being non-Oxford British English) Comparison of American and British English American and British English spelling differences See Category:Varieties of English templates to explicitly identify a national style of spelling. {{Engvar}} built inside a template: allows an editor to set the variant by |engvar=, then the prepared template can adjust its spellings. List of dialects of the English language Wikipedia:Spellchecking ""British Spelling standards"". Ars Semantica. 12 August 2006. ""Dave VE7CNV's Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling"". Dave VE7CNV. 2007." 328 332 714 WP:GEN Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics 328 "If you are interested in editing, please help improve these pages! Even if you are new to editing, don't worry about making mistakes. People will be watching and helping as needed. Barnstars will be available to anyone who completes a major task! === To-do list === Nuclear gene (13 daily views) is a high-importance stub. Let's improve it! Over 400 articles have unknown importance. Please use WP:AWB with the Kingbotk plugin or User:Evad37/rater to help assess these articles. As of July 2019, there are more stub articles (1810) than start (1758) articles. Please help us increase our number of start-class articles to be greater than our number of stubs. We are currently 97.13% of the way there! Create missing gene stubs for WP:notable genes using a tool: Look up the ""Gene ID"" number on NCBI Gene for a missing gene entry in Homo sapiens Append that number to http://genewiki.sulab.org/wiki/article/create/ (e.g., TAAR9: 134860 – http://genewiki.sulab.org/wiki/article/create/134860/) Navigate to that url, click ""Toggle Stub Code"", and copy/paste the output into a new Wikipedia article about the gene === Missing Articles === Skysmith's list of missing genetics articles Requested genetics articles === Alerts === There are two lists of project members You may add yourself and your interests to this manually-updated members list in alphabetical order. There is also an automatically-updated list of currently active participants.You're also welcome to add the userbox {{User WikiProject Genetics}} to your userpage. The original April 8, 2008 proposal for the project by Madeleine can be found here WikiProject Council/Genetics Proposals." 329 333 716 WP:JIMBO Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales 329 "Jimmy Wales holds a special role in the governance of the English Wikipedia, due to the central and vital stake he had in its founding. This authority is used on an ad hoc basis, when other decision-making structures are inadequate or have failed in a particular situation. As a general principle, Wales has refrained from acting in contravention of community consensus or a decision made by the Arbitration Committee. Wales's role in Wikipedia is continually changing. In the earliest days of Wikipedia, Wales was the sole person able to ban editors from the site. In recent years, his direct involvement in the running of the site has decreased considerably. Wales holds the Founder's seat on the 10-seat Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the ultimate authority over all Wikimedia projects. There currently remain two locations in English Wikipedia policy where Wales is explicitly mentioned: Wikipedia:Banning policy § Appeal to Jimbo Wales states: Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. While it is not unusual for him to consider an appeal, it is exceedingly unusual for him to overturn such a decision. A topic-banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales. An appeal should be lodged at his user talk page. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Appeal of decisions states: Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales's own actions. In the past, Wales has instructed Wikimedia's system administrators to implement software changes that constitute de facto Wikipedia policy changes. For instance, in December 2005, in response to the Seigenthaler incident, Wales removed the ability of unregistered users to create new pages on the English-language Wikipedia. This change was proposed as an experiment, but it remains in place. In February 2006, Wales created the T1 criterion for speedy deletion of divisive and inflammatory templates, which was repealed in February 2009. In January 2009, in response to criticism over inaccurate information added to Wikipedia's Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd articles, Wales wrote an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, calling for the flagged revisions software feature to be activated. Wales solicited community input on this issue but did not formally submit the request to the board. In July 2010, Wales marked Wikipedia:Child protection as policy, with the edit summary ""Do not revert policy tag except on the explicit approval of me and/or the Wikimedia Foundation,"" seen as an invocation of WP:CONEXCEPT. Wales maintains a very active talk page, more watched than the village pumps, which he uses as a noticeboard to publish his occasional ""decrees"" or announcements and where he facilitates discussion on all sorts of Wikimedia projects matters that he welcomes (from the broadest to the most specific; relating to Wikipedias in all languages, Wikimedia, Commons etc.); the latter often include appropriate notification of current or future discussions on the English Wikipedia or elsewhere to solicit more participation from the talk page's followers. On 6 February 2006, Jimmy Wales was granted the 'steward' right on English Wikipedia by Danny, and was granted the 'steward' right on Meta by Sj. In 2009, a 'founder' flag was established for Wales, replacing his steward rights.The founder user group, to which only Jimmy Wales belongs, gives him a specific set of user rights on all projects including: abuse filter editing, searching and viewing deleted and suppressed revisions, and creating accounts. The rights associated with this flag were once much more extensive, including all administrative rights and user right editing, but were dramatically reduced in May 2010 following an incident where he deleted files at Wikimedia Commons without seeking consensus. However, as an English Wikipedia administrator, he retains the same rights as administrators on this project. He also has checkuser and oversight rights. Though he is not a bureaucrat, his local founder user group allows him to add and remove all user groups, which exceeds the permissions available to bureaucrats. In June 2003, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) was founded as ""Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, United States."" The foundation's governance is a board of trustees, that in 2003 initially comprised of Jimmy Wales as Chair, Michael Davis (Mdavis), and Tim Shell (TimShell). Wales kept the position as Chair until October 2006, when it was changed to the role as ""Chairman Emeritus"". === Founder's seat on the Foundation Board === Since 2008, Jimmy Wales is (additionally to the Chairman Emeritus) granted the ""Founder's seat"" on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the ultimate corporate authority of the Wikimedia Foundation. Although Wales founded Wikipedia together with Larry Sanger, there is only one Founder's seat on the board. The creation of the founder seat position came among controversies over the appropriate representation of volunteers and chapters within the WMF governance. === Arbitration Committee === The members of the Arbitration Committee were originally appointed by Wales. He retains the authority to overrule or dissolve the Committee. When the Committee was founded in 2004, he said that he expected to exercise this right ""basically never"". In June 2008, Wales once again asserted his intention to overrule the Committee if he deems it necessary, but added that he did not expect that would ever come about. This seems to contradict a previous statement by Wales made in April 2007: Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding pledge upon myself: In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final. In January 2009, Wales stated that he did have the authority to remove sitting arbitrator FT2. Upon the arbitrator's resignation, the Committee declared that whether or not FT2 was to be replaced was a decision for Wales. That same month, the Committee restricted its official mailing list to ""sitting arbitrators, the designated mailing list coordinator, and Jimbo Wales""; the position of designated mailing list coordinator was subsequently discarded, making Wales the only non-arbitrator privy to the list. In July 2009, the Committee announced that it had convened with Wales's endorsement an Advisory Council on Project Development. A storm of protest from the editing community over the initiative led to its abandonment and the resignation of the arbitrator primarily responsible. In August 2009, the Committee found Wales to be in breach of the blocking policy in his block of Bishonen, and acknowledged his ""permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool"". In September 2009, Wales declared that he wanted his role to appoint Committee members following the December 2009 elections to be ""purely ceremonial"". In December 2013, arbitrator-elect 28bytes resigned amidst a controversy over his status as a Wikipediocracy admin. Citing 28bytes's overwhelming support in the just-concluded election, Wales offered to exercise his reserve powers over ArbCom for the first time ever and call a special election to reconfirm 28bytes to his post. 28bytes, however, declined the offer, and no election was held. In December 2017, upon the conclusion of the 2017 Arbitration Committee Election, Wales confirmed that he no longer needs to appoint members of the Arbitration Committee and that the established community process is sufficient for their election. ==== Contingencies ==== In June 2009, Wales confirmed: In case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50% + 1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will amend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more long-term and binding way of dealing with it. === Mediation Committee === The original members of the Mediation Committee were appointed by Wales in December 2003, at the same time as the original Arbitrators were selected. All new mediator nominations were subject to the final approval of Wales, although he rarely commented on nominations and has never overturned a consensus of the Committee. Jimbo held a subscription to the private mailing list of the Mediation Committee, Mediation-en-l. The Mediation Committee was disbanded by the community in 2018. === Banning users === Historically, Wikipedia:Banning policy § Authority to ban included a line that stated: Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors. In April 2022, Jimbo Wales removed this line from the policy at his own volition, stating in a village pump discussion regarding that line: In order to prevent any further controversy on the immediate question, though, I have personally removed the line in question from the policy and assert affirmatively that I do not have the right to ban users unilaterally. === Blocking and unblocking users === As an administrator on the English Wikipedia, Wales has the technical ability to block editors. However, in August 2009 he decided to permanently renounce these powers. In May 2010, he used them again. On 21 September 2011, he unblocked an IP ""Limited unblock for purpose of participating on my talk page only"". === User rights === Wales has the technical ability, through the unique permissions flag of ""founder"", to add and remove all user rights. Wales has not invoked this power often, and his most recent for-cause removals of admin rights, in 2008, provoked varying amounts of controversy. The question of whether the English Wikipedia community can remove Wales's administrator status has not yet arisen. User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo Meta:Founder Wikipedia:Wikipedia holidays Wikipedian of the Year" 330 334 720 WP:speedy keep WP:speedy keep 330 "Speedy keep is the process of closing deletion discussions with a result of ""speedy keep"" before the normal discussion period ends, but without unlisting or deleting the actual discussion. This guideline applies only to ""speedy keep"" closures; the criteria for speedy deletion cover the circumstances under which pages may be deleted immediately. Reasons for a speedy keep decision are: Absence of delete rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD, or (b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Exceptions: The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion.If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed and the page renominated on the correct forum, with the original nomination, and any comments made so far, copied over to the new nomination. The closing comment should indicate where the discussion has been moved. This does not strictly count as a speedy keep, since the page still remains nominated for deletion. Please realize that while you may personally dislike having a deletion tag on your favorite article/template/image/etc, the harm it does is minimal, and either the article or the tag will be gone in around a week. Also be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion, is not necessarily vexatious, and does not imply the nominator has neglected to read the page. === What is not a speedy-keep === The ""snowball clause"" is a valid criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for a speedy keep, but it is not a speedy keep criterion itself. Specifically, discussions must meet specific criteria to be speedily kept. ""Snowball closes"" are justified by ""Ignore all rules"" and ""Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"" as opposed to a specific set of guidelines. For that reason, ""snow closes"" may be controversial and additional care is warranted. Though the two may seem similar, closes under the snowball clause should never be closed as ""speedy keep."" ==== Notes ==== When a discussion is closed as a speedy-keep, close the debate as you would a standard close, but use the result ""speedy keep"" instead of ""keep"". The procedure for administrators closing AfD discussions are laid out at WP:AFD/AI and for limited cases of non-administrator closings, at nominator withdrawal or here. Guide to deletion Introduction to deletion process Procedural closure Snowball clause" 331 335 722 WP:HHGTTG Wikipedia:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 331 "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page or see the to-do list below. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices. WikiProject on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The main goal should be to improve the primary articles dealing with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The secondary goal should be to organize and potentially improve all of the little connected articles, such as Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature Wikipedia:WikiProject Books Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction No descendant WikiProjects have been defined. The WikiProject for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy overlaps five existing WikiProjects: WikiProject Films for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film) WikiProject Novels for the five actual books in the series. WikiProject Radio for the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) WikiProject Television and its daughter WikiProject British TV shows for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV series). WikiProject Comedy for the comedy genre, which The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is in, as well as other works by Douglas Adams such as the Dirk Gently series. No related Wikiportals have been named. Commons:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikibooks:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikinews:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikiquote:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikisource:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikispecies:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wiktionary:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy meta:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy de:Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt Per Anhalter durch die Galaxis === Sister Project Searches === Guide to the Galaxyia&go=Go WikiBooks search Guide to the Galaxy Google WikiBooks search Guide to the Galaxy&go=Go WikiQuote search Guide to the Galaxy} Google WikiQuote search Guide to the Galaxy&go=Go WikiSource search Guide to the Galaxy Google WikiSource search Please add your name to the bottom of the list. Mollsmolyneux (talk · contribs) (Founder) JohnDBuell (talk · contribs) (Current WikiProject coordinator) Geljamin (talk · contribs) Jawr256 (talk · contribs) KPWM Spotter (talk · contribs) the editor1 (talk · contribs) Wootking (talk · contribs) Bugboy52.40 (talk · contribs) Adamcobb (talk · contribs) VMAAXT (talk · contribs) BlackRicoh (talk · contribs) DoctorWho42 (talk · contribs) ZeroOne (talk · contribs) Jameschipmunk (talk · contribs) Gusty42 (talk · contribs) Atomic-Super-Suit (talk · contribs) Paulpro (talk · contribs) Mbatman72 (talk · contribs) Nineteenninetyfour (talk · contribs) Briantist (talk · contribs) Sir Drance (talk · contribs) Cpkondas (talk · contribs) Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs) Nlb42 (talk · contribs) Miraculousrandomness (talk · contribs) Thehumuslayer (talk · contribs) Rocky Mountain Goat (talk · contribs) ISD (talk · contribs) Seabird111 (talk · contribs) nishantjr (talk · contribs) Tzeentch42 (talk · contribs) Interrupt feed (talk · contribs) Harry Blue5 (talk · contribs) Tarastar42 (talk · contribs) Metabaronic (talk · contribs) Khim1 (talk · contribs) Smithyfromdunny (talk · contribs) Elizium23 (talk · contribs) Jabberwoch (talk) Neo12345292 (talk · contribs) Acalycine (talk · contribs) Origamite (talk · contribs) KieranTribe (talk · contribs) Improve major articles, try to get some of them to Good article status. Improve minor articles. Potentially adopt other Douglas Adams-related articles: The Dirk Gently novels (Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul), The Salmon of Doubt, and The Meaning of Liff for further improvement. === To Do === Improve articles for each of the six novels per standards of Wikiproject Novels. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (novel) The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Life, the Universe and Everything So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish Mostly Harmless And Another Thing... (novel) Improve the article for the Hitchhiker's film per standards of Wikiproject Films: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film). This must include proper inline referencing! Include proper inline referencing for other major articles: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV series) Add details into the new article, Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Be careful not to copyvio the essay published in SFX magazine. === Done === The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) was improved to the level of FA, the third Hitchhiker's/Douglas Adams related FA. Similar to the Collaboration of the week, but on a smaller scale, you might want to ""adopt"" an article. This would involve doing the research, writing, and picture-taking (if possible) for either a non-existent article or a stub. Of course, everyone else can still edit an adopted article, and you can work on other things too, but the idea is to find a focus for a while, to try and build up the number of quality articles the Project has produced. KPWM_Spotter has tentatively agreed to finish the TV series summaries in the same style of the radio series episodes. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book) - Nishantjr Category:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy === Infoboxes === None === Stub templates === None === Project Notice === This is the project notice, designed to be placed in the talk page of any article that has been edited as part of this Wikiproject. Code: {{HHGTTGproject}} Result: === Other templates === {{User WP Hitchhikers}} is a userbox that any members can put on their userpage, to tell people they are a member of this project: This a box to put on the main Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy pages, the code is {{HitchhikerBooks}}: === Wikipedia articles on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy === The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (novel) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (computer game) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV series) The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Life, the Universe and Everything So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish Mostly Harmless And Another Thing... (novel) Young Zaphod Plays It Safe The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Original Radio Scripts The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases Arthur Dent Ford Prefect (character) Zaphod Beeblebrox Marvin the Paranoid Android Trillian (character) Slartibartfast Vogon Krikkit Total Perspective Vortex Heart of Gold (spaceship) Wikkit Gate Starship Titanic Galactic Empire (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) Whole Sort of General Mish Mash The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything Babel fish (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) Bistromathic drive Infinidim Enterprises Infinite Improbability Drive The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon List of minor The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy characters Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy List of races and species in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster Point-of-view gun Somebody Else's Problem#In fiction - for Somebody Else's Problem field Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Brockian Ultra-Cricket Wet wipe#Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy - for lemon-soaked paper napkin Megadodo Publications Quilliard Shoe Event Horizon Towel#Appearances in popular culture Guide Entries Timeline of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy versions Towel Day Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - still mostly skeletal, needs serious fleshing out. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (fictional) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cast lists Hitchcon === New Wikipedia articles related to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy === Please feel free to list your new The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Wikipedia page. DYN has a 72 hr. time limit from the creation of the article. === Did you know? === Krikkit Hitchcon === Article improvement drive === === Collaboration of the week === === Peer review === h2g2 === Featured articles === The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) ==== Featured article candidates ==== === Featured pictures === ==== Featured picture candidates ==== === Featured lists === ==== Featured list candidates ==== === Good articles === ==== Good article nominations ====" 332 336 727 WP:GUITAR Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists 332 "WikiProject Guitarists is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to help, please see the To-do list below, or inquire on the talk page. Our goals Improve Wikipedia's coverage of guitarists by creating, expanding, and maintaining articles. Provide guidelines and recommendations for articles about guitarists. Serve as the central point of guitarist article discussion.Our scope The project focuses on articles about guitarists, minding the notability standards laid out at WP:MUSIC.What can you do?Add your name to the list of Participants and get started on anything below! Requested moves 18 Mar 2023 – Charlie Handsome (talk · edit · hist) move request to Ryan Vojtseak by TenPoundHammer (t · c) was moved to Ryan Vojtesak (talk · edit · hist) by Arbitrarily0 (t · c) on 25 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged 27 Sep 2022 – Jakko Jakszyk (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to The Bruised Romantic Glee Club by ONUnicorn (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 02 Mar 2023 – Draft:Guitar Mash (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Deum ex machini (t · c) 26 Feb 2023 – Draft:Simon O'Connor (musician) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Zekezeke2000 (t · c) 10 Feb 2023 – Draft:Friedman Amplification (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 06 Jan 2023 – Draft:Kevin Gruft (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by HPen1 (t · c) 15 Dec 2022 – Draft:Christopher Caliendo (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Christopher Caliendo (t · c) 08 Dec 2022 – Draft:Chad Price (singer-songwriter) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by UtherSRG (t · c) 16 Mar 2023 – Draft:Marcio Philomena (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Vanessassoa (t · c) was declined by Robertsky (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023 === Participants === Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the project; you are also encouraged to participate in any of our task forces that might interest you. Other009o9 (talk · contribs) – interested in legacy instruments, luthier techniques and repairs. 15tinybirds (talk · contribs) - writer with interest in music and modern guitar, both players and their gear. Extensive knowledge of heavy metal/hard rock genres & subgenres.AAelium (talk · contribs) - Has much knowledge about the Japanese guitar world. Aeternus (talk · contribs) - Progressive world Ajili777 (talk · contribs) - Knowledge of Australian guitarists. Aklein62 (talk · contribs) - Knowledge of German, Irish, and some English classical guitarists & guitar composers. AlainLevesque (talk · contribs) Anger22 (talk · contribs) Awolfe94 (talk · contribs)BBargain Fanta (talk · contribs) - Enjoys a wide variety of music, especially pre-One Hot Minute RHCP, Led Zeppelin, Sonic Youth, and the Tragically Hip. Black Stripe (talk · contribs) Happy to help out. Please check out the article on Electronic tuners and give it a rating on the discussion page. BlueMarblesMoon (talk · contribs) - Standing like great Ulysses with guitar in his hand. Eager to spread the word of Buckethead, that little boy with a pallid mask glued to his face. Bobyllib (talk · contribs) - full of dust and guitars Bridies (talk · contribs) interests: EVH-school modern rock guitar (satch, vai, gilbert etc), post-80s instrumental rock (govan, buckethead etc), progressive blues playingCCarbonKhazi (talk · contribs) Crw21 (talk · contribs) Csaag (talk · contribs) - Headcheese! And chili! Curseyoukhan (talk · contribs) - nascent Sister Rosetta Tharpe obsessiveDDinosaurJr19 (talk · contribs) - singer-songwriter, loves anything heavy, eccentric, or both (white stripes, dinosaur jr, nirvana, etc.)EEmcee george (talk · contribs)-Play guitar for passion, and have heaps of knowledge on musical styles and history, particularly in the mainstream 1960's-1980's. Eagledj (talk · contribs)-Live in Nashville. Major contributor to Pedal steel guitar, Slide guitar (GA), Earl Scruggs(GA) Steel Bar and several articles about musicians, songwriters and record producers.FFallenWings47 (talk · contribs)GGreekStar12 (talk · contribs) Guitart (talk · contribs) - Professional concert guitarist (classical), guitar instructor and academicHHammer of the Gods27 (talk · contribs) Haphazardjoy (talk · contribs) Harryandharoldforever (talk · contribs) - Researching Rowe Industries Inc., H. N. Rowe & Company, Rowe DeArmond Inc. and DeArmond Inc. all of Toledo, Ohio, USA. Wrote the original Wikipedia biographical entry on Harry DeArmond and created www.musicpickups.com, the DeArmond, Toledo websiteIItsmelah (talk · contribs) - Anything to everything metal/rock riffs, love it, the six string axe! Izzy007 (talk · contribs) - Love the Strat and a good Marshall amp. Also love Fender amps.JJ04n (talk · contribs) - Early heavy metal/hard rock guitarists; Tony Iommi, Richie Blackmore, Ace Frehley. I play a Strat, like to play Sabbath and Ramones stuff. Jo Weber (talk · contribs) - acoustic fingerstyle guitar jschnur (talk · contribs) - Classical guitarist interested in baroque. Have upgraded the Gaspar Sanz article and created the Cristofaro Cesarana article.KKnuand (talk · contribs) - Know a few things about Norwegian guitarists & Jazz guitar.LLeahtwosaints (talk · contribs)- Mainly rock, roots music, jam bands. Love the bassists and session players too! From Jeff Beck, Santana, John Frusciante, Pino Palladino, Brian May to Derek Trucks! I love adding photos, too. Like the Ibanez, and MusicMan StingRay, the Strat, and Telecaster- played 35 yrs now. Lexo (talk · contribs) - guitar player: rock, jazz, blues, traditional music and free improvisation; also enthusiast for classical and world music (but not expert on either) LeBron's Headband (talk · contribs) - Novice guitar player into anything that sounds good, from RHCP to Hendrix to Metallica to Pearl Jam Lizzyd710 (talk · contribs)MMac Dreamstate (talk · contribs) - interested mainly in instrumental rock and jazz fusion, and have created articles for many guitarists in said genres. Actively involved in improving bio articles for Allan Holdsworth, Tony MacAlpine, Greg Howe and Planet X. Maplerocker (talk · contribs) Bass guitar player and Rickenbacker fan willing to help, especially inproving the Rickenbacker site(s) in particular the underrespresented basses Massimo Barbieri (talk · contribs) MaulYoda (talk · contribs) - Specializes in Classic Rock Guitarists but not in anything new. Some knowledge of amps, Guitar companies, but does know quiet a few Guitars. Rock freak (not completely obsessed yet) plays Electric Guitar and air guitar. Mdebets (talk · contribs) - mostly German Rock music and World music Moderatelyaverage (talk · contribs) - Serviceable knowledge of Classic Rock and Blues guitarists, somewhat good knowledge of guitar companies. Used to play electric guitar when there I had more time on my hands. I'm also good at fixing grammar, syntax and spelling errors. MoJiggity (talk · contribs) - Plays guitar and bass, dabbles in sound engineering live and in-studio. Into out-of-style equipment (Steinberger primarily) Moucon (talk · contribs) - 45 years playing/35 yrs teaching, college music minor, played semi-pro and is interested in ""Vintage"" USA instruments. Mr Pyles (talk · contribs)NNameanduser (talk · contribs) - Prog, Hard Rock, Indie/Alt Rock Nettrom (talk · contribs) NorthWu (talk) NuclearSolstice (talk · contribs) - Guitar enthusiast, old school metal music fan. Nattyshi (talk · contribs)O PPachon (talk · contribs) - Buckethead and related peterdjones (talk · contribs) 30 years of amateurism in a variety of styles. Fingerstyle guitar, electric guitar, jazz guitar, guitar bracing Maccaferri guitar, rock musics, gypsy swing, Django Reinhardt. Photi G (talk · contribs) - A gearhead that has rudimentary playing ability. Electrics, Amplifiers, Effects, and Accessories are my thing.Q RRitzbitz00 (talk · contribs) - An an obsessive music researcher, I'm ready and willing to do my part! RogerGLewis (talk · contribs) - Interested in the history of the Gibson Byrdland and its notable players. Interested in the Gibson Byrdland 12 string Guitar manufactured in 1976 Roger Workman (talk · contribs) - Interested in all things regarding guitars and guitar players.SSamBlob (talk · contribs) - Dislike most hip-hop, most dancehall, and most modern soca, otherwise like most of Western civilization's music. Sebread (talk · contribs) Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki (talk · contribs) - I love music, no matter what kind is, until it pleases your ears. An acosutic (fingerstyle) and electric guitarist since 2 years. Sirfeathers (talk · contribs) - I'm passionate about electric guitars and the music made with them, especially crossover jazz styles such as fusion and rockabilly. Sjlefebvre (talk · contribs) - I'm a 40 year vet in the guitar/bass and stringed instrument repair and history world. I'm also known for my slide playing and love of Louisiana Swamp Blues, Cajun and Zydeco music. SquealingWeasel (talk · contribs) - I am a passionate blues guitarist (for over 35 years), but to be honest, I am not very talented...I do however have plenty of knowledge in many guitar related subjects... Spike Wilbury (talk · contribs) - Project founder Straight Edge PXK (talk · contribs) - Metal/Grunge Bassist interested in Thrash, Emo and Grungeassociated articles Stratocaster27 (talk · contribs) - Huge musical knowledge pertaining to artists, guitars, and gear of 1960s and 1970s; loves The Beatles, Led Zep, & Jimi Hendrix; owns too many guitars, teaches guitar lessons, and has played since the age of 7. Stratopastor (talk · contribs) - I have been researching the Rivera-era range of Fender amps (1982-86) since 2004 and run a website about them. Svindland (talk · contribs) - Diploma degree of classical guitar performance and pedagogy. Systemdertoten (talk · contribs) - The Guru of poor guitarists. Blues, Metal, Alt-Rock all the way!!TTuner420 (talk · contribs) - I want to contribute where i canU VVmavanti (talk · contribs) – Studied classical guitar for four years. I do a lot of work in Wikiproject Jazz.WWikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs)XXBurningAlive (talk · contribs) -Y Z === Departments === ==== Assessment ==== The assessment department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's guitarist articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program. The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProjectGuitarists}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in a set of categories that serves as the basis for an automatically generated worklist. === Task forces === Task forces are informal groups of editors gathered for collaborative work on a particular topic within the guitarist project; all project members are encouraged to participate in any that interest them. Current task forcesGuitar equipment Infobox Buckethead The guidelines presented in this section are intended to be guidelines only; while they are well-suited for the vast majority of guitarist articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches can been taken. Please discuss individual cases on the Project talk page before deviating from guidelines. === Article naming conventions === Since the vast majority of guitarist articles are biographical articles about people, simply use the guitarist's name as the article name. If the guitarist uses a stage or professional name, use the most common name of the person and refer to their real name in the article. For an example of this, see Sting. If you must disambiguate, use Guitarist name (musician). ""Musician"" is preferable to ""guitarist"" since they may play other instruments.See also: Naming conventions (people) === Article structure === The guidelines in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics an article will discuss. Remember to cite your sources! ==== Opening paragraph ==== The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey: The real name and stage name (if applicable) of the guitarist The birth and death dates (if applicable), place of birth, and nationality of the guitarist The musical groups the guitarist is best known for working with The techniques or styles the guitarist is best known forFor an example of a good opening paragraph, see Mark Knopfler. See also WP:LEAD. ==== Article body ==== The article can be structured along these lines: Biography Style and techniques (for example, fingerpicking, unique tuning, etc.) Innovations and inventions (for example, tapping) Equipment (guitars, amplifiers, effects, etc.) - can include endorsements Involvement in musical groups Influence and legacy Discography, if appropriate (if the guitarist is a member of one or more musical groups, defer the discographies to those articles.) === Infobox templates === ==== Guitarist infobox ==== The guitarist infobox has been deprecated in favor of the more general-purpose {{Infobox Musical artist}}. Please use that infobox for biographical articles about guitarists. ==== Equipment infobox ==== This infobox is in work - please discuss changes and refinement at the infobox discussion page.The infobox should be added using the {{Infobox guitar model}} template, as shown below: title – guitar brand and model name image – an image of the guitar. manufacturer – the manufacturer of the guitar, often it is the guitar company. period – the year when it was first created, formatted as year1 - year 2, (or) year 3 - Present bodytype – between solid, semi-hollow and hollow necktype – between Set-in neck, Bolt-on neck, and Neck-thru, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) woodbody – type of wood used for the body, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) woodneck – type of wood used for the neck, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) woodfingerboard – years type of wood used for the fingerboard, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) bridge – type of the bridge, fixed, locking tremolo or non-locking tremolo, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) pickup – the formation of the pickups, formatted as H-S-H or S-S-S or H-H or any other relevant formations, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model) colors – Name all the available colors, if there are too many variations, type (varies with sub-model)Note: If varies with sub-model is used, please explain the variations on the article. === Categories === Articles should be placed in appropriate categories. At a minimum, use the following categories: One or more subcategories of Category:Guitarists by genre A subcategory of Category:Guitarists by nationalityYou may locate other appropriate categories, such as Category:Bass guitarists or Category:Women guitarists === Usage === The {{WikiProject Guitarists}} project banner template should be added (not subst:ed) to the talk page of every article within the scope of the project. While the template does not require any additional parameters, it has a number of optional ones that add various extra features to the banner. The full syntax is as follows: General parameters: class – a rating of the article's quality; see the assessment department for more details. attention – ""yes"" if the article requires immediate attention; this should be used sparingly. If you do use it, make sure to note the reason on the article Talk page.Task force parameters Guitarist-equipment-task-force – ""yes"" if the article is supported by the Guitar equipment task force === Participant userbox === You can add this userbox to your user page, signifying your participation in the project. Adding this to your user page automatically adds your username to Category:WikiProject Guitarists participants. === Project awards === The Guitarist Barnstar can be awarded to any project member you want to recognize for service to the project. Add it to their Talk page with {{subst:The Guitarist Barnstar|message ~~~~}}. The Music Barnstar can be awarded to any wikpedian that exhibits exceptional effort and dedication to music-related articles. Add it to their Talk page with {{subst:Music Barnstar|message ~~~~}}. Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks – Edits bare references – adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles." 333 337 731 WP:NCBC Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) 333 "This page sets out guidelines for the names of articles relating to broadcasting, generally in the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations and the television stations task force. For guidelines relating specifically to television programming, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Particularly due to increased convergence of media, it can be hard to figure out when a radio or television service is a network, a channel, or a station. This table provides a general set of rules for making this determination for television and for radio. In any case, there may be variations for some terms of the art, particularly in the United States where ""cable networks"" are by definition channels (e.g. regional sports network), as well as in proper nouns. Channel 103 is a radio station; Paramount Network is a television channel. An online offering of television content without a linear feed is a streaming service. === Capitalization === Article titles should generally use standard capitalization practices, even if this is deemed unofficial, following the rules of the Manual of Style. For instance, the station Spin South West stylizes itself as ""SPIN South West"". This does not apply to acronyms, such as MDR Jump. === Disambiguation === In many cases, it will be necessary to disambiguate pages with the same name. Disambiguators should be as concise and complete as possible. Where it can be reasonably expected that all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type, e.g. radio stations named ""Fresh FM"" or television channels with the name Disney Channel, disambiguation can be done by country and then by state/province or city if necessary (e.g. Fresh FM (Netherlands); Bay FM (Brisbane)). If the title shares a name with unlike topics, for instance CMT (a disambiguation page), then disambiguation is necessary, sometimes including nationality: CBBC (TV channel), Double J (radio station), tvN (South Korean TV channel). Consider natural disambiguation where possible before relying on disambiguators. While most television channels and television and radio networks are titled at their common names, the titling practices for radio and television stations are bifurcated into two types, and countries' broadcasting articles largely fall into one of three classes. Articles in Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States are almost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign. There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. Articles in some countries, including Argentina, Australia, Japan, and Uruguay, are a mix of call sign and common name titles. Some call signs are common names for the topic, but some are not. Articles in most of the rest of the world are exclusively common name-titled. In some countries, such as Brazil, there may be call signs issued, but they are generally not used as common names. === Modifying article titles for stations that change their station names === A station most typically merits retaining the article and moving it to its new title if it has changed its name. A station may also change its format without changing its name. A new article should only be created if there is a substantive change in the station's method of operation that is not a format change. In rare cases, a name change in a station is far deeper than a change in format. This may occur if a regional or national station takes over the frequencies of formerly local stations. If a station goes from a local station to a transmitter of a national service with little to no local content, such as Signal 107 (and many others) being amalgamated into Greatest Hits Radio in the UK, the article scope should end at that point. Call sign titling has its own set of practices and often prescribes precise names for pages. Keep in mind that practices vary from country to country. The call sign appendix provides more detailed by-country information. An official call sign can often be found by searching the database of the relevant broadcast regulator (for instance, the FCC Licensing and Management System in the United States) or a relevant mirror database such as those aggregated at fccdata.org. Be aware that many periodicals and even stations themselves do not always use correct call signs and especially correct suffixes. While most call signs, including all in the United States and Philippines, have four letters excluding suffixes, this is not a universal rule. Where a single broadcast outlet operates several transmitters with different call signs, create the article at the call sign which is considered the primary station and make the other call signs redirects to that call sign; if there are enough of these, a common name title may be advisable for the entire grouping (e.g. Wyoming Public Radio). Where a station has changed call signs, the station's entire history should be placed in its current call sign, as the old call signs may subsequently be reassigned to new stations. Only in exceptional cases, typically involving years of silence and significant changes in operation, should the history of one broadcast license be split by call sign into different articles. In some cases, a broadcast outlet may broadcast the same programming as a digital subchannel of a full-power station and on a low-power station with a separate call sign. The article on this programming should be titled at the latter (e.g. WNYF-CD instead of WWNY-DT2), even if it has a weaker signal. === Suffixes === Call signs may or may not bear a suffix, depending on the practice in a given country. If the official call sign has a suffix (such as -FM or -TDT), a redirect or disambiguation page should be added for the call sign without the suffix. For stations which do not have a suffix, if disambiguation is necessary (because the official call sign conflicts with an airport code or acronym), place the type of service in parentheses; for example, ""KSFO (AM)"" or ""KDFW (TV)"". This is a ""silent"" disambiguator. The use of suffixes varies by country: United States AM stations never have a suffix, and FM and TV stations generally have a suffix only if they share (or once shared) their call sign with another station in a different broadcast band. All digital television and FM stations in Canada are suffixed. All stations in Mexico, including AM stations, are suffixed.The call sign appendix contains more information and a list of suffixes used by each country. === Disambiguation === If there are no other terms using the title, then an active radio or television station should be presumed to be the primary topic for the call sign it holds.However, because call signs are recycled, it often is necessary to disambiguate the titles of articles covering defunct broadcast stations. In selecting the correct title for the latter, consider the following in this order: Suffix: Can the articles co-exist at titles that will not cause confusion? (WGVL (an AM station) and WGVL (TV); WZZQ (an AM station) and WZZQ (FM))Note that this is not the case if the stations are in the same service. WACH-TV should redirect to WACH (a TV station), not WACH-TV (Virginia).State or province: Disambiguate by state or province, or if a large enough city, a city.Examples include CHOO-FM (British Columbia), KPRB (Oregon), and WCLM (Chicago).City and state/province: This is necessary if the stations are/were in different parts of the same entity.Example: WTOM-TV is in Cheboygan, Michigan, so WTOM-TV (Lansing, Michigan) cannot be titled ""WTOM-TV (Michigan)"".Frequency, if multiple stations have used the same call letters in the same city and one is an active station.For instance, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, had a KPBA (1270 AM) before it had a current KPBA (FM), and Allentown, Pennsylvania, had a WFMZ-TV (channel 67) before the present WFMZ-TV (channel 69). If there's something of a common history, disambiguation can be more relaxed: KICE (AM)/KICE (FM).Time period, if all other options are exhausted (multiple stations have used the same call letters on the same frequency in the same city).Example: WSM-FM (1939–51).If two stations on the same frequency in the same place used the same call letters, often quickly apart, there may be continuity. In that event, it may be advisable to fold them into one article. For instance, WBRL (AM) covers two FCC licenses with the same call letters on the same frequency in the same place. In rare circumstances, it may also be necessary to disambiguate an active station against other, similar topics in order to avoid incomplete disambiguation. For instance, KYTV (TV station) is disambiguated to avoid a conflict with KYTV (TV series), as ""KYTV (TV)"" represents incomplete disambiguation. Call sign-titled WAFM (United States) is disambiguated to avoid a conflict with common name-titled WAFM (Australia). === Defunct stations === In titling a defunct station, use the last call sign under which the station meaningfully broadcast. Stations have, in the past, changed call signs after their final broadcast (such as KSUN (Bisbee, Arizona) changed to KBZB but never broadcast as such) or while preparing to shut down to preserve the use of the designation on another license (KICE (AM) became KCOE (AM) while broadcasting a loop advising it had ceased operations); in these cases, a call sign is sent floating away with a dead license, as if it were in a ship burial. In some cases, the common name of a defunct station may not be the last call sign used but an earlier one, such as KTTL, WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina), or WBOW (1230 AM), if the station either achieved massive notoriety under one call sign or broadcast for all but the last few years of its history with one call sign. The principle of least astonishment should be considered when weighing decisions about such cases. In some cases in television, programming formerly broadcast on one separately licensed station may be merged into a subchannel of another. In this case, the article scope should end at the surrender of license/merger, and content after should be at the station airing it as a subchannel. === Broadcast terminology === Articles which cover general concepts or terminology related to the broadcasting industry or technology (but not programming) should use, as appropriate: (broadcasting): Watershed (broadcasting), Continuity (broadcasting) (radio): Antenna (radio), Detector (radio) (television): Ghosting (television), Revival (television) === Streaming services === Streaming services, which offer television programming in a nonlinear fashion, have a standard disambiguator: (streaming service): Peacock (streaming service)" 334 338 733 WP:EMSC Wikipedia:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage 334 "Significant coverage is a key aspect of deletion discussions at AfD. This essay aims to break down what our general notability guideline says and implies about significant coverage, and guide people to think about what it doesn't say and how the grey zone of editorial discretion comes into play. Frequently in AfDs participants post a large amount of sources (generally ones that are reliable) and opine a 'keep' argument. That is good. But sometimes when participants do this a large amount of those sources are merely trivial mentions, which do not constitute significant coverage. The general notability guideline states that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. It also provides an example to back this up: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that ""In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. It can sometimes be easy to forget that significant coverage is needed when you are new to deletion discussions. Whether something is enough for significant coverage is up to the discretion of the editor(s) involved. The general notability guideline is extremely vague on this matter. The only thing it states in addition to the two examples quoted above are ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. A fair bit can be extracted from those two sentences. The first sentence's main part echoes the premise of the previous section and this widely-accepted essay. It also states that significant coverage must be direct. This comes in handy in situations where the creator of the article in last-ditch efforts the prove notability of their pet subject attempts to do so by collating news articles together that barely reference it but arguably much around it relates to the pet subject. This won't happen much at all but is a useful safeguard if someone tries to jump through a loophole. The second part of that sentence however is widely unrecognised and almost never referenced in deletion discussions. I have found a discussion about that portion here dating back to 2015. That discussion contains a good comment by WhatamIdoing: The existing language does confuse people. In fact, I'd be happy with removing all reference to NOR. The only (dubious) explanation I've ever heard was that it was meant to stop people from collating tweets to come up with statements that aren't ""directly"" in any of them—and that's already covered by ""directly"" (and, incidentally, prohibited by NOR). It adds nothing that we wouldn't have anyway. Essentially, the basic premise of that statement would seem to be 'a source does not constitute significant coverage if inferring to the extent where it just becomes a heap of ""what if?""s is required to extract significant coverage from that source.'. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention has already been covered. It does not need to be the main topic of the source material is perhaps the most restrictive statement in the whole notability guideline on significant coverage. The guideline leaves the definition of significant coverage wide open to personal opinion and circumstance and that is integral for AfD to not become a rule-following system and to allow for discretion in edge-cases. Significance is mostly about context, often depending on the subject nominated. In different scenarios the meaning of significance should be applied differently. With the simplest of examples, CORPDEPTH, the significant coverage requirement for companies, is a more stringent requirement than the standard one. Most of them the official guidelines do not state and it doesn't really become a problem as few editors !vote in AfDs in largely different areas and most of those that do know that significance is variable depending on topic. An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. This particular example is due to the fact that newspapers will tend to discuss politicians a lot more than scientists. In conclusion, generally more significant coverage is required for the likes of neologisms, companies, and politicians than NSPORT passing sportspeople, scientists, and generally specialised people in non-specialised publications. Wikipedia:What is significant coverage? Wikipedia:One hundred words" 335 339 738 WP:WIFC User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is 335 "Wikipedia is fancruft. Fancruft is the reason for Wikipedia's success, and its saving grace. The value in Wikipedia, and its popularity, comes from the huge amount of random articles on nearly any topic imaginable, with all the relevant information in one place. Wikipedia is a great resource because of breadth and depth; no matter how good an article we have on evolution or the United States, a hundred thousand similar articles can be found everywhere. What distinguishes us from the paper encyclopedias is our versatility and our ability to constantly expand on any topic one can think of. We thrive on the attention from people all over the globe searching for some random little factoid. It does no harm to have loads of articles on things that would never be in the scope of Britannica. == Pokémon articles == So what if there are 500 Pokémon character biographies or articles for every episode of a TV show? While it's unfortunate that we may be covering Pokémon or Star Trek better than heads of state or political movements, the solution is not to delete the Pokémon articles. The deletion of all the Pokémon articles was a particularly disappointing time on Wikipedia. Pokémon characters have lots of media and sources associated with them, have a lot of fans who would be interested in reading these articles and editing them, and are ""notable"". They are also a great way to get people involved in Wikipedia: They come to the site, see how good our coverage of that subject is, and begin contributing and getting interested in the project. Pokémon characters are ""notable"", verifiable, have the potential to become Featured articles, have a lot of users to support them, and may get people interested in Wikipedia. The only reason to oppose articles on Pokémon characters is that a traditional encyclopedia would not have these articles; however, these kinds of articles are precisely what we can and positively should preserve. == Deletion creep == Those who go forth with the intent of getting rid of entire categories of article generally start by nominating some of the worst of them for deletion, generally the stubby ones. With luck, almost nobody has edited them and thus nobody editing in that topic field notices the deletion debate until it closes with either a delete or merge result. Once they get perhaps half a dozen of them deleted, they start counting that as precedent in future deletion debates or force-merges. They also start writing out a notability guideline that generally requires that something not only be verifiable (that would be no problem) and have multiple independent sources (again, not too controversial) but that notability requires more than that; it requires demonstrable importance. The article must claim and source that its subject matter is Really Important™. Sooner or later, we have an alleged consensus and documented pseudo-policy that only truly historically important topics get an article. Then there's generally a move to redirect them all into a single article or a few articles on the subject. This harms Wikipedia immensely and damages the collaborative effort of building an encyclopedic compendium of human knowledge. The actions being taken by a select group of editors to remove huge swaths of information on fictional characters and topics all in the name of upholding some pseudo-guideline is greatly harming the encyclopedia. Editors spend a lot of effort crafting and contributing quality material under a free license for the whole world to use, readers enthuse about how comprehensive Wikipedia is to include such things, and then we throw it all away and chide people for having contributed it in the first place. We steadily delete valuable content that is not reproduced elsewhere and will not be reproduced elsewhere. These actions are driving away good faith contributors and, more importantly, our readers. == See also == Wikipedia:Cruftcruft Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): ""The battle for Wikipedia's soul"" Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy Wikipedia talk:Notability: Why inclusion of fictional subjects matters Wikipedia:What isn't grounds for article deletion == External links == The battle for Wikipedia's soul, The Economist The Charms of Wikipedia, The New York Review of Books [Wikipedia] was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side...The people who guarded the leaf pile this way were called ""deletionists."" Partial solution to rampant deletionism WikiEN-l, Jimmy Wales" 336 340 741 WP:PAW Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch 336 "This project is defunct. Its major role has been taken over by WP:ARBCOM. Some notes on how to handle editors who are problematic in this area: Never call an editor a ""pedophile"" or similarly inflammatory term. You may rightfully get in trouble. Instead, use ""editor showing a tendency to normalize sex with minors"" or something. If engaging such editors avoid all inflammatory terms or rhetoric, it will only backfire on you. NPOV, RS, and FRINGE are your friends here. We advise that generally you not engage such editors at all, particularly if you're inexpert in the subject and they are. (You can if you think it best in the particular situation.) If it looks to be a one-off bad edit, just revert it. If the editor is more prolific or persistent, move to the next step. We advise you to write to ArbCom by email (only! -- not publicly here), with a succinct description (such as ""We have an editor, [Name], showing a tendency to normalize sex with minors"") and provide diffs. Arbcom will handle the matter discretely. (It's best to avoid a public back-and-forth on such a sensitive, emotionally fraught, and potentially triggering subject if possible, we think.) If you don't get satisfaction from ArbCom, or think it's best to work it out here (perhaps if you're unsure if there's really a problem for instance), we recommend that you go WP:AN (not the more public WP:ANI) with a bland message, eg ""I think we have a problem, please take a look at these diffs"" and provide the diffs.The great majority of the problem is from editors normalizing sex with minors (some with subtle cleverness, erudition, and sources; you may need to be on your game). But, you might get an anti-pedophile warrior. If they are not able to write in a WP:NPOV way, they also are not welcome. (Terms which you don't usually need to know but FYI, technically ""pedophile"" describes an internal state, not an action -- the action is called ""child molestation"" or ""Child sexual abuse"". And pedophilia refers to attraction -- obligatory attraction, generally -- to children, up thru age 11 more or less. Attraction to minors, roughly ages 12-16 (or maybe 12-17), is different, and might be called Hebephilia or Ephebophilia. Normalizing sexual relations with any minor below the age of consent (Usually around 16 in most Anglosphere nations), or for that matter any minor at all (up thru age 17 generally) is not welcome here and is reportable, except perhaps when discussing minor-minor sex under Romeo and Juliet laws. Really the only term you need to know is ""editor showing a tendency to normalize sex with minors"", and all you need to know is how to email Arbcom and how to copy diffs. Other questions, User:Herostratus is a founder of this project, and if he is still active, you could ask him discreetly (here; he doesn't use email) for another set of eyes or whatever. FWIW, here is the original lede for this page: Welcome. This WikiProject is a group of editors working together on articles about pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues. We want these to be at the level of the best articles on Wikipedia. Articles must be factual, from a neutral point of view and not censored. Please join us.A large portion of our mission is to reduce the spread of misinformation, whether that be caused by vandalism, advocacy, blatant ignorance, or even false good faith. This can include edits on both ""side"" of the issue. === Parentage === Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch (this project) === Related projects and Wikiportals === Portal:Human sexuality Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task forceFor more information on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices." 337 341 742 WP:CET Wikipedia:Current event templates 337 Current and future event templates are designed to indicate that an article or a section is describing a current or future event, and to warn readers about the fast-changing or speculative nature of the article. Such articles usually contain sources to only breaking news reports, which often contain serious inaccuracies. The main current event template is {{current}}. It adds the article into Category:Current events: The current event template may be used to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors. Wikipedia attracts numerous editors who want to update articles in real time immediately after breaking news reports are published. However, sources to breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies, and so the template can also draw attention to the need to add improved sources as soon as they become available. In such a case, the template is subject to removal when the event described is no longer receiving massive editing attention. This template, and the topic-related templates listed below, are not meant to be generally disclaimers indicating that an article's contents may not be accurate, or to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic (if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have these templates, with no informational consequence). Generally it is expected that these templates will appear on an article for less than a day, or occasionally longer, but not several weeks (see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles for more information). If the article continues to have issues with sources, one of the templates listed Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Verifiability and sources should be used instead. Other closely related templates include: The current template also receives parameters; for example: Topic related templates include: Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about future events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Consider using the {{Speculation}} template for articles that may violate WP:CRYSTAL: {{Current event editnotice}}, an editnotice for current event pages Category:Temporal templates Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Timing-related messages 338 342 743 WP:CLEAN Wikipedia:Cleanup 338 "=== March 2023 === David Prophet Ramsay – Bare urls in External links. North America1000 13:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Done --Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Swiftwater, Pennsylvania - bare URLs in references. Tinton5 (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Done --Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)2022–23 WSE Champions League - bare URLs scattered throughout, need to be converted to sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Done – Converted external links to sources. — WILDSTARTALK 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) === February 2023 === Okimi – Translation from Japanese. Thorough cleanup required.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Iu Mien people -- Needs major cleanup with grammar, style, formatting, basically everything --Zhen Zhen (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Daniil Konstantinov - Needs general cleanup with wording and formatting Pianolettuce (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) === January 2023 === Larry Hankin - general clean up, formatting in film tables (italic titles, etc), other fixes needed. Tinton5 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Partly done by Wikieditor019 Wikieditor019 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC) COVID-19 pandemic in Russia - Under the confirmed deaths per day there are just strings of numbers that are either unrelated to the graph or formulated improperly, but I'm not sure. Pianolettuce (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC) SUSE_Linux_Enterprise#Version_history Should probably be using one of these fancy version history templates, which I sadly have no idea how to use – Marcusmueller ettus (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC) NPE Extension Expressway - Mess of colors and tables, cites no sources and needs a lot of cleanup. - Pianolettuce (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Dietrich Grunewald – Reference with bare URL, and the article needs to be deorphaned. — WILDSTARTALK 02:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Partly done by Leomk0403. — WILDSTARTALK 14:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Starmus Festival - Heavy overlinking (namedropping), promotional, uncited OR. Grorp (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC) === December 2022 === Bhabendra Nath Saikia – Promotional tone and general need for summarization. Rosalina2427 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Sergei Osipov (artist)#Bibliography.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Aurum (liqueur) - mess of images that needs to be formatted for style. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 2011 National Camogie League - Many of the citations are links that no longer work or are improperly formatted. Pianolettuce (talk) 16:19, 2 December, 2022 (UTC) Partly done I've fixed some of the improperly formatted references with refill. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Sports analyst - Someone added a lot of great information earlier, but didn't cite their sources properly. The sources need links and need to use ref tags. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Template error-tracking Category:Pages using Template:Longitem with unnamed style parameter has been cleared out. Interested editors are invited to add it to their watchlist to help keep the error tracking category empty. —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC) === November 2022 === Iraq War - This page does not have any bolding and has a short description that is too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Comment: Short description is acceptable per WP:SDLENGTH. However the {{About}} hatnote template was shortened considerably. — WILDSTARTALK 11:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Roohani Sisters - the page makes excess use of bolding beyond the main/alt titles and the lead is too long relative to the body. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Partly done Removed unnecessary bolding, but the article is too promotional in tone and excessive in information. Rosalina2427 (talk) Partly done The lead has been shortened. The article is still tagged for having a promotional tone. North America1000 09:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC) === October 2022 === Sheryl Leach - Article has been heavily edited by IPs in the last few days. New material appears to be WP:SOAP WP:RESUME and definitely not neutral. JRHorse (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Comment: Article is in the process of being cleaned following a talk page help request. JRHorse (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC) Comment: The philanthropy section needs some cleanup now. The section still looks resume-like, poorly sourced and repetitive. JRHorse (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC) === September 2022 === Greece–Turkey relations -- Recent GA quick fail indicates several issues: sources have CS1 and CS1 maintenance errors, numerous missed punctuation marks, while the prose is exceedingly informal and essay-like. Does not comply with the guidelines of lead sections and words to watch. Elias (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Conscription in Mexico - This article was created in 2006, and at no point has the article contained references or sources. This article has existed for 16 years without having a single sourced claim. It also has confusing prose, using jargon ""framing"" that may be an attempt to directly translate Spanish words/phrases to English. This article needs to be sourced or nominated for deletion. Xwedodah (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Machiliwale Shah – copy-editing required.--Hildeoc (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Partly done -- Mostly done, but there is still some specialized language that I don't know if it is correct. Pianolettuce(talk) 14:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC) === August 2022 === Murder_of_Jermaine_Goupall – End of ""Background"" section has some weird footnote and heading problem at the bottom? (I'm very uncomfortable with anything involving citations.) LumonRedacts (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Done But there is still cleanup required for the ""encyclopaedic tone"". Excellenc1 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Thank you. I'll poke at it a little, but I didn't want to break something and make it worse. :) LumonRedacts (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Here are the other half of the articles tagged for cleanup from April 2010, the oldest monthly subcategory: Mobile harassment Nasha Aziz Timeline of the Naxalite–Maoist insurgency United States campaigns in World War I -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC) === July 2022 === Here's half the articles tagged for cleanup from April 2010, which are currently the oldest: Fire-adapted communities Honeywell ARGUS -- Beland (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Chris Kirkpatrick - Article is written from a fan's/promotional POV and reads like a biography rather than an encyclopedic article. Spectrallights (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Partly done Improved pretty much but maybe it can be worked on more. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Untitled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film - Needs careful revaluation of sources, as some of the information on them doesn't reflect what is written in the article. Production companies for example have Nickelodeon Movies and Paramount Animation listed, when that hasn't been mentioned by any sources. --Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Nir Bitton - I feel like the article needs several corrections here and there, and maybe there's a good amount of information that can still be included in the ""International career"" section. --Oltrepier (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC) List of years in television - All of the information found here can easily be accessed at the separate pages for certain years and nationalities (e.g. 2006 in American television). It seems better to just remove all the information from the sections and replace them with links to the Year pages. In fact, a majority of the main page consists of series debuts. Turboplate (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Comment: But instead of adding 2006 in American television, 2006 in French television, 2006 in Brazilian television, 2006 in British television and 10 more like these for each section, a summary for a year would rather help. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC) === June 2022 === NPE Extension Expressway - very confusing table with too many colors and links. Pianolettuce(talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Dale Duguid - formatting/style issues and bare URL in references. Tinton5 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Partly done: Fixed the bare url. North America1000 21:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Daniel Pipes - page peppered with primary citations sourced from the self-published ""danielpipes.org"" Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Donna Robinson Divine - has a collection of maintenance notes from 2012, potentially not all warranted. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Zahabiya - this article was presumably translated from the Persian language version. Hard to know where to begin. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC) === May 2022 === Reminisce (rapper) - Nigerian rapper. Promotional tone issues and sections that read as advertisements for his albums, such as one of his albums being called ""arguably as one of the most successful hip hop albums in Nigerian history"", without quoting a source. Waxworker (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Effat Moridi (Mother Moeini) - article on Iranian activist that has some clear MOS issues: lead doesn't summarize article, odd section headers, and a title that should likely be changed. Bridget (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC) === April 2022 === Setsu & Shinobu Ito - Japanese product designer duo. Egregiously reads as an advertisement, has formatting and tone issues. Lots of product photos are uploaded as 'own work', which may be a copyright issue. Waxworker (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Navy Marine Corps Intranet – Needs major cleanup and updating; page has seemingly been co-opted by editors who have loaded the page with material that violates WP:PROMO. KidAd • SPEAK 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Joseon Army and Joseon Navy - Some of the information I gathered for these pages were from the Korean websites that I translated using Google Translate. I need to know if I properly translated them right. I also need help with the way I put citations on these pages. Koreanidentity10000 (Koreanidentity10000) 21:59, 4 April 2022 (EST)@Koreanidentity10000 do you mean the source collumn? Champ9642358 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @Koreanidentity10000: This project focuses much more upon generalized cleanup matters that do not require a significant amount of research and language translation comparisons. This aspect of your request is for rather detailed work such as this, and would be much more suited to post at the Guild of Copy editors requests page at WP:GOCER, or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. This project does focus upon citation formatting, so the latter part of your post may potentially receive some response from members of this project. North America1000 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC) === March 2022 === Differentiable manifold Reasoning for the cleanup request: Error message ""Script warning: One or more} {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden""; I don't know the correct CSS to view the messages (see Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 3#Controlling error message display.) The text does not have a consistent style; sometimes it uses {{math}} and sometimes it uses ... There was an inconsistency between the use of \phi and \varphi, which I corrected, but I'm not sure whether I selected the best alternative. See Talk:Differentiable manifold#Inconsistent rendering of Phi]--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Partly done I fixed the citation error. Per MOS:FORMULA inconsistent math styling seems fine, it is only a problem if both are used in the same expression. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Joseph in Islam - This article is in some ways very good and detailed, but has a serious tone problem and reads primarily like an essay. I'm not entirely sure where to begin editing it, especially since it seems like it has been the subject of several POV editing battles by somewhat inexperienced editors. I humbly ask for help. (Also if you think I should bring concerns about this article somewhere else, I'd gladly take suggestions.) - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 14:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC) For older entries, please refer to the project's archives. Entries that have been resolved are eventually archived, as are those that are dated one year or older. Active listings by WikiProject and type of problem can be found at [1] Category: Wikipedia cleanup Category: All pages needing cleanup Category: Articles needing cleanup Wikipedia: BACKLOG Wikipedia: Cleanup resources Wikipedia: Template messages/Cleanup Category: Cleanup templates Listed below are the members of WikiProject Cleanup. To add yourself as a member, simply put your signature on the list like so: # ~~~~ There is also a bot-generated list of editors who are active on the WikiProject's pages. === Inactive members === Members that have not contributed to Wikipedia for six months are listed below. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for the templates used to mark pages for cleanup.The following are templates used by WikiProject Cleanup. === User box === After joining, feel free to add the project's userbox to your userpage:{{WikiProject Cleanup userbox}} === Invitation === To invite someone to join the project, you can use the following template: {{subst:WikiProject Cleanup invitation}} === Welcome === To welcome a new member, you could use the following template: {{subst:WikiProject Cleanup welcome}} === See also === Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup – templates for adding to articles needing a cleanup The following are barnstars used to award users who clean up articles. To award a user, just copy and paste one of the following barnstars to a user's talk page, customizing your message where it says ""message"" within the code: {{subst:The Cleanup Barnstar|message ~~~~}} {{subst:The Cleanup Barnstar|message ~~~~|alt}} Below are some WikiProjects that do related work. Active Not active Forgotten articles (database report) Clarify the cleanup (essay) See also: list of tools hosted (or not) on Toolforge, WP:user scripts/List#Editing Below are some tools that can be useful in cleanup work. Feel free to edit this list. AutoEd – automatically make clean-up changes in articles reFill – edits bare url references: adds title, dates, publisher, etc. IA Bot – marks dead external links (including references) and adds archived copies to live references WPcleaner – helps fix various errors, including links to disambig pages (installable program)" 339 343 746 WP:ASTRO Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects 339 This project was originally formed to coordinate editors' efforts on creating articles related to astronomical objects. The project's original members worked together to develop a category hierarchy and a series of templates, including information boxes, that could be used to improve the articles' appearance and navigability. This page itself links to a series of subpages that contain information on the templates used to create astronomical articles and web-related resources that may be useful for article creation. The talk page has become a forum to seek advice and build consensus for future article edits. Moreover, the WikiProject is also used as a bulletin board to announce maintenance-related issues, such as article and category renames and deletions. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page. The astronomy-related articles on Wikipedia are always in need of improvement; just indicate how you would like to help, and the project's members will direct you to pages that need work. Also, feel free to add your name to the membership list at the bottom of this page. A number of other WikiProjects have been created to work on other astronomy and space-related issues. A navigation box on the right leads to the related projects. For more information on WikiProjects in general, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices. The Membership List shows all of the Wikipedians who have signed up to participate in this WikiProject. Other people who wish to join may simply add their names to the list. Additionally, they can add the WikiProject Astronomical object userbox to their userpage using {{User ASTRO}}. Infoboxes - Most of the articles on individual astronomical objects should have information boxes, or infoboxes. This web page provides information on the various templates used to create the infoboxes.Templates - Aside from the infoboxes, a series of other templates are commonly used to create Wikipedia articles on astronomical objects. This page provides additional information on those templates.External resources - A few key external web pages contain most of the information that is used by the professional astronomical community for their research. These web pages are also invaluable resources for creating Wikipedia pages and for adding references to existing Wikipedia pages. Talk page - The talk page is the main forum for discussion on astronomical object-related topics in Wikipedia. This is a good place to ask questions about the science in articles, to ask for assistance in editing articles, and to receive feedback and build consensus on new proposals (such as renaming articles).Rename/Merge/Delete Log - This is a list of the current debates on requests to rename and delete articles; requests to rename, delete, or merge categories; and other maintenance-related activities.Worklist - This list contains information on some of the most important articles on astronomical objects within Wikipedia as well as ratings for those pages. This list is a good place to see examples of good Wikipedia articles and to find Wikipedia articles that need to be updated. Did you know 16 Mar 2023 – TRAPPIST-1 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jo-Jo Eumerus (t · c); see discussionCategories for discussion 07 Feb 2023 – Category:High-proper-motion stars (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussionRedirects for discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Xi2 Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Xi1 Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Omicron Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Nu Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Iota2 Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Eta Librae (talk · edit · hist) →Libra (constellation) was RfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion 19 Mar 2023 – Sirish (talk · edit · hist) →Ceres (dwarf planet) was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 28 Mar 2023 – K2-18b (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jo-Jo Eumerus (t · c); start discussion 14 Feb 2023 – Weywot (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nrco0e (t · c); start discussionFeatured article reviews 05 May 2022 – Supernova (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by BloatedBun (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged 26 Jan 2023 – NGC 6789 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Local Void by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 26 Jan 2023 – NGC 6503 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Local Void by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 26 Jan 2023 – NGC 7077 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Local Void by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 24 Jan 2023 – Pisces B (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Local Void by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 24 Jan 2023 – Pisces A (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Local Void by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 16 Jan 2023 – 3 Cassiopeiae (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Cassiopeia A by Lithopsian (t · c); see discussion Categories are a major part of the infrastructure of Wikipedia. They contain lists of related articles and allow users to find articles that are related to each other. Category:Astronomical objects is the main category related to astronomical objects, although most articles should be listed in subcategories. Beginners should use these categories to organize new or existing articles. Advanced editors are encouraged to maintain and edit the category system itself. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations/Bordering constellations Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages - List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly. Quality operations - A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed. 340 344 747 WP:FOR Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations 340 "Welcome to the International relations WikiProject! The main goals of this WikiProject are made up of two parts: to create a detailed account of diplomatic relations between countries both in the past and present to define in detail diplomatic processes, its parts, and the occupations involved The project covers all articles that involve a relationship between 2 or more governing entities. Said entities include those that exist today and those that do not exist anymore, such as the Soviet Union.Articles under this project's scope include, but are not limited to: Diplomatic terms, processes, occupations - Examples include diplomacy, foreign relations, Chargé d'affaires, etc. International organizations - Such organizations must consist of a union with several member governments. Examples include the League of Nations, United Nations and the European Union Diplomats - This includes ambassadors, diplomats, consuls, foreign ministers, etc. Examples include Hersey Kyota, List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria International meetings - International meetings include summits and other interaction between political leaders in the interest of foreign relations. Examples include Millennium Summit, Shamrock Summit, and Summit of the Americas. Foreign relations - This describes the policies that a particular country has vis-à-vis with other countries, or on particular issues (e.g.: Foreign relations of Qatar. Additionally this also includes the category which details the network of foreign missions a country has abroad (e.g.: Qatari diplomatic missions), and diplomatic missions located in that country (e.g.: List of diplomatic missions in Russia). Bilateral relations - This involves the relationship between two governments. An example is Australia–Russia relations, and the Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia. Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. === Active === Please indicate your willingness to participate. Use the following format: # {{user|Username}}AbhiSuryawanshi (talk · contribs) caseperfect (talk · contribs) Shushugah (talk · contribs) BostonMensa (talk · contribs) 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk · contribs) Bernardino Rakha (talk · contribs) JoleBruh (talk · contribs) CJ (talk · contribs) Pharos (talk · contribs) Kransky (talk · contribs) Vizjim (talk · contribs) ILBobby (talk · contribs) JLogan (talk · contribs) Rjensen (talk · contribs) Gskota (talk · contribs) Sm8900 (talk · contribs) Kevlar67 (talk · contribs) Nutiketaiel (talk · contribs) WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) M3taphysical (talk · contribs) Wallie (talk · contribs) FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Floridian (talk · contribs) AshLin (talk · contribs) Discott (talk · contribs) KConWiki (talk · contribs) Sesamevoila (talk · contribs) Jprg1966 (talk · contribs) jbhunley (talk · contribs) Gunkarta (talk · contribs) Dainomite (talk · contribs) Pratyya Ghosh (talk · contribs) Barjimoa (talk · contribs) Locksmith1865 (talk · contribs) V2Blast (talk · contribs) Bobrayner (talk · contribs) BiggestSataniaFangirl89 (talk · contribs) Patrick Cristiano (talk · contribs) GabeIglesia (talk · contribs) Mar4d (talk · contribs) TommyBoy (talk · contribs) Ofek j (talk · contribs) Iazyges (talk · contribs) S. Roix (talk · contribs) 力 (talk · contribs) pmt (talk · contribs) Sir_Weltschmerz7 (talk · contribs) kentuckyjohnson (talk · contribs) Mrphilip (talk · contribs) BanditTheManedWolf (talk · contribs) OliverEastwood (talk · contribs) Pilaz (talk · contribs) Fritzober (talk · contribs) Paintspot (talk · contribs) Trinitrobrick (talk · contribs) Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk · contribs) Johncdraper (talk · contribs) DavidMCEddy (talk · contribs) Jacob300 (talk · contribs) TheRealGrantma (talk · contribs) MSG17 (talk · contribs) NoonIcarus (talk · contribs) Jr8825 (talk · contribs) SageSab (talk · contribs) WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs) LuckyintheRye (talk · contribs) Jishiboka1 (talk · contribs) SadAttorney613 (talk · contribs) Jaredscribe (talk · contribs) Dictator Penguin (talk · contribs) Yue (talk · contribs) Buskingbunny (talk · contribs) Merik egy (talk · contribs) NickMartin (talk · contribs) Epikourios Alitheia (talk · contribs) Eternal Shadow (talk · contribs) EchidnaLives (talk · contribs) Fuchsia the Sun (talk · contribs) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk · contribs) María Sacristán (talk · contribs) SpunkyGeek (talk · contribs) {{User|W9793} Tidjani Saleh (talk · contribs) === Translators === Sometimes, translators are needed to read speeches and other material by foreign diplomats in order to obtain information that wouldn't otherwise be available in English. Please use the following format: # '''Foreign language spoken''' {{user|USERNAME}}Chinese Getmoreatp (talk · contribs) Chinese (limited) Iazyges (talk · contribs) Chinese, Japanese AQu01rius (talk · contribs) Chinese HKLionel (talk · contribs) Spanish Ed (talk · contribs) Spanish Zleitzen (talk · contribs) Spanish, English Problemsmith (talk · contribs) Spanish Rupert_loup (talk · contribs) Spanish Refknowl (talk · contribs) Spanish & Greek Kimon (talk · contribs) Spanish,French Enmanuel2307 (talk · contribs) Spanish NoonIcarus (talk · contribs) Spanish Fuchsia the Sun (talk · contribs) Spanish María Sacristán (talk · contribs) Greek Nicosia1 (talk · contribs) Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian Prevalis (talk · contribs) Croatian United Union (talk · contribs) Serbian Avala (talk · contribs) Russian JayHenry (talk · contribs) Russian Славянский патриот (talk · contribs) Portuguese Limongi (talk · contribs) Portuguese tatruts (talk · contribs) Portuguese marcosoldfox (talk · contribs) Portuguese, Spanish, French Ithinkhelikesit (talk · contribs) French Taifarious1 (talk · contribs) French Brunswickian (talk · contribs) French kentuckyjohnson (talk · contribs) French, Ukrainian Jurisdr1975 (talk · contribs) French, Hindi AnyaTiwari (talk · contribs) French, Arabic MaggieMaeve (talk · contribs) French, Hebrew, Arabic Ofek j (talk · contribs) Hebrew (limited) Jprg1966 (talk · contribs) Arabic Ammar shaker (talk · contribs) German, Dutch, Afrikaans Doortmont (talk · contribs); German & Dutch Drmies (talk · contribs) German Maximilianpower (talk · contribs) German Fritzober (talk · contribs) German & Danish danishcat (talk · contribs) German & Spanish Grsz11 (talk · contribs) German, French, Italian Phellmon (talk · contribs) German, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish ScierGuy (talk · contribs) German, English, Italian jajung (talk · contribs) German Rosso Robot (talk · contribs) See my userpage for the list (I can also fluently read, but not write Slovenian) Admiral Norton (talk · contribs) Hungarian Bdamokos (talk · contribs) (contact me at my talkpage on huwiki) Italian (limited) gwena (talk · contribs) Telugu gskota (talk · contribs) Turkish Randam (talk · contribs) Finnish nmzag (talk · contribs) Norwegian Inkarnasjon (talk · contribs) Tagalog Hariboneagle927 (talk · contribs) Indonesian, Malay Gunkarta (talk · contribs) Portuguese, Spanish, English EBacci EN (talk · contribs) Tamil V2Blast (talk · contribs) Danish, French, German, Norwegian Dpchalmers (talk · contribs) Urdu Mar4d (talk · contribs) Danish, Northern Kurdish Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · contribs) Turkish Turkish Flame (talk · contribs) Japanese, German, Russian GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) Croatian, Russian Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs) Polish, French Fanzine999 (talk · contribs) French Royalmate1 (talk · contribs) Chinese LuckyintheRye (talk · contribs) Arabic Merik egy (talk · contribs) Spanish Epikourios Alitheia (talk · contribs) Arabic (Hassaniya, Modern Standard), Spanish, French, Catalan Tidjani Saleh (talk · contribs) === Inactive === Editors of the WikiProject who have not contributed to Wikipedia in the past 365 days are considered inactive and are moved here. Please move yourself back up in the active user list if you come back. AmirahBreen (talk · contribs) Nalbarian (talk · contribs) Judeyoungw (talk · contribs) FaithSara (talk · contribs) Krisinaz (talk · contribs) Ed (talk · contribs) Leejohnson898 (talk · contribs) Ammar shaker (talk · contribs) Kimon (talk · contribs) Taifarious1 (talk · contribs) Avala (talk · contribs) JayHenry (talk · contribs) Zleitzen (talk · contribs) Sijo Ripa (talk · contribs) Willy turner (talk · contribs) Callelinea (talk · contribs) Ithinkhelikesit (talk · contribs) Chicocvenancio (talk · contribs) gamblingbear (talk · contribs) hodgetts (talk · contribs) stefanjcarney (talk · contribs) Andrzej Kmicic (talk · contribs) Prevalis (talk · contribs) Doortmont (talk · contribs) Akitora (talk · contribs) Grsz11 (talk · contribs) PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) 007fan28 (talk · contribs) gwena (talk · contribs) danishcat (talk · contribs) croninx (talk · contribs) ScierGuy (talk · contribs) Bsimmons666 (talk · contribs) Septemberfourth476 (talk · contribs) Deavenger (talk · contribs) Ingenosa (talk · contribs) Admiral Norton (talk · contribs) Nicosia1 (talk · contribs) RashersTierney (talk · contribs) Andile0202 (talk · contribs) Problemsmith (talk · contribs) Septemberfourth476 (talk · contribs) Getmoreatp (talk · contribs) ArrAld (talk · contribs) Nirvana888 (talk · contribs) JetsmanJ (talk · contribs) Sean (talk · contribs) BonifaciusVIII (talk · contribs) Humanisticmystic (talk · contribs) Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs) EuroPride (talk · contribs) Maethordaer (talk · contribs) Phellmon (talk · contribs) Andregoes (talk · contribs) Cybermud (talk · contribs) Tuscumbia (talk · contribs) racooon (talk · contribs) Jar789 (talk · contribs) Neostinker (talk · contribs) Grizanthropy (talk · contribs) Onen hag oll (talk · contribs) rupertdenton88 (talk · contribs) nmzag (talk · contribs) Katarighe (talk · contribs) jajung (talk · contribs) Jurisdr1975 (talk · contribs) Lexah06 (talk · contribs) QuincyC (talk · contribs) Teashias (talk · contribs) Colonel House (talk · contribs) Juristicweb (talk · contribs) Atticus Murphy Jr (talk · contribs) Ranking Update (talk · contribs) Inkarnasjon (talk · contribs) CleanNGOs2 (talk · contribs) Allisonraven (talk · contribs) Twoods158 (talk · contribs) AnyaTiwari (talk · contribs) Zuanzuanfuwa (talk · contribs) markd999 (talk · contribs) rselby1 (talk · contribs) Ebacci EN (talk · contribs) d.a.kelm (talk · contribs) Cjeongbis (talk · contribs) Maximilianpower (talk · contribs) Dudelles (talk · contribs) Esmost (talk · contribs) Septmars (talk · contribs) MercuriiMaiae (talk · contribs) Славянский патриот (talk · contribs) Marcosoldfox (talk · contribs) Human3015 (talk · contribs) Bs4173 (talk · contribs) United Union (talk · contribs) Writeweapon (talk · contribs) Dpchalmers (talk · contribs) Edmondo Italiano (talk · contribs) Cawhee (talk · contribs) Tiburon3 (talk · contribs) Grko3 (talk · contribs) Supcmd (talk · contribs) ImTheIP (talk · contribs) Rupert_loup (talk · contribs) Vexthesmol (talk · contribs) BlueD954 (talk · contribs) Tropicanan (talk · contribs) Ddegenhart (talk · contribs) MaggieMaeve (talk · contribs) Refknowl (talk · contribs) RavenNR (talk · contribs) Keihatsu (talk · contribs) Yerevani Axjik (talk · contribs) Skywalker Kush (talk · contribs) Satii010 (talk · contribs) === Indefinitely blocked === Delibzr (talk · contribs) Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs) MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) cibwins2885 (talk · contribs) Foxhound66 (talk · contribs) Polylepsis (talk · contribs) Joshuaselig (talk · contribs) Royalmate1 (talk · contribs) Lihaas (talk · contribs) Craigy144 (talk · contribs) Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs) DangerTM (talk · contribs) Wetman88 (talk · contribs) Hilary T (talk · contribs) Abovfold (talk · contribs) Rosso Robot (talk · contribs) Advertise this WikiProject by means of invitation and project banners Maintain and expand this project Urge cooperation with other WikiProjects related to politics and governments Add proper headings to succession boxes Question: Is Secretary of State a Diplomatic Post or a Political Office? I see no header for a cabinet level office. See Template:S-start/doc One answer: If it's (normally) elected, it's political. If appointed, it's diplomatic. Example: The Secretary of State of Kansas is elected. That's true in many if not all states of the US. On the other hand, per the Appointments Clause, the President ""shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint"" all ""Officers of the United States,"" with an ""officer"" being someone who exercises ""significant authority"". What is the history of chanceries? Specifically, when did chanceries/embassies become sovereign territory? In modern times, under the 1961 Vienna Convention, specifically articles 21-25. Note that chanceries are not sovereign territory, as the Khashoggi case showed, merely inviolable. In ancient times, it was the body of the ambassador that was inviolate, rather than a specific building. === Requested articles === Maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia - this article is particularly in need of NPOV updates to reflect recent developments ASEAN–Australia Development Cooperation Program Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Diplomats (CS) - list of female diplomats that are red links Alliance for Multilateralism (so far only an uncategorized draft) Lists of Diplomatic relations and Diplomatic recognition for each country (preferably with dates). Currently there are some relations lists on the ""Foreign relations of ..."" articles and also there are recognitions lists for the states with limited recognition. Similar to Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union or Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with Francoist Spain? Lists for Visa-free travel 'for passport-type/citizen' and 'to country' (see discussion page: [1]; missing articles in Template:Visa policy by country and Template:Visa policy by country) Diplomacy in the Ancient Near East - fr:Diplomatie dans le Proche-Orient ancien Done List of Diplomatic Conferences List of International Summits List of International Conferences International political culturology Portal:International relations - fr:Portail:Relations internationales; pt:Portal:Relações internacionais lists of non-resident accreditations of ambassadors/consuls and honorary consuls - by sending/receiving country Combes-Ivanov affair Austria–Sweden relations Bhutan–Kuwait relations Germany–Latvia relations - currently a redirect Germany–Lithuania relations - currently a redirect Germany–Spain relations - needs expanding Iraq–Ireland relations Philippines–Portugal relations Kurdistan Region–United Kingdom relations Kurdistan Region–United States relations United Nations Committee on Decolonization --> Special Committee on Decolonization A true Embassy article. Ministries of foreign affairs in various countries; (see also list of red links here) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Botswana) - [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Cooperation (Burkina Faso) - [3] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Burundi) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Cameroon) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and Communities (Cape Verde) - [http://www.mne.gov.cv/ Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Central African Republic) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Chad) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Republic of the Congo) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Democratic Republic of the Congo) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion (Costa Rica) - [4] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dominican Republic) - [5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ecuador) - [6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (El Salvador) - [7] Department of Foreign Affairs, Overseas Embassies, Consulates, and Missions (Federated States of Micronesia) - [8] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Gabon) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Cooperation and NEPAD (Ghana) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Guatemala) - [9] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Haiti) - [10] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Honduras) - [11] Foreign Ministry (Jordan) - [12] General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation (Libya) - [13] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Luxembourg) - [14] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Macedonia) - [15] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Madagascar) - [16] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Mali) - [17] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Mauritania) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Cooperation (Mauritius) - [18] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mongolia) - [19] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Morocco) - [20] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mozambique) - [21] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nicaragua) - [22] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Palestinian National Authority) - [23] Ministry of External Relations (Panama) - [24] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Paraguay) - [25] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Rwanda) - [26] Ministry of External Affairs, International Financial Services, Information and Broadcasting (Saint Lucia) - [27] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Senegal) - [28] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Swaziland) - [29] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Timor-Leste) - [30] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Uruguay) - [31] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Venezuela) - [32] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Vietnam) - [33] Post-neoliberalism Siege of Mariupol - urgently needs article importance re-evaluation Done, rated low-importance. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Assessment#Importance scale. Pilaz (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)List of diplomatic missions of Rojava[34] United Nations Department of General Assembly and Conference Management War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - urgently needs article importance re-evaluation Done, rated low-importance. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Assessment#Importance scale. Pilaz (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC) === Article alerts === Did you know 24 Mar 2023 – Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Chipmunkdavis (t · c); see discussion 12 Mar 2023 – 2023 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dying (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 27 Mar 2023 – Kenneth Charles Brown (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (2 participants) 26 Mar 2023 – Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by NoonIcarus (t · c); see discussion (4 participants) 23 Mar 2023 – Cyrille S. Oguin (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (4 participants) 22 Mar 2023 – John Lawrence Paynter (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (4 participants) 22 Mar 2023 – Matthew Levin (diplomat) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted) 20 Mar 2023 – Valerie Raymond (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Heidi Hulan (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Jean-Pierre Juneau (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted) 18 Mar 2023 – Irving G. Cheslaw (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Worldbruce (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted) 17 Mar 2023 – Efraín Saavedra (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)(34 more...)Categories for discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Category:Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c) was closed; see discussionRedirects for discussion 25 Mar 2023 – Sergey Malinka (talk · edit · hist) →Disappearance of Madeleine McCann was RfDed by CycloneYoris (t · c); see discussion 04 Mar 2023 – Turkish invasion (talk · edit · hist) →2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria was RfDed by Champion (t · c); see discussion 27 Feb 2023 – South Ukraine counteroffensive (talk · edit · hist) →2022 Kherson counteroffensive was RfDed by Super Dromaeosaurus (t · c); see discussionFeatured article candidates 24 Mar 2023 – Portland Spy Ring (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by SchroCat (t · c); see discussionFeatured list candidates 09 Feb 2023 – List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by CT55555 (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 22 Mar 2023 – Israeli occupation of the West Bank (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nableezy (t · c); start discussion 01 Mar 2023 – Robert Todd Lincoln (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Shearonink (t · c); start discussion 09 Feb 2023 – Humanitarian protection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by CT55555 (t · c); start discussion 23 Dec 2022 – Irredentism (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussionPeer reviews 08 Dec 2022 – List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by CT55555 (t · c); see discussion 26 Nov 2022 – Mexico–United States border (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Meganfarley65 (t · c); see discussionRequested moves 27 Mar 2023 – Battle of Donbas (2022–present) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Donbas campaign by Skovl (t · c); see discussion 17 Mar 2023 – British Pakistanis (talk · edit · hist) move request to Pakistanis in the United Kingdom by Skovl (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 16 Mar 2023 – Iran–United States relations after 1979 (talk · edit · hist) move request to Iran–United States conflict by Trenton698 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 15 Mar 2023 – Liancourt Rocks (talk · edit · hist) move request somewhere else by Gerçois (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 14 Mar 2023 – Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Russian invasion of Ukraine by InfiniteNexus (t · c) was moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · edit · hist) by Rosguill (t · c) on 22 Mar 2023; see discussion 05 Mar 2023 – 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot (talk · edit · hist) move request to Canadian Parliament infiltration plot by People's Republic of China by ScienceMan123 (t · c) was moved to Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections (talk · edit · hist) by Robertsky (t · c) on 29 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged 18 Mar 2023 – ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by Red-tailed hawk (t · c); see discussion 16 Mar 2023 – Views on military action against Iran (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Support for military action against Iran by Freedom4U (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2023 – International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Political status of Crimea by Skovl (t · c); see discussion 02 Mar 2023 – 2023 Russian oil products sanctions and price cap (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2022 Russian oil price cap by Herreshoffian (t · c); see discussion 19 Feb 2023 – Stadium diplomacy (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Stadium subsidy by CaribDigita (t · c); see discussion 13 Nov 2022 – List of territorial disputes (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of irredentist claims or disputes by 92.0.152.112 (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2022 – Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by 85.238.103.38 (t · c); see discussion 09 Jun 2022 – Russian disinformation in the post-Soviet era (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Propaganda in Russia by Euor (t · c); see discussion 16 Mar 2023 – Support for military action against Iran (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Opposition to military action against Iran by Freedom4U (t · c) was closed; see discussionArticles to be split 27 Mar 2023 – 2015 European migrant crisis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Chefs-kiss (t · c); see discussion 25 Mar 2023 – Russo-Ukrainian War (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skovl (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Colonialism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WriterArtistDC (t · c); see discussion 04 Feb 2023 – Julian Assange (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by NadVolum (t · c); see discussion 15 Jan 2023 – Munich Security Conference (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by ThomaSheldon (t · c); see discussion 24 Dec 2022 – List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by General Ization (t · c); see discussion 12 Dec 2022 – Secession in the United States (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Presidentman (t · c); see discussion 26 Oct 2022 – North Atlantic Treaty (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Polmas (t · c); see discussion 06 May 2022 – List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Charles Essie (t · c); see discussion 10 Apr 2022 – History of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Knowledgekid87 (t · c); see discussion(4 more...)Articles for creation 28 Mar 2023 – Draft:Naren J. Chitty (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Roast Etti (t · c) 26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Evi Fitriani (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 25 Mar 2023 – Draft:Uri Shraga Gutman (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Avggtmn (t · c) 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Forum of Young Parliamentarians (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Bhyker22 (t · c) 17 Mar 2023 – Draft:William E. Pomeranz (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Diannaa (t · c) 16 Mar 2023 – Draft:President of the Forum of Young Parliamentarians (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Bhyker22 (t · c) 10 Mar 2023 – Draft:Danish asylum model (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by HansGeluk (t · c) 09 Mar 2023 – Draft:Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction- HRP (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by GuydeBerg (t · c) 17 Feb 2023 – Draft:Boris Ruge (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ThomaSheldon (t · c) 13 Feb 2023 – Draft:School of Government and International Affairs (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Silikonz (t · c)(10 more...) For the quality scale, see the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's grading scheme. These are only suggested standards! These instructions are not set in stone. === Bilateral relations === All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles: Country names are to be placed in alphabetical order. Following community discussion (here) neither the noun (e.g. Germany–Italy relations) or the adjective form (e.g. German–Italian relations) is preferred.All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should roughly have met any of these criteria in order to meet notability for the bilateral relational articles. They have been engaged in a war. They engage in significant trade. They have been/are in an alliance. They share a border. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.Elements: resident representatives state visits nationals of the other country treaties common memberships in multilateral organizationsTopics to cover: date of recognition diplomatic and consular representations and representatives (embassies, consulates) cultural and scientific cooperation non-governmental actors trade volumes state visits bilateral agreements and treaties nationals resident in the other country, migration between the two countriesSources directories of representations trade, population statistics studies on immigration/emigration news reports on state visits corpus of treaties diplomatic cables === Embassy naming conventions === Suggest that all articles about a diplomatic mission building be named according to this naming convention: {mission type } of {country }, {name of city} For example: Embassy of the United Kingdom, Berlin High Commission of Cyprus, London (with a convenient redirect Embassy of Cyprus, London) Apostolic Nunciature to Argentina and Apostolic Delegation to the Antilles Consulate General of South Korea in Hong Kong (Consulates are not quite standardized yet) === Lists of diplomatic missions === Country names are to be placed in alphabetical order. If grouping countries by continent or region, place countries in the region their capital is in (which is usually the city where missions will be located). List of all subpages of this page Category:Diplomacy Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country Category:International relations Category:WikiProject International relations === Userbox === {{User WikiProject International relations}} === Project banner === {{WikiProject International relations}} ==== Usage ==== {{WikiProject International relations |class= (FA, A, GA, B, start, stub, FL, list, NA) |importance= (top, high, mid, low, NA) |un=yes - ""yes"" if it is about the United Nations or remove it |small=yes - ""yes"" for small box or remove it }} or {{WikiProject International relations|class=|importance=}} Talk pages for bilateral articles should also include the WikiProject templates for each country. === Infobox === {{Infobox Bilateral relations}} - see template page for details Wikipedia:WikiProject Globalization Wikipedia:WikiProject International development Wikipedia:WikiProject International law Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations Directory of all country-related WikiProjects" 341 345 750 WP:CHICAGO Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago 341 "WikiProject Chicago was started on July 5, 2005, to coordinate work on the article Chicago. Some Wikipedians have adopted this as a project to coordinate work on articles related to the Chicago metropolitan area and the city of Chicago in the U.S. state of Illinois. This broader set of articles is now the project's main focus. Please feel free to add your username to the List of Editors. Also, add anything that you feel require attention to the Open tasks section. If you have found a useful online source, please add it to the Resources section. Manager/Director: TonyTheTiger === Parent === The parent of this WikiProject is WikiProject Cities. ==== Descendant projects ==== WikiProject Chicago Bears (inactive) WikiProject Chicago Cubs WikiProject National Basketball Association/Chicago Bulls task force === Illinois === WikiProject Illinois WikiProject Illinois State Routes === Other states === WikiProject Indiana WikiProject WisconsinWikiProject Chicago is one of the United States WikiProjects. African cities Lagos Asian cities and city-states (non-Indian) Dubai, Hong Kong, Macau, Shenzhen, Singapore Australian cities Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney Canadian cities Montreal, Ottawa, St. John's*, Toronto, Vancouver European cities and regions Bedfordshire, Belfast, Belgrade, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Frankfurt, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, Munich, North East England, Porto, Rome, Sheffield, Somerset, Surrey, Sussex (West and East), Vienna, West Midlands, ZagrebIndian cities Balasore, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Cuttack, Delhi, Eluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mangalore, Mumbai, Patna, VisakhapatnamMexican cities TijuanaNew Zealand cities AucklandUS cities and regions Appalachia, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Cape Cod and the Islands, Capital District (Albany, NY and vicinity), Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbia (MO), Dallas-Fort Worth, Erie, Houston, Hudson Valley, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, KYOVA Region (KY, OH, WV), Las Vegas, Lehigh Valley (PA, NJ), Los Angeles, Louisville, Lowell, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Santa Barbara County (CA), Seattle, Shreveport, Southern California, Syracuse, Tampa Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Western New York State, Youngstown WikiProject Chicago is approximately the 124th most active project (2016). Below is some of the project's best work. For a complete list for the project, see: Recognized content, and Popular pages. === Featured articles === 1880 Greenback National Convention • 1880 Republican National Convention • 1927 Chicago mayoral election • James T. Aubrey • Ann Bannon • Moe Berg • William D. Boyce • BP Pedestrian Bridge • Guy Bradley • Avery Brundage • Mike Capel • Chicago Pile-1 • SS Christopher Columbus • Cloud Gate • Columbian half dollar • Richard Cordray • Cross of Gold speech • Crown Fountain • The Dark Knight • Disco Demolition Night • Walt Disney • Mr. Dooley • Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar • Ray Emery • Exelon Pavilions • Enrico Fermi • Theoren Fleury • Fountain of Time • Melville Fuller • Emma Goldman • E. Urner Goodman • Otto Graham • Orval Grove • Harris Theater (Chicago) • Dominik Hašek • Ernest Hemingway • Rogers Hornsby • Juwan Howard • Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album) • Harold Innis • Interstate 355 • Isabella quarter • Jay Pritzker Pavilion • David A. Johnston • Michael Jordan • Ted Kaczynski • Lady Blue (TV series) • Lake Street Transfer station • 2011 U.S. Open Cup Final • Kenesaw Mountain Landis • Manhattan Project • McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink • Metallurgical Laboratory • Midtown Madness • Millennium Park • Monadnock Building • Money in the Bank (2011) • Howie Morenz • Christopher Nolan • Oliver Typewriter Company • William Sterling Parsons • Perfect Dark • Pioneer Zephyr • Jean Baptiste Point du Sable • Prairie Avenue • CM Punk • Arthur W. Radford • Ronald Reagan • Mary Jane Richardson Jones • William S. Sadler • Antonin Scalia • September Morn • Louis Slotin • The Smashing Pumpkins • Lee Smith (baseball) • Georg Solti • Edward Teller • Jim Thome • James Thompson (surveyor) • Tiny Thompson • Jim Thorpe • The Time Traveler's Wife • Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) • Thurman Tucker • Kurt Vonnegut • Weird Tales • Wilco Total pages in content type is 87 === Former featured articles === Alpha Kappa Alpha • Louis Armstrong • Avery Coonley School • Blues • Chicago Bears • Chicago Board of Trade Building • Wesley Clark • Hillary Clinton • Encyclopædia Britannica • Nella Larsen • Leopold and Loeb • Lollapalooza • McDonald's Cycle Center • Madman Muntz • Barack Obama • Hilary Putnam • Ted Radcliffe • Nancy Reagan • Carl Sagan • Shimer Great Books School • South Side, Chicago • Joseph W. Tkach Total pages in content type is 22 === Featured lists === 1966 NBA expansion draft • List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters • List of Benet Academy alumni • List of Chicago Bulls head coaches • List of Chicago Bulls seasons • List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers • List of Chicago Landmarks • List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers • Community areas in Chicago • Disturbed discography • List of Chicago Bears seasons • List of tallest buildings in Chicago • List of Chicago Bears head coaches • List of Chicago Blackhawks head coaches • List of Chicago Blackhawks players • List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks • List of Chicago Cubs managers • List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks • List of Chicago White Sox managers • List of awards and nominations received by Kanye West • List of winners of the Chicago Marathon • Rise Against discography • Dan Savage bibliography • Smoking Popes discography • List of Washington Wizards head coaches • Kanye West albums discography Total pages in content type is 26 === Former featured lists === Wilco discography Total pages in content type is 1 === Featured pictures === Total pages in content type is 52 === Former featured pictures === Total pages in content type is 1 === Featured portals === Portal:Chicago Total pages in content type is 1 === In the News articles === 2010 Chicago Marathon (2010-10-12) • 2012 Ryder Cup (2012-10-01) • 2013 Stanley Cup Finals (2013-06-25) • 2015 Stanley Cup Finals (2015-06-16) • 2016 World Series (2016-11-03) • Virgil Abloh (2021-11-28) • Stan Albeck (2021-03-28) • Grace Alele-Williams (2022-03-28) • John Altobelli (2020-01-27) • Lou Angotti (2021-09-20) • Al Arbour (2015-08-28) • Ed Asner (2021-08-30) • Doug Atkins (2016-01-01) • Ralph Backstrom (2021-02-09) • Ernie Banks (2015-01-25) • Erich Barnes (2022-05-05) • Don Baylor (2017-08-09) • Glenn Beckert (2020-04-14) • Lauren Berlant (2021-07-01) • Shelley Berman (2017-09-02) • Bruce Beutler (2011-10-05) • Larry Biittner (2022-01-05) • Karen Black (2013-08-11) • Rod Blagojevich corruption charges (NONE) • Samuel Bodman (2018-09-08) • Valerie Boyd (2022-02-17) • Elizabeth Brackett (2018-06-18) • Ray Bradbury (2012-06-06) • Lin Brehmer (2023-01-24) • Lou Brock (2020-09-07) • Betty Bumpers (2018-11-24) • Margaret Burbidge (2020-04-07) • Jon Burge (NONE) • Dave Butz (2022-11-06) • Billy Cannon (2018-05-20) • Charmian Carr (2016-09-21) • Gene Cernan (2017-01-18) • William Christopher (2017-01-01) • Ramsey Clark (2021-04-12) • Ronald Coase (2013-09-04) • John Coleman (meteorologist) (2018-01-22) • Jack Collom (2017-07-05) • Irv Cross (2021-03-01) • Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2021-10-21) • Joe Cunningham (baseball) (2021-03-29) • Joel Daly (2020-10-23) • Rennie Davis (2021-02-04) • Merri Dee (2022-03-23) • Gene Deitch (2020-04-20) • Jack Deloplaine (2022-08-05) • Young Dolph (2021-11-18) • Jack Dongarra (2022-04-01) • Suzzanne Douglas (2021-07-08) • Anthony Downs (2021-10-30) • Frank Drake (2022-09-04) • Dave Dryden (2022-10-08) • Roger Ebert (NONE) • Sammy Ellis (2016-05-17) • Ray Emery (2018-07-16) • Encyclopædia Britannica (2012-03-13) • Tony Esposito (2021-08-13) • Eugene Fama (2013-10-16) • February 2007 North American blizzard (NONE) • James Flynn (academic) (2020-12-13) • Emile Francis (2022-02-20) • Lucinda Franks (2021-05-08) • Richard Freed (2022-01-08) • John Froines (2022-07-17) • Oscar Gamble (2018-02-02) • Adrian Garrett (2021-04-26) • Andrea M. Ghez (2020-10-07) • William M. Gray (2016-04-17) • Dallas Green (baseball) (2017-03-24) • Drew Griffin (2022-12-24) • Johnny Groth (2021-08-14) • Charlie Haeger (2020-10-06) • Mike Hagerty (2022-05-11) • Philip Baker Hall (2022-06-20) • Julian Hammond (2022-10-13) • Tim Hankinson (2022-09-28) • Lars Peter Hansen (2013-10-16) • Jerry Harkness (2021-08-27) • Jimmy Hayes (ice hockey) (2021-08-25) • Bobby Heenan (2017-09-18) • Hugh Hefner (2017-09-28) • Roland Hemond (2021-12-14) • Joe Horlen (2022-04-16) • Wayne Huizenga (2018-03-25) • Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917) (2022-09-11) • Les Hunter (basketball) (2020-03-29) • Tunch Ilkin (2021-09-07) • Halil İnalcık (2016-07-26) • Monte Irvin (2016-01-13) • Joe Jackson (manager) (2018-06-28) • Lou Johnson (2020-10-04) • Syl Johnson (2022-02-09) • Doug Jones (baseball) (2021-11-23) • Juice Wrld (2019-12-08) • Elena Kagan (2010-08-05) • Frances Oldham Kelsey (2015-08-08) • Herbert Kohler Jr. (2022-09-07) • Jim Kolbe (2022-12-06) • Ken Kortas (2022-10-21) • Edward Lazear (2020-11-27) • Leon M. Lederman (2018-10-03) • Bobby Leonard (2021-04-14) • Karen Lewis (2021-02-09) • Osia Lewis (2020-06-02) • Ramsey Lewis (2022-09-14) • Alison Lurie (2020-12-05) • Mary Maher (journalist) (2021-12-07) • Yuri Manin (2023-01-14) • Ray Manzarek (2013-05-21) • Bryan Marchment (2022-07-07) • James McDivitt (2022-10-18) • Gene Michael (2017-09-08) • Patrick Michaels (2022-07-21) • Stan Mikita (2018-08-08) • Madeline Miller (2012-05-31) • Minnie Miñoso (2015-03-01) • Beatrice Mintz (2022-01-10) • Gary Moeller (2022-07-16) • Bryan Monroe (2021-01-16) • James W. Montgomery (2019-10-25) • Dale T. Mortensen (2010-10-11) • Lorraine H. Morton (2018-09-10) • George V. Murry (2020-06-07) • James L. Nagle (2021-02-17) • Yoichiro Nambu (2015-07-19) • Kuldip Nayar (2018-08-25) • Dave Nelson (2018-04-23) • Mark Newman (baseball) (2020-09-15) • Mike Nichols (2014-11-21) • Nichelle Nichols (2022-08-01) • Agnes Nixon (2016-10-02) • Ken Nordine (2019-02-17) • Apolo Nsibambi (2019-05-30) • Barack Obama (2008-11-05) • Claes Oldenburg (2022-07-19) • The Oprah Winfrey Show (2011-05-26) • Jim Pappin (2022-07-02) • Eugene Parker (2022-03-16) • Ara Parseghian (2017-08-03) • Bob Parsons (American football) (2022-07-14) • Markus Paul (2020-11-27) • Peter G. Peterson (2018-03-21) • Billy Pierce (2015-08-01) • Pierre Pilote (2017-09-13) • Robert M. Pirsig (2017-04-27) • Bill Plante (2022-10-01) • Frederik Pohl (2013-09-03) • John Prine (2020-04-09) • Hilary Putnam (2016-03-14) • Tom Railsback (2020-01-27) • Nancy Reagan (2016-03-06) • Ken Reitz (2021-04-03) • Mike Resnick (2020-01-12) • John T. Richardson (2022-04-01) • David Rockefeller (2017-03-21) • Tony Rodham (2019-06-10) • Gianna Rolandi (2021-06-23) • Johnny Romano (2019-03-04) • Paul Romer (2018-10-08) • Ned Rorem (2022-11-21) • Arthur H. Rosenfeld (2017-01-30) • Joe Ruklick (2020-09-19) • Otis Rush (2018-09-30) • Buddy Ryan (2016-07-01) • Jim Ryan (politician) (2022-06-16) • Paul Samuelson (2009-12-14) • Jack Sandner (2021-03-18) • Thomas J. Sargent (2011-10-10) • Fred Sasakamoose (2020-11-25) • Gale Sayers (2020-09-23) • Antonin Scalia (2016-02-13) • Bobby Schmautz (2021-04-01) • Gil Scott-Heron (2011-05-28) • Garry Shandling (2016-03-25) • Les Shapiro (2022-02-03) • Sargent Shriver (2011-01-18) • George Shultz (2021-02-09) • Charles Simic (2023-01-14) • Jerry Sloan (2020-05-23) • George E. Smith (2009-10-06) • Theo Sommer (2022-08-26) • Hugo F. Sonnenschein (2021-07-18) • Pervis Spann (2022-03-16) • Fred Stanfield (2021-09-15) • Scott Stearney (2018-12-02) • Jack Steinberger (2020-12-17) • Adlai Stevenson III (2021-09-08) • Art Stewart (2021-11-14) • Jerry Stiller (2020-05-12) • Fraser Stoddart (2016-10-08) • Mark Strand (2014-12-03) • Pat Summerall (2013-04-18) • Aaron Swartz (NONE) • Jerry Taft (2020-07-24) • Joe Tait (2021-03-13) • Lars Tate (2022-08-04) • Tony Taylor (baseball) (2020-07-17) • Wayne Terwilliger (2021-02-04) • Richard Thaler (2017-10-11) • Dick Tidrow (2021-07-16) • Charley Trippi (2022-10-21) • Karen Uhlenbeck (2019-03-20) • Jerry Vainisi (2022-10-06) • Jim Van Pelt (2022-07-08) • Tom Weisner (2018-12-31) • Raquel Welch (2023-02-18) • Betty White (2022-01-01) • Robin Williams (2014-08-12) • Stan Williams (baseball) (2021-02-23) • Karl Wirsum (2021-05-10) • Harris Wofford (2019-01-24) • Ada Yonath (2009-10-07) • John Young (first baseman) (2016-05-10) • Adam Zagajewski (2021-03-24) • Rod Zaine (2022-07-12) Total pages in content type is 219 === Main page featured articles === 1880 Greenback National Convention (2017-06-09) • 1880 Republican National Convention (2007-11-04) • 1927 Chicago mayoral election (2019-07-04) • Alpha Kappa Alpha (2009-01-15) • James T. Aubrey (2006-02-19) • Avery Coonley School (2010-04-12) • Ann Bannon (2010-07-15) • Moe Berg (2008-06-27) • Blues (2005-12-29) • William D. Boyce (2009-06-16) • BP Pedestrian Bridge (2010-05-22) • Guy Bradley (2011-03-06) • Avery Brundage (2012-09-06) • Mike Capel (2020-10-13) • Chicago Bears (2007-03-02) • Chicago Board of Trade Building (2008-06-18) • Chicago Pile-1 (2017-12-02) • SS Christopher Columbus (2008-07-23) • Wesley Clark (2007-03-24) • Hillary Clinton (2019-08-21) • Cloud Gate (2010-02-09) • Columbian half dollar (2016-11-19) • Richard Cordray (2009-01-02) • Cross of Gold speech (2012-07-09) • Crown Fountain (2011-10-17) • Disco Demolition Night (2014-04-01) • Walt Disney (2016-12-05) • Mr. Dooley (2016-08-31) • Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar (2014-01-25) • Ray Emery (2019-11-29) • Encyclopædia Britannica (2007-08-08) • Exelon Pavilions (2010-12-10) • Enrico Fermi (2018-12-10) • Theoren Fleury (2011-06-29) • Fountain of Time (2010-09-01) • Melville Fuller (2022-02-11) • Emma Goldman (2008-04-19) • E. Urner Goodman (2008-03-28) • Otto Graham (2013-02-03) • Orval Grove (2011-08-29) • Harris Theater (Chicago) (2010-11-08) • Ernest Hemingway (2010-06-23) • Rogers Hornsby (2012-04-27) • Juwan Howard (2013-05-18) • Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album) (2012-11-22) • Harold Innis (2008-06-02) • Interstate 355 (2009-11-04) • Isabella quarter (2013-06-13) • Jay Pritzker Pavilion (2010-04-03) • David A. Johnston (2010-05-18) • Michael Jordan (2007-11-13) • Ted Kaczynski (2021-05-11) • Lake Street Transfer station (2023-02-25) • 2011 U.S. Open Cup Final (2014-09-16) • Kenesaw Mountain Landis (2011-08-03) • Lollapalooza (2004-07-25) • Manhattan Project (2013-07-16) • McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (2011-12-20) • McDonald's Cycle Center (2014-07-19) • Metallurgical Laboratory (2018-09-05) • Midtown Madness (2008-10-06) • Millennium Park (2011-05-01) • Monadnock Building (2012-10-01) • Money in the Bank (2011) (2015-06-14) • Howie Morenz (2016-09-21) • Madman Muntz (2008-08-21) • Barack Obama (2004-08-18) • Oliver Typewriter Company (2008-04-04) • Perfect Dark (2006-05-12) • Pioneer Zephyr (2005-03-23) • Jean Baptiste Point du Sable (2018-12-06) • Prairie Avenue (2009-12-27) • CM Punk (2021-06-27) • Hilary Putnam (2006-09-07) • Arthur W. Radford (2016-02-27) • Nancy Reagan (2007-12-24) • Ronald Reagan (2008-02-06) • William S. Sadler (2012-09-12) • Carl Sagan (2004-06-02) • Antonin Scalia (2010-04-21) • Shimer Great Books School (2011-05-11) • Louis Slotin (2012-05-30) • The Smashing Pumpkins (2007-10-11) • Lee Smith (baseball) (2007-12-16) • Georg Solti (2012-07-25) • South Side, Chicago (2012-08-11) • Edward Teller (2006-02-28) • Jim Thome (2015-08-27) • James Thompson (surveyor) (2020-08-04) • Tiny Thompson (2011-05-24) • Jim Thorpe (2004-08-13) • The Time Traveler's Wife (2009-10-11) • Joseph W. Tkach (2014-03-16) • Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) (2011-01-30) • Thurman Tucker (2013-04-14) • Weird Tales (2017-07-09) • Wilco (2008-06-08) Total pages in content type is 97 === Main page featured lists === List of Chicago Bulls seasons (2011-12-19) • Community areas in Chicago (2020-08-31) • Kanye West albums discography (2015-11-02) Total pages in content type is 3 === Picture of the day pictures === Total pages in content type is 52 === Former featured topics === Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Millennium Park Total pages in content type is 1 === Good articles === 28th International Eucharistic Congress • 350 North Orleans • 1998 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game • 2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election • 2002 Delphi Indy 300 • MLS Cup 2003 • 2008 American League Central tie-breaker game • 2013 Chicago Bears season • 2015 Chicago Bears season • Isaac Adewole • Harold Agnew • Joe Aiello • Vic Aldridge • Cliff Alexander • All Day (Kanye West song) • All the Way (Eddie Vedder song) • Samuel King Allison • Luis Walter Alvarez • American Airlines Flight 191 • Hannah Arendt • Argo Tea • Arts Club of Chicago • AT&T Plaza • Emilie Autumn • Myrtle Bachelder • Charlie Baker • Scott Baker (right-handed pitcher) • Paul Bako • Ernie Banks • Michael Barrett (baseball) • Baseball's Sad Lexicon • Batman Begins • Gene Bearden • Benet Academy • Sean Bennett (gridiron football) • Doug Bentley • Max Bentley • Joseph Berrios • Mary McLeod Bethune • The Blackstone Hotel • Blackstone Library • Timothy Blackstone • Block 37 • The Blues Brothers (film) • Boeing Galleries • Zach Bogosian • Frenchy Bordagaray • Jim Bottomley • Bound for Glory IV • Rene Bourque • Jay Bouwmeester • Milton Bradley (baseball) • Tim Breslin • Roger Bresnahan • Frank Brimsek • Marion L. Brittain • Broadway Limited • Fawn M. Brodie • Willa Brown • Brownie Mary • Jalen Brunson • Thomas Barbour Bryan • Kris Bryant • Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic • Bungie • Jon Burge • Edward M. Burke • Burnham Park (Chicago) • Burnham Pavilions • Pete Burnside • Dick Butkus • Paul Butterfield • William Heath Byford • Peter Bynoe • Lynton K. Caldwell • Billy Cannon • Al Capone • Carol (film) • Dan Castellaneta • Susan Catania • Gene Cernan • Frank Chance • Bob Chappuis • Chase Promenade • Chasing Vermeer • Ava Cherry • Chevelle (band) • 2003 Chicago balcony collapse • Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics • Chicago Marathon • Chicago Options Associates • Chicago race riot of 1919 • Chicago Spire • Chicago Theatre • Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch) • Gery Chico • Robert F. Christy • Sandra Cisneros • City of Denver (train) • Allie Clark • Stephen Colbert • Ellis Coleman • Sherron Collins • The Color of Money • J. T. Compher • Roy Conacher • The Cool Kids • Paul Cornell (lawyer) • Clint Courtney • Chris Creighton • George Cressey • Patrick Henry Cronin • Roger Crozier • Cubs Win Flag • Cumberland station (CTA) • Trent Daavettila • Steve Dahl • John P. Daley • Richard M. Daley • Damen station (CTA Blue Line) • Alvin Dark • Anthony Davis • Davis Theater • Billy DeBeck • Adam DeBus • DeKalb County Courthouse (Illinois) • Joseph DeLee • Eugene V. Debs • Jim Delsing • Mark DeRosa • Paul Des Jardien • Johnny Dickshot • Elizabeth Dilling • Divergent (novel) • Division station (CTA Logan Square branch) • Larry Doby • Dick Donovan • Maurice Douglass • Douglass Park • Robert Dover (equestrian) • Moe Drabowsky • DuSable Black History Museum and Education Center • DuSable Bridge • Irene Dunne • Drake Dunsmore • EMD F40PH • Kenny Easley • Roger Ebert • Don Eddy (baseball) • Mary Beth Edelson • Joel Edmundson • Huw Edwards (conductor) • Ninian Edwards • Christian Ehrhoff • Electoral history of Ronald Reagan • Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design • Rahm Emanuel • Encyclopedia of Chicago • Whitney Engen • Johnny Evers • Extreme Rules (2012) • Fabyan Windmill • David Falk • Fall Out Boy • February 2007 North American blizzard • Scott Feldman • Bob Ferguson (infielder) • Ferris Bueller's Day Off • Tina Fey • Lupe Fiasco • Bobby Fischer • Val Logsdon Fitch • Mike Fontenot • Fountain of the Great Lakes • Jimmie Foxx • James Franck • Ted Frank • Franklin Center (Chicago) • Milton Friedman • Fun Lounge police raid • John Wayne Gacy • Lloyd L. Gaines • Lu Gambino • Game of Change • Mike Garcia (baseball, born 1923) • Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey) • Pau Gasol • John Warne Gates • Gerald Ratner Athletics Center • Pretzels Getzien • Barbara Gittings • Go, Cubs, Go • Erving Goffman • Irving Gottesman • Kevin Grady • Grand Central Station (Chicago) • Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch) • Curtis Granderson • Grant Park Music Festival • Alvin C. Graves • The Great Ziegfeld • Rex Grossman • Ernest Groth • Gary Gygax • William P. Halliday • Remy Hamilton • Richard Hamming • John Marshall Harlan II • Harold Washington Cultural Center • Laura Harrier • Abram Lincoln Harris • Gabby Hartnett • David Hattner • LaTroy Hawkins • Kevin Hayes (ice hockey) • Haymarket affair • Haystacks (Monet series) • Bill Haywood • Spencer Heath (baseball) • Bobby Heenan • Heller House • Mitch Henderson • Rickey Henderson • Buck Herzog • Devin Hester • Jason Heyward • Historic Michigan Boulevard District • Charlie Hodes • Holden Block • Home Alone • Hoop Dreams • Brett Hull • Hull House • Philip Humber • Philip Humber's perfect game • John Hummer • Otto Frederick Hunziker • Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois • I'll See You in Court • Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 • Illinois Route 22 • The J's with Jamie • Jesse Jackson Jr. • Sandi Jackson • Jane Collective • Wadsworth Jarrell • Mae Jemison • Joffrey Tower • Tommy John • Rashid Johnson • Jason Jones (programmer) • Percy Lavon Julian • Cato June • Mike Kafka • Elena Kagan • Maria Kanellis • Chief Keef • Carson Kelly • George Kelly (baseball) • Pat Kelly (outfielder) • Frances Oldham Kelsey • Michael Kenna (politician) • Jerry Kindall • Don Kindt • Kinzie Street railroad bridge • Jason Kipnis • Judith Krug • Rusty Kuntz • Lakeshore East • Geoffrey A. Landis • Bill Lange • Jimmy Lavender • Ernest Lawrence • AJ Lee • Hughie Lehman • Bob Lemon • Benjamin F. Lewis • Willard Libby • Jon Lieber • Joe Lillard • Lincolnshire, Illinois • The Litigators • Carli Lloyd • Kenny Lofton • Loose Fur • Bobby Lowe • Sid Luckman • Lurie Children's Hospital • Lurie Garden • Evan Lysacek • MLS Cup 1998 • Victor Maghakian • Magnificent Mile • Majestic Radios • Gerri Major • Pat Malone • Man Enters the Cosmos • Man of Steel (film) • Gus Mancuso • John Marburger • Marching Men • Johnny Marcum • Venric Mark • Marquette Building (Chicago) • Marshall Field and Company Building • Marshfield station • Pepper Martin • Dave Martinez • Charles Matthews (basketball) • William McAndrew • Demetri McCamey • Josh McCown • Keith McCready • McDonald's Chicago Flagship • George McGovern • Erin McLeod • Winsor McCay • James McDivitt • Meet the Parents • Megitza • Merle Reskin Theatre • Tornado outbreak of October 17–19, 2007 • Midway International Airport • Midwestern University • George Mikan • Quincy Miller • Patsy Mink • Brandon Minor • Mirth & Girth • Milan C. Miskovsky • Joan Mitchell • David Molk • Ryan Mollett • Charlie Moore (basketball) • E'Twaun Moore • Bill Mosienko • Kit Mueller • Pete Muldoon • John Benjamin Murphy • Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago • My Kind of Town • Native American mascot controversy • Near South Side, Chicago • Reid Nichols • George Nicol (baseball) • No Mercy (2007) • North Bank Depot Buildings • North Coast Hiawatha • Northern Illinois University shooting • Northwestern Memorial Hospital • Michelle Obama • Phil Ochs • Jahlil Okafor • Bert Olmstead • Patrick Omameh • Victor Oreskovich • Bobby Orr • Dan Osinski • J. T. O'Sullivan • Geraldine Page • Jim Pappin • Colton Parayko • Park Grill • Anthony Parker • Jabari Parker • George N. Parks • Jiggs Parrott • Ara Parseghian • Walter Payton • Roger Peckinpaugh • Rob Pelinka • People v. Aguilar • Neifi Pérez • Perfect Dark (2010 video game) • Petrillo Music Shell • Jeannette Piccard • Billy Pierce • Pill Hill (play) • Pilot (The Playboy Club) • Ping Tom Memorial Park • Wally Pipp • Amy Poehler • Irving Kane Pond • Willis J. Potts • Toni Preckwinkle • LeRoy Prinz • Prison Break • Penny Pritzker • Pui Tak Center • Pulaski station (CTA Orange Line) • Radioland Murders • Rainbow/PUSH • Megan Rapinoe • Jerry Reinsdorf • Robert V. Remini • The Reputation • Rise Against • Garland Rivers • Road to Perdition • Roanoke Building • John D. Rockefeller • Dennis Rodman • Jimmy Rollins • Rookery Building • Arnold Ross • Gunther E. Rothenberg • Aaron Rowand • Red Ruffing • Rush Street (Chicago) • Lou Saban • Lawrence Sabatini • Sauganash Hotel • Gale Sayers • Scarface (1932 film) • Jon Scheyer • Nate Schierholtz • O'Brien Schofield • Jordan Schroeder • Arthur Schultz • Schulze Baking Company Plant • Schwa (restaurant) • Stuart Scott • Louis J. Sebille • Second Generation (advertisement) • Pat Seerey • Sense8 • Alex Seropian • Orator Shafer • Clark Shaughnessy • James Shields (politician, born 1806) • Helen Shiller • John Shurna • Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area • Josh Sims (lacrosse) • Sixteen (restaurant) • Cyril Stanley Smith • Patti Smith • Society for Human Rights • Spider-Man 2 • William A. Spinks • Spirit Fruit Society • Joseph Staten • Statue of Michael Jordan • Bill Stein • Jack Stewart (ice hockey) • Bernard Stone • John Stossel • Streeterville • Tai Streets • Elmer Stricklett • Matt Striebel • SummerSlam (1994) • Billy Sunday • Super Bowl XLI • Eric Surkamp • Gary Suter • Frederick Swann • Gloria Swanson • Lee Sweatt • Christopher Tanev • Charles Thom • Emmett Till • Joe Tinker • Tintin in America • Joe Tipton • Tonight, Tonight (The Smashing Pumpkins song) • Torpedo...Los! • Transformers: Dark of the Moon • Lennie Tristano • Tucker: The Man and His Dream • Evan Turner • Tyler Ulis • Jim Umbricht • Union Stock Yards • United States Zouave Cadets • 2020 University of Illinois Hospital strikes • Up! Live in Chicago • Harold Urey • Juan Uribe • Brian Urlacher • Kirk Urso • Jack Vainisi • Virgin Hotels Chicago • Dwyane Wade • Wanted (2008 film) • Washington Heights, Chicago • Washington Park (community area), Chicago • Washington Park (Chicago park) • Washington Park Court District • Washington Park Race Track • Washington Park Subdivision • Washington Square Park (Chicago) • Watch Dogs (video game) • Alvin M. Weinberg • Agnes Weinrich • Tom Weisner • Matthew West • WGBO-DT • When Harry Met Sally... • Eli Whiteside • Hoyt Wilhelm • William W. Powers State Recreation Area • Ned Williamson • Hack Wilson • Al Wistert • Whitey Wistert • Greg Wohlwend • Wolf Point, Chicago • Wilbur Wood • Leona Woods • Al Worthington • WrestleMania 2 • Wrigley Square • WSNS-TV • Early Wynn • Hoylande Young Total pages in content type is 516 === Former good articles === Amtrak • Borman Expressway • Jimmy Chamberlin • Charles Mears • Chicago • Chicago and North Western Transportation Company • University of Chicago • Robert Clark (actor) • Jon Corzine • Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad • Arthur Jeffrey Dempster • Daniel Ellsberg • Norman Finkelstein • Sam Fuld • Gordon Griffith • Kirk Hinrich • House music • Illinois Institute of Technology • Illinois State Toll Highway Authority • Illinois Tollway oasis • Illinois's 3rd congressional district • Indian Creek massacre • Mike Jackson (right-handed pitcher) • Whitcomb L. Judson • Lane Technical College Prep High School • Carl Lewis • McKinsey & Company • Andrés Nocioni • Pennsylvania Railroad • John W. Rogers Jr. • Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago • Peter Roskam • Bertrand Russell • David Schwimmer • Gustavus Franklin Swift • Jeff Tweedy • Union Pacific Railroad • Kanye West • Wigwam (Chicago) Total pages in content type is 39 === Did you know? articles === 7th District Police Station (2008-06-14) • 14th Place station (2023-01-27) • 58th station (2008-09-13) • 110 North Wacker (2020-03-06) • 151 North Franklin (2019-01-23) • 350 North Orleans (2010-07-24) • 1000M (2015-12-11) • 1880 Greenback National Convention (2015-01-25) • 1880 Republican National Convention (2007-06-25) • 1927 Chicago mayoral election (2019-03-27) • 1933 NFL Championship Game (2010-12-17) • 1946 Cook County, Illinois, elections (2020-04-09) • 1949 Rose Bowl (2008-07-21) • 1960–61 Chicago Black Hawks season (2008-05-09) • 1961–62 Chicago Black Hawks season (2008-05-12) • 1962–63 Chicago Black Hawks season (2008-05-12) • 1978 Chicago Marathon (2021-07-30) • 1998 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game (2010-06-01) • MLS Cup 2000 (2021-04-13) • 2002 Delphi Indy 300 (2018-10-11) • MLS Cup 2003 (2018-12-18) • 2003 Motor City Bowl (2010-01-26) • 2009 Illinois's 5th congressional district special election (2008-12-21) • 2011 Groundhog Day blizzard (2011-02-09) • 2013–14 Chicago Wolves season (2013-11-11) • 2013 Chicago Bears season (2015-10-06) • 2018 National League Central tie-breaker game (2018-12-23) • 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final (2019-09-05) • Benjamin Aaron (2007-09-05) • Jessie Ackermann (2012-07-10) • Sparky Adams (2008-03-19) • Adbot (2008-07-12) • Jim Adduci (baseball, born 1959) (2008-07-26) • Isaac Adewole (2016-01-07) • Steve Adkins (2008-07-04) • Charles Agnew (2013-07-27) • Ian Agol (2011-06-28) • Mathew Ahmann (2014-01-20) • Fay Ajzenberg-Selove (2011-07-12) • Ortez Alderson (2023-01-22) • Aldine Square, Chicago (2020-02-01) • Vic Aldridge (2008-07-05) • Cliff Alexander (2013-11-15) • William D. Alexander (2009-04-17) • Heléne Alexopoulos (2021-03-18) • Abdul Alkalimat (2012-04-10) • All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago) (2011-12-07) • All the Way (Eddie Vedder song) (2008-09-26) • Marjorie Hill Allee (2013-02-20) • James Allen (running back) (2013-01-26) • Nick Allen (catcher) (2011-01-01) • Ralph Alswang (2009-05-31) • Rommie Amaro (2015-10-13) • American Motor League (2011-05-31) • American System-Built Homes (2009-05-05) • Naomi Amir (2017-01-10) • Marty Amsler (2010-10-03) • Anaconda Road massacre (2009-06-27) • Gloria Long Anderson (2013-10-07) • Herbert L. Anderson (2008-03-17) • Louis B. Anderson (2019-06-12) • Trish Andrew (2013-08-01) • Gregg Andrews (2007-03-23) • Marimba Ani (2011-07-07) • Aorta (band) (2010-09-02) • Pete Appleton (2012-07-08) • Jimmy Archer (2008-03-18) • Argo Tea (2011-10-24) • J. Ogden Armour (2007-10-13) • Vernice Armour (2007-10-12) • James Armsey (2008-11-25) • Arnett v. Kennedy (2022-09-11) • Red Jordan Arobateau (2022-07-02) • Arnold Aronson (2010-12-10) • Art Institute of Chicago Building (2007-06-26) • Arts Club of Chicago (2007-07-03) • Auditorium Building (Chicago) (2004-03-30) • Death of Lazarus Averbuch (2017-08-27) • B96 Pepsi SummerBash (2011-03-04) • B. F. Affleck (2008-04-01) • Henry Babson (2007-07-12) • Emil Bach House (2007-06-11) • Myrtle Bachelder (2014-04-20) • Fred Baer (2010-08-19) • Javier Báez (2014-03-18) • Bob Bailey (ice hockey) (2007-04-10) • David Bailey (basketball) (2011-12-03) • Herman Bailey (2011-04-28) • Martell Bailey (2011-12-03) • Charlie Baker (2009-08-19) • Jesse Baker (pitcher) (2011-10-29) • Two Ton Baker (2017-09-18) • E. Wight Bakke (2015-04-09) • Paul Bako (2009-09-01) • Oscar B. Balch House (2007-06-17) • Harley Baldwin (2011-05-01) • Sydney H. Ball (2016-07-28) • Bally's Chicago (2022-06-16) • George Bangs (2019-09-27) • Oscar H. Banker (2013-03-14) • Vince Banonis (2014-09-19) • Barack Obama 2008 presidential election victory speech (2008-11-11) • Bret Barberie (2015-04-06) • Freddie Barnes (2009-12-05) • Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago) (2016-10-21) • David Prescott Barrows (2012-11-19) • Joseph Barss (ice hockey) (2011-03-23) • Philip Bartelme (2009-01-23) • Breeze Barton (2013-09-25) • Charlie Bartson (2021-12-16) • Baseball's Sad Lexicon (2014-04-20) • Harry Brinkley Bass (2006-09-30) • Harry Neal Baum (2010-12-31) • Maud Gage Baum (2011-04-17) • Stan Baumgartner (2008-01-28) • Frank A. Beach (2010-11-30) • Johnny Beall (2008-08-16) • John C. Becher (2010-05-19) • Holmes Beckwith (2009-11-26) • Beginning of the End (film) (2010-10-31) • Charles Beirne (2010-08-06) • Jeff Beliveau (2012-02-28) • Ralph Bell (2011-10-18) • Bellwood station (Chicago Aurora and Elgin Railroad) (2023-02-22) • Francis Beltrán (2008-07-08) • Reinhold and Ruth Benesch (2011-07-13) • Benji (2012 film) (2012-05-02) • Chuck Bennett (2010-04-17) • John W. F. Bennett (2010-04-22) • Sean Bennett (gridiron football) (2009-07-14) • Doug Bentley (2011-08-18) • Max Bentley (2011-08-18) • Reg Bentley (2011-08-18) • The Berghoff (restaurant) (2005-12-30) • Chuck Bernard (2007-12-06) • Juan Bernhardt (2010-11-27) • Leslie Bethell (2011-04-18) • Big White Fog (2010-07-05) • Jacob Bigeleisen (2010-09-10) • Harry Bigelow (2020-06-22) • Wafaa Bilal (2007-06-27) • William Birenbaum (2010-10-20) • Bisbee Deportation (2008-01-04) • Barry Bishop (mountaineer) (2008-12-11) • Black Betsy (2010-09-09) • Black Ensemble Theater Company (2008-09-04) • Black Metropolis (2016-02-29) • Rod Blagojevich corruption charges (2008-12-16) • Víctor Manuel Blanco (2009-07-16) • James Morris Blaut (2010-06-27) • Frank Bliss (2012-06-07) • Melvin Bliss (2013-07-21) • C. L. Blood (2015-11-08) • Paul Bloom (lawyer) (2009-10-30) • John A. Bloomingston (2010-12-19) • Walter Boal (2009-07-02) • Operation Board Games (2008-12-19) • Boeing Galleries (2008-06-17) • Bohemian National Cemetery (Chicago) (2010-02-05) • Margaret Bonds (2006-06-17) • David G. Booth (2008-11-11) • Frenchy Bordagaray (2011-12-21) • Dmitri Borgmann (2014-11-04) • Steve Boros (2012-07-21) • Babe Borton (2010-11-13) • Winston H. Bostick (2007-10-16) • Cecil Bothwell (2009-12-14) • Jim Bottomley (2012-09-28) • Bound for Glory IV (2016-02-06) • Louise DeKoven Bowen (2015-04-02) • Barbara T. Bowman (2008-11-15) • Robert Boyd (journalist) (2017-02-08) • BP Pedestrian Bridge (2008-06-05) • Guy Bradley (2010-07-09) • Herbert Edwin Bradley (2020-08-04) • Luther D. Bradley (2017-03-11) • Janet Bragg (2010-11-07) • Sara Branham Matthews (2014-06-15) • Craig Braun (2022-05-23) • James Henry Breasted (2004-04-03) • Zelia N. Breaux (2015-04-27) • John Brennan (American football) (2010-03-07) • Tim Breslin (2013-01-16) • Roger Bresnahan (2012-04-05) • J Harlen Bretz (2004-12-07) • Brideside (2017-07-07) • Marion L. Brittain (2007-06-07) • Broadway Limited (2015-01-30) • Roslyn Brock (2010-02-28) • Valri Bromfield (2008-07-04) • Arthur Bronwell (2021-12-04) • Bronzeville Children's Museum (2010-05-15) • Dave Brown (baseball) (2008-09-21) • Harrison Brown (2012-09-02) • Jim Brown (footballer, born 1952) (2016-08-03) • R. R. Brown (2012-11-27) • Torrey C. Brown (2014-04-29) • Willa Brown (2020-04-28) • Brownie Mary (2011-08-10) • Robert V. Bruce (2011-10-02) • Eugenie McEvoy (2015-11-16) • Margaret Brundage (2006-02-20) • Jalen Brunson (2014-07-14) • Kris Bryant (2013-05-05) • Bob Bryar (2016-07-08) • Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic (2007-07-09) • Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism (2013-10-04) • Reed Budge (2012-08-18) • Budlong Pickle Company (2020-08-20) • Builders Building (2020-07-27) • Betty Bumpers (2012-10-19) • Herman Bundesen (2021-01-10) • Jon Burge (2007-10-09) • Burnham Park (Chicago) (2007-03-19) • Ben Burns (2012-09-07) • Tom Burns (baseball) (2017-01-13) • Guy Bush (2006-12-28) • Justin Butterfield (2012-12-05) • William Heath Byford (2022-09-01) • Peter Bynoe (2007-11-05) • Cabrini–Green Homes (2004-03-08) • John Calhoun (publisher) (2014-10-04) • William J. Calhoun (2009-10-08) • John Callaway (2009-07-02) • Doris Calloway (2015-12-18) • Calumet Photographic (2012-09-23) • Calumet (train) (2005-09-26) • Adrianne Calvo (2008-04-11) • Bradley M. Campbell (2010-08-21) • Joe Campbell (baseball) (2010-06-14) • Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line) (2022-11-05) • Canfield's Diet Chocolate Fudge (2006-10-07) • Homaro Cantu (2015-05-29) • Mike Capel (2012-10-12) • The Capitol, Melbourne (2006-01-15) • Brian Cappelletto (2006-09-12) • The Captive Slave (2015-02-23) • Gabe Carimi (2011-02-18) • Michael Carlson (2009-12-09) • Harvey A. Carr (2009-05-18) • James Carroll (captain) (2013-03-16) • Susan Catania (2021-11-17) • George Ceithaml (2009-08-01) • Chaino (2011-01-27) • Frank Chance (2012-10-08) • Robert M. Chanock (2010-08-23) • Bob Chappuis (2008-01-04) • Charles Mears (2008-08-28) • Chase Promenade (2008-06-17) • Lude Check (2009-05-24) • Cheng Wai Keung (2013-10-08) • Serge Chermayeff (2005-12-21) • Ava Cherry (2021-03-21) • Nicole Chevalier (2017-07-22) • Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth (2006-09-12) • 2003 Chicago balcony collapse (2006-04-04) • Chicago Board of Trade Building (2007-02-28) • Chicago Cardinals–Toronto Argonauts exhibition game (2014-02-03) • Chicago Christmas Tree (2010-12-24) • List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers (2009-05-21) • Chicago Express Loop (2018-07-03) • Chicago Federation of Labor (2008-03-03) • Chicago Fire of 1874 (2014-12-06) • Chicago Half Marathon (2010-08-07) • Chicago High School (2014-09-13) • Chicago Honey Bears (2012-04-01) • Chicago Indian Village (2020-12-09) • Chicago Justice (2016-05-25) • List of Chicago Landmarks (2007-04-15) • Chicago Lawn, Chicago (2007-02-20) • The Chicago Lincoln (2013-07-09) • Chicago Marathon (2007-07-31) • 1972 Chicago–O'Hare runway collision (2011-12-08) • Chicago Opera House (2009-01-02) • Chicago P.D. (TV series) (2013-05-19) • Chicago Public Library (2004-06-10) • Chicago race riot of 1919 (2007-08-27) • Chicago Rising from the Lake (2022-08-21) • Chicago (Sufjan Stevens song) (2011-05-07) • Chicago Teachers Union (2012-10-08) • 1905 Chicago teamsters' strike (2007-12-06) • Chicago Theatre (2007-03-05) • Chicago Times-Herald race (2009-05-17) • Chicago Tunnel Company (2004-07-20) • List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers (2009-05-13) • Chicago and Northwestern Depot (Wilmette, Illinois) (2009-03-18) • Chicago in the 1930s (2013-06-25) • Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch) (2023-02-27) • Chicagoland (TV series) (2014-05-10) • Chow Leung (2022-04-17) • SS Christopher Columbus (2007-08-24) • Robert F. Christy (2014-03-03) • Tony Cingrani (2013-02-07) • City of Denver (train) (2013-11-17) • Allie Clark (2012-09-16) • Clark (mascot) (2014-04-01) • Henry Clarke (baseball) (2011-03-30) • Xernona Clayton (2013-01-11) • Jeanne Clemson (2009-11-01) • Nat Clifton (2005-06-22) • Andy the Clown (2005-02-21) • Coalition of Labor Union Women (2007-01-13) • Coast at Lakeshore East (2012-06-09) • Arthur Byron Coble (2008-06-13) • Dick Cogan (2011-10-11) • Morris L. Cohen (2010-12-31) • Randolph Cohen (2007-09-16) • Edwin Joseph Cohn (2006-04-30) • Doris Cole (2015-09-05) • Ellis Coleman (2012-08-06) • William Henry Collins (2014-03-26) • Columbian Issue (2006-12-19) • Columbian half dollar (2006-12-26) • Comiskey Park (2004-03-24) • Roy Conacher (2013-12-15) • Daniel Conahan (2007-12-31) • Consulate General of the Philippines, Chicago (2022-12-29) • Ed Conwell (2011-10-22) • Cookie (cockatoo) (2009-12-28) • D. J. Cooper (2013-02-11) • William W. Cooper (2012-10-20) • William H. Copeland House (2007-06-16) • Richard Cordray (2008-10-21) • Richard Cordtz (2008-08-20) • Carl Cotton (2021-08-24) • Daniel Coughlin (2011-04-30) • Covenant Aviation Security (2010-12-01) • Earnest Sevier Cox (2014-11-05) • Drew Crawford (2012-02-29) • Oliver Crawford (2008-10-23) • Roberta Dodd Crawford (2013-03-06) • Herrlee G. Creel (2007-11-17) • Chris Creighton (2020-01-17) • George Cressey (2009-06-11) • The Crew (video game) (2013-06-29) • Debra Crew (2015-10-26) • Fritz Crisler (2010-01-05) • Crosby's Opera House (2014-08-06) • Cross of Gold speech (2011-12-20) • Dorsey Crowe (2018-11-05) • Crown Fountain (2007-06-18) • The Crusader (sculpture) (2011-10-20) • Cubs Win Flag (2008-09-28) • William J. Cullerton (2013-02-03) • Edith Cummings (2008-05-18) • Andy Cusick (2011-10-19) • Cully Dahlstrom (2011-01-26) • Quintin Dailey (2010-11-15) • Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad (2005-01-07) • Bill Daley (American football) (2008-01-07) • John P. Daley (2008-11-21) • Vi Daley (2007-10-21) • Joel Daly (2008-07-20) • Damen station (CTA Blue Line) (2023-02-15) • Damen station (CTA Green Line) (2017-02-25) • Jeffrey Dampier (2013-06-09) • John W. Danenhower (2006-10-26) • Thomas Dao (2009-08-05) • Darwin Centennial Celebration (1959) (2009-02-12) • Frank Dasso (2009-06-30) • Anthony Davis (2012-04-03) • Jessie Bartlett Davis (2008-01-23) • John Warren Davis (judge) (2007-12-26) • Katharine Bement Davis (2010-03-13) • Maxwell Street Jimmy Davis (2010-10-28) • Mike Davis (basketball coach) (2005-12-05) • Ronald Davis (physician) (2008-11-13) • Davis Theater (2013-07-10) • The Day the Dancers Came (2010-04-21) • Daytona Tortugas (2011-04-11) • Joseph DeLee (2013-09-12) • Wayland Dean (2010-03-28) • Dearborn Homes (2012-03-21) • Angie Debo (2009-01-23) • Dave Debol (2009-02-22) • John Deering (murderer) (2010-12-22) • Sergey Degayev (2009-04-03) • Jack Deloplaine (2022-08-21) • Roger Denzer (2010-11-18) • Jim Derrington (2019-01-03) • Tony DeSantis (2007-06-13) • Paul Des Jardien (2010-03-13) • Devon Avenue (2006-09-01) • Heather Dewey-Hagborg (2014-10-10) • Lee DeWyze (2010-03-25) • Augustus Dickens (2009-07-06) • Mary Cynthia Dickerson (2015-11-30) • Johnny Dickshot (2021-04-01) • Elizabeth Dilling (2016-07-12) • Diners Club International (2004-04-01) • Distance education in Chicago Public Schools in 1937 (2021-09-14) • Disturbed discography (2009-03-12) • Division station (CTA Logan Square branch) (2023-03-13) • William S. Dix (2009-10-04) • Piotr Domaradzki (2015-12-05) • Mr. Dooley (2016-06-21) • Isaiah Sol Dorfman (2016-03-07) • Herm Doscher (2008-04-04) • Geoff Dougherty (2013-05-17) • Caitlin Doughty (2014-10-31) • James H. Douglas Jr. (2008-02-24) • Maurice Douglass (2010-10-30) • Sammy Drake (2013-12-13) • St. Clair Drake (2013-10-29) • Paul Dresser (2009-09-15) • Ruth Duckworth (2009-10-30) • Bruce DuMont (2010-12-14) • Little Arthur Duncan (2011-12-22) • Michael Clarke Duncan (2004-03-15) • Davey Dunkle (2010-12-28) • Robert J. Dunne (2010-03-31) • Drake Dunsmore (2012-05-18) • Pat Dunsmore (2012-05-18) • Blaine Durbin (2008-08-27) • Charles Dvorak (2011-02-28) • Jerry Dybzinski (2008-01-31) • EA Sports UFC (2013-06-28) • EMD F40PH (2017-04-09) • Don Eaddy (2012-07-04) • Brenda Lee Eager (2010-10-18) • Adam Eaton (outfielder) (2012-04-14) • Janice Eberly (2014-01-18) • Bernard A. Eckhart (2014-04-24) • William Abner Eddy (2009-07-23) • Edgecliff (Winnetka, Illinois) (2018-12-11) • Edith Prickley (2009-04-21) • Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Administration Hospital (2013-11-23) • Chandler Egan (2007-08-07) • Allison H. Eid (2011-04-20) • Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar (2013-06-29) • Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design (2013-05-01) • Edward C. Elliott (2013-03-27) • Mary Beth Ellis (2012-09-11) • Sammy Ellis (2007-05-21) • Elmhurst Christian Reformed Church (2013-06-05) • Edith Emerson (2016-04-25) • Empire (2015 TV series) (2015-02-02) • Encyclopedia of Chicago (2009-10-04) • Engine Company 21 (Chicago) (2021-03-02) • Dena Epstein (2013-11-18) • Marie Equi (2006-02-01) • Leo Erdody (2013-11-04) • Hank Erickson (2010-07-11) • Joe Esposito (politician) (2006-11-26) • Essex on the Park (2019-09-29) • Chuck Estrada (2006-12-24) • Eternal Silence (sculpture) (2011-10-31) • Johnny Evers (2012-07-30) • Fred Ewing (2010-07-09) • Exelon Pavilions (2008-06-13) • The Exile (1931 film) (2006-03-07) • Larry Eyler (2010-06-09) • Fabyan Windmill (2008-02-22) • David Falk (2007-06-20) • Cy Falkenberg (2021-05-15) • Charles Buckles Falls (2014-12-17) • John V. Farwell (2014-08-27) • Rob Feaster (2011-09-15) • George Fell (2016-04-16) • Benjamin F. Ferguson (2008-07-24) • Harry Field (American football) (2020-12-27) • James W. Fifield Jr. (2015-06-11) • Samantha Findlay (2013-07-18) • Donald Finkel (2008-11-27) • Janet Fish (2012-04-01) • Thomas Fitch (politician) (2011-03-29) • Val Logsdon Fitch (2015-06-17) • Flamingo (sculpture) (2007-05-09) • Jerry Fleck (2013-06-18) • Bill Flemming (2008-05-31) • Florida Tropical House (2008-06-01) • Marv Foley (2008-11-20) • Food Technology (magazine) (2006-12-01) • Barry Foote (2009-01-10) • Forever Marilyn (2011-10-13) • Terry Forster (2006-09-04) • Jesse Fortune (2009-09-15) • Genevieve Foster (2011-05-28) • George Foster (baseball) (2012-10-15) • Scott Foster (ice hockey) (2018-04-30) • David J. Foulis (2015-09-08) • Fountain of Time (2009-01-29) • Fountain of the Great Lakes (2009-03-25) • James Franck (2015-07-05) • Glenn Frank (2013-11-30) • Franklin Center (Chicago) (2007-04-09) • Franklin Street Terminal (2022-12-27) • Jimmy Fratianno (2006-11-24) • Jo Freeman (2008-08-10) • Danny Friend (2009-05-17) • Hugo Friend (2011-06-29) • David T. Friendly (2008-08-14) • Friendship and Freedom (2012-02-28) • Frederick Carl Frieseke (2011-11-24) • Darol Froman (2014-09-23) • Jim Fuchs (2010-10-27) • Melville Fuller (2021-07-18) • Fun Lounge police raid (2022-04-13) • George Furbeck House (2007-06-14) • Fred Fussell (2011-11-25) • Jan C. Gabriel (2010-01-28) • Lloyd L. Gaines (2012-03-19) • Thomas H. Gale House (2007-06-14) • Laura Gale House (2007-06-01) • Walter Gale House (2007-06-07) • William O. Gallery (2007-05-28) • Paul Galloway (2009-02-13) • Gamaliel Foundation (2008-08-19) • Bob Gambold (2008-11-07) • Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals (2009-04-12) • Game of Change (2020-06-20) • Leela Gandhi (2007-07-31) • Chick Gandil (2004-05-30) • Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey) (2008-08-24) • Herb Gardiner (2010-07-13) • Ralph Garr (2012-10-28) • Mildred Barry Garvin (2010-10-17) • Ned Garvin (2016-04-03) • Edward Page Gaston (2013-02-02) • Gateway Tower (Chicago) (2016-06-23) • George M. Hill Company (2011-06-18) • Gerald Ratner Athletics Center (2010-05-16) • Ralph W. Gerard (2007-07-16) • Henry Gerber House (2015-09-30) • Pretzels Getzien (2013-03-15) • Kenneth A. Gewertz (2016-10-24) • Giant Drop (Six Flags Great America) (2022-11-26) • Jeffrey Gibson (2011-03-19) • Gordie Gillespie (2010-07-16) • James A. Gilmore (2021-07-20) • Willis Glassgow (2010-04-23) • Bernard Glasser (2014-01-19) • Lawrence E. Glendenin (2008-12-07) • Martin Glendon (2010-12-15) • Joseph Glimco (2009-08-22) • Gary Glover (2008-08-20) • Go, Cubs, Go (2008-09-26) • G. McMurtrie Godley (2009-10-26) • Edward D. Goldberg (2008-03-22) • Miriam Goldberg (2016-01-11) • Eugene Goldwasser (2011-01-02) • Goliath (Six Flags Great America) (2013-09-08) • Irving Gottesman (2012-08-12) • Elgin Gould (2010-07-28) • Jason Graae (2016-11-04) • Walter D. Graham (2010-12-17) • Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch) (2023-02-09) • Grant Park Music Festival (2007-09-26) • Grant Park Symphony Orchestra (2010-04-29) • Herb Graver (2010-03-25) • Alvin C. Graves (2014-10-25) • Wesley Gray (2013-12-24) • Eli Grba (2019-03-06) • Great Central Station (2014-08-20) • A. Wilson Greene (2018-12-19) • Beverly Lorraine Greene (2015-11-17) • Jesse More Greenman (2014-12-07) • Joseph Grendys (2015-11-07) • Herbert E. Grier (2020-01-07) • Miss Major Griffin-Gracy (2014-09-23) • Peter Groff (2007-11-19) • Emil Gross (2014-07-23) • Shelly Gross (2009-07-08) • Ernest Groth (2010-06-05) • Orval Grove (2007-05-01) • GrubHub (2011-09-04) • John Guleserian (2015-03-02) • Randy Gumpert (2007-05-23) • Ray Gunkel (2009-01-17) • Charles F. Gunther (2008-07-21) • Susan Hadden (2007-11-12) • Ed Hahn (2010-11-15) • Walter Stanley Haines (2019-04-23) • Vic Hall (2009-08-03) • Robert Halperin (2011-07-24) • Reggie Hamilton (2012-04-18) • Remy Hamilton (2010-07-19) • Shorty Hamilton (2009-10-06) • Richard Hamming (2014-11-04) • Thomas S. Hammond (2010-03-30) • Edward Hanrahan (2009-06-25) • Snipe Hansen (2011-11-15) • Bill Hanson (basketball) (2013-02-13) • George H. Harlow (2014-11-05) • Gaylord Harnwell (2007-04-13) • Harold Horton Sheldon (2015-12-20) • Harold Washington Cultural Center (2007-06-10) • Harper Court (2014-07-15) • Roland Harper (2009-01-05) • Abram Lincoln Harris (2007-01-30) • E.B. Harris (2011-01-11) • Shakey Jake Harris (2010-02-15) • Harris Theater (Chicago) (2008-06-10) • Edward Harrison (timpanist) (2008-08-10) • Sam K. Harrison (2013-06-30) • Dolores Hart (2005-05-05) • Hub Hart (2010-11-20) • Walter Hass (2010-08-31) • Enid A. Haupt (2011-01-05) • Lemuel Hawkins (2012-06-18) • George Hay (ice hockey) (2010-07-20) • Louise Hay (mathematician) (2015-12-10) • Kevin Hayes (ice hockey) (2021-04-11) • Robert J. Healey (2014-11-06) • Egyptian Healy (2011-09-11) • Heller House (2007-10-29) • Hello from the Magic Tavern (2016-03-01) • Rollie Hemsley (2007-06-01) • Donal Henahan (2011-03-17) • Mitch Henderson (2011-05-13) • Warren Elliot Henry (2015-03-05) • Willie Hernández (2022-09-04) • John Herrnstein (2012-07-01) • Clarence Herschberger (2009-06-29) • Philip Hershkovitz (2010-03-29) • Henry Herx (2012-09-26) • Arthur Heurtley House (2007-05-31) • John Hibbard (2012-06-11) • Higgins Glass (2006-06-30) • Norman Hilberry (2016-01-12) • Edward R. Hills House (2007-06-08) • Steve Hindi (2014-09-04) • Charles Hirsch (2008-09-24) • Historic Michigan Boulevard District (2007-06-05) • History of African Americans in Chicago (2007-05-03) • Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (2012-07-07) • John B. Hogenesch (2015-05-27) • Dr. Robert Hohf House (2013-11-06) • William Hohri (2010-11-28) • Arthur Holch (2010-10-14) • Holden Block (2020-05-09) • Bug Holliday (2008-06-30) • David Holston (2011-08-16) • Helen F. Holt (2013-08-12) • Home Alone (2020-05-17) • Jerry Horan (2008-08-11) • Levi Horn (2011-09-24) • Horse Show Fountain (2007-06-11) • Wayne L. Horvitz (2009-06-30) • Arnold Horween (2013-04-19) • Horween Leather Company (2013-04-03) • Ralph Horween (2013-03-26) • Ukshin Hoti (2010-08-31) • Jett Howard (2023-02-22) • Juwan Howard (2010-06-04) • Charles Hucker (2007-11-14) • Larry Huggins (2012-08-19) • Fred Hultstrand (2005-06-22) • Philip Humber (2012-04-29) • Philip Humber's perfect game (2012-04-29) • Humboldt Park riot (2017-05-20) • John Hummer (2010-04-10) • Leonid Hurwicz (2007-10-20) • Hyde Park–Kenwood Historic District (2011-11-20) • Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois (2007-07-23) • I Love You Truly (2008-01-23) • Ida B. Wells Homes (2012-03-27) • Illiana Expressway (2006-12-19) • Illinois Central 790 (2012-03-28) • Illinois Institute of Technology Academic Campus (2010-06-26) • Illinois Manufacturers' Association (2012-06-06) • Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 (2020-11-06) • Illinois Speed Press (2010-09-02) • Illinois Staats-Zeitung (2009-02-17) • Indian Creek massacre (2007-08-10) • Indian Village, Chicago (2008-07-23) • Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (2012-08-23) • Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest (2007-08-27) • International Wrestling Association (1970s) (2014-11-10) • John R. Isbell (2011-04-08) • Dreamer Isioma (2023-01-09) • The J's with Jamie (2016-12-28) • Brett Jackson (2012-02-28) • Jesse Jackson Jr. (2008-04-24) • Mike Jackson (right-handed pitcher) (2011-06-30) • Sandi Jackson (2008-11-18) • Jacques and Berthe Lipchitz (2010-11-23) • Jane Collective (2019-03-08) • Jan B. Jansen (2009-09-15) • Wadsworth Jarrell (2011-05-12) • Jay Pritzker Pavilion (2007-09-24) • Jays Foods (2007-12-04) • Jazz (word) (2007-01-27) • François Charles Archile Jeanneret (2009-01-06) • Othyus Jeffers (2011-05-07) • Denise Jefferson (2010-08-02) • Mae Jemison (2019-07-21) • Andrea Jenkins (2016-06-26) • Dan Jennings (pitcher) (2012-05-10) • M. D. Jennings (2013-11-07) • George Jewett (2008-01-27) • Ji Chaoding (2016-02-09) • John V. Farwell & Co. (2014-08-27) • Eunice W. Johnson (2010-01-20) • George E. Johnson Sr. (2008-06-24) • L.V. Johnson (2010-06-05) • Rashid Johnson (2009-01-22) • Tom Johnson (tackle, born 1931) (2010-10-05) • Lazeric Jones (2014-08-02) • LeAlan Jones (2010-06-29) • Sidney L. Jones (2014-10-12) • Bubber Jonnard (2009-10-12) • Rip Jordan (2011-10-25) • Marion Jorgensen (2008-06-27) • Whitcomb L. Judson (2008-11-19) • Julia C. Lathrop Homes (2012-03-26) • Cato June (2009-07-28) • Bryan Jurewicz (2010-08-02) • Ryan Kalish (2011-03-27) • Victor Kamber (2007-01-28) • Herb Kawainui Kāne (2011-08-13) • Mike Karakas (2008-07-23) • Jerome Karle (2009-10-01) • Harry Karstens (2013-10-02) • Jack Karwales (2010-09-07) • Alain Kashama (2009-07-12) • Duke Keats (2010-07-18) • Carl D. Keith (2008-11-19) • Mike Keller (2011-08-01) • George Kelly (baseball) (2011-11-25) • Paul Kelpe (2012-11-10) • Kemil Road station (2015-10-22) • Walter S. Kennedy (2010-04-29) • Kennicott Grove (2014-12-07) • Kenwood branch (2010-07-15) • Ro Khanna (2013-02-15) • Brooks Kieschnick (2012-09-26) • Dorothy Kilgallen (2004-04-05) • Matt Kilroy (2007-08-08) • Don Kindt (2012-05-05) • Eric King (baseball) (2013-04-16) • Kinzie Street railroad bridge (2008-02-25) • Jason Kipnis (2011-08-05) • John William Kiser (2022-01-28) • Grete Prytz Kittelsen (2010-01-26) • Dick Klein (basketball) (2006-08-16) • Michael Klonsky (2008-03-25) • Clayton Knight (2015-05-04) • John Frush Knox (2006-11-03) • Florence Koehler (2013-09-11) • Jim Koleff (2008-11-13) • George Kontos (2012-08-23) • Ken Kortas (2022-11-07) • Marian Koshland (2012-07-18) • Kostner station (CTA Congress Line) (2008-12-28) • Vincent Kosuga (2011-01-10) • Helen Kotas Hirsch (2020-10-28) • Kraft Foods (2008-03-13) • Bill Krieg (2010-11-28) • Ed Krupp (2017-04-27) • Bohumir Kryl (2011-07-23) • Rusty Kuntz (2014-02-22) • Zak Kustok (2010-02-07) • La Salle Hotel (2010-12-16) • Doyle Lade (2008-11-13) • Laflin station (2022-10-31) • Lucien Lagrange (2008-01-23) • Lake Street Transfer station (2022-03-01) • 2011 U.S. Open Cup Final (2011-09-14) • Greg Landry (2005-12-23) • Bill Lange (2008-08-15) • Henry Louis Larsen (2011-07-03) • John Latenser Sr. (2008-04-02) • Vida Latham (2015-11-04) • Craig Lathen (2011-12-07) • Bryan Lathrop (2014-01-10) • Latke–Hamantash Debate (2007-03-14) • Jonita Lattimore (2010-05-20) • Billy Lauder (2009-10-11) • Evelyn Lauder (2009-01-20) • Arnold Laven (2009-09-23) • Jimmy Lavender (2013-08-19) • Hazel Lavery (2007-01-10) • Sammy Lawhorn (2010-08-15) • Erin Lawless (2018-02-11) • Charles S. Lawrence (2006-11-01) • Ernest Lawrence (2013-10-05) • Matt Lawton (2010-09-28) • Joseph Bloomfield Leake (2011-04-24) • Ashley Day Leavitt (2008-12-14) • J. R. E. Lee (2013-11-04) • Emery Lehman (2014-02-08) • Hughie Lehman (2008-07-27) • Jack Lelivelt (2007-06-22) • Jerry Lester (2015-02-18) • William P. Levine (2014-06-09) • Benjamin F. Lewis (2019-10-14) • Florence Lewis (activist) (2020-12-10) • James R. Lewis (legislator) (2010-11-05) • Willard Libby (2015-10-26) • George Lilja (2007-12-01) • Lincoln Park (2004-06-12) • Lincoln Towing Service (2007-08-21) • Eugene Linden (conductor) (2011-06-02) • List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (2011-01-08) • List of Chicago Blackhawks head coaches (2009-06-25) • List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks (2010-07-28) • List of Chicago Cubs managers (2009-08-14) • List of Chicago Cubs no-hitters (2010-11-25) • List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks (2011-04-09) • List of Chicago White Sox managers (2009-11-04) • List of Chicago Wolves award winners (2013-01-16) • List of winners of the Chicago Marathon (2009-03-01) • The Litigators (2011-10-25) • Liu-Wang Liming (2013-05-01) • Carli Lloyd (2014-03-04) • Lola Maverick Lloyd (2013-05-09) • Margaret Lloyd (2009-04-06) • Georg J. Lober (2008-10-14) • Allan Loeb (2008-05-12) • Marshall Loeb (2009-02-20) • Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (2022-08-24) • Tony Lombardi (2011-01-29) • Loop Retail Historic District (2008-03-07) • Loose Fur (2007-07-28) • Sam LoPresti (2013-04-01) • Willie Louis (2013-08-04) • Bobby Lowe (2011-04-04) • Oliver H. Lowry (2011-03-03) • Lucien Lagrange Architects (2008-01-28) • Jeff Luhnow (2012-08-16) • Zenon B. Lukosius (2014-10-24) • Beatrice Lumpkin (2020-11-05) • Luna Negra Dance Theater (2008-09-05) • Arthur C. Lundahl (2007-10-29) • Carl Lundgren (2011-04-06) • Victor Lundin (2016-09-08) • Lurie Children's Hospital (2021-03-09) • Lurie Garden (2008-06-07) • John Lynch (radio) (2010-09-19) • Jerry Lyne (2011-11-22) • Lincoln MacMillan (2012-06-10) • Dennis MacDonald (2009-01-23) • Mickey MacKay (2012-01-26) • Derek MacKenzie (2012-07-14) • Bart Macomber (2009-09-09) • Eddie Macon (2013-01-31) • J. Warren Madden (2010-02-21) • Jim Maddock (2010-09-03) • Fred Mader (2008-08-17) • Madison station (CTA) (2022-10-26) • Maggie Daley Park ice skating ribbon (2015-03-13) • Maggie Daley Park (2015-03-13) • Victor Maghakian (2013-03-28) • Majestic Radios (2020-12-19) • Gerri Major (2016-04-21) • Man Enters the Cosmos (2007-10-03) • The Man Who (Thought He) Looked Like Robert Taylor (2010-03-25) • Manny's Deli (2023-01-06) • Levon Marashlian (2014-03-14) • John Marburger (2011-08-16) • Joey Marciano (2023-03-20) • Yolanda Marculescu (2016-02-04) • Chris Marcus (2011-02-04) • Mardi Gras Hangover (2022-12-01) • Bob Mariano (executive) (2014-04-16) • Eugene Antonio Marino (2007-04-09) • Mark Buehrle's perfect game (2010-07-29) • Venric Mark (2013-01-05) • Howard Thomas Markey (2006-05-27) • Kyra Markham (2011-12-24) • Marshall Field and Company Building (2008-03-06) • Robert J. Marshall (2009-01-01) • Marshfield station (2022-11-14) • Paul Sidney Martin (2010-10-01) • Martin Ryerson Tomb (2011-10-06) • Dave Martinez (2015-01-08) • Gerald Mast (2013-11-22) • Scott Masters (2007-04-27) • Marcos Mateo (2011-04-29) • Luke Matheny (2011-03-04) • Alonzo C. Mather (2005-03-28) • Mather Stock Car Company (2005-03-27) • Charles Matthews (basketball) (2016-10-03) • Howard W. Mattson (2006-11-21) • Elaine May (2004-04-04) • Oscar F. Mayer (2009-07-17) • Oscar G. Mayer Jr. (2009-07-17) • Oscar G. Mayer Sr. (2009-07-17) • Mayslake Peabody Estate (2007-09-21) • Rob Mazurek (2007-07-10) • Kay Mazzo (2021-03-16) • Bill McAfee (2012-07-06) • William McAndrew (2021-08-30) • Douglas McCain (2014-09-07) • Cash McCall (musician) (2010-11-11) • Demetri McCamey (2010-02-23) • Todd McCarthy (2016-06-07) • Ed McCaskey (2013-04-13) • Amby McConnell (2012-10-19) • Chauncey McCormick (2011-01-18) • John P. McCormick (2008-12-21) • William Grigsby McCormick (2011-01-18) • 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game (2013-04-04) • 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game (2014-04-03) • 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game (2015-02-15) • Walter A. McDougall (2009-02-28) • William McFetridge (2007-10-07) • McGruff the Crime Dog (2016-06-28) • Bryant McIntosh (2017-03-18) • James A. McIntyre (2010-12-18) • Chris McKay (2015-08-13) • Erin McLeod (2016-07-18) • Cal McLish (2013-09-02) • Sam McMackin (2010-12-19) • McCarthy Building (Chicago, Illinois) (2007-09-28) • Winsor McCay (2013-04-09) • McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (2008-06-09) • James McDivitt (2021-09-28) • McDonald's Cycle Center (2008-06-14) • Mead Johnson (2010-09-12) • Patrick Meek (2014-01-15) • Megitza (2012-04-30) • Pravina Mehta (2015-10-13) • David Mendell (2009-02-28) • Susanne Mentzer (2010-05-30) • Charles Edward Merriam (2010-05-05) • Merz Apothecary (2013-07-30) • Metallurgical Laboratory (2005-05-29) • Metropolitan main line (2022-03-19) • Michael Jordan's Restaurant (2007-11-02) • Cass Michaels (2007-05-29) • Michigan–Wacker Historic District (2008-07-09) • W. Otto Miessner (2008-08-25) • Mike Mikulak (2010-01-07) • Adolph C. Miller (2009-02-02) • Bob Miller (pitcher, born 1935) (2008-10-08) • Bob Miller (pitcher, born 1939) (2008-10-05) • Quincy Miller (2012-01-05) • Mind Games (TV series) (2013-10-02) • William Robert Ming (2010-07-11) • Patsy Mink (2020-05-06) • Brandon Minor (2009-09-19) • Beatrice Mintz (2010-01-10) • Mirage Tavern (2010-03-16) • Milan C. Miskovsky (2014-06-13) • Mission of the Guardian Angel (2010-08-18) • Christian Mitchell (2012-11-28) • Mike Mitchell (baseball) (2010-12-30) • Roscoe Mitchell (2007-01-04) • John Mohardt (2014-01-19) • Jack Moline (2011-05-07) • David Molk (2009-11-06) • Ryan Mollett (2010-09-02) • Monadnock Building (2010-11-18) • The Monitors (film) (2014-02-01) • Bill Monroe (1900s infielder) (2008-02-29) • Charlie Moore (basketball) (2022-04-17) • Joe Moore (running back) (2013-05-23) • Johnny B. Moore (2010-08-25) • Big Chief Russell Moore (2022-06-26) • Mickey Morandini (2009-05-29) • Moses Moreno (2012-12-17) • Nyeema Morgan (2021-03-06) • Max Morris (2009-11-23) • Jo-Jo Morrissey (2010-11-18) • Aron Moscona (2009-02-06) • Bill Mosienko (2010-07-12) • Toby Moskowitz (2007-09-13) • Moto (restaurant) (2015-05-12) • John Moutoussamy (2019-12-31) • John Gould Moyer (2010-05-09) • Edward L. Moyers (2014-03-03) • Scotty Moylan (2010-09-18) • Kit Mueller (2011-11-19) • Pete Muldoon (2007-12-05) • Art Murakowski (2010-04-20) • Takeshi Murata (2015-08-20) • Chet Murphy (2009-11-25) • John Benjamin Murphy (2008-05-19) • My Kind of Town (2007-10-01) • The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults (2006-07-12) • NEMA (Chicago) (2015-12-16) • NWA World Tag Team Championship (Chicago version) (2017-04-18) • Gern Nagler (2018-12-10) • Carrie Nahabedian (2012-09-17) • Bill Naito (2010-12-03) • Patrick Nash (2007-09-04) • Nancy Nathanson (2010-03-22) • National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture (2013-05-30) • National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago (2008-06-14) • Nature's Fynd (2020-07-19) • Jaime Navarro (2006-12-19) • Frederick S. Nave (2015-03-22) • John Ulric Nef (economic historian) (2009-10-15) • Lucas Neff (2012-02-20) • Aryeh Neier (2009-01-23) • Jack Ness (2010-11-29) • Rolf Nyboe Nettum (2010-02-24) • Barbara Newman (2015-03-20) • Next Big Sound (2009-01-20) • George Nicol (baseball) (2013-01-11) • Mary Nolan (politician) (2010-03-04) • North Bank Depot Buildings (2011-08-09) • North Coast Hiawatha (2009-12-31) • Northern Illinois University shooting (2008-02-20) • Northwestern Lumberman (2019-11-28) • Northwestern Wildcats women's lacrosse (2009-06-01) • Stan Noskin (2010-09-03) • Aaron Novick (2015-07-11) • Nuclear Energy (sculpture) (2008-07-24) • Oak Circle Historic District (2010-07-21) • James Dunne O'Connell (2011-03-27) • Pat O'Donnell (2014-06-11) • Joe Oeschger (2010-02-26) • Ogden Gas scandal (2020-05-15) • Lloyd Ohlin (2009-01-14) • Jahlil Okafor (2012-07-10) • Old Chicago Main Post Office Twin Towers (2014-10-27) • Old College (Northwestern University) (2007-08-03) • Old Prentice Women's Hospital Building (2012-09-20) • Oliver Typewriter Company (2007-11-16) • Bert Olmstead (2008-11-18) • Patrick Omameh (2012-12-03) • Terry O'Neill (feminist) (2009-08-26) • Tip O'Neill (baseball) (2014-08-07) • Optima Signature (2017-10-12) • Congregation Or Chadash (2010-11-11) • The Original Salty Dogs Jazz Band (2011-01-27) • Owasippe Scout Reservation (2006-02-02) • Bennie Owen (2006-07-02) • Thomas Jefferson Vance Owen (2020-02-14) • Jack Owsley (2011-07-04) • Saul K. Padover (2009-10-06) • Glenn D. Paige (2009-04-03) • Homer Paine (2009-07-28) • Ralph Delahaye Paine (2011-08-09) • Pak-Age-Car (2019-12-20) • Pratapaditya Pal (2015-06-07) • Palmer Mansion (2007-10-06) • Nate Palmer (2013-11-04) • José Paniagua (2012-10-05) • Jim Pappin (2022-07-14) • Kelly Paris (2009-01-08) • Jane Park (2009-03-28) • Francis Wayland Parker (2005-12-22) • Robert P. Parker House (2007-06-13) • Jabari Parker (2011-12-24) • Arthur H. Parmelee (2010-08-02) • Alexandra Patsavas (2007-11-16) • Roger Peckinpaugh (2012-03-12) • Rob Pelinka (2007-02-27) • Ann Pellegreno (2008-07-08) • Peninsula 400 (2013-09-19) • Bernard Perlin (2014-08-27) • Stan Perzanowski (2008-09-21) • Petrillo Music Shell (2009-11-22) • Fredrik Pettersson (2013-08-01) • Fred Pfeffer (2017-01-13) • Orange Phelps (2011-07-26) • Wendell Phillips Academy High School (2008-06-19) • Wally Phillips (2008-04-03) • Jeannette Piccard (2007-02-01) • Pie house (2022-02-20) • Al Piechota (2012-01-12) • W. Conway Pierce (2014-11-19) • Jimmy Piersall (2004-03-11) • Pill Hill, Chicago (2010-05-16) • Pill Hill (play) (2010-05-16) • Bill Pinkney (sailor) (2021-09-13) • Maria Pinto (fashion designer) (2012-03-08) • Pioneer Zephyr (2005-02-28) • Wally Pipp (2014-04-25) • Bill Plante (2022-10-25) • Pleasant Home (2007-06-03) • Andrea Polli (2014-02-08) • Irving Kane Pond (2010-03-16) • Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams (2010-09-30) • Ed Posner (2015-09-08) • William J. Powell (2013-04-08) • Toni Preckwinkle (2007-11-15) • Ernest B. Price (2007-11-28) • 1922 Princeton vs. Chicago football game (2015-06-28) • LeRoy Prinz (2014-03-02) • Earl H. Pritchard (2007-11-16) • Rhoda Pritzker (2008-01-20) • Project Exploration (2010-01-28) • Promontory Apartments (2013-11-05) • Pui Tak Center (2009-02-21) • Pullman National Historical Park (2015-04-30) • Purple Hotel (2013-09-06) • William Quesse (2007-10-08) • Joe Quest (2014-08-24) • Elaine Quijano (2010-09-01) • Finners Quinlan (2011-11-02) • José Quintana (2012-05-21) • R.S. Owens & Company (2014-03-03) • Gary Rader (2011-03-21) • William A. Radford (2021-04-27) • Rainbow/PUSH (2007-09-10) • Estelle Ramey (2014-01-05) • Megan Rapinoe (2014-03-11) • Lee Ratner (2015-05-19) • Conyers Read (2013-07-04) • Andrew Rebori (2008-09-28) • Harriet F. Rees House (2014-12-19) • Birdie Reeve Kay (2007-11-07) • Leonard Reiffel (2011-10-07) • Jerry Reinsdorf (2008-10-12) • Lukas Reiter (2013-03-03) • Heinie Reitz (2006-11-30) • Lou Reizner (2010-02-25) • Jerry Reuss (2006-03-13) • William Revelli (2008-02-02) • Mary Jane Richardson Jones (2021-01-27) • Donald Richberg (2009-04-29) • Jennifer Richeson (2015-06-07) • Ruth Riley (2005-09-06) • Sidney Riesenberg (2013-11-11) • Garland Rivers (2007-12-10) • Skel Roach (2011-03-30) • Roanoke Building (2008-04-06) • Terry Robbins (2007-11-22) • Eben Ezra Roberts (2007-06-21) • Charles E. Roberts Stable (2007-06-19) • Adah Robinson (2014-12-13) • Jeff Robinson (relief pitcher) (2008-02-23) • John Robinson (aviator) (2014-08-29) • Frieda Robscheit-Robbins (2014-03-19) • Doug Roby (2008-02-13) • Gene Rock (2010-10-10) • John W. Rogers Jr. (2007-12-22) • Grace Rohrer (2013-01-16) • Tony Romano (ice hockey) (2009-08-02) • George Ronan (2013-02-08) • Anna Curtenius Roosevelt (2013-01-23) • Roosevelt station (CTA Douglas branch) (2023-01-10) • Roseland Christian School (2007-05-03) • Anne Rosellini (2015-02-18) • Romy Rosemont (2011-02-15) • Ellen Rosenblum (2012-06-30) • William Rosenwald (2008-12-15) • Arnold Ross (2013-09-28) • Gunther E. Rothenberg (2010-06-06) • Rouse Simmons (2007-01-18) • Red Ruffing (2013-10-03) • Rush Street (Chicago) (2007-09-17) • James Russell (baseball) (2011-04-28) • Lawrence Sabatini (2020-05-15) • Naomi Sager (2015-03-16) • Edith S. Sampson (2006-07-07) • Norbert M. Samuelson (2011-05-19) • Nelson Santovenia (2009-02-07) • Tanya Saracho (2019-03-08) • Sauganash Hotel (2010-07-29) • Scarface (1932 film) (2018-08-21) • Will Schaefer (2007-07-11) • William Donald Scherzer (2015-11-04) • Schiller Woods magic water pump (2022-09-01) • Nick Schmaltz (2022-05-03) • Ed Schock (2009-02-21) • Schoenhofen Pyramid Mausoleum (2011-10-31) • Adolph Schoeninger (2021-12-31) • Michael Schofield (American football) (2014-06-13) • O'Brien Schofield (2010-01-29) • Eric Schopler (2006-07-18) • Ron Schueler (2008-08-29) • Arthur Schultz (2008-12-15) • Schulze Baking Company Plant (2009-01-11) • David Schuman (2011-04-21) • Peter Schutz (2009-02-28) • Schwa (restaurant) (2009-12-07) • Elmer Schwartz (2013-02-22) • Neena Schwartz (2015-06-21) • Frank H. Schwarz (2009-10-29) • Milt Scott (2014-07-12) • Scoville Square (2013-09-12) • Steve Scully (2011-05-14) • Second Generation (advertisement) (2011-11-20) • Nadrian Seeman (2010-06-14) • Jeff Seidel (2015-07-10) • Melissa Seidemann (2012-08-17) • George Sellery (2013-11-15) • Dick Selma (2008-01-10) • Marjorie Senechal (2013-07-21) • Frances Senska (2011-10-27) • September Morn (2014-10-02) • Aarti Sequeira (2010-08-27) • Robert Seyfarth (scientist) (2019-01-13) • Orator Shafer (2011-09-05) • Shake It Up (American TV series) (2010-11-16) • Shakespeare Garden (Evanston, Illinois) (2012-11-12) • Howie Shanks (2022-10-10) • Myrna Sharlow (2010-11-05) • Cornelius Shea (2007-12-24) • Irwin Sherman (2015-01-08) • Roger Sherman (American football) (2010-04-19) • Sakaye Shigekawa (2015-09-16) • Randy Shilts (2007-01-03) • Fritz Shiverick (2009-11-24) • Showmen's Rest (2005-05-09) • Laurens Shull (2009-06-22) • Robert Sickinger (2017-12-05) • Georgiana Simpson (2016-02-28) • Mark Simpson (soccer) (2009-04-29) • Josh Sims (lacrosse) (2010-09-03) • Sister Jean (2018-05-24) • Jim Siwy (2019-01-08) • Sixteen (restaurant) (2009-08-18) • Skip-stop on the Chicago ""L"" (2022-03-16) • Sky Ride (2006-01-03) • Sky Trek Tower (2022-11-29) • Howard Smit (2009-08-19) • Al Smith (basketball) (2008-12-22) • Bruce D. Smith (2014-12-02) • Cyril Stanley Smith (2015-04-11) • D'Anthony Smith (2009-08-19) • Faith Smith (2020-12-17) • Frank Smith (1900s pitcher) (2010-12-13) • George W. Smith House (Oak Park, Illinois) (2007-06-09) • Kay Smith (artist) (2013-10-30) • William Sooy Smith (2007-07-13) • Ted Snyder (economist) (2007-09-14) • Society for Human Rights (2009-09-05) • Alan Solow (2010-01-05) • Esther Somerfeld-Ziskind (2015-12-17) • George Sopkin (2008-11-11) • Steve Souchock (2008-10-06) • South Side, Chicago (2007-08-14) • South Side Elevated Railroad (2008-01-03) • Jack Souther (2014-06-29) • Southside with You (2015-08-04) • Frederick A. Speik (2010-04-29) • Spider-Man 2 (2021-01-22) • William A. Spinks (2007-03-02) • Spirit Fruit Society (2011-04-16) • Joel Spitzer (2010-05-31) • Tam Spiva (2008-10-13) • SpotHero (2015-02-02) • Laura Spurr (2010-03-18) • Square Roots (2012-09-17) • Gigliola Staffilani (2015-01-13) • Charles A. Stafford (2008-02-21) • Amos Alonzo Stagg Jr. (2010-11-10) • Paul Stagg (2010-11-10) • Fred Stanfield (2014-06-10) • Barney Stanley (2010-07-10) • Starks Building (2007-06-15) • Statue of Michael Jordan (2011-09-12) • Herb Steger (2010-04-07) • Bill Stein (2010-12-03) • Burton Stein (2007-11-22) • Harry Steinfeldt (2012-09-27) • Ruth Ann Steinhagen (2012-08-11) • Jake Stenzel (2011-10-04) • Donald Stephens (2007-04-24) • Riggs Stephenson (2006-12-29) • Sean Stephenson (2011-08-16) • Herbert Jay Stern (2008-02-06, 2008-02-07) • Marti Stevens (educator) (2016-04-11) • Allan H. Stevenson (2009-10-27) • Anthony Stewart (ice hockey) (2011-06-25) • Art Stewart (2008-08-12) • Jack Stewart (ice hockey) (2011-08-16) • Gaylord Stinchcomb (2009-09-05) • Mike Stock (American football) (2010-05-05) • Flukey Stokes (2013-06-08) • Bernard Stone (2015-08-30) • Streeterville (2008-07-11) • Tai Streets (2009-12-13) • Elmer Stricklett (2011-12-08) • Matt Striebel (2010-09-04) • Otto Struve (2010-06-03) • Peter Stuart (2012-11-11) • Katherine Sturges Dodge (2015-05-04) • Sue (dinosaur) (2007-04-17) • Al Suomi (2007-12-31) • Super Maxx (2009-11-18) • Sy Sutcliffe (2014-07-13) • Gary Suter (2013-02-12) • Harry Suter (2011-10-23) • Will Sutton (2012-12-14) • Phillip Swagel (2014-01-25) • Frederick Swann (2021-01-20) • Gloria Swanson (2020-10-20) • Ed Sweeney (baseball) (2021-05-15) • Albert Swinden (2013-06-06) • Alfred Szklarski (2008-07-05) • Joseph Takahashi (2009-05-06) • William Wilson Talcott (2010-12-04) • Thomas W. Talley (2015-03-11) • Chelso Tamagno (2013-09-08) • Paul Tangora (2009-07-25) • Don Taxay (2012-04-30) • Linda Taylor (2014-01-20) • Emily Temple-Wood (2016-04-23) • Rini Templeton (2005-12-12) • John K. Tener (2009-03-09) • Wally Teninga (2010-01-03) • Therefore Repent! (2008-07-14) • Charles Thom (2012-03-13) • Barbara Thoman Curtis (2016-10-14) • Malcolm Thomas (basketball, born 1988) (2011-12-26) • Owen Thomas (writer) (2008-10-11) • James Thompson (surveyor) (2020-02-03) • Thompson–Starrett Company (2012-10-11) • Tiny Thompson (2008-08-31) • William V. Thompson (2017-01-12) • Robert J. Thorne (2007-12-12) • Thorne miniature rooms (2018-11-24) • Tiffany Building (San Francisco) (2011-12-19) • Tiffany Chapel (2011-01-31) • Time Crash (band) (2015-05-11) • Timothy Christian School (Illinois) (2007-08-09) • Joe Tinker (2013-05-20) • Gaynell Tinsley (2009-07-25) • Jerry Toppazzini (2009-11-15) • Torpedo...Los! (2012-05-23) • Jack Torrance (athlete) (2013-06-23) • Chad Tracy (baseball, born 1985) (2012-02-28) • Jane Trahey (2015-03-09) • Tranquility Bass (2014-07-25) • Richard D. Trentlage (2016-10-18) • Tribune East Tower (2018-09-09) • Triggermen (2012-04-26) • Victor Tsao (2016-04-25) • Tsien Tsuen-hsuin (2015-05-05) • Joseph H. Tucker (2012-09-12) • Thurman Tucker (2007-05-13) • Melvin Tumin (2012-10-21) • William Tuohy (2007-08-16) • Evan Turner (2009-03-24) • U.S. Route 66 in Illinois (2007-10-08) • U.S. Steel Yard (2009-10-06) • Fabian Udekwu (2013-07-02) • Tyler Ulis (2014-04-03) • Jim Umbricht (2012-04-23) • Under Armour All-America Baseball Game (2016-09-20) • United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009 (2008-12-21) • United States Zouave Cadets (2019-01-11) • University Apartments (Chicago) (2013-11-23) • University Hall (Northwestern University) (2007-07-29) • 2020 University of Illinois Hospital strikes (2021-04-06) • Zeke Upshaw (2018-05-20) • Harold Urey (2013-09-29) • Irwin Uteritz (2009-08-10) • Jack Vainisi (2018-12-02) • John S. Van Bergen (2007-05-31) • James Van Inwagen (2010-12-25) • Jim Van Pelt (2010-09-01) • Martial van Schelle (2008-04-27) • Thomas Van Scoy (2009-04-12) • John Vanderpoel (2011-12-14) • Courtney Vandersloot (2011-04-22) • John M. Van Osdel (2007-09-21) • Paul Veeder (2009-06-20) • Tony Vernon (2015-01-18) • Ernie Vick (2009-02-14) • Alejandro Villanueva (American football) (2014-06-02) • Ken Vining (2017-03-28) • Walter Vinson (2010-09-01) • Virgin Hotels Chicago (2015-01-30) • Arodys Vizcaíno (2012-02-07) • Deborah Voigt (2009-06-03) • WCLM (Chicago) (2019-08-27) • WEPS (2008-12-17) • Frank H. Wadsworth (2022-07-07) • Robert Wahl (2007-12-14) • Lena Waithe (2015-12-22) • Charlie Waitt (2008-07-21) • Marvalee Wake (2015-11-14) • Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residence Tower (2007-10-04) • Kerwin Waldroup (2011-10-24) • Mysterious Walker (2010-05-27) • Patrick D. Wall (scientist) (2008-11-24) • Ed Walsh Jr. (2008-04-18) • Walter E. Smithe (2008-06-28) • Edward Kirk Warren (2014-01-07) • Carleton Washburne (2014-01-31) • Washington Block (2008-08-05) • Washington Park Court District (2009-01-10) • Washington Park Subdivision (2009-01-09) • List of Washington Wizards head coaches (2008-12-01) • Watch Dogs (video game) (2012-06-21) • Anthony Watson (basketball) (2014-07-01) • Albert Wattenberg (2015-12-22) • Weber Inc. (2008-04-01) • Marisa Wegrzyn (2009-12-08) • Alvin M. Weinberg (2014-10-10) • Tom Weisner (2008-12-12) • Matthew E. Welsh (2009-08-21) • West Argyle Street Historic District (2010-08-11) • James West (physician) (2012-09-01) • Matthew West (2008-07-02) • Raymond B. West (2009-10-08) • Edward Weston (2010-06-28) • Jerrold Wexler (2007-11-13) • WGBO-DT (2022-09-05) • Golden ""Big"" Wheeler (2010-05-28) • C. Ferris White (2012-08-06) • White City (Chicago) (2008-12-11) • Peter White (Michigan politician) (2010-12-13) • Larry Whiteside (2007-06-21) • Robert V. Whitlow (2010-08-03) • Peter Bonnett Wight (2010-01-25) • Wigwam (Chicago) (2007-04-02) • William H. Wilbur (2007-10-10) • Milt Wilcox (2022-09-10) • Hoyt Wilhelm (2015-02-14) • Jonathan Wilhite (2009-06-17) • William W. Powers State Recreation Area (2007-07-17) • Brock Williams (2009-05-29) • Kenny Williams (basketball, born 1972) (2023-03-21) • Otto Williams (2009-10-13) • Pop Williams (2010-08-19) • Scott Williamson (2009-06-19) • George Wilson (American football coach) (2017-04-11) • George Wilson (quarterback) (2017-04-11) • John J. B. Wilson (2009-05-12) • Winnetka School District 36 (2009-07-07) • Wintrust Arena (2013-10-28) • Kettle Wirts (2010-06-06) • Al Wistert (2007-11-10) • Alvin Wistert (2007-11-11) • Whitey Wistert (2007-11-10) • Max Wiznitzer (2013-11-01) • Greg Wohlwend (2014-07-22) • Arnold Jacob Wolf (2009-01-04) • Wolf Point, Chicago (2010-07-24) • Wolf Point South Tower (2014-03-21) • Ernest O. Wollan (2014-03-02) • Harry Wolverton (2012-10-18) • Wonut (2016-10-30) • James N. Wood (2010-06-28) • Leona Woods (2013-04-22) • Francis J. Woolley House (2007-07-01) • John Lloyd Wright (2013-08-15) • Wrigley Field ivy (2017-04-11) • Wrigley Square (2008-06-06) • WSNS-TV (2022-09-07) • Felix Wurman (2010-01-12) • Harrison P. Young House (2007-07-02) • Hoylande Young (2014-10-14) • John Young (first baseman) (2013-06-27) • Florian ZaBach (2007-09-15) • Rod Zaine (2022-07-28) • Mayer Zald (2012-09-09) • Dom Zanni (2008-05-15) • Jerry Ziesmer (2008-11-26) • Ziggy (elephant) (2008-08-10) • Zoka Zola (2015-11-20) Total pages in content type is 1441 === Good topics === Timothy Blackstone • Washington Park, Chicago Total pages in content type is 2 === Valued pictures === Those looking for articles to nominate as good and featured articles may want to look at Chicago articles by size. Here are some open WikiProject Chicago tasks: Help edit a Chicago-related article that has been marked as needing urgent attention or needing an infobox Add other Wikiproject's categories and banners to appropriate Chicago-related articles Add the restored Category:Films shot in Chicago to all the films listed on this City of Chicago web page. Add citations to people on the List of people from Chicago and /Unreferenced BLPs. Feeling bold? Remove people that aren't from Chicago! === Under-represented topics === Please put topics you think could use improvement below: Neighborhoods in Chicago - see talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#Neighborhoods Amateur Sports Leagues in Chicago Economy of Chicago Businesses in Chicago Chicago Accent Health care in Chicago Medical schools Professional organizations History of Chicago Chicago Prostitute War of 1857 Metra Stations Shakman Decrees Smart Museum of Art - also made a request in the Museums WikiProject Vautravers building - 947-949 W. Newport Ave === Photograph requests === Ogden International School East Campus: 24 W. WALTON ST., CHICAGO, IL 60610 West Campus: 1250 W. ERIE ST., CHICAGO, IL 60642 Consulate General of Thailand in Chicago - 700 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL United Airlines Operations Center and former headquarters at 1200 East Algonquin Road, Elk Grove Township Francis George - Cardinal archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, Sears Holding Corporation headquarters - 3333 Beverly Road Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 Walgreens headquarters - 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015 Sara Lee headquarters - 3500 Lacey Road Downers Grove, IL 60515-5424 Headquarters of the Chicago Shimpo, 2045 S. Arlington Heights Rd., Suite 108C Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Chicago Futabakai Japanese School - 2550 Arlington Heights Rd.　Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Emerson Middle School (Former Chicago Futabakai Japanese School) - 8101 Cumberland Ave., Niles, IL Arie Crown Hebrew Day School (Former Chicago Futabakai Japanese School) - 4600 Main St., Skokie, IL South Side Community Art Center - Bronzeville, Chicago Irish American Heritage Center - Irving Park, Chicago John Crerar Library - Hyde Park, Chicago Wrigley Field renovations – Lake View, Chicago List of diplomatic missions and trade organizations in Chicago images section - most buildings are on or near Michigan Ave. Assyrian American Association, 1618 West Devon Avenue Assyrian Pentecostal Church, 1748 West Devon Avenue Headquarters of/Sede de en:American Dental Association - 211 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611-2678 Former headquarters of the Chicago Shimpo/ 「シカゴ新報」旧本社, 4670 N Manor St, Chicago, IL Jewish facility with Korean writing, 4900 block of North Kimball Avenue (3400 W.) in Albany Park area (Cutler p. 196) Seoul Drive sign and area at 4800 N. Lawrence Avenue - See if you can get photo of Korean restaurants/Businesses in picture (Are Seo Hae Restaurant and the Korean newspaper vending machines still there?) Korean businesses at 3300 West Lawrence Avenue (4800 N.) Vietnamese area at Argyle Avenue (5000 N.) in Uptown Chicago Headquarters of Jewel-Osco - 150 Pierce, Itasca, IL 60143 Headquarters of Dominick's - 711 Jorie Boulevard, Oak Brook IL Jel Sert headquarters: Route 59 & Conde Street West Chicago, IL 60185 Vautravers building - 947-949 W. Newport Ave === Backlogs === WikiProject Chicago currently has several severe backlogs related to assessment of article quality and importance. See current discussion details at: WikiProject Chicago/Review. Although no discussion is ongoing, it is worth noting the project's unclear notability articles. === Article alerts === === DRV === === WP:CHICOTW === === Mergers === Member signup and renewal can be found at: WikiProject Chicago/members. === Project === Use {{WikiProject Chicago}} on talk pages of topics that are, or should be, a part of the project. Please see the assessment department for further instructions: === Member === BannerCopy and paste {{ChicagoWikiProject-Member}} within your user page to identify that you are a member of WikiProject Chicago: UserboxesIf you'd like a userbox: Wikipedia adUse {{Wikipedia ads|ad=219}} to add an advertisement for this Project to your page. (Please don't put these ads anywhere other than userspace.) === Barnstar === You can find this barnstar and many others at WP:WPPA, where it is listed for use with the following syntax: {{subst:ChicagoBarnstar|message ~~~~}}. === Navboxes === === Stub === For pages that aren't complete, copy and paste {{Chicago-stub}} at the end of article pages that need expansion: See: ""How to mark an article as a stub"" for information about when, where within an article, and the protocol to follow when articles overlap several stub categories. === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page Some of the verifiable sources on Chicago that we have found are: Chicago at Curlie Chicago Historical Society - Names and numbers of all Chicago streets - Every past and present street in Chicago, with etymologies for most Chicago Public Library - Popular Topics Chicago Public Schools: At-a-glance City of Chicago - official website EarlyChicago - A collection of entries on the early history of Chicago The Encyclopedia of Chicago - very good, few errors Gapers Block - Chicago news and history, carefully edited The University of Illinois at Chicago's Imagebase - Historical images and even more text WTTW's Chicago Stories Pritzker Military Museum & Library for military topics related to Chicago & Illinois; online catalog and digital collections are free to search; some of the programming in the ""What's On"" section of the website is restricted to members Chicago Reader article archive Chicago Tribune archive" 342 346 752 WP:OTTER Wikipedia:WikiOtter 342 "WikiOtters are elusive creatures whose chief characteristic is a willingness to help other users out by editing or simply being friendly. Although the WikiOtter is a benevolent type of WikiFauna, it is a member of the weasel family and will readily challenge much more ""important"" editors, as well as opposing WikiVampires. For example, they are fierce fighters against anyone who picks on a newcomer. WikiOtters also have a tendency to lighten the encyclopedia with harmless play, humor, and a total respect for WP:Ignore all rules. The WikiOtter has been most recently evaluated using the IUCN 3.1 guidelines as extinct in the wild, based on a recent survey performed by the Department of Fun. The last WikiOtter was believed to have died in 2012, until three new specimens were spotted and tagged in 2013. In recent years, the Department of Fun has made an effort to stimulate the wild population of WikiOtters by promoting overall awareness of them. The ""This User Wants a WikiOtter"" campaign, which makes use of {{User wikipedia/wantOtter}} signs, proved for a short time to be a successful one for promoting the needed awareness. A wildlife reservation has been set up in the last few years for the primary purpose of preserving the WikiOtter and another critically endangered species, the WikiDragon. Due to the low production rate of WikiOtters, there are only 8 otters. Currently, there is a spike in inactivity in the species though the population has been growing. Because they are not opposed to challenging veteran editors, WikiOtters can find themselves surrounded by other editors in a corner. If you see a WikiOtter in a corner for standing up to justice, make sure to stand up for it. A WikiOtter license is required for legal possession of WikiOtters. One may apply for such a license by filling out a copy of the {{User wikipedia/Otter}} form. A completed form is shown to the left. Recently however, not many would like to apply for ownership, one of the causes of the species becoming extinct. Because WikiOtters tend to look strikingly similar to other members of the Lutra genus, perhaps the best way to identify a WikiOtter is by looking for the tag shown here. Another tag (no image available) is the {{Wikipedia:WikiOtter/topicon}} tag. This tag is smaller but is somehow easier to spot at a distance. WikiOtter tagging has become a common method for tracking the species as conservationists attempt to bring back the species. As of March 2022, there are 57 known specimens of the species, a rise from the 7 in May 2021. Wikipedia:Teahouse – a place where WikiOtters can sometimes be found helping new editors" 343 347 753 WP:SPEECH Wikipedia:Free speech 343 "The ""right to free speech"" has been cited on Wikipedia in response to sanctions against editors such as blocks and bans, as well as speedy deletions and editing restrictions imposed by administrators or the Arbitration Committee. Although the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered (and some Wikipedia servers are located) in the United States, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prevent Wikipedia from exercising editorial discretion. The First Amendment only forbids the US Government from censoring freedom of expression; it does not stop a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how.In sum, in the United States you have the legal right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no ""right"" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write‍—‌even if it's ""The Truth"". There are some cases in which Wikipedia's editorial discretion is limited by the law, as when court decisions define a boundary between copyright violations and fair use. Editors may argue that Wikipedia's freedom of speech is violated when Wikipedia is forced to comply with these laws, but the appropriate venue for lodging these complaints is the political process. Whilst Wikipedia is free-and-open, that freedom is limited in circumstances that conflict with building an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an anarchy or a personal blog or webhost. The text of the First Amendment states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The most relevant clause of that Amendment to the matter at hand is ""Congress shall make no law."" Wikipedia is a private website, hosted by the privately incorporated Wikimedia Foundation and governed solely by the Board of Trustees of that Foundation. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, is free to establish its own policies and practices regarding who may edit here, and is not subject to regulation by the governments of the United States or the States of Florida and California in this respect. As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason. In practice, the power to block an editor is delegated to the administrators, chosen by the community. This is not to say that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to extensively exercise that legal right, if it can be avoided. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributors, and is dedicated to assuming good faith with those here to contribute constructively and assist in helping expand access to the sum of human knowledge. There are policies, like the blocking policy and the arbitration policy, that have been adopted by the Wikipedia community to govern matters related to restricting user privileges, but these policies are subject to change. These policies also cannot, do not, and must not be construed by anyone as establishing any right or expectation that is legally enforceable, as the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the legal right to change them at any time for any reason whatsoever, whether with consensus, or without consensus, so as to further its mission, to prevent the Foundation or its projects from being brought into disrepute – or for any reason it sees fit – or even for the reason that it ""feels like it"". In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are: your right to fork (create another encyclopaedia independent of the Wikimedia Foundation) your right to leave (stop editing) your copyright to your contributions to Wikipedia (which are also automatically released under one or several liberal licenses, which require that anyone who uses your work give you credit for it).This being said, we're not trying to be jerks. Nor do we plan on being jerks. We do hope that you stay, and help us to build a better Wikipedia. There's lots of work to be done, and everyone who's willing to contribute constructively is needed. Including you. Please note: Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law. Please see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. WP:Censorship issue WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech WP:NOT Wikipedia is not anarchy (Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech) Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia is not a democracy Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a forum m:Power structure ""Free Speech"" xkcd webcomic, making the same point as this essay in six panels. Also consider the mouseover text." 344 348 756 WP:CRIN Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability 344 "This is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines.WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of cricket people, men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: has appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. has appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 (women) or 1 January 2019 (men) in either a T20 World Cup (men or women) or Global Qualifier (men or women). has appeared prior to 2005 as a player in an ICC Trophy final, or has appeared since 2005 in at least one match in any of the ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier and ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier competitions. has appeared as an umpire on the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires or meets another point of WP:NCRIC.Certain competitions and matches aren't deemed to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. A full list of them can be found here. Players and umpires that have played in or officiated in other first-class, List A, T20 and T20I matches and competitions that are deemed not likely to lead to presumed notability for those participating may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion. === Highest International and Domestic Levels === The ""highest international or domestic level"" qualification includes any player (both men and women) who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; in a One Day International since 1971; in a Twenty20 International between 2005–2019 (men) or between 2005–June 2018 (women); in a Twenty20 International for an Associate team after 1 January 2019 (men) or 1 July 2018 (women) in either a T20 World Cup (men or women) or Global Qualifier (men or women); or in any senior domestic competition as listed in this list. ==== Full Member Status & Associate teams ==== The following nations have Full member status for both men and women: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe. Full member nations are those that play matches that have Test cricket status and are also automatically qualified for One-Day International and Twenty20 International status. Associate members are those countries that are firmly established and organised, but don't qualify for full member status. There are 92 Associate members and a list of them can be found here. As of 1 July 2018 in the women's game and 1 January 2019 in the men's game all associate nations have Twenty20 International status. Some Associate members also have One-Day International status, awarded due to good performance in the World Cricket League. The Associate members with ODI status are: Namibia (awarded 2019), Nepal (2018), Netherlands (2018), Oman (2019), Papua New Guinea (2019), Scotland (2018), United Arab Emirates (2018) and the United States (2019). ==== Domestic cricket ==== Senior domestic first-class, List A and Twenty20 competitions that are deemed likely to lead to presumed notability for men's and women's cricketers can be found here. These are competitions deemed to have been played at the highest domestic level. Senior individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be important, especially if historically significant, by secondary sources. The term first-class cricket can be confusing. It was formally defined in 1947 as: A match of three or more days' duration between two sides of eleven players officially adjudged first-class, shall be regarded as a first-class fixture. Matches in which either team have more than eleven players or which are scheduled for less than three days shall not be regarded as first-class. The Governing body in each country shall decide the status of teams. Certain matches before the formal definition are also classified as first-class matches, but discretion on matches before 1947 being first-class matches was given to the governing bodies of each specific country that's a member of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The categorisation of matches as List A matches wasn't officially endorsed by the ICC until 2006, but again like first-class cricket discretion on determining match classification for historical matches was given to the governing bodies of each specific country. The first List A match is now accepted to have occurred in 1963. Twenty20 cricket was classified in 2003 at the beginning of the format and there has been no problems with classification of historic matches because of this. === Non-playing figures === Non-players who have made a notable contribution to cricket can have articles if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG. These include umpires, patrons, benefactors, administrators, coaches, writers, broadcasters, historians and so on. With these, it is important to ensure that the article's introduction outlines the person's notability in terms of his or her contribution to the sport. Non-players must have earned notability in their own right. They are not notable if they are only a member of a club or if the club is notable === Clubs, individual matches, teams, tours and venues === All clubs and teams taking part in senior cricket matches are automatically qualified under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG; as are venues used in such matches. Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at senior level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class, List A matches or Twenty20 matches. WP:CRIC has decided that: for Great Britain, those clubs that have competed in the Minor Counties Cricket Championship or are included in the List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire Cricket League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues. for Australia, clubs that have played at Grade cricket level—the highest level below the state representative team—meet notability requirements. These are the actual clubs to which Australian international players belong. State and national teams are representative selections. for Ireland, those clubs that are competing or have competed in the top division of one of the three provincial leagues: the Leinster Senior League, the NCU Senior League or the North West Senior League.Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature which themselves ensure notability. Tours - not sure what to do here. === General === Finally, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article, talk page or AfD page. The article itself must document notability, and preferably in the lead. For example, the introductory text of a biography must make clear that the subject is an important, first-class or List A cricketer. It is also recommended, but in no way compulsory, that articles include references to more than database sources such as CricketArchive or ESPNcricinfo. This will help greatly in understanding the WP:V of an article. Following on from the above, all clubs and teams taking part in senior cricket matches are automatically qualified under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG; as are venues used in such matches. Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at senior level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class or List A matches. ""Minor cricket"" is a specific term in the sport that does not necessarily imply a lack of notability; in parallel with sports like association football and baseball, many cricket clubs in ""minor leagues"" are professionally run and do employ professional players. It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure. WP:CRIC has decided that: for Great Britain, those clubs that have competed in the Minor Counties Cricket Championship or are included in the List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire Cricket League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues. for Australia, clubs that have played at Grade cricket level—the highest level below the state representative team—meet notability requirements. These are the actual clubs to which Australian international players belong. State and national teams are representative selections. for Ireland, those clubs that are competing or have competed in the top division of one of the three provincial leagues: the Leinster Senior League, the NCU Senior League or the North West Senior League.Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature which themselves ensure notability. Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion. Finally, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a person's importance on a talk page or AfD page: the article itself must document notability, and preferably in the lead. For example, the introductory text of a biography must make clear that the subject is an important, first-class or List A cricketer. N.B.: Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms." 345 349 757 WP:GOD Wikipedia:God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry? 345 "This discussion originally appeared at WP:ANI. Can the bible even be considered a reliable source? Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Interesting question. Since it's claimed to be the Word of God, I'd imagine we'd have to treat it as a self-published source. ;-) -- ChrisO 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Meaning God would have to be a well-known researcher in a relevant field. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) But should we block God if he edits the article on himself? Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) We should certainly block Jesus as a sockpuppet! -- ChrisO 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Not a sockpuppet, just another aspect of the main account. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Given the large number of Sockpuppets and aspects of the main account that are female, and the sons of God and all the various pantheons of gods and goddesses, nymphs, dryads, water sprites and kings who deified themselves, isn't there some way we could avoid the view that God is always personified as a single male deity?Despite the illustration showing quite a crowd of gods and goddesses and angels roaming around up there in the clouds giving eachother the finger, it seems like the omnipotence is a myth because everything always gets screwed up reverted back to square 1.Rktect 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) This is the funniest thing I've ever read. JuJube 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't the omnipotence thing entail admin powers? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Hrm, good point. Maybe that would be the first ruling by the ArbCom to deomnipotence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) I'm holding out for the devs to add a ""smite user"" function to my editing panel. -- ChrisO 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) The omniscience would mean he'd have a problem with verifiability, not truth. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Only if they violate the NPOV policy, on that note, could God declare all of creation CC-SA? That would make all other media a derivative work that falls under the same license. Until(1 == 2) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) God is a terrible editor and should be blocked, I've asked him for sources multiple times but he just keeps saying ""but I was there, I saw it!"" - he just doesn't get core policy and seem to have no willingness to learn it. He also has a tendency to make personal attacks and threaten to turn me to a pillar of salt the last time I asked him for a source - besides the Jesus meatpuppet, I think he also operates a sock account called theholyghost. --Fredrick day 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)This is all in good fun of course. But I wonder what would happen if we made the same jokes abbout Mohammed. Snakesouls 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) *yawn* Another thread on Jay? Will (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC Based on this discussion and a thorough review of His contrib history, it seems that God has just about ""exhausted the patience of the community"". While I'm reluctant to take action against a user with such a long history, I think it's reasonable to consider an indef-block at this time. Doc Tropics 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) If Jayjg is so biased, why does he have the mop, checkuser, and oversight privileges? And why did Jimbo directly appoint him to the Arbcom? Will (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Umm, Doc was talking about God, not Jayjg. Though I know some people have difficulties in telling them apart... -- ChrisO 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, I'd much rather consider action against God than Jay...I know which one is likelier to smite me : ) Doc Tropics 17:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Wow Fred, you must know a different god than I do, the one I know is really relaxed, and does not exhibit human failings like wrath. Until(1 == 2) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)since there are more than 3,000 Gods worshipped by humans - I daresay that's the case. --Fredrick day 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Hey now, watch it. Remember, the Biographies of Living Deities policy applies here too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) You might want to check it out but someone's been pushing to have the {{blp}} tag applied to the Talk:Jesus page. Seriously! - Alison ? 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) I think we'd need a reliable source to confirm that he's still alive. Has he written anything lately, has he been on TV? -- ChrisO 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) He's been talked about on TV all the time & I know one or two folks who claim to have been in contact. I don't think secondary sources will do here. My only concern is that he or his Father may try to sue the WMF for defamation or something and, given he's apparently got quite a few followers out there, that could be tragic - Alison ? 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Alison, I initially thought you were joking there...yeeeeeeesh. Though AMiB's edit summary is about priceless here. [1] Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) I can't believe you guys are already talking about banning God. You all suffer from a severe lack of WP:AGF. Personally, I think he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, even if his contributions in the short term are hard to appreciate. I vote for a warning as of now, with gradual short 1000 year blocks as necessary. If he doesn't improve in a few more eons, then we can raise this matter at CSN. nadav (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)I wonder if Rktect has found this response helpful? Until(1 == 2) 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) My thought would be ""no"". 'Nuff lulz, people... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)His ""problem"" was answered in the second post - what more needs to be said? --Fredrick day 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Well, nothing needs to be said, but some things must be said! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)People, people, really. Unlike the Koran, large chunks of the Bible are categorically not supposed to be the literal word of God, so the Bible is hardly a self-published source: hence, if and when Our Lord edits The Bible, He will not be violating WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Moreschi Talk 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Apart from the Ten Commandments section, or indeed article... (or does that fall under WP:LIST?) LessHeard vanU 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Not to worry: God (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Allah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have already been blocked. I'd watch for socks though, especially considering that a second coming has been threatened for about two thousand years. Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Don't be naive. We've already agreed that he's a multiple sockpuppeteer and his meatpuppets have been all over this website. It wouldn't be hard to summon diffs of offline collusion. DurovaCharge! 04:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) We ought to be more thorough about blocking these sockpuppets. Jeez...I mean golly... erm... DurovaCharge! 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Tsk, tsk, tsk, Durova. Don't you hope to keep Me banned. You have no idea how many potential account names I have - these are only the ones I have cared to reveal yet! And don't underestimate the number and force of my meatpuppets either (Dan. 7:10). Moreover, I can easily edit through any number of proxies in all nations of the world. So, before you risk Our displeasure, won't you prefer to compromise with Us? -- That said, I appreciate you guys giving My featured content such a nice prominent placement the other day. Al Quddus 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)99 Names? Bah. Once you've dealt with User:JB196, seems like a piker to me.. SirFozzie 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Man, what a pity this all gets archived in a couple of days. This entire thread deserves to be enshrined somewhere. :D Orderinchaos 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I'll archive it in WP:BJAODN... -- ChrisO 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Archived? More a case of, ""That's your Lot! Salted!""; thus becoming the sixth Pillar of Wikipedia... LessHeard vanU 12:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)God was dead on January 15, 2001. God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too... Thus spoke Zarathustra who is a real RS. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Still, we do at least have him to thank for something! (See pic on the right...) -- ChrisO 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) And Zarathustra? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Eh, not so much. Inspired a nice tune, that's about it... -- ChrisO 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) God's dead?! Dang, he was an important Wikipedian and a useful contributor. I'll put this in as a suggestion for the next Signpost. nadav (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Nadav, you may also add the fact that this is the first time Jimbo is seen nude w/ someone's hand under his butt! Whose hand is that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) That's the Cabal, ready to insert its collective hand where the sun doesn't shine and make Jimbo its sockpuppet. *evil laugh* -- ChrisO 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) God's repeated poor behaviour has clearly exhausted the community's patience. We have to be looking at an indefinite block at this point. --John 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I've already indef blocked him so I'll suppport a community ban. God is welcome to e-mail me and pledge to enter Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and I'll reduce that to a three month topic ban on religion-related topics. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)I have grave concerns, I've read plenty of Diffs on God, and he seems to have a problem with WP:NPA. His newer diffs indicate that he has learned the value of WP:BITE, however. SirFozzie 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I just declined an auto-unblock request from user:satan. The autoblock is tied to god's IP and satan is claiming it is just a coincidence. Another of his sock/meatpuppets maybye? I wonder who is the sock master here? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) It's well documented by theological experts that Satan can only act with God's permission, so in site policy terms that makes Satan a bad hand meatpuppet of God. Good call, Chris. God will have to address this when he e-mails me. I also expect him to do something about his WP:MPOV before I'll lift the ban. He may be in charge of the universe, but until he understands that he doesn't run Wikipedia he isn't welcome here. DurovaCharge! 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Has anybody considered blocking the underlying IP range of 666.666.xxx.xxx/16 and 777.777.xxx.xxx/16 to prevent socks from using IP's to avoid the ban? I would reccomend a 666.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 and 777.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 but as I understand it mediawiki limits range blocks to the /16 range. Any ideas on the collateral damage for such a large range block ;). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Collateral damage depends on how many angels can dance on the head of a pinSirFozzie 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) If they're angels then they have serious WP:COI and we ought to discuss possible WP:MEAT. Should we presume they're dancing on the keyboard as a condition of employment for God and are therefore compelled to advance the official company line in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV? DurovaCharge! 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC) If that is the case, then there would be no technical collateral damage for such a large rangeblock and we should just block the 777.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 and 666.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 to get rid of all the bad eggs?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Just be thankful your trying to deal with the en-Wiki Supreme Being (no, the other one!), and not the Indian Parthenon at In-Wiki :- have you any idea how fast Kali can create sockpuppets? LessHeard vanU 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Does anyone remember participating in consensus building for the universe? I'd say that we might have a good case for blanking under WP:VAND. Certainly I have some questions about WP:OWN. Jfwambaugh 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Is there an RfC open on this at the moment? I am hearing rumours of some Judgement. LessHeard vanU 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Personally, I'd just be happy if He would provide a decent free-use image for His article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I would rather He declared all creation CC-SA, so all derivative works would be too. Until(1 == 2) 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Hornetman is going to freak when he sees this thread! - Alison ? 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) You know, I was just trying to explain this thread to my (non-wiki) partner. You try it. Harder to do than you might think. - Philippe | Talk 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Simple really. You can even do Math on it: Monday+Week with a holiday smack dab in the middle+A touch of insanity and religious irreverence (all in good fun)=Complete Craziness! SirFozzie 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Okay, trolling the ban discussion pushes this over the edge.[2] God, or whatever you call yourself today, I withdraw my unblock offer. DurovaCharge! 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Each to their own taste. I on the other hand found it to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Incidentally, why do you post inside a table? --John 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I'm offended at the fact that you are offended. JuJube 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I first posted inside a table yesterday. It was a long comment on a user's Talk page and I thought the multiple paragraphs looked messy without being unified visually by something else (a colored table cell-- I would rather have used a div colored with a CSS variable, but figuring out how to do that without disrupting monobook.js was beyond my patience at the time). I decided to use the colored cell here because I'm in a minority of like 30:1, and I didn't want the single objection in the whole thread to get lost in the sauce.... As for ""Each to their own taste"", sorry, but I've always found that sort of statement (""Everything is relative"" is another) to be a cop-out and, really, a lie to the self. Mainly, we're not talking about, say, a taste for fish here, or asking ""Stones or Beatles?"". We're talking about people using other people's most sacred conceptions with contempt, as targets of derisive humor. So it's a matter of respect for others, not a matter of taste. Then there's the matter of what these mocking people may or may not bring to the table on their own-- can they offer us anything spiritually that's even close to these traditions they mock? Can they attempt to answer The Big Questions (Is there a purpose to life?, Is there life after death?, Is there an objective ethics?, etc.,.) with anything close to the power of these traditions they mock. Plainly, no. All they have on tap is rather adolescent, rather predictable sarcasms that try to tear down something they could never have built themselves. And that's about as sad as it gets, to any taste. JDG 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)The most profound mysteries of life and death often inspire people to crack jokes. I see this in the hospital every day; at home, where Life of Brian is in heavy rotation on the DVD player; and so on. It's a fact of life. You can reasonably choose to call it disrespect, a defense mechanism, or just part of human nature. That's a matter of taste. MastCell Talk 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Hey Mast, you followin me around to make sure I'm Decorous? And, if not, you declare me a pathogen and do your thing?... Hey, I'm certainly not going to get into ""the most profound mysteries of life and death""-- but I will say it's possible to be funny about these things without being offensive. Earlier generations did a fine job at it-- watch a few old Tonight Shows with Johnny Carson and you'll inevitably see priest, minister, rabbi, swami and mullah jokes that are knee-slap funny but manage to have a whole multi-ethnic audience turning to each other and laughing, not growling as the demeaning humor here would. But it's very difficult to blame you kids. I'm 45. I'd bet the median age here is something like 25. You've been bombarded with sick shit like South Park, Austin Powers, Howard Stern, etc,., etc,. from your very cradles. But yeah, my own generation paved the way with people who got off on crossing the line: Monty Python, George Carlin, Richard Pryor etc.,. You can see the difference between decent, upright yet wildly funny people like Bill Cosby and indecent, lowdown and much less funny people like Carlin. For some reason the Carlin/Pryor/Python tradition took hold among you kids instead of the better stuff, so that's how it goes... Python was great in the beginning, but with Life of Brian they crossed over. I can't tell you how much that film depressed me when I saw its original run when I was around 18. I just knew that kind of deep hostile disrespect was going to take deep root in both the UK and US, and so it has. Now our culture, particularly its rabid consumption of porn and its love of hateful humor, instills disgust around the world. Very few things have been as painful to me in the last few years as the moment I realized freakin Bin Laden has a point here... JDG 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Heh, yes, I'm 42 and I know how awful it is when we don't find ""cutting edge"" humour funny any more. South Park is an example of that for me. On the other hand I find the humour of Life of Brian very gentle and well-observed. You can perhaps console yourself slightly that every generation has said the same thing about the younger generation going to the dogs, all the way back to the ancient Greeks at least, yet our society still hasn't collapsed. Maybe it is about our individual age rather than any deep-seated corruption of society. Notwithstanding the wise words of Mr Bin Laden. --John 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)This is the Internet. This is not a place where sacred things are beyond reproach. And you have to also understand that they're jokes. You're free to believe that they're not funny, but to judge the ones who do find them funny as ""mocking people"" and ""rather adolescent"" is being guilty of the same crime you accuse them of. JuJube 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Interesting reply. On the formatting, it certainly gets one's attention, but can you imagine what talk pages would look like if everybody did that? As far as ""using other people's most sacred conceptions with contempt, as targets of derisive humor"" goes, you have my sympathy; I feel the same way every time the Scotland team loses, which is quite often. You may find it useful, as I have, to develop a thicker skin, a sense of humour, or both. On the Big Questions, I think I find uncertainty (or ineffability) far more interesting than the pseudo-certainty of dogma, but don't expect you to agree with me there. Sometimes it's nice not to agree. --John 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It has been a long, long time since anyone referred to me as ""young""... LessHeard vanU 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)God belongs to everyone, even those that like to be funny. Until(1 == 2) 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Amusing as all this is, is it really necessary to further crowd an already crowded page with what really amounts to off-topic chatter? Exploding Boy 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I agree. Bijaowdan this whole section at the least, then get back to work and block deities as they come on, even if they call themselves St. Cuthbert or Zeus. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Oh wow, someone else above raised an objection. Now's my turn. ^_^I'm not religious and hold many sacred things with contempt. The reason I'm objecting is because the other day, I posted a section on here with a short complaint which was hijacked (not extensively) and then I was told, rather rudely, to ""take it elsewhere"". So maybe it might be best to take this elsewhere? It really doesn't belong here, just like my own complaint didn't.Do not get me wrong. I actually enjoy this thread. I think its hillarious. But maybe, just maybe, a little less hypocrisy can go a long way. Had anyone else done it, they would have been slapped with a warning. Drumpler 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)I thought Wikipedia was here to answer the great theological questions of our time... Until(1 == 2) 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Maybe, maybe not. I just think this thread is a terrible example of Wikipedia conduct. Like I said, I have no moral or theological objections. What I do object to is certain admins and editors slapping around rules and then making light and breaking their own rules. Its hypocritical. Drumpler 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)While I appreciate your complaint about this thread, that is really a content dispute and not an administrator issue, you should try dispute resolution instead of bringing it up here. Until(1 == 2) 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Well, isn't the purpose of being an admin in the first place to be an example to Wikipedia? I'm no WikiSaint myself, but there's a certain level of responsibility. Drumpler 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Not sure what policy is being violated here, looks fine to me. Until(1 == 2) 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)I was thinking WP:FORUM, but upon double checking, apparently that applies to articles. Where I am mainly concerned is how this might become a precedent for discussing various off-topic subjects on this and other pages? Drumpler 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Since the joke seems to have run it's course, can I suggest it be moved to WP:BJAODN? (I'm not saying it's a bad joke, that's what someone else titled the archive). Anynobody 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)On a related note, MediaWiki appears to be a non-believer. [3]: ""If in doubt, please verify that ""God"" exists."" On the other hand, clicking on ""exists"" reveals that there is a user called ""God"" registered. (Is that a joke?) --NetRolller 3D 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Hallelujah! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Do get a hobby JDG. I'm sure God has a sense of humour about himself so I don't think he'd mind us having a harmless joke about him. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)No way! He does mind. It's one of the ten commandments ""Don't take the Lord's name in vain."" I agree with Anynobody. --Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Assuming you are not joking, taking the lord's name in vain means speaking some variation of ""Oh my God!"" in surprise. You're not suppose to toss God's name around. No-where in the Bible does it say ""Thou shalt not have a sense of humour."" I should know, I'm a catholic. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah well, I'm a Chistian. Taking God's name in vain means using His name in bad context, including jokes, and we ARE tossing his name around by joking like this and I'm NOT joking (also capitalize ""Lord""). --Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Well I can assure you Gjaida, I don't mind, now stop trolling or I will smite you. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Fine...I quit...--Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Wise. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Are you an admin? I'm sorry I'm just so curious...--Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Sadly I am not. I did apply for the position but I was turned down. They said I was on the right track though. I'm flattered you thought I was. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Who revived this thread? He shall burn in fire and brimstone, then have his face melted by spirits. Marlith (Talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) That would be me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Well, you speak with the authority of an admin, so I assumed...But you're Catholic, you say? Aren't you even just a little bit offended of this thread (innocent question, I promise)? Anyways why was this thing even started?--Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Why thank you, I know. Yes I am Catholic and no I'm not offended. I imagine God to have a sense of humour and this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Okay...I think though, besides the whole ""taking God's name in vain"" thing, it's really not that funny anyways...just sayin'...and I'm not the only one who thinks so: Since the joke seems to have run it's course, can I suggest it be moved to WP:BJAODN? (I'm not saying it's a bad joke, that's what someone else titled the archive). Anynobody 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)I'm not religious and hold many sacred things with contempt. The reason I'm objecting is because the other day, I posted a section on here with a short complaint which was hijacked (not extensively) and then I was told, rather rudely, to ""take it elsewhere"". So maybe it might be best to take this elsewhere? It really doesn't belong here, just like my own complaint didn't.Maybe, maybe not. I just think this thread is a terrible example of Wikipedia conduct. Like I said, I have no moral or theological objections. What I do object to is certain admins and editors slapping around rules and then making light and breaking their own rules. Its hypocritical. Drumpler 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Amusing as all this is, is it really necessary to further crowd an already crowded page with what really amounts to off-topic chatter? Exploding Boy 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)See. --Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Even Admins need a laugh every now and then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Yeah but, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it... --Knowledge: Life's greatest gift, or terrible curse, how do you use it...? (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Oh don't be such a killjoy. Think how dull Wikipedia would be if we all had poker faces on all the time. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Every Wikipedian is a sock of his. CLYDE (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC) === We need to ban... === We need to ban Amun! Tutankhamen name actiually says that he is a sockpuppet of Amun! Apis Bulls are Sockpuppets of Ptah, Cats are Sockpuppets of Bastet, and Crocodiles are Sockpuppets of Sobek! Ban Ptah, Bastet, and Sobek too! We must stop this insanity! Ban 'em all! Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) By Jove, you're right! And we should block Khepri and Re as sockpuppets of Ra! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Oh, and Akhenaten is Aten's meatpuppet! [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)And Set is a meatpuppet of Apophis! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Not only do we need to block the Egyptian gods and stuff, we also need to block Wolf as a sockpuppet of the Hunters, Hunters as a sockpuppet of Artemis, Percy Jackson and Tyson as sockpuppets of Poseidon, Jason Grace as a sockpuppet of Jupiter, and Grover Underwood as a sockpuppet of the satyrs. 24.14.73.183 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ok, that's a bit far bro Ceerlpearson10 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)" 346 350 758 WP:TRACK Wikipedia:Tracking issues 346 "The following describes some benefits and techniques for monitoring, or tracking, various issues (or problems) noted about related articles, template features, report pages, etc. An issues-tracking system could be used to help prioritize major issues, to reconsider them at regular intervals when there is more time to resolve them. A simple list of major issues noted for each template, or report page, could work to re-focus efforts to improve them. So although it would be great to have an issues-tracking system, even if there had been a written list of the major issues, expanded for each template set or report page, then that could have helped remind people to keep reassessing the unresolved problems from years ago. Perhaps there could be a subpage name, such as ""Template_talk:Xxx/Issues_list"" which could contain a simple sortable table of each issue noted, with link to each talk-page/archive thread, plus date, status, suggested importance level, and extra note. Even such a simple list could be periodically reviewed, at least every 3 months, so that the above problems would not be left unresolved for 2-4 years. In each table, the ""status"" column would indicate completion, and the ""importance level"" could be increased if a problem was noted as still causing much grief months later. In the case of multiple similar templates, then a common template-talk page could be used to keep the central issues list. If each major problem had been tracked, from the outset, within an issues-tracking system, then they could have been fixed much sooner, years sooner, as in the following cases: Swiss flag icon needing 17px height: Even the related Template:CHE had the Swiss flag icon (now in over 27,300 pages) resized as 17px over 5 years ago, when some editors noticed the 20px height was too large, and other editors discussed reducing it, but the fix affects multiple templates and was dropped. The kg-to-lb fix was logged/forgotten 4 years ago: Among the top, most-used measurement conversions, kg/lb (kilograms/pounds), are in the top 5, where Template:Convert/kg is used in over 60,100 pages, inside many of the Who's-Who of major articles, compared to {{convert/cm}} in 26,825 pages. Common WP:FRS was slow for 2 years: The wp:FRS list (wp:Feedback request service) has been popular, as viewed ~30x times per day (as compared to wp:Admin with 35 pageviews per day). The prior slow speed, reformatting in 28-60 seconds, was a known issue for 2 years (since 2011), but not on a tracking list of problems to improve, until mentioned at wp:PUMPTECH and reduced to 4-second reformat, as 7x to 15x times faster.In all three cases, each issue would have remained near the very top of priorities on a list, but they were in minor or busy talk-pages, where other newer issues were getting the attention, and people were coping, such as using {{CHE}} with 17px height when the {{flag|Switzerland}} icon was too large in the 27,300 pages, or using Template:Convert/kg with a rounding parameter to override the poor default precision of 3-pound swings among 60,100 pages. So, an issues-tracking list could have fixed each issue much sooner. The distractions which eclipsed each of the 3 complex issues had occurred weekly, not daily, and all 3 could have been fixed by techniques known 3-4 years ago if reconsidered each day. Trend analysis Pareto chart" 347 351 760 WP:IBA Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising 347 "Wikipedia is a popular and unique website due to its main purpose of being a completely free online encyclopedia for anyone to view and read, but also for its main principle allowing anyone, anywhere, to edit any of its articles and content. Additionally, Wikipedia allows anyone – after creating an account and becoming confirmed – to create and start new Wikipedia articles, as well as create and edit their own user and user talk space. While this completely open forum is the main purpose behind its popularity and diverse array of articles and content, these principles also make Wikipedia an easy target for the creation of articles and pages for the purpose of advertising, spam, and promotion. These creations not only degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, but are fundamentally against Wikipedia's policy as well as its founding principle of providing quality content that is both neutral and verifiable to everyone. To easily combat the creation of blatant advertisements, any editor can tag the page for speedy deletion by adding {{db-spam}} to the top of it. Only pages that clearly constitute blatant advertising can be deleted under this process. Depending on the content, situation, and different circumstances that can occur, it can sometimes be difficult to identify and discern articles or pages that constitute blatant advertising and meet the criteria for speedy deletion – from those that are good faith attempts to write content that need to be improved, rewritten, or re-worded. The ability to properly and consistently identify pages that constitute blatant advertising require experience and knowledge of the kind of behaviors, article content, and other signs to look out for as ""giveaways"". As a recent changes patroller, this is a very important skill to understand and become proficient with. Improperly tagging articles for speedy deletion as blatant advertising not only takes times away from administrators who have to review and decline the deletions, it can also drive new editors away from Wikipedia if they believe that their time and hard work spent writing an article was simply tagged as an ""advertisement"" with a notice left on their talk page, and without any sort of offer of assistance or feedback given to them to help them learn the rules and improve their writing. Knowing the difference between blatant advertising and a good faith creation that needs improvement, as well as the proper and consistent tagging of articles and pages for speedy deletion – will keep blatant advertising off of Wikipedia, and provide opportunities for new editors to expand their skills and become long-term contributors to the project. An important part of identifying pages or articles that are blatant advertising is to understand what blatant advertising is. Blatant advertising is an article or a page that's created, worded, and designed for the sole and intentional purpose of selling or promoting an idea, product, or service. The most common advertising that you'll find when patrolling new page feeds are pages created on behalf of an organization or company and with the purpose of selling a product, good, or service that it provides. While blatant advertising is usually created on behalf of companies and organizations, they can also apply to pages about people, websites, or the service or product as well. Examples include the creation of an article or page advertising someone's domain or website, or the creation of a page about a person that advertises their skills or job experience. Advertising is not limited to only the article space. They are also frequently created on the creators' own user and user talk pages, and (occasionally) in other namespaces as well. The list below describes the different usernames, locations, page or article content, and use of wording – that is typically associated with the creation of blatant advertising. Meeting one of the signs listed below does not mean that the page constitutes advertising. However, pages or articles that unambiguously contain content or behaviors that are listed on multiple items below will guide you with using common sense and establishing the likelihood that the page is eligible to be tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. === Behalf of a company or organization === Blatant advertising on behalf of a company or organization will typically contain some or all of the following traits: It is created by an account with a username that matches the article title or the company that it is attempting to advertise on behalf of, and violates Wikipedia's username policy as a promotional username, or a username that implies shared use, or a position in a company or organization. (e.g. ""CompanyName Marketing"", ""CompanyName Relations"", or just ""CompanyName""). However, the mere fact that a page was created by an account with an apparent conflict of interest is not, by itself, sufficient to label it blatant advertising; blatant advertising will almost always exhibit at least one (usually several) of the signs listed below. Consider tagging the page with {{COI}} and warning the creator with {{uw-coi}} or {{uw-coi-username}} if such a page is not blatant advertising. It is created as a complete article that is either perfectly formatted to Wikipedia's manual of style by an inexperienced user in one edit, or is formatted consistently throughout but in a different manner or using a different style, language, or code - almost as if the user copied the entire text from somewhere else and pasted it into the edit window. It refers to the company or organization in the first-person (""We are a company based out of Chicago"", ""Our products are electronics and medical supplies"") It refers to the reader, the potential customers or clients, or its intended or desired audience in the second-person (""Acme Cleaning provides solutions that help you to manage your cleaning needs"") It describes its company principles, culture, or values in a positive or non-neutral manner. (""CompanyName believes in putting the customer first"", ""CompanyName is a friendly, local, family owned business for over 10 years"") It states or describes the company's mission regarding product quality or reliability, or a standard level of acceptable customer service (""CompanyName is an Organization that aims to provide the best electronics and medical supplies"", ""It's ranked number one in customer service for over 10 years"") It discusses the company's awards, achievements, and unique traits in a non-neutral manner and is worded persuasively so that it stands out from their competition. It clearly and unambiguously attempts to sell or promote a featured, new, flagship, or specific item or service offered by the company. It lists or mentions all of the countries or locations that they provide or ship their products or services to. It provides direct company or sales department contact information so that the reader can inquire about the advertised product or service (""Contact us at 1-800-COMPANY for sales information"") It provides an external link to the company's online store, the product's homepage, marketing info or specifications page, product purchasing order page, the feature's service or order customization page, the company sales contact page, or a page with a list of the company's authorized retailers and sellers. An inline citation is added, or an existing one is modified, creating a reference containing a title with advertising, or a URL redirecting to a website that has nothing to do with the text being cited. Trademark or registered trademark symbols repeatedly follow the company's name and/or the name of their products or services. (""CompanyName™"", ""CompanyName®"", or ""Acme CleanMaster 5000X™"") The company's name and title is repeatedly referred to and referenced as the page or article subject with its legal entity or legal status suffix included (""CompanyName, Inc."", ""CompanyName LLC"", ""CompanyName Pvt Ltd"", ""CompanyName GmbH"", or ""CompanyName Plc"") The company's name, key personnel and/or products are repeatedly emphasized by styling, including the inappropriate use of bold or italic type, external links, or capital letters. It has section and subsection headers typical of a corporate website such as ""Corporate social responsibility"", ""Mission and Values"", ""Meet our leaders"", ""Our Partners"", ""Become a member"", ""Stories and News"", ""Investor Relations"", ""Success Stories"", ""Community Outreach"", ""Get involved"", ""Contact information"" The content was copied, superficially rewritten or closely paraphrased, in whole or part, from the company's website or social media profiles. It contains a call to action (e.g. ""Like Acme on Facebook""). === Behalf of a product, item, good, or service === Blatant advertising on behalf of a product, item, good, or service offered will typically contain some or all of the following traits: It is created by an account with a username that matches the article title of the product, or a username representing the company that it is attempting to advertise the product on behalf of, and violates Wikipedia's username policy as a promotional username, or a username that implies shared use, or a position in a company or organization. (e.g. ""CompanyName Marketing"", ""CompanyName Relations"", or just ""CompanyName""). However, as noted above, this alone is not sufficient to label a page blatant advertising. It is created as a complete article that is either perfectly formatted to Wikipedia's manual of style by an inexperienced user in one edit, or is formatted consistently throughout but in a different manner or using a different style, language, or code - almost as if the user copied the entire text from somewhere else and pasted it into the edit window. It refers to the company, organization, or the creator of the product or service in the first-person (""We are a company based out of Chicago"", ""Our products are electronics and medical supplies"") It describes the consumers of the product or service in the second person (""Acme Treadmills helps you to stay fit"") It positively describes the product or service and why it's important for people to know about or to purchase, enroll, join, or obtain it. It speaks of the product's reputation in regards to originality, age, dependability, and customer satisfaction (""The original"", ""Number-one selling"", ""Highest rated"") It compares the product or service to those offered by others and describes this product's superiority or their competitions' product's inferiority. It mentions notable people and claim that they purchase or use the product regularly. It provides external URLs to the product's homepage, websites that promote and sell the product, or links to where to purchase or obtain it. It lists or mentions all of the countries or locations that they provide or ship this products or services to. Trademark or registered trademark symbols follow the company's name and/or their products. The company's name, key personnel and/or products are repeatedly emphasized by styling, including the inappropriate use of bold or italic type, external links, or capital letters. Its reception section is a bullet list of taglines and quotes praising the product followed by bylines to supposedly give it credit. Name-dropping endorsements from media companies, associated companies, partners, people It has section headers typical of a product brochure Q&A ""What is (product)?"" or ""Why use (product)?"". It has a ""Press"" section highlighting the popular positive press it has received. The content was copied, superficially rewritten or closely paraphrased, in whole or part, from the company's website or social media profiles. It contains a call to action, for example ""download now"", ""request a demo"" or ""like Acme Treadmills on Facebook"". === Behalf of a person === Blatant advertising on behalf of a person will typically contain some or all of the following traits: It is created by an account with a username that matches the article title (the person's name). However, the mere fact that a page is an autobiography is not, by itself, sufficient to label it blatant advertising; blatant advertising almost always exhibits at least one (usually several) of the signs listed below. Consider tagging the page with {{autobiography}} and warning the creator with {{Uw-autobiography}} if an autobiography is not blatant advertising. Basic puffery: It (especially its opening sentence) is full of WP:PEACOCK phrases such as ""award-winning"", ""acclaimed"", or ""legendary"" that aren't backed up by further content (e.g., an unusually impressive list of awards received). Name-dropping of more famous people, groups, media. The person's name, their employers and/or their creative works are repeatedly emphasized by styling, including the inappropriate use of bold or italic type, external links, or capital letters. Hyping through inappropriate detail: It describes the person's life history and past in unusually positive ways, e.g., the person's youth and upbringing, unique talents they had as children or adolescents, ""natural ability"" and how their skills were developed quickly, or their intelligence and education. It describes this person's educational career in-depth, typically including all of their qualifications, certificates, deeds, awards, etc., earned rather than focusing on the most important points. It describes this person's professional career or relevant experience in-depth, typically by listing each of the person's held roles, positions, job titles, elected seats, etc., along with their responsibilities, accomplishments, and skills needed, and the date in which the person held the job. It describes the subject's personal life in detail (e.g., family, volunteer work, beliefs, views, public image, donations to charities, etc.), when the subject is not notable for their personal life. Trying to get a job: The page content is formatted, styled, organized, or worded like a job résumé/CV. It includes the person's short-term goals or desired objectives that they're seeking, worded similarly to that of a résumé/CV, such as ""Experienced professional seeking to utilize in-depth knowledge of industry in a position at a large company with room for advancement"". It advertises the person's skills and experience and the work, projects, services, or leadership they would add to a group or team, usually for prospective employers, managers, or prospective customers or clients. It emphasizes intangible qualities that might be desired by employers (e.g., ""He has over 30 years' experience"") instead of simple facts (e.g., ""He started selling widgets in 1992""). It provides their full personal contact information so that interested parties they're seeking to connect with can contact them. On the wrong website: The content was copied, superficially rewritten or closely paraphrased, in whole or part, from the person's website, their employer's website, the social media profiles of either or any equivalent promotional biography. It contains a call to action, for example, like John Doe on Facebook. It is common for employees to reuse previously published marketing materials when creating articles about their employer on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's terms of use do not allow this unless it is explicitly published under a compatible license. If an article is promotional in tone, it should also be checked for copyright violations. This can be done easily using Earwigs Copyvio Detector (however, this misses some things, so checking manually is still good practice). Text that scores as low as 15% is often a copyright violation and might need to be removed and revision deletion requested. If an article requires a fundamental rewrite to remove the copyright violation and the promotional text, it should be tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G12 and CSD G11. If encyclopedic content remains (even if it's just a short stub) after removing all the promotional content, this should be done instead and G11 is not appropriate. If a page is not blatant advertising, but you still believe or suspect it to have been created for promotional purposes, you may use another deletion process. If only part of a page seems to be promotional, fix it yourself or use tags such as {{Advert}}, {{Cleanup-PR}}, {{Peacock}}, or {{Like resume}} to alert others. The following are not by themselves sufficient to label something blatant advertising: Non-notability. Notability is a discrete issue that has no bearing on whether a page is promotional. Poor sourcing. Sources are used to verify information on a page. They are unrelated to a text's style or tone. Unencyclopedic tone. G11 requires a promotional tone, not one that's merely somewhat unencyclopedic. Use {{tone}} for articles that are unencyclopedic but not promotional. There is the odd peacock word or external link in the body here and there. The entire page must be full of them to even come close to blatant advertising. Autobiography/conflict of interest. Although not unrelated to the wider issue of whether something may be intended for promotional purposes, this factor is unrelated to whether a page's content is promotional (as noted above). Accurate statements of fact that happen to sound positive, such as winning awards, being a best-selling author, or being the biggest business in a given area. Articles about subjects that you can't imagine anyone wanting to write about unless they were paid to do so. Blatant advertising is about the words on the page, not about your guess at someone else's motivation. Some paid editors write non-promotional articles, and some volunteers write promotional ones. If the subject is likely notable: Boldly reduce the article to a stub that contains only encyclopedic content: ""Big Business, Inc. is the largest widget manufacturer in Indiana. It was founded in 1969 and is best known for its blue-green widgets.[1]"" Boldly merge and redirect the article to a larger subject (e.g., Big Business (widget manufacturer) → widget) Revert to a prior, less promotional version of the article. If it's a newly created article, consider moving it to draft so it can be developed there. (WP:DRAFTIFY) If the subject is likely non-notable: If no reasonable person could disagree that the entire page is an advertisement, tag it with {{db-advertising}} If reasonable people might have different opinions about it, then tag instead with {{subst:prod}} or send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Advertising Wikipedia:Identifying PR Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam Wikipedia:Identifying test edits" 348 352 761 WP:AOWR Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing 348 "WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing is a project to better organize information in articles related to Open Wheel Racing based in the United States, with an emphasis on the Indy Racing League, Champ Car, and Indy/Championship racing under the AAA and USAC banner dating to approximately 1902, the first year of AAA sanctioning. Primary topics include races, tracks, drivers and the specific cars entered to compete. Other open wheel topics, such as support series (Indy Pro Series, Indy Lights, Atlantics), sprint cars (URC, USAC and WoO-sanctioned), and other similar forms are also welcome. It is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please browse and improve the articles as you see fit. Open discussion on such edits is welcome and desired. This project, like everything else on the Wikipedia, is what everyone makes of it. The To-do list keeps track of what the projects current short term objectives are. Create standards of quality for Open wheel-related articles, consistent with Wikipedia's broader standards for biographical articles and sporting event articles, and consistent with Wikipedia's overall standards of WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and so forth. Create and standardize articles for Open wheel drivers, teams, tracks and series Better organize all Open wheel-related articles Expand upon existing Open wheel-related articles Create a working relationship between members who concentrate primarily on IRL and those with members who concentrate primarily on the CART/Champ Car. Establish an atmosphere of equality in information reporting, and establish a firm stance on WP:NPOV. Define areas requiring attention of above mentioned goals. If you would like to be recognized as a participant, add your name here. This template may be placed on user pages. Doctorindy: Founding member- initially created the project. Helped to establish initial needs and organization. Frequent contributor to wide range of auto racing projects/subject. I do not act in the role as a moderator, instead merely a large contributor. Special emphasis on Indianapolis 500. Drdisque: Formed a ton of the articles on the site, fan since 1992, mainly concerned with Indy 500 and anything from 1995-1999 and 2005+. Chr.K.: WP:F1 and WP:Motorsport member; Indianapolis Motor Speedway specialist; universal AOWR focus, sometime F1 and Sportscars interest; despise the way NASCAR changes rules in mid-race for circus-like atmosphere, do not participate in any form of NASCAR collaboration if avoidable. (Updated 6 July 2007) Mustang6172: Member of Wikiprojects Formula One, NASCAR, and IROC. I've been watching open wheel racing for 8 years, and have been tinkering with the Open Wheel articles for some time. KPatin: Open Wheel Fan 4 Life. I have been keeping indy, champ, and f1 pages up to date along with others. Also Created Indy Pro Series Seasons. Manwithaduck: Started CCWS season pages for 1979, 1984, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2006 & 2007. 1984 is just finished and 1990 has just been started, but work will prevent me from finishing quickly. Looking forward to a re-united open wheel series in the not-too distant future! (One can dream...) Checkpoint10: I added race results to some of the Champ Car drivers, some infoboxes for the drivers, and made the 2006 Champ Car season template what it is now. I'm happy to see this project started; there's a ton of work left to be done! I have been a fan of Champ Car since 1995, although I haven't watched it regularly on TV since 2002. Jsydave: Created the 2005 Champ Car season article and frequent updater of that for 2006. Also, a member of the A1GP and F1 Projects, and creater of all of the Speedway Grand Prix season pages. Mycroft.Holmes: I've used my Indy 500 database at http://indy500.tjs-labs.com/index.php to create many of the Wiki race results and added results to individual drivers. I can easily and quickly dump the data in any format agreed upon by the group and rework the format quickly if a change is required. Please note that your own website is not a reliable source and not appropriate to be cited as a reference. Femto 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Willirennen: A member of few other car related wikiproject inclding F1, WRC as car topics are my speciality. As a UK resident I have been following CART since the Nigel Mansell era but I would like to follow IRL and Champ Car again since I just got my cable. I have expanded the Hiro Matsushita and lots more. Cs-wolves: Will work on any article that needs improving. Motor racing fan in general. Chuck Carroll: Primarily interested in Indy 500-related pages. DH85868993: No particular expertise in AOWR (F1 is my special interest), but I am keen on promoting consistency between the various children of WP:MOTOR. CorSter: CART, Champ Car, Atlantics, Indy Lights, and IRL. Apmiller: Current project (Jun09): adding race reports for 2002 CART season, sprucing up 2002 driver pages along the way. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! : CCWS mainly. Big fan of the CCWS and F1. Major upgrades done to 2007 CCWS season. Tim Wohlford: Already a key contributor (words and pics) for many IRL, USAC, Indy500, F1 and Michigan Speedway articles. I regularly write for a motor sports web site. Fanofspeed: IndyCar Series is a big interest of mine. My favorite is F1 though, but not by much. I also enjoy some Champ Car World Series. Sesameball: Mostly IRL, although a fan of CCWS and F1. Particular attention to updating point tables, keeping driver pages up to date, and developing driver pages as needed. Also a member of the Wikification drive. Barno: Participant in WP:Motorsport and WP:NASCAR for a long time. Main open-wheel interests are Sprints, Midgets, and historical AAA/USAC Indycars. Grew up in Modified country, worked at both dirt and paved tracks, wrote for racing weekly papers. Pascualangulo: I'd like to improve the articles of the 80's drivers, and include the standard season results. 209.20.219.145: I'm fairly knowledgeable about the IndyCar series and an expert on the Indy 500. Meisfunny: Indy 500 contributor. I plan on improving IndyCar Series Articles. SonicAD Citicat I've been expanding the Indy 500 race reports, and some info on individual drivers Commasense: Longtime open-wheel fan, I created the page for the 1996 Champ Car season. Markdill Developed marketing program while VP at Nortel that involved IRL team sponsorships (Walker, Treadway, Panther) from 1996 through 2000. One-two finish at Indy 500 in 1997, and won 3 additional races with Scott Goodyear while he was a Panther. Write auto racing history articles for IMS programs and work extensively with the world's foremost authority on the early Vanderbilt Cup, Howard Kroplick, assisted in the writing of Kroplick's book, ""Vanderbilt Cup Races of Long Island."" Falcadore Recently completed the history of the Gold Coast Indy 300 just in time for the event to collapse, curse you conflicting Gridiron calendar. User:Chrisg21090 I go to every race at Homestead. Manningmbd - Avid follower of the Indy Racing League since 1996. Committed to (but not limited to) expanding and re-enforcing driver pages along with season articles. Suttna08: I've been watching the IndyCar Series since 2008. Previously watched Champ Car World Series. Officially Mr X (talk) IndyCar, (ChampCar), Superleague Formula, F1, A1GP, GP2 wildarms007: Aboslutly love open wheel racing. Added additional info to drivers pages for Johnny Rutherford & Scott Pruett. Also expanded the history of the Michigan 500 & added article about attrition during the CART/Champ car races at Michigan. Hope to get more info on other races to improve that as well. RedNumber5: Big fan of CART/Champ Car since 1989 and will help with race results and any various articles. Pdesil t c Big racing fan. A fan of the IRL, and all forms of open wheel racing. Will do historical research. Just Ask Lvi56: NASCAR fan and fan of the IndyCar series. I am working on track pages in an attempt to standardize them. Ehall317: Love all open wheel racing. Born and raised in Indy, interested in helping make the information contained in this project easier to access from applicable pages. Constructing AAA championship season review VanBurns: F1, Champ Car & IndyCar Fan. I update all the 1989 - 2007 CART/Champ Car and the 2003 - 2008 IndyCar Final Driver Standings into the current Template:American Open Wheel driver results legend style. Kuguar03: Fan of IndyCar/CART/Champ Car. Was an SCCA flagger for many years so attended many events in that capacity. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC) User:Kevintjeerdsma1996:Especially fan of Formula One but also very interested in American open wheel racing especially:The Indianapolis 500. User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Dwarf73: Specific interest in CART/Champcar and Canadian drivers involved in the series. Follow F1, WRC, and IndyCar. Declan Earley: Been a massive follower of open wheel for over 15 years. Hunterscarlett: Open wheel fan and interested in emerging European drivers in American Open Wheel Racing. Spyder_Monkey: CART fan from the early split era, getting back into IndyCar recently. Asher413: Indycar fan all my life- just wanted to contribute to more complete historic season pages for new fans to learn. GeorgeOD1989: Massive Indycar fan for 3 years and have been watching old CART/Champ Car/IRL videos in that time. Followed F1 since 1998 to begin my interest in motorsport. Would like all the Indycar pages to be more extensive in the text so will add to those. Heard about this page from a blogger on the Trackside radio show podcast. BosleyTree Belchfire: Huge fan of IndyCar racing pre-Tony George and his IRLaughingstock. Recently created this gem of an article for your reading pleasure. Loyrh2: I have been a fan of Indycar and CART/Champcar most of my life. I was born and raised in Indianapolis. I have attended dozens of races. Senorsoupe: An open wheel fan and stats nerd. I sincerely hope to see articles for individual seasons up to the same quality standards as F1 season articles. I am currently working on compiling information to create team and driver charts for the IRL seasons 1996-97 through 2001 (there is no chart in the article) Poppo154 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Jahn1234567890: Fan of anything that has to do with motorracing. Pbtflakes (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC): Fan of motorsport, lookig to fill in coverage gaps when possible DesoG: Specific interest in history of Indycar from the beginning in the early days of XX century. Fan of Indycar from 1994. Created the List of American Championship Car Rookie of the Year Winners and List of Indycar Engine Manufacturer Championship winners pages. Bcschneider53: Interest in most forms of motorsport, including IndyCar. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Indyrolexalms Joshhanson18: Primary interest in sprint car/midget/Silver Crown, but ultimately just want to help improve accessibility of what, thus far, has been hard to find. Rocks with Salt: Primarily responsible for expanding/cleaning up the races of the 2001 CART season (IMO the last great season for CART) and hopes to standardize/visually improve race result tables wherever I find them. (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Waluigithewalrus: Frequent contributor to individual race articles from the past few seasons. Also help with cleaning things up whenever I can. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Speedy Question Mark, Just a huge motorsport fanatic! lemonlovr: I love racing stats and IndyCar especially. VulcanSphere: Active contributor in motorsport Wikipedia project, special emphasis on CART, CCWS, and post-reunification IndyCar Series. Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC) A7V2 (talk) I'm no expert on American racing, but it is an area I'm quite interested in Lazer-kitty: Interested in cleaning up and standardizing team/driver articles and improving the overall quality of AOWR articles. Grahaml35: I currently work in Indycar and the racing world. I try to maintain Indycar pages especially as well as amateur racing pages. Additionally, I race myself in SCCA competition. TorontoGuy79: Canadian motorsports history buff and fan. Attendee of Indycar events for nearly thirty years. Nascarbball24: I love editing pages for all motorsports, including IndyCar! Gryws: New to IndyCar and in love! Currently focused in creating and editing individual race report pages. 23:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Nicenicey18: Love IndyCar, massive fan of O'Ward, Newgarden, Palou, Herta and many more. Would love to help in this wikiproject. Seanbarnett: Grew up in Indy and started attending the 500 in 1975. I've been a fan since. I'm happy to help with this wikiproject and I've recently been working on the page for Danny Ongais. BSlep97: Starting following Indycar 5 years ago and I've been addicted ever since. Recently took up wikipedia editing. Will do my best to help keep Indycar related articles up to date. Ved havet 🌊 Norwegian motorsport enthuasiast who started following IndyCar as McLaren entered the sport together with Schmidt Peterson. UberLordMetagross: Started following IndyCar three years ago and have enjoyed the likes of Mclaughlin entering into the series and doing well. === Parent WikiProject === WikiProject Motorsport, this WikiProject is the child of WikiProject Motorsport, which focuses on the interrelationships between motorsport Wikiprojects. === Sibling WikiProjects === WikiProject A1 Grand Prix, focusing on the new A1 Grand Prix series. WikiProject British Motorsport, motorsports in the United Kingdom. WikiProject Formula One, focusing on Formula One and its pages. WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing, articles on Grand Prix motorcycle racing WikiProject IROC, focusing on the International Race of Champions and its pages. ***PROJECT INACTIVE AS OF 2008*** WikiProject NASCAR, focusing on NASCAR. WikiProject Sports Car Racing, focusing on a variety of sports car racing series throughout the world. WikiProject World Rally, focusing on the World Rally Championship and related articles. List of all subpages of this page Individual Race Page Titles For simplicity reasons, the page titles have been established/adjusted to include only the primary title sponsor, and not any additional/optional ""presenting sponsors."" The presenting sponsor(s) is still mentioned prominently on the individual page, but due to the overly long titles, they do not seem necessary to include for the title. Television presenting sponsor also are not to be included as part of the page title, but should be mentioned on the page text/info box, etc. Individual Race Pages For all current IRL Indycar races. Following in a similar fashion to the series of current NASCAR races format, various details include: Each race has its own page, titled as the current name of the race Each race has an infobox Template:Indycar race infobox with various information: Race logo (uploaded and labeled according to wiki standards Track, sponsor, previous race names, distance Notations of first open wheel race and first IRL specific race Race results in table form, as has been established on wiki already. Since many races extend previous to the formation of the IRL, or stem from what was at one time a Champ Car race (either AAA, USAC or CART), the tables are listed in separate but sequential order. Additional race results for related events can also be included in the race pages. This includes previous races, or previous versions of the same race (or different races) that have a reasonable tie (such as the city) to the current event. Examples include listing race winners for Tamiami Park Miami with the Homestead event, since both have Miami in common. Next/previous race box at the bottom Template:Sequence === Article alerts === === Statistics === === Article status === ==== Drivers ==== ==== Facilities ==== ==== Lists ==== ==== Seasons ==== ===== Current: 2010 ===== ===== Historical ===== 2007/2007 · 2008 · 2009 ==== Did You Know ==== Bob Barkhimer Chili Bowl (race) A To-do list has been created here. Please check and add to the to-do list to coordinate efforts. === Page templates === Template:Indycar race infobox This template is for individual races. It is based upon the Template:NASCAR race infobox, but a couple small changes were made for IRL use. {| class=""toccolours"" cellspacing=1 style=""float:right;margin:7px;width:270px;font-size:90%;"" |+ style=""font-size:larger;""|'''{{{Name}}}''' |- |colspan=""2""|[[Image:{{{Logo}}}|center|{{{Img_size}}}|{{{Name}}}]] |- |bgcolor=""#efefef"" width=80|[[List of current Indycar races|Venue]] |{{{Venue}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Corporate [[sponsor]] |{{{Sponsor}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|First race |{{{First race}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|First [[Indy Racing League|IRL]] race |{{{First IRL race}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Distance |{{{Distance}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Number of laps |{{{Laps}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Previous names |{{{Previous names}}} |} Template:Champ Car race infobox This will serve as a very similar alternative for the Champ Car races, with one line changed. ""First Champ Car Race"" replaces ""First IRL Race"" {| class=""toccolours"" cellspacing=1 style=""float:right;margin:7px;width:270px;font-size:90%;"" |+ style=""font-size:larger;""|'''{{{Name}}}''' |- |colspan=""2""|[[Image:{{{Logo}}}|center|{{{Img_size}}}|{{{Name}}}]] |- |bgcolor=""#efefef"" width=80|[[List of current Indycar races|Venue]] |{{{Venue}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Corporate [[sponsor]] |{{{Sponsor}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|First race |{{{First race}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|First [[Champ Car]] race |{{{First IRL race}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Time |{{{Time}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Number of laps |{{{Laps}}} |- |bgcolor=""#efefef""|Previous names |{{{Previous names}}} |} Race Results Tables Here is an example of race result tables, taken from Toyota Indy 300. Tables are broken up separately for results under USAC, CART/Champ Car, and IRL. Results are listed in top-to-bottom-first-to-last order. Track Infoboxes All tracks use the {{Motorsport_venue}} infobox. Here is an example taken from Iowa Speedway: {{Motorsport venue | Name = Iowa Speedway | Nickname = Time = GMT-6 | Location = [[Newton, Iowa]] | Image = [[Image:Iowaspeed.jpg]] | Image_caption = ""Rusty Wallace Signature Series Track"" | Capacity = 30,000 {{cite web |url=http://www.iowaspeedway.com/newsline/news.asp?newsID=150 |title=Iowa Speedway Adds Seating for June IndyCar Series Race |accessdate=2007-06-01}} | Owner = U.S. Motorsport Entertainment Corp. | Operator = Iowa Speedway | Broke_ground = [[June 21]], [[2005]] | Opened = [[September 15]], [[2006]] | Closed = | Construction_cost= [[United States dollar|$]]70 million | Architect = Paxton Waters Architecture
[[Rusty Wallace]] | Former_names = Quad Cities International Raceway Park ''(planning stages name)'' | Events = '''[[Indy Racing League|IRL IndyCar Series]]'''
[[Iowa Corn Indy 250]] (2007)

'''[[ARCA RE/MAX Series]]'''
[[Prairie Meadows 250]] (2007)
'''[[Grand-Am]] [[Rolex Sports Car Series]]'''
[[Iowa 400k]] (2007)| Layout1 = Tri-oval | Surface = Asphalt | Length_km = 1.4 | Length_mi = 0.875 | Turns = 4 | Banking = Turns: 12°-14°
Frontstrech: 10°
Backstrech: 4° | Record_time = 17.6484 | Record_driver = [[Scott Dixon]] | Record_team = [[Chip Ganassi Racing]] | Record_year = 2007 | Record_class = [[Indy Racing League|IRL]] [[IndyCar Series]] | Layout2 = Road Course | Surface2 = Asphalt | Length_km2 = 2.09 | Length_mi2 = 1.3 | Turns2 = 9 | Banking2 = Turns 1&2: 12°-14°
Frontstrech: 10°
Backstrech: 4° | Record_time2 = 41.709 | Record_driver2 = [[Jon Fogarty]] | Record_team2 = [[GAINSCO/Bob Stallings Racing]] | Record_year2 = 2007 | Record_class2 = [[Daytona Prototype]] }} === Footer type templates === Template:IndyCar Series racetracks The template for the footer at the bottom of the tracks pages is located here. Template:IndyCar Series races The template for the footer at the bottom of the races pages is located here. Template:IndyCar Series Seasons The template for the footer at the bottom of the seasons pages is located here. Template:IndyCar Series Champions The template for the footer at the bottom of the drivers' pages is located here. Template:Indy 500 Template:Indy 500 winners Template:USAC tracks The template for the footer at the bottom of the tracks pages is located here. Template:Champ Car tracks The template for the footer at the bottom of the tracks pages is located here. Template:Champ Car Seasons Template:CART/CCWS Drivers' Champions Template:Champ Car World Series The 2008 template for the footer at the bottom of the seasons pages is located here. Template:IndyCar Series The current season template for the footer at the bottom of the seasons pages is located here. Racing-Database.com Top site for results of CART/USAC from years gone past. Champ Car Stats.com Champ Car stat site with AAA/USAC/CART/IRL included. Firstsuperspeedway.com Foremost site for pre-World War I American oval track auto racing, then indistinguishable from open-wheel." 349 353 762 WP:REFLINKS User:Dispenser/Reflinks 349 "Reflinks is a tool that automatically or semi-automatically adds information to references using data present in the web page. It can process bare URLs (where the only information is a web address) or plain links (where the reference is a link and a title). Using Reflinks can save you time when writing your own articles as you can concentrate on writing and then fill in all the references once you are done. If you come across articles containing poorly formatted references, running Reflinks helps to prevent linkrot and provides readers with more details about where the information came from. You can use it on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. Note it does not work on all web links (e.g., PDFs), and does not always fill in enough cite template parameters. The templates created automatically by the tool need to be reviewed to ensure that they are accurate, as they are often not. == Usage – simple == Simplest method: http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py?citeweb=checked&lang=en&autoclick=wpDiff – This webform does exactly the same thing as the fix-it link in the {{Cleanup-bare URLs}} template banner (see below). Paste in the URL or page name of the Wikipedia article that has bare URLs to be fixed. It can take 10 minutes for Reflinks to finish filling in 100 references. You can see the references filling up the working page. You can stop at anytime. If unsure, or if all else fails, click the stop icon in your address bar. Then go through the process and steps to fill in the refs (see details in Usage - template banner section below). Then come back and run it again. This web form is better than the one linked below because the one linked below adds ""bot-generated"" notes and does not fill in nearly as many details. http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Reflinks – produces different results. == Usage – template banner == To encourage others - or to aid yourself - to clean up the bare URLs in references, paste the {{Cleanup-bare URLs}} template at the top of an article with bare-URL references. Just copy and paste {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}, and then save the page. The resulting banner uses the interactive mode described in the next section. Now you or another editor can click the ""reFill tool"" link in the banner, and then the fix-it link that the tool displays. Once you click the fix-it link, wait for the bot to finish filling in all the citation templates for each bare URL. This can take ten minutes for a page with a hundred bare URLs. It is faster for fewer links. Scroll to the bottom of the results page to see how much has been completed. When done, click the ""Show preview"" button at the bottom of the page. If things look okay, then click the ""Save page"" button. If things don't look okay, fix what needs to be changed, in the editing window. Then click the ""Save page"" button. == Interface == Reflinks operates in two modes, interactive and non-interactive. The non-interactive mode is automatic and faster, but produces less-detailed references. It also adds to alert future editors that the references have not been reviewed by humans (example diff). The interactive mode is recommended, but takes longer. It fills in references more completely, creating high-quality detailed references without the ""bot-generated"" notes. It is the mode used in the template banner described in the above usage section. It can be used on bare URLs or plain links by selecting the relevant button before running the tool. The templates created automatically by the tool need to be reviewed to ensure that they are accurate, as they are often not. The references can be opened and viewed whilst running the tool, by clicking on the URL displayed above the box containing the reference, allowing you to review the title, date and publisher. An example of some fields that need changing when running the tool can be seen when comparing an unedited interactive-mode revision and an interactive-mode revision with human-made tweaks. The difference between the two interactive-mode revisions can be seen in this diff. == FAQ == Q: Reflinks says some links are ""blacklisted"" what does this mean? A: Wikipedia:Spam blacklist Q: Sometimes the tool makes changes to the article, other than to the references, why? A: Reflinks performs ""common fixes"" to the code in articles, for example to templates and tables. They should have no visible effect on the article. Q: Where is the documentation for the various attributes, like citeweb, overwrite, and limit? A: Q: Reflinks states that some links are dead, whereas I can still access them; why is this? A: Some links may be marked as dead links incorrectly as the site blocks the tool; you may wish to manually check newly identified dead links before adding the {{dead link}} tag to the article. Q: Besides PDFs, what web page formats does this tool not handle? A: == User script == Reflinks can be easily run anywhere by using the link: http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py?citeweb=checked&lang=en&autoclick=wpDiff For more than very occasional usage, it is much better to install the script: copy-and-paste the following code to your common.js/monobook.js/vector.js pages. === Old version === The code below loads an older version of Reflinks, which does not use Citation templates. There may be some cases where this old version is more appropriate == See also == User:Citation bot, works better with books and journals OA bot, automatically suggests the most suitable links for existing DOI citations Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, converts Google Books URLs into references. Template:Cleanup-bare URLs WP:reFill, a rewrite of the original Reflinks User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander" 350 354 763 WP:WIKISPEAK Wikipedia:WikiSpeak 350 "The name WikiSpeak was chosen based on George Orwell's fictional language Newspeak, described in his Nineteen Forty-Nine novel Nineteen Eighty-Four as being ""the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year"". However as the vocabulary got bigger instead, it became obvious that it owed at least as much to the pioneering work of Ambrose Bierce's 1911 Devil's Dictionary. This is meant to be taken no less seriously than the Devil's Dictionary or more seriously than 1984. Please feel to contribute, so long as you don't breach any of Wikipedia's Byzantine and Kafka-esque policies or guidelines and end up in Wiki-Hell. === ! === Similar to its use in imperative programming (!= means ""is not equal to""), an exclamation mark is used as a prefix to signify that whatever it is you actually did, you really did the exact opposite. For example !voting means you're ""not voting"" even though you are about to vote. Used preemptively to ward off having to later use allcap blue NPA and allcap blue civil when someone doesn't start their response with respect. Particularly useful for those charged with establishing consensus, as they are at liberty to ignore all votes. A socially acceptable way of typing a Wiki-taboo word. Prefixing such a word by ""!"" makes the meaning understandable to the reader while still maintaining the appearance of social propriety. Comparable practices in the Victorian era included the use of ""limb"" in place of ""leg"" in polite conversation. Modern usage would encourage ""!leg"" instead of ""limb"".3RR n. A policy intended to prevent edit warring by drawing a clear line in the sand. Specifically, if an account editor reverts the same edit any edit any non-vandalism edit any edit that is neither vandalism nor in violation of WP:BLP by a given editor any editor an editor who is not presently blocked banned blocked or banned to a given article any article a single page more than twice three times three non-consecutive times within a day a 24-hour period, and someone pushing the opposite POV another editor is able to navigate an insanely complex and confusing template reports the incident to the appropriate noticeboard, that editor will may be blocked, except under certain circumstances (such as being an administrator). See also wikilawyer. === A === acronym n. Word to be used in preference to initialism or abbreviation, assuming your life goals include driving certain pedants valued contributors mad. administrator n. The be all and end all of Wikipedia. Alpha and omega, the ultimate wikipedian. Administrators are the role models all wikipedians should strive to emulate. They display superior intellect, outstanding article building abilities, captivating physical attractiveness and, above all, a tremendous and awe-inspiring modesty. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? An important power-up bonus on Wikipedia. Adminship gives the player an extra life that protects them from one instance of invicility, personal attacks and vandalism, all of which result in an instant GAME OVER for normal editors. Paul Blart role-playing as Dirty Harry. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy provides a useful definition: ""A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."" Curiously, a find from laptop browsing. Wikipedia:Administrators from 1,000 years in the future conveniently fell through a worm-hole in space, where the page simply displayed ""A bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."" admin abuse n. Abuse by an admin, especially the one who blocked you. (rarely) Abuse directed toward an admin. admin coaching n. One of the few ways to avoid the potentially fatal accusation of canvassing while still letting as many people as possible know that you will be initiating an RfA at the end of the month. Also designed to teach candidates the correct answers to the questions likely to be asked at their RfAs, even though nobody bothers to read the answers anyway. Quick and easy shortcut to finding quality RfA candidates to oppose.Administrators' noticeboard n. Not quite the Slough of Despond, but you can see it from there. Adopt-a-User n. A WikiProject where experienced wikipedians aim to help new editors get to grips with editing, by explaining to them why all their contributions have been removed and how many policies they've just violated. AfC n.Another term for GAN. Articles for creation. A place where articles don't get created, but sit languishing in purgatory. A place to sneak in articles about your local garage band without being subjected to speedy deletion. A place to write a lengthy article about a notable 19th-century mechanical engineer, only to have it rejected by a 17-year-old Pokémon fan six weeks later because the formatting was a bit wonky.AfD n. A place to send an article you don't like. A place to send an article created by an editor you don't like. A place to send a potentially productive editor to spend their time with frivolous deletion arguments rather than with actual contributions. A place to send an article that needs cleanup. A training ground for RfA, according to your admin coach. A place where you will inevitably, through no fault of your own, irritate enough people to destroy your chances of ever passing RfA. A frathouse for newcomers to the project to be ritually humiliated by the regulars when they plead for mercy, generally by those who've recently failed an RfA and want someone to take it out on. The Wikipedia community's primary way of thanking you for your contribution. A finely-tuned, objective process which prevents Wikipedia from being cluttered with trivial articles on garage bands, my neighbor's pet hamster, and iconic characters of 20th-century U.S. literature, stage and film.""AfD is not a vote"" AfD is a vote that administrators are allowed to count any way they like.allcap blue civil n. (appears on screen as such: CIVIL). Used in a similar way, often at the same time as, allcap blue NPA. American English n. A piece of text in which alternate words are spelt alternately. See also British English. a gud eskoose fore ritin a simpsonz artikle withowt payin no attenshun too spellin typin grammer punkchooaishun or nothin stoopid like that, no wut i'm sayin?ANI n. Plural of ANUS. See also IANAL. Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. A place where administrators and other editors consider reports of various incidents on Wikipedia, engaging in lofty, open-minded discussion, presenting reasoned, rational arguments, and listening to one another with tolerance and good will, before reaching a consensual decision to block anyone who steps out of line. The largest fire hydrant in the kennel.anorak n. Editor, typically male, who feels compelled to inflict as much boring detailed information and trivia as possible on the rest of the online population by writing articles on sheds, skips, the A215 road and all things railway-related. Named after their garment of choice which comes in a range of colours: from dull, boring browns and blues, to high-vis iridescent. Anorak is an alternate name for trainspotters, the group which both inspires and unquestionably overlaps with anoraky editors. Arbcom n. A committee of the best and brightest editors Wikipedia has to offer, who have dedicated three years of their lives to discussing what punishments are appropriate for a motley band of typing students, critics and friends of gays. Combines the role of CenCom with the efficiency of WorldCom and the gravitas of Comic-Con. arbitrary section break n. A break in a very long thread. It provides the appreciative audience member a chance to go to the bathroom and get extra popcorn during a really good drama festival. Carefully calculated placement of these, followed by your own comment at the top of the new section, allows you to have center stage for the next round of cabbage-hurling and dead-catting. arbitration n. The final step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Editors first compile random diffs they hope no one will click on relevant evidence, then offer shrieking denunciations of the other parties carefully crafted proposals for settling the dispute. Arbcom then either blocks two randomly selected editors from each side of the dispute, or issues ""admonishments"" all around and everybody has a good laugh. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (ATA) A comprehensive listing of all reasonable arguments that can be used in a deletion discussion, together with excuses for immediately dismissing them. article n. A motley collection of boring, vague lies, sometimes punctuated by extremely useful and interesting images from Commons. A succinct and insightful exposition of the subject's sexual orientation (see allcap blue BLP). An obscure pastime of boring editors with no talent for noticeboard drama, incivility, policy-whinging, sockpuppeteering or writing userspace widgets. The things made by editors you haven't heard of.article assessment n. An additional facility offered for the use of editors who find the current facilities of edit warring, content disputes, and personal attacks insufficient in their scope for fruitful action. Periodically, the logic and the structure of article assessment is overhauled with more elaborate yet vague and unspecified schemes to allow editors even more scope to spice up their jaded argumentation skills. A great way to up an edit count (see RfA) and get barnstars.Article Feedback Tool (AFT) n. A box to type in things like: ""This page needs a picture"" ""this page needs a picture"" ""the page is bad"" ""SH"" ""bewbs"" ""This page needs more pictures plz cuz i luv u 43v3r"" ""What is meaning of Christopher"" ""This article needs a picture of Muhammed to give people an idea of who he was and what he wore"" ""harry"" ""free popcorn"" ""fuitiyiyfryfgjuudtydsdf"" ""I was looking for a Damn CHRISTIAN NOT AN ATHIEST!"" ""This page definately needs a picture."" (Editor's note: the above is actual feedback, which used to be listed here with links. The links were stripped after the removal of AFT rendered them non-functional. So much for preserving history.) Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) A way of stopping an article being deleted at AfD by shouting KEEP as loud as you possibly can. Bonus points if you get a large crowd to do it. assume bad faith See RfAassume good faith An admonition to experienced editors to take duplicity, malice, and transparent lies seriously. The subtle but delightful jab is in wikilinking it – which implies that an editor of three years standing has never heard of it. A handy phrase with which to taunt an editor whom you are trolling. A convenient Wiki pacifier to pop in the mouths of disgruntled editors. This is most effective when accompanied with a soothing no angry mastodons reminder. Usage: ""You've remilitarized the Rhineland and annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. I don't believe that you really want a peaceful resolution to the Danzig issue.""""Oh, come on – WP:AGF!""attack site n. Any website or news article that constructively and politely criticises or disagrees with element of Wikipedia, particularly administrators and Jimbo Wales. Sometimes called a BADSITE. automated tool n. A valuable time-saving device used by an editor you like to automate tedious, repetitive tasks. A device used by an editor you don't like to artificially boost edit count. Not to be confused with ""automation tool"" a device used by Arbcom to desysop ban an editor they don't like. See also bot. === B === bad adj. Anything you don't agree with. A degenerate form of I'm sorry, I made a mistake, as in my bad. Intended to give the impression that the user is cool, hip and fully up-to-date with the latest WikiSlang. In reality it indicates that the user is probably still in school and struggling with basic English grammar. Or American.bad block n. See oxymoron. See tautology. See badblocks(8). badger v., -ing n. ""The candidate I proposed for RfA has superb intellect, outstanding physique, amazing prowess, telepathy and can walk on water, therefore your oppose vote must be a personal attack and I feel the need to spell this out to you in full to make me feel better."" banner n. Multiple instances of these are found at the top of an article talk page, placed by different WikiProjects to indicate their ownership of the article. Banners will often include article ratings, from Stub- to A-Class, assigned by the projects; ideally, these should all be different. barnstar n. A way of telling an editor that you hate them and are jealous of their contributions without being blocked. Something highly active users give to their friends. A solicitation for praise, particularly in advance of the bestower's RfA. There are rules about barnstars: first, never thank the givers; rather, they should be grateful to you for accepting it. Anyone you have disagreed with is disallowed from giving you a barnstar; all attempts must be deleted, because they're just using false praise to make you think about behaving better. Despite being supposedly given for hard work and due diligence, it is probably much easier to get them for reverting some witty or not-so-witty vandalism on the user page of someone you've never interacted with, than for any mainspace work (no matter how much research you did in the process). battlefield n. Any discussion where somebody disagrees with you in the slightestbattleground n. See #battlefield ""be bold"" n. An exhortation made by established editors to encourage newcomers to go ahead and make a bunch of stupid mistakes, so that they can then be indefinitely blocked with impunity. beans n. A popularly-held view amongst many with access to the block button, ensuring that every new editor's journey is an eventful, adrenaline-fuelled passage along Wikipedia's webbed hallway. The fundamental principle is that if we told you the sorts of things which will get you blocked, you might want to try them out. Instead we simply warn you of the consequences, leaving you to discover where the traps are. Isn't that much more exciting? (Occasionally still found in the archaic administrator greeting: ""Chill thy beans"")best practice n. The most perfect thing to do, which you will not be able to do: ""The best practice is to provide comprehensive, detailed information in less than 100 words."" An occasionally tolerated behavior; the rock-bottom minimum standard: ""The best practice in a heated dispute is to use veiled threats and barely disguised insults, while loudly proclaiming that you are following the highest standards of civility."" Any editor's personal preference: ""The best practice is to include a sentence about etymology at the end of the lead.""bias n. A complaint made by a Randy (qv) whose academic credentials are being questioned by an expert (qv). Systemic bias: the acknowledgement that — since the average Wikipedia contributor is a pubescent American male geek with insatiable yet frustrated sexual curiosity and unfettered internet access — Wikipedia will naturally have obsessive, disproportionately detailed coverage of Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn, Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar, the 1952 Winter Olympics, York City F. C. and the Oslo Metro.bit n. See mop. The way of the admin. Their lot in life. Presumed to be the ne plus ultra on Wikipedia, in reality it leads to misery, drudgery, and burnout. That is, if wheel warring does not lead to a desysop first. block n. The means by which an uninvolved admin prevents an editor from answering back. See also indefblock. block evasion n. A reason to revert an otherwise perfectly reasonable edit. The response to block evasion is Wikipedia's version of the ASBO. If your account looks vaguely similar to one that was indeffed back in 2005 for saying ""poo"", and even if you've improved something to featured article status in three days, your entire work must be rolled back to the unsourced POV stubs that was there before.BLP (sometimes allcap blue BLP) A Biography of a Living Person. By ""Living"" Wikipedia means Living or Dead. The Undead — vampires, zombies and such folk — are also included. ""Persons"" includes Animals, Inanimate Objects, Theoretical Constructs and South Park characters. ""Biography"" includes but is not limited to Treatises, Comic Books (including manga), How-to-Manuals, and Chats with Your Friend Over a Beer. The best reason to revert an edit by an editor you don't like on an article about someone in popular culture you've never heard of. BLP (Biography of Living Persons) articles are held to the strictest standards of verifiability and sourcing. And North Korea is a workers' paradise. As a rule of thumb, any proper Wikipedia BLP will read, in its entirety, ""[Subject of article] is a notable but completely non-controversial person who has never done anything disreputable in their life."" (For BLPs of blood-thirsty dictators, mass-murderers, cannibals, gangland figures, and the like, one can append the statement, ""And no RELIABLE source says otherwise.""){{blp prod}} n. See prod boomerang n. When an editor gets blocked for filing a complaint about a vested contributor at ANI.bot n. Automated editing tool used by someone whose edit count is already over 10,000. N.B. Wikipedia's rules on vandalism, ""templating the regulars"", civility, and nearly everything else do not apply if you get your bot to do it. Automatons which exist to perform useful tasks like this.broadly construed adj. Phrase used in sanctions. Roughly translated, it means ""We can't really explain what you're restricted from doing, but we'll know it when we block you for doing it."" brilliant prose n. Text so dense, dull, and filled with words that haven't been used for three hundred years that no one can comprehend it, let alone object to it. See also American English. British English n. A reason to fail a Featured or Good Article candidate. Something to revert on sight with the edit summary ""correcting spelling""—a particularly useful tactic on slow days, when there hasn't been much action on the talk page or at ANI.bullying n. (rarely) Bullying. Any objection to one's conduct or edits, especially objections based in Wikipedia policy.bureaucrat n. An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone. Someone who hands out rights in a project which is ostensibly not a bureaucracy.bury in paper v. In response to a request to demonstrate substantial coverage by independent and reliable sources, to provide as many ""sources"" as possible to obfuscate the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. Bonus points for triviality, tenuous and tangential relation to the topic, and slavish parroting of the subject's point of view/press releases/kayfabe plot summary.{{Busy}} n. ""I need to use the bathroom a lot and will be back in two minutes."" See {{Wikibreak}}. === C === cabal n. A collective noun for everyone who doesn't like you. Any group in agreement whose opinion differs from yours – the opposite of consensus. The well-organised flash mob that formed for the sole purpose of refuting you, and then magically dissolved into axiomatic non-existence. The nonexistent group of Wikipedia editors who do not secretly control Wikipedia, and whose approval stamp on this essay does not exist. ""Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!""canvassing n. & v. —v. Informing one editor who might possibly disagree with you of an ongoing discussion that you are losing. Not to be confused with ""appropriate notification"", which is informing a large group of editors likely to agree with you of an ongoing discussion that you are winning. caps lock n. A means for conveying the Truth in the absence of evidence. Internet-wide standard for telling trolls that they've beaten you.category n. A way to slip unreferenced assertions into an article without anyone asking too many awkward questions. checkuser n. & v. —n. A tool that enables a user with appropriate permission to read the minds of Wikipedia's users. This ability has never been openly admitted; instead, the official story is that the tool merely gives access to a user's IP addresses and user agent string. Its mind-reading abilities are officially held to be false. By using this official line, lazy checkusers (see second noun definition below) can deny any request they don't feel like fulfilling. —n. One of the privileged few who hold access to the above tool. Do not get one of these people angry at you. The least they will do is ignore your request, leaving you unable to whack-a-mole report/block whatever vandal you are chasing, while knowing that said vandal is laughing in your face. The worst they will do is say that they ran a check on you, that you are a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels, and block you indefinitely, e-mail blocked, talk page disabled, credit rating ruined forever. —v. To use the aforementioned MediaWiki mind-reading software. citation n. A reference to an obscure or alleged publication which contains some of the words in your article. Also a fancy-pants name for a reference. [citation needed] n. A suffix often seen following a personal opinion, to ensure that its removal can be legitimately reverted. Extreme uses of the template, shotgunned over a section of an article like confetti, indicates an editor got really, really upset reading something conflicting with their own opinions and threw their toys out of the pram in response. I thought about checking this, but couldn't be arsed. A last ditch effort to cast doubt on statements in an article that you don't agree with but have failed to successfully blank. See also [citation needed], weasel words. No reasonable person would disagree with this, but I like to force people to do unnecessary time-wasting research anyway.civility n. The state of grace two editors achieve when they are in violent agreement with one another. A common inspiration for accusation, abuse, and insult. A tempting occasion for hypocrisy without consequence. A quality, the alleged absence of which has occasioned some of the most rancorous fights in the history of Wikipedia. The phlogiston of noticeboard discourse and combustion. The skill of abusing, insulting and humiliating another editor without the use of intemperate language. N.B. RfAs, RfCs and a few other processes for comment on an individual editor are considered Civility-free zones on Wikipedia. Feel free to hurl your most outrageous insults while participating in one of these, as, while the most anal-retentive form of PC-speak is expected elsewhere, you can vent your spleen with impunity here.clarify v. To backpedal in the face of blowback or block threats after you've insulted somebody. ""I want to clarify that when I said 'you're a baboon's ass' on your page, I wasn't referring to you."" {{[[Template:cleanup|cleanup]]}} n.A tag added to an article when you don't like the creator's writing style or POV, but can't immediately think of a criterion under which it can be speedily deleted. A graffiti-like banner (or ""tag"") with which to muck-up a respectable article. Clean-up often entails only the removal of the cleanup tag.close v. To declare discussion of a matter complete, the result being whatever the closer would like it to be. Alternatively, if the closer has no strong opinion in the matter, declaring whichever option obtained the most !votes. Alternatively, or relatedly, a means by which to increase the amount of alt-colored background on a discussion board while also being able to tell further potential participants to go away. clue n. Well, if you have to ask, you obviously haven't got one. Essence of wet trout, medicinal doses of which are occasionally administered automatically by ClueBot. ClueBot n. Wikipedia's scarecrow. collaborate v. To agree to work productively with another editor, following twelve edit reversions, eleven block threats, ten talk-page threads, nine reports to ANI, eight RfCs, seven wheel wars over page protection, six community bans, five ArbCom cases, four indef blocks, three requests for mediation, two angry blog posts, and a partridge in a pear tree. collaboration n. One editor taking credit for someone else's work. Two WikiProjects claiming ownership of the same article. comma n. Test. Adhering to official ""Vampire Weekend"" style guidelines, please insert no more than two commas into the following paragraph: ""By train plane and sedan chair Peter Ustinov retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.""—The Times See also Overuse of commas. common sense n. ""I have no justification for my opinion, but wish to imply my utter contempt for anyone who would consider supporting an alternative point of view."" Opinion arrived at without reflection, often more correctly categorized as bollox. It only takes common sense to realise that uncommon sense is a far rarer, more admirable, quality.Commons n. A website where editors who have annoyed too many people on Wikipedia for anyone to listen to them, but are too boring to be blocked, go to discuss poorly made amateur pornography and blurred photographs of disused buses. A place to upload your image if it's really free, as opposed to a copyvio fair use. communication n. The act of templating an editor's talk page to tell them that their article or image is about to be deleted. community n. The collective hive mind of Wikipedia: its actions and decisions are pure and incontestable, no matter how manifestly stupid. These are generally taken on the community's behalf by a self-selected panel of between one and a dozen editors with nothing better to do at that moment. A group of people of some common characteristic who are imagined to be in unity with one another but actually aren't. The speaker alone; see Royal we.conflict of interest n. Editing an article on any subject that you actually understand. Uncommon, and sanctionable, expertise. consensus n. One of the three states that can be reached at the end of a discussion after all parties have become thoroughly fed up with it; the alternatives are no consensus or for pity's sake, I wish I'd never gotten involved in this. Consensus is calculated by counting the votes on either side of the debate, remembering that each vote cast by an editor with whom you are on good terms should be counted at least twice. Any group in agreement about something whose opinion is the same as yours; antonym of cabal. The concept by which it has been decided that the official language of the English Wikipedia is now Mandarin Chinese. A mythical state of utopian human evolution. Many scholars of Wikipedian theology theorize that if consensus is ever reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear. see also: The 19th century history of consensus, The Madness of Crowds see also: The 16th–18th century history of consensus, the liberum veto. conspiracy n. The only conceivable reason why your impeccably sourced and persuasively expressed assertion or edit is being resisted by other editors. See cabal content dispute n. See harassment (whichever editor has the lower edit count is the harasser). contributor n. An editor to be {{welcome}}d (qv) and subsequently patronised. Obviously of no value to the project because they are distracted into improving articles, instead of participating in the noticeboards or other similarly useful symposia. controversial administrator n. Administrator who blocked you. Administrator who blocked your friend. (rarely) Batshit insane administrator. controversial editor n. Blocked editor. See block. cool-down blocks n. 97.4% of all blocks are issued as cool-down blocks. Please note that it is strictly against Wikipedia policy to call them this. You will swiftly fail an RfA if you, at any time, misuse the acronym WP:CDB. Wikipedia's equivalent of the brank, or Scold's bridle. When removed, expect the scolding to continue, at a higher pitch and intensity—and hotter than ever. copyediting v. To make an article unrecognisable by changing all the spellings, and paraphrasing in a manner that makes it clear you don't understand it at all. Also a great way to start an edit war with a vested contributor. Contributor copyright investigations n. Wikipedia's equivalent of a Superfund Site; toxic copyright violations are contained here, for future generations of wikipedians to clean up. Over time, they will eventually decay into the public domain. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited. crowd-sourced Designed by a committee of indefinite membership and no qualifications. ~cruft Suffix applied to anything you don't like, as in Listcruft, or Linkcruft and especially Cruftcruft. === D === dash n. The most important aspect of an article. Anyone reading through, for example, the featured article on the main page, will carefully note each of the dashes, and suffer a mental breakdown if an en dash is used instead of an em dash, a hyphen is used instead of an en dash, or even worse, an em dash — which looks like this — is spaced. See dash(1) dedicated wikipedian n. Editor without a girlfriend or boyfriend. Editor soon to be without a girlfriend or boyfriend. Editor who is too young to know what a girlfriend or boyfriend is. Editor whose spouse has left them for a guy from another planet and filed a thoroughly unpleasant divorce, and who consequently believes reverting vandals for 18 hours a day will make them feel better. See wikipedian. Deletion Review n. XfD round two, where ""delete"" voters come to say ""endorse"" and ""keep"" voters to say ""overturn"". Or vice versa, if the page was kept. deletionist, n. See exclusionist. deprecated, adj. Utterly impermissible, yet utterly unenforceable. desysop, n, v. The greatest spectacle in the world since Sir Thomas More was served discretionary sanctions over extreme POV pushing by Henry VIII. The barbaric ritual begins with the soon to be ex-administrator being led to the Tower of Arbcom. If it is determined that ""the admin is the Weakest Link, goodbye"" the hapless victim is summarily hanged, drawn and quartered, with their entrails paraded in front of an enthusiastic lynch mob. If decapitation occurs, the head may be displayed on AN. Garish bunting is strewn across hundreds of user talk pages and refreshments are served from nearby stalls. Often accompanied by the legal fiction ""[Admin] has been desysopped. He may regain his administrator privileges at any time following a fresh Request for Adminship."" This fails to mention that the odds of passing a second RfA after desysopping are about as likely as a large full-frontal nude picture of Jimmy Savile being well-received at the Great Ormond Street Hospital. Despite being morally condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, the practice still intermittently continues. Note: the word is a portmanteau of ""deactivate"" / ""delete"" and ""system operator"", thus proving that Wikipedians will just make up whatever words they like for anything. developer, n. A member of the true inner cabal. Those with all the powers, but whose names appear in no rights logs. DGAF (Don't Give A Fuck) A laid-back New Age philosophy certain to distress any sysop attempting to impart the knowledge of their rank gained over many years since running the gauntlet of their RfA. Designed to confuse any administrator under the age of 14 due to its use resulting in the removal of computer privileges by either parent. DYK (Did You Know) A venue where fanatical editors vie with one another to see who can promote the dullest trivia onto the main page. See also: inclusionist. diff n. Something you add to an argument to prove your point in a discussion, thereby winning over other editors and boosting the vote count in your favor. The contents of the diff are irrelevant, as no one reads them. A thumb in the eye of Context. A toothsome morsel for those who cannot read all three words of ""Attention Deficit Disorder"" without becoming either disoriented or blocked for non-responsiveness.disambiguation n. A page you redirect to when your article has the same name as another but is less notable and worse written. This way, if your article cannot be the primary target of a search, no one else's will be either. discussion n. A frank exchange of views. A vote. disruption / disruptive editing n. Editing an article that someone else has already edited. Saying anything I don't agree with. Any edit to a featured article, particularly one that improves its factual accuracy and readability. A blocked editor using their talk page for anything other than groveling. Any edit by an IP address without an edit summary, especially if it is a copyedit that improves readability.dog and rapper vandal n. A handy excuse for admins to block every T-Mobile IPv6 user for 2 years. done See not done. drama n. See wiki-drama. draft n. Wikipedia's L plates, used by newbies who don't want 14 cleanup tags on a new article, all of which mutually contradict each other, the minute they press ""Save"". A userspace draft is a page where an editor can say whatever they like and it is retained indefinitely, unless an administrator doesn't like it, whereupon it is deleted and the editor cautioned to never do it again.draft namespace n. See AfC. DUCK n. or ""The duck test"" Wikipedian version of a loyalty oath: if it has four legs, moos, and lactates, and consensus says it's a duck, then it's a duck. Subsequently calling it a cow results in a block. === E === edit n. Some typing, followed by a mouse click. After a short delay, a reversion, an outburst of wrath, and a noticeboard thread. Often followed by a block. edit v.t. or v.i. A circular activity that can take a number of equally productive forms, such as nonsensically linking and then nonsensically unlinking dates in thousands of unsourced stub-articles. Generally done by bots, leaving the humans free to play grab-ass with each other on drama boards. edit conflict n. Not an intuitive description of Wikipedia's collaborative content-creation process, but a technical term for the MediaWiki software spasm that occurs when attempting to save an edit to a version of an article that's been altered since you opened the edit window. In mainspace, a good reason to overwrite the offending interim alterations; tagging a sentence with {{fact}} is clearly more important than someone else's four-hour copyedit. No editor can be counted a true article-writer until, through the use of multiple browser tabs, they've inadvertently edit-conflicted themselves. In talkspace, often an indication of a particularly juicy thread. Any post prefixed by (ec) or one of its variants means that the preceding post doesn't count and should be ignored. Administrators can edit conflict too. So if your best friend gets blocked for a year, you can change the block to 24 hours and claim an edit conflict. The other admin is then hosed, because if they change it back, they're wheel warring and can get their admin tools taken away. Get in! (please note, this never happens as administrators are never wrong)edit count n. The true measure of an editor. Users with a high edit count are definitely on the fast track to adminship. However, if this edit count was obtained by evil, despicable means such as using automated tools, then the user clearly needs to be humiliated for such iniquities at RfA. edit summary n. A creative opportunity to simultaneously insult the previous editor, continue the talk page dispute, and place the verisimilitude of your edit beyond any reasonable doubt, in 500 characters or less. edit war n. & v. Repeatedly replacing the current error with the previous error. editor retention n. (This space intentionally left blank.) editor review n. A social networking service aimed at matching up masochists with sadists for their mutual enjoyment and satisfaction. Nowadays, the service is subtle yet still potentially powerful: with many requests for editor review being ignored, the refusal to provide satisfaction to one party satisfies both. In a yet further development, it appears that fewer editors are putting themselves forward for the pain of review, thus denying reviewers the opportunity of inflicting that pain. So now, denying satisfaction to both parties satisfies both. Very efficient! encyclopaedia n. A vulgar error that should not be perpetrated.(ref) See encyclopedia. encyclopedia n. A work containing a detailed analysis of every episode of The Simpsons. Inadvertent by-product of a massively multiplayer online role-playing game.encyclopedia builder n. An editor who writes a string of formulaic articles on topics no-one cares about, while at the same time driving away dozens of genuinely useful editors with their puerile talk-page behavior. encyclopedic adj. English: Comprehensive, complete, thorough, exhaustive. WikiSpeak: Limited, censored, excluded, particularly with reference to subjects of which the writer disapproves or of which the writer has no knowledge. Example ""OK, theoretically Beethoven wrote four symphonies before 'da-da-da-dum'. But if I – who know absolutely nothing about music – have never heard of them, how can they possibly be notable? Not encyclopedic. Delete!"" essay n. A carefully written userspace rant monograph setting out notions so obviously lunatic and/or so eminently sensible that it will never become policy. A way to passive-aggressively vent off frustrations on an editor you dislike, without mentioning them by name.established contributor n. Someone who has been quietly and doggedly writing and improving articles for years, instead of furthering the project. Not to be confused with contributor, for whom there is still some hope of reform. evil adj Anything I or my friends don't like. exclusionist n. An editor who believes that nothing (not even nothing) is a worthy subject for a Wikipedia article. See also inclusionist. The larval phase of the species of editor which eventually emerges from its cocoon as a full-blown administrator. An editor who believes no new content should be added—or ever should have been added—to Wikipedia, and strives to make Wikipedia more concise by halving existing article content, doubling talk-page content, and multiplying rules and regulations by 10. synonyms: deletionist, anti-encyclopedist expert n. An editor who has lied about their qualifications. expertise n. See conflict of interest. external link n. A hyperlink that directs a reader to a website that doesn't have the word ""wiki"" in it. Many articles thoughtfully incorporate a dedicated section for these, where you can add external links to your website, blog, MySpace page, school, or the sites you plagiarized examined for useful content. See also reliable source. === F === FAC n. Acronym for Featured Article Candidate. The acronym also expands to Facts Aren't Compulsory; some claim this is merely a coincidence unrelated to the fact that alleged ""off-line sources"" are assumed to be correctly cited even when completely unavailable to other editors. See also GAN. FAC reviewer n. Abusive editor. Sadist. Jealous editor on a power trip.fair use adj. Picture you got from the Internet that you think is cool. See also unfair use. fanboy n. An editor who opposes the deletion of an article that you want deleted. For example, should the article on the character Falstaff come up for deletion, a fanboy might defend the article by arguing that the character is commonly quoted, years after his creation. An extreme fanboy might then proceed to cite references to the character in print. A useful counter-argument to such fanboy tactics would go something like, ""Oh get a load of the Falstaff fanboy! He don't want his precious Falstaff article deleted?! Boo hoo! Aw, somebody get the poor widdle Falstaff fanboy a hanky!"" {{fancruft}} n. A tag designed to let you slip fancruft into as many edit summaries as possible on the basis that you are just informing other editors of the tag you have used. {{FBDB}} Friendly Banter – Don't Block! The perfect prophylactic against humour-impaired, pearl-clutching, trigger-happy banhammerers. As a bonus, using this tag means one can now insult one's opponents with impunity. ""Jimbo Wales is a dishonest cunt of the highest order."" [FBDB] (N.B. tag sometimes placed at the start for the benefit those who will never get as far as the end of the sentence.) featured article n. Article with proper use of em- and en-dashes, just the right number of references included with meticulous syntax and placing, and more than two pictures. Factual accuracy is strictly optional. See also good article. The very best that Wikipedia has to offer on a wide range of subjects. An article that retains none of the author's writing style or flair following the onslaught of FAC reviewers. See good article. An article that grants its batshit insane author a free pass at RfA and life-long immunity from incivility blocks. An article included in a random list of articles, which may or may not one day be linked from the main page.featured article candidate n. A well-written and well-referenced article that gets re-written and re-referenced because the reviewers are envious of the nominator's superior writing style, and can't be bothered to get hold of the sources to check them for themselves. featured article process n. A black hole formed from the collapsed enthusiasm of the editors whose work has been mercilessly criticised by one or more FAC reviewers. An example of the law of diminishing returns.featured article review n. Deep, thoughtful, scholarly and authoritative scrutiny of an excellent article by a panel of international experts. A number of reviews forcing the creator or nominator of an article to make many little changes that in fact do not add anything of value to the article People telling the featured article nominator to make changes that they could make themselves in two seconds if they tried.featured list n.""find my secret page"" ""I am too ugly for Facebook and the coding on Myspace looks complicated."" In the case of any userpage in which the phrase ""Congratulations, you found my secret page"" occurs more than three times, the E-meter (see userboxes) is automatically set to zero. Flow, n. A replacement for talk pages, finally enabling Wikipedians to have discussions without having to indent and manually sign posts, set up bots to maintain archives, navigate through complex markup to put a reply in the appropriate place, and without edit conflicts constantly getting in the— OH MY GOD, WHERE IS MY MULTI-COLOR COMIC SANS SIGNATURE??? FUCK THIS PLACE, I QUIT.fnord See WP:FNORD. footnotes n. Any fact so blatantly fabricated that it would be spotted in the main body of the article. Because there is no way to differentiate a footnote from an in-line citation without actually checking, they have the added bonus of giving the impression an article is sourced. Experienced editors may also attempt to hide blatant lies under the more sophisticated shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing which not only makes fact checking near impossible, but gives the lofty impression the editor actually knows what they are talking about. Foundation n. also WMF; formally Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. The pointy-haired boss of Wikipedia. founder n. Jimmy Wales. Full stop. Definitely not in collaboration with [name redacted]. Next question. FRAMBAN n. A 400,000 word epic poem designed to herald the endtimes between the massed armies of the Community and the WMF daemons over who owns the messy sandbox. Friendly n. An automated tool for reverting vandalism and templating n00bs. Called Friendly to avoid personally attacking, and to spite new users. Synonym: !Twinkle. FUCK n. See ownership. Wikipedia's policy against giving a fuck. An editor who gives a fuck may engage in such un-Wikipedia-like practices as attempting to change and apply policies rationally, opposing bias, or adding content. The obligatory response to any fucking attempt to mildly aid Civility. Should one encounter an editor who appears to be in the midst of giving a fuck, this template is useful: You appear to give a fuck. Please note that Wikipedia has a strict policy against caring about content. If you continue to give a fuck, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Have a nice day. ~~~~fuck off (U.S.) ""Go away, and if I see you in real life, I will physically assault you."" fuck off (U.K.) The most versatile phrase in the English language. It can be used for just about anything. A hearty Lancashire greeting.[1] An adjective describing a significant change in an article eg: ""I can't believe I logged in this morning to find there's been this big fuck-off change that cites The Sun of all things!"" A noun, giving thanks and praise eg: ""I'd like to give a big fuck-off to the West Staines Massif for adding a reliable source to Staines railway station. Respec'""FYI Acronym meaning ""You are clearly an ignorant fuckwit."" === G === GAC / GAN n. Sheep to the shearing. See also FAC. An article you've asked one of your friends to pass. See featured article candidate.Gamergate n. A revolution led by angry young male teenage nerds who can't get a date. Look, sometimes saying ""Wikipedia is not censored"" isn't such a great idea.gender disparity n. Too many men editors compared to women editors. Too few editors of which each has a made-up pronoun for xirself hirself eirself xemself perself themself.Godking n. Jimbo Wales Malleus Fatuorum the keeper Giggy The Oxi Clean Guy The ShamWow Guy ""Bob"" Randall Munroe good article n. An article with attractive images, proper formatting, and just enough references to look impressive. Accuracy and neutrality are irrelevant, if not outright disqualifiers. An article with proper use of em- and en-dashes, just the right number of references included with meticulous syntax and placing, and more than two pictures, written by an editor who's recently had an argument with somebody active at featured article candidates. An article that retains very little of the nominator's writing style or flair following the onslaught of GAN reviewers. See featured article. Not be confused with the unrelated term ""good article"".good faith n. A blind and uncritical acceptance of whatever nonsense the editor asking you to assume good faith has presented. Questioning another editor's good faith will always result in a response that to so question is bad faith. Pointing out that their categorisation of your questioning of their good faith as bad faith is in itself bad faith is bad faith and will result in blocking. Just admit I am right and be on your way. good faith block n. Only about 2.6% of blocks are good faith blocks, so in the unlikely event of you stumbling across one be sure to quickly: add ""endorse"" to the talkpage of the editor who has been blocked, thereby getting some of the credit for the block, and then immediately go to WP:AN to share your firm grasp of blocking policy by emphasizing that you tried to do the block yourself, but were ""beat to it"". Use lots of ALLCAPs, and add random diffs to things as evidence of the appropriateness of the block. (Don't worry about where the diffs go, no one clicks on them anyway.)good faith edit n. An edit subsequently reverted by someone you don't like, especially if the reverter's edit summary is missing or uses too many three letter acronyms gravedancing v. Unexpected early retirement?? WikiTroll Funeral Plans™ offer you a 24-hour party of joy, over your Talk Page, by an army of willing editors, long after you're gone – all at no extra cost. But as Voltaire once said ""To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth..."" Tip – remember to keep it subtle, as blatant gravedancing will soon lead you to a similar fate. guestbook n. For editors of a certain demographic, their third major contribution to the world's largest online encyclopedia (stages one and two being their creation of a userpage and a signature). Even habitual sockpuppets don't bother with this when setting up this week's account. guideline n. A stick similar to, but slightly smaller than, a policy. While policies are self-consistent, a guideline may contradict other guidelines, particularly when they say something comprehensible.Guild of Copyeditors (GOCE) n. A group of world experts in taking prose where nobody except you knows what it's talking about, and changing it so even you don't know either. === H === harassment n. The Swiss Army knife of WikiSpeak. Covers most things, from real-life sexually motivated stalking to pointing out flawed logic or even pressing the ""edit this page"" button. See also hounding. Further information: How to harass and help, help, I'm being harassed! harmless adj. I see no reason why a useless template which has been subject to five long and painful no consensus TfDs deteriorating into accusations of bad faith should not be kept. hat n. A useful navigation tool to help editors find the real juicy mudslinging in an otherwise boring wall of text. From ""Hidden archive template"" A navigation tool designed to put links to extremely obscure and irrelevant articles at the top of major, important ones, for the sole purpose of garnering unfair publicity for a deservedly ignored article. Simultaneously, one of the few navigational tools that can possibly save a vital article from being completely overlooked by people who don't know that it is in fact the article they are REALLY looking for, not the one they found. highly active user n. Any user under the age of 14. Any user who is unemployed. Any user who spends way too much company time on Wikipedia. Not to be confused with actively high user. honesty n. A term for incivility when committed by yourself or a friend. Has little resemblance to the dictionary definition of honesty. See also call a spade a ""long-handled digging implement with a flat blade"". HOWTO n. The most powerful, useful, and liberating class of human enlightenment. CAUTION: Forbidden on Wikipedia. hounding n. (to hound, v) Following someone around and systematically revert or otherwise oppose their edits, so give them a subtle hint that they are a ne'er do well or some other kind of persona non grata. A faithful hound such as this can be useful to editors tempted to engage in devil's advocacy or even disruption to prove a point... merely advance the opposite of the disruptive POV, and with luck the hound will adopt it and do the disruption for you. Further information: How to harass and help, help, I'm being harassed! Huggle n. Rollback that has washed down the crack-cocaine with a Red Bull. It's that quick. But no, it won't give you wings.[citation needed] Sorry. humor n. Obscure in-joke nobody except you thinks is remotely funny. {{humor}} A tremendously useful template; its presence tells you that a page was intended to be a joke (see humor). Because you would never be able to recognise it yourself by inspecting the page's contents. It should be noted that this page possesses the humor template. Therefore, this page is in fact funny. If you want to not have to laugh at this content, you must first remove the humor template at the top of the page, where it will be immediately—and without a sense of humor (or irony)—added back by whichever editor is currently lurking here to revert edits not done by them. Also used by editors with no sense of humor in a vain attempt to prevent essays which are both useless and unfunny from being deleted. === I === IANAL Not as exciting or titillating as it sounds, unless lawyers in denial turn you on. IDONTLIKEIT An incredibly valuable !policy for use in AfD debate. Quoting IDONTLIKEIT instantly exposes the complete lack of merit in any exclusionist arguments for the deletion of an article you like, and establishes your credentials as a) an AfD insider, and b) a dedicated wikipedian. Unless the nominator is an admin, in which case the correct procedure is to vote ""per nom"". See also: ILIKEIT. ""The nominator has made a statement that I cannot understand or that I disagree with. Instead of asking for clarification or addressing it like a civilised person would, I am going to ignore it and accuse the nominator of ulterior motives."" Synonym: WP:POINT. See also: good faith.ILIKEIT An incredibly valuable !policy for use in AfD debate. Quoting ILIKEIT instantly exposes the complete lack of merit in any inclusionist arguments for the retention of an article you don't like, and establishes your credentials as a) an AfD insider, b) a dedicated wikipedian, and c) potential Administrator material. See also: IDONTLIKEIT.Ignore All Rules Ignore all rules except the ones I agree with, which it is a blockable offense to ignore. See also block. image n. Wikipedia's most efficient method of preventing novice editors from editing articles: Sisyphus-like, they find and/or create images, upload them, and then witness their inevitable deletion. Once an aspiring editor comes to the realisation that Wikipedia simply does not accept images, he/she has achieved the status of ""editor in good standing"", and is ready to proceed to the next stage of Wikipedia editor maturity: the AfD. immaturity n. A negative character trait shared by every poopy-pants pee-pee head who disagrees with you. See also maturity. IMO An acronym meaning ""The correct opinion follows."" IMHO An acronym meaning ""Gather closer my children and take heed of the timeless wisdom furnished by Wikipedia's very own Socrates..."" IMNSHO An acronym meaning ""The Great Space Wombat said so"". in popular culture In Family Guy. A section provided in articles about music for you to show everyone how clever you were to recognise [insert piece of music] (or something that sounded a bit like it) on the soundtrack when you were playing [insert computer game] or watching [insert film or television program]. See also midden.in the news pp. In context to ITN, something that is considered newsworthy to: You. International news sources (excluding those found in the U.S.). Hypothetical people in third-world countries (see Kid in Africa, the). Fans of Gaelic football. Whoever is the presiding administrator. Unfortunately, you cannot put actual news here as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. incivility n. See uncivil. Note the ""u"", dumbass. inclusionist n. An editor who believes that every atom in the universe, and every possible combination or subparticle thereof, deserves its own article, and that every article deserves its own meta-article etcpp. An exclusionist whose article on the garage band in which they played tambourine for a summer during high school has been nominated for deletion. An editor who believes that Wikipedia can become a vast encyclopedic enterprise containing innumerable fascinating, well-written and sourced articles on interesting subjects hitherto unexplored by academia. See also exclusionist.indefblock n. A technical measure to prevent an editor from ever answering back again. Usually results from having said something rude about an administrator or one of their friends. indiscriminate information n. Any information you don't like and want deleted; see also unencyclopedic. infobox n. A box of irrelevant or semi-relevant information put on an article against its main contributors' wishes by gnomes who think edit counts are more important than sex, money and well-being, and who think edit-warring over musical genres is a rib-tickling jape. inherently notable adj. See ILIKEIT. interaction ban n. A process by which Wikipedia transforms two editors incessantly arguing into two editors incessantly arguing about an interaction ban. involved admin n. See uninvolved admin. IP editor n. Vandal. It is quite safe to revert the edits of any unregistered user and issue a warning—even if not obvious vandalism—as nobody will listen to their explanation anyway. A highly intelligent editor who, despite obvious expertise, has not yet managed to master the highly complex process of account creation. Perhaps the arduous task of remembering strong passwords like ""pass1"" is to blame. A sockpuppet.IPv6 editor n. As above, but with simply awful usernames like ""2001:0DB8:82AE:6A0B:4CA5:51DA:19A8:D5AF"". Great if you're some sort of advanced AI, not so great if you're merely human.IP editing v. For the aspiring vandal, without doubt the best way to edit. Create endless havoc with no chance of being indefblocked. The simplest way to perform sockpuppetry.IPA n. pronounced (/aɪ♥©¿₨/) Abbreviation for International Phonetic Alphabet, a phonetic system devised by the International Phonetic Association. It is incomprehensible to the vast majority of the English-speaking world, and therefore has been adopted as the standard pronunciation aid for English Wikipedia. Often resembles the typing of an editor who has drunk too much IPA; this may not be a co-incidence. IRC n. Abbreviation for Internet Relay Chat. Very useful for real-time canvassing; no need to wait for someone to check their talkpage. It is particularly beneficial for administrators discussing and making controversial blocks while maintaining plausible deniability, identifiable by messages such as ""Hi, I'm an uninvolved admin, and I just happened to be passing by your talk page for no reason, but telling another editor to fuck off is incivil so I'm afraid I've got no choice but to indefinitely block you, disable your talk page access, and send you to Guantanamo Bay."" === J === Jimmy Wales n. User who racked up eight mainspace edits during 2020 and has made fewer contributions in nine years than a reasonably experienced user can make in a month, but nonetheless knows better than you what the current issues affecting Wikipedia are. Jimbo Wales's Talk Page n. Walls of text from self-centered windbags on uninteresting topics, interspersed with Jimbo's barnstars for being a demigod. Reading all 230 archives must be like a trip to Hades. Jimbo wisely stays out of most of it, possibly from being on TV too much, or jetsetting to exotic locales; but he corrects the occasional egregious mistake, or comments when an interesting issue actually arises. Jimbo Wales's User Page n. You can edit this page! And we can indefblock you! Enjoy your ten seconds before the revert, and bye. === K === Kid in Africa, the n. Wikipedia's target user. Despite having to walk three miles each day to get fresh water, then work for 12 hours in the fields, the Kid in Africa nevertheless owns a computer with a fast ADSL connection and has a burning desire to know exactly when Brigg railway station was opened. === L === lede n. Lead. No, seriously. Cf. neologism. legal threat n. There are no legal threats on Wikipedia. Threatening legal action is one of the few things for which an editor may be blocked instantly – no warnings, no second chance, no Mr. Nice Guy. A remark that may be interpreted as a legal threat is a legal threat, such as ""my sister once dated a lawyer."" Thinking about someone who has a similar name to the lawyer that your sister once dated is a legal threat. If you make a legal threat, Wikipedia will sue you for everything you're worth. link n. A means of adding colour to a dull and dreary article. A means of escape from a dull and dreary article.linkspam n. External link added by an editor you don't like. See also unreliable source. Lua n. A programming language popular with video games, now being deployed on Wikipedia by ubergeeks who think Wikipedia should be a video game. A tactical weapon to readdress the balance that too many ""normal people"" have got hold of the citation templates and can – shock horror – even understand them. A language in which Wikipedians write Java code. The way in which Wikimedia templates finally get to exemplify the Greenspun's tenth rule. === M === MADEUP adj. A rule barring you from using Wikipedia to document anything you or your friends invented. It is bad form to point out that this rule was simply MADEUP (qv). mailing list n. (public) A place you can rant and attack other editors with colourful terms since no one reads them. (private) A place you can plot with your fellow cabalists on which editor to ban next.mainspace n. That part of Wikipedia written by those incapable of good drama, and with poor Myspace skills. Manual of Style n. A random collection of personal opinions, prejudices, and arbitrary rules. Thankfully, nobody has to abide by it, because it's just a guideline, not policy. Enforced blandness and vapidity. To article content what ""Civility"" is to the talk page.maturity n. A positive character trait shared by everyone who agrees with you. An attribute of any Wikipedian who has passed puberty or a RfA, whichever comes sooner.meatpuppet n. Anyone who agrees with anyone. See WP:TEAMWORK. A person who disagrees with you.mediation n. A process initiated by an aggrieved party, designed to convince them that they are just as guilty as those whose behaviour they are complaining about. meme n. A widely held view that you find inconvenient but are unable to refute. mentor n. An experienced, knowledgeable, and well-respected editor, who through a momentary and inexplicable lapse of judgement finds him or herself performing a role that resembles a cross between Dennis the Menace's father and Hannibal Lecter's defence counsel. Only two eventual outcomes are possible: either the mentor can do the honourable thing and, having nailed their colours to the mast, go down with the ship when their padawan is community-banned by general acclamation; or, having been informed of their apprentice's nth appearance at WP:ANI, jump ship and join in the pile-on. Both are equally entertaining for bystanders. See also Schadenfreude. mentoring n. A means by which control freaks can indulge their passion under the guise of formally assisting and guiding editors in their use of Wikipedia. meta aspects of the project n. See project space. minor edit n. Any edit you don't want anyone else to examine too closely. MfD n. A place to send essays like this one. mop n. Admin toolset. Failure to show proper respect will result in the editor being mopped up. moral support n. ""I think you're an idiot and I refuse to honor you with so much as a serious oppose."" ""Ten other people already think you're an idiot and I want to be the one person here who doesn't get flamed."" === N === namespacing n. A misfeature intended to clearly separate articles from meta aspects of the project. This obviously undesirable functionality should be combated with cross-namespace hatnotes and cryptic pseudo-namespace shortcuts. nationality n. A property of people guaranteed to attract an edit war. For example, Copernicus was Polish German Polish German German-Polish Polish-German Prussian a rather smart chap. navigational template n. A handy device to ensure that anyone who wants to look up a Beatles song downloads the entire list of 200 linked articles for every song they ever played, every album they ever recorded, every tour they ever went on, whether they want it or not. See also SEO. neologism n. A term nobody had ever heard before Wikipedia popularised it. neutral v. A statement used in votes (see discussion) to show that you can edit, but at the same time avoid pissing off your friends who happen to be split between support and oppose. New page patrol n. Target practice. newbie n. Any editor who still makes the majority of their edits in the mainspace. no consensus n. An excuse to revert to your preferred version. If you are an administrator, you can enforce your POV NPOV against no consensus with protection and blocks. ""I would rather close this as 'keep', but I am too afraid of deletionists who spouted all these WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments taking me to ANI."" ""I would rather close this as 'delete', but I am too afraid of inclusionists who spouted all these WP:ILIKEIT arguments taking me to ANI."" ""I'm not bloody well reading through that wall of text. Everyone is guilty as hell and you're all sentenced to a year in the Gulag.""nomination statement n. A statement in which the nominator foresees all possible concerns (e.g. ""I know many people will think that this is a bad faith nomination ..."", ""I know some might say this article isn't suitably referenced for FA ..."", ""I know I've been blocked 15 times and banned twice ..."", ad nauseam). This obviously turns the concerns into ludicrous nonsense, and anyone bringing them up is assuming bad faith. nominator n. Incorrigible optimist. Inexperienced first-timer: innocent sacrificial lamb. Experienced veteran: skin of a rhinoceros and balls of steel.non-notable adj. A subject you're not interested in. ""I've never heard of it."" A superfluous U.S. President, or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald whose claim to fame is based on only one event. ""It doesn't come up on the first page of a Google search."" ""I don't like it."" (see also: IDONTLIKEIT) Does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. A good rule of thumb when proposing a new article is to first check if Wikipedia already has it – if not, it is non-notable so don't bother.n00b n. Anyone with fewer edits than you, thereby making them clearly incorrect and you their intellectual superior. notable adj. Mentioned on The Simpsons, Family Guy, or is a part of Star Wars. Lots of Google hits, now cutely called ""ghits"" (like ""gits"" (snigger)). ""I like it."" (see also: ILIKEIT) * Please note: Subjects are often nominated for deletion due to concerns over their notability. At these AfD trials, Wikipedia prefers total ignorance of a subject in order to ensure objectivity. For example, if you, as a self-appointed judge of notability, should see a subject on ancient Korean culture appear at AfD, and if you do not speak a word of Korean, and in fact, couldn't tell Korean from Swahili, and you're not sure where Korea is but you think it's probably in South America, then you are the ideal participant at this AfD. Should a Korean-speaker accidentally stumble into the AfD, and sputter, ""But I see mentions of it in Korean sources here, here, and here"", the proper response is to do a half-hearted Google search in English, find nothing, say so, and then accuse the Korean-speaker of either assuming bad faith, trolling, conflict of interest, or sock-puppetry. Hopefully you will get the Korean-speaker into a battle during which you can endlessly quote Wiki-law verbatim, while flaunting your proud ignorance of the subject at hand. not done I don't like you, so I'm ignoring your comments. not here to build an encyclopedia I don't like you but I can't actually find (or, more likely, can't be bothered to look for) any specific instance of you doing anything wrong. not how I ""That was a bad block but I can't say that out loud."" Example: ""That's not how I would have handled the situation but that's a legitimate block."" not scientific I don't like the fact your google search just clearly showed I'm wrong. noticeboard n. A place for public punishment, humiliation, and shaming: Wikipedia's equivalent of the cucking-stool or stocks. Moldy fruits and vegetables, be they accusations of sockpuppetry or POV pushing, are hurled at hapless editors. Noticeboards are also popular venues for entertainment, as those who initiate an action, intending to have another editor pilloried, often end up on the whipping post themselves. notifications n. A WMF invented tool, carefully and scientifically engineered to make it harder to know you have an important message, requiring your urgent attention. NPOV n. & v. —n. The point of view of the last editor who edited the article. —n. The point of view of any editor who has access to the block button. See administrator. —v. To rewrite an article as a promotional press release, as in the edit summary ""NPOVing a few things"". The version achieved in a tug-of-war between groups of screaming, frothy-mouthed extremists with opposing views. An article on Earth produced by this process will read something like, ""The Earth is flat.[Note, some dispute this fact and claim the Earth is triangular.]"" An impartial Admin will protect the article in this state and permanently topic-ban the round-Earth community for edit-warring and personal attacks. —n. Your point of view === O === obvious n. Said of a conclusion or interpretation necessary to promote the writer's personal agenda. Ogg Theora n. A video file format. It is not supported by most commonly used video software and is unheard of by anyone other than extreme free software nerds, and therefore has been adopted as the standard video format for Wikipedia. See also WebM. Ogg Vorbis n. An audio file format. It is not supported by most commonly used audio software and is unheard of by anyone other than extreme free software nerds, and therefore has been adopted as the standard audio format for Wikipedia. oppose v. I wouldn't have written the article like that, so it's obviously crap. See featured article. I don't like you, so I'm going to make up a reason to oppose your RfA. Prima facie—'Nuff said. A stake in the heart of consensus, and a singularly effective way for an egotistical person to call attention to himself. Most effective when delivered after five or ten ""supports""—which comment is, by the way, a wimpy and unmanly utterance redolent of ""groupthink"". The quickest way to rise to power in Wikipolitics is by strategic use of ""oppose"" in highly visible debates, always after a string of supports, preferably after a section break, and followed closely by a fierce assault of indignant invective. optional RfA candidate poll n. As if RfA wasn't enough, here's another chance to be told how much you suck. Like a RfA, but smaller and with less point to it all. optional question n. The pet bugaboo of a !voter, with a tacked-on question mark, at your RfA; leave it unanswered and earn their undying enmity. Example : ""You come across two fictional editors having a dispute on an article that doesn't exist. Editor 'A' has attributes that correspond to no real editor I know, while editor 'B' has different attributes that fail to correspond with reality either. If all history is relative, there can be no such thing as existence. True or false?"" Orange bar n. Garishly coloured banner that interrupts you for no good reason every ten minutes when you're trying to concentrate. As an added bonus, it often causes automated tools to crash. Named after the bar in which Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger got drunk enough to think that allowing a mob of random strangers to edit with no checks or vetting procedure would be a good idea. original research n. Personal knowledge, also known as The Truth. Not to be confused with expertise. Anything not directly plagiarised. Inconvenient facts. Alternative spelling of unverifiable. n.b. Original research is strictly forbidden during the writing of an article. However, it is openly encouraged—and any reference to a reliable source strictly frowned upon—during the mob-frenzy-based creation of any of Wikipedia's multi-faceted definitions of notability.OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Often used at AfD debates. In this context means that the articles I like and want to keep should not be risked by you in defence of an article that I don't like. Not to be confused with OTHERCRAPEXISTS which means ""this article is shit and so are these ones"". oversight n. An ingenious measure to remind administrators that their power is limited, and to deny them the pleasure of reading the really juicy stuff reserved for the developers. Wikipedia's resident Thought Police. A consequence of a new editor leaving a real name and telephone number as a contact on a talk page. Oversighting serves as a short, sharp, shock to them that it is completely unacceptable to use old fart methods of communication.overuse of commas n. See Shatner commas. ownership n. rv – see talk The concept those editors who won't leave my article alone fail to grasp. === P === paedophilia n. A Power Word: ""As this block is related to pedophilia-related articles, you may only appeal this block privately via email to arbcom-l"". Generally used to ensure that a hasty, ill-thought out block, can never, ever, be undone. If you're a Brit please feel free to annoy American editors by inserting the missing ""a"" into the correct place. peacock adj. The insertion of terms, frankly quite obvious to any reasonable person, that correctly describe the subject of the article in terms similar to those that describe the fantabulous male peacock. A small, mentally ill brotherhood of people (who coincidentally happen to have all lived near a peacock at some point in their life) feel these wonderful, glowing terms are not appropriate for peacocks, and cry out against such terms in shrill, plaintive voices reminiscent of a cry for help. Their equivalent abound on Wikipedia, to the dismay of all those who strive to incorporate appropriately accurate adjectives to articles on glorious REO Speedwagon, riveting He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, and heartwarming Thomas Kinkade penis n. A meaningless word, often inappropriately thrust into Wikipedia articles. By the time those responsible have discovered the thing's proper uses, another crop of naïve penis-inserters has arrived. Bless them: it is thus that the cycle of Wikipedia life continues. ""per nom"" ""I have strong feelings about this, but I don't want the grief that will follow by typing any more than these six letters and four tildes."" ""I don't have strong feelings about this, but the nom is a friend of mine, and is never wrong."" ""I don't have strong feelings about this and I have no idea what I'm doing, but my admin coach told me to contribute more in Wikipedia space."" ""I don't understand a word of what's going on here, but the nominator is really popular, so agreeing with him will give me a huge amount of street cred and a free ride in the RFA I'm filing next month.""personal attack n. A wide-ranging term intended to be used liberally whenever someone points out a fault in your logic, presentation, article quality, or other action on Wikipedia without prefacing it by with respect. If an editor decides not to start their post to your talkpage with with respect, and indeed says I think you're talking bollox, then you can return fire with please refrain from personal attacks. Appears on screen often as WP:NPA. See also allcap blue civil. The ""money notes"" of noticeboard opera. Truly spectacular high Cs result in applause, laughter, and trial by arbcom (unless the perpetrator has a couple of FAs under their belt).Peter principle n. See administrator. pile-on n. The magical tipping point in a discussion (such as RfA) where the proposer clearly doesn't have enough friends the gift of the gab sufficient consensus to pass, and everyone spontaneously realises they can lodge a well-aimed ""me too!"" strong oppose vote without fear of harassment or retribution.plagiarism n. Anything that's not original research. Any well-written prose by someone other than you, that vaguely resembles something written by the person mentioned in the footnote.Please do not bite the newcomers A prime example of why ignore all rules is policy. In order to defend Wikipedia against newcomers (i.e. likely trolls and vandals), they must not only be bitten, but feasted on and spat out on a regular basis. A retort dished out to an editor who hit the speedy delete button on twinkle faster than you didPOINT n. (in black): ""You have made a statement I totally agree with."" (in blue): ""You have made a statement I disagree with, and I therefore wish to disparage you and indicate your opinion is worthless, by linking to an essay I have barely read and certainly do not understand."" Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You may however disrupt Wikipedia for lulz, or perhaps for Gondor if you say very loudly that you are doing it for them. pointy adj. Filler word. See also: uhm, aha, um. Belligerent. To use the word belligerent, though, would obviously be a personal attack.Pokémon n. A cultural artifact of unknown significance. On Wikipedia, chiefly used as a Godwinesque debate intensifier. For example, as any debate between inclusionists and deletionists lengthens, the probability of either side referring to Pokémon approaches one. POLEMIC A policy guideline prohibiting users from using their userspace to host raw evidence of flaws in the Wikipedia community; as opposed to secret pages, guestbooks, userboxes, incoherent rambling essays, ""humor"" pages, barnstars awarded for skilful breathing and indefinitely languishing drafts. policy n. A big stick that permits you to speak softly, or even incomprehensibly. popular culture n. The single subject Wikipedia does best. The single most reviled subject on Wikipedia.porn n. Something absent from Wikimedia. Perhaps you were looking for educational images. POV pushing n. ""I don't agree with you, but I have no arguments."" Its nuanced meaning can vary from ""POV pushing"" to the quasi-synonymous ""NPOV pushing"". Used exclusively by POV pushers. See also NPOV. preventative adj. Punitive. Often used in conjunction with block, as in preventative block. Editors who find themselves in disagreement with an administrator are advised to surrender immediately, otherwise a preventative block is almost inevitable. Insufficient breast-beating after a punitive block retroactively renders it preventative and the blocking admin receives kudos for inspired decision-making. preview button n. An infrequently used tool which allows timid editors to see the likely consequences of their disruptive edits before their submission. process creep n. The tendency of Wikipedia policies and procedures to become more complicated over time. This is greatly encouraged, as it provides work for administrators and makes them feel important, as well as providing excuses to block people they don't like for failure to keep up with the reforms. If processes still worked like this instead of like this, people might spend more time writing articles, and Wikipedia might run out of server space. {{prod}} I don't much like this article, but it's been a long day and I just can't be arsed to search through all the speedy deletion criteria to find one that might work. A de-luxe version now available is {{blp prod}}, which has the added advantage of not just being reverted because the article's creator thought it was vandalism.project space n. See drama. protection n. A feature used by administrators to ensure that their contributions are not modified by trolls. public relations tone n. Also PR tone. A complaint that can be registered against any comment that does not contain any of the following: profanity, personal attacks, or vehement agreement with the person who started the discussion. puffery n. An attempt to disrupt the proper outcome of an AfD by adding a sourced assertion of notability to the article. Can be turned to advantage by first removing any such puffery from the article, and then putting a {{Puffery}} banner on the article to further condemn it in the eyes of !voters. === Q === questions n. A mechanism of bugging people so you will get more messages on your talk page. === R === Randy n. Short for Randy in Boise. An editor who dares to disagree with you on your all-time favourite subject even though they have never attended a convention and may even have gaps in their fanzine collection. Antonym of expert. RBI n. An indefinite banning of an editor who mistakenly made three dubious edits in a row, and whose appeal for an unblock will safely fall on deaf ears. reasoned argument n. Text by an editor that begins by stating something so innocuous and self-evidently true it hardly seems worthwhile mentioning. Then, by a series of logical manoeuvres, transformations, and manipulations, each one of which everyone thinks uncontroversial, it gets transformed into a conclusion so fantastic and outlandish that no one can accept it. Often used by editors acting in a ""devil's advocate"" role to persuade people to reject critical thinking as a tool that can help resolve disputes on Wikipedia. recent changes n. Imminent reversions. recipe n. (For mischievous schoolboys:) Saltpeter 75%, charcoal 15%, sulfur 10%. (For everyone else:) Remove neck and giblets. Four hours at 325 deg F. CAUTION: See HOWTO red tape n. See bureaucrat. redact v. The of statements by another in order to and , thereby stimulating and a free exchange of and ideas. The favored technique of discourse among those who are on the losing side of an argument, know they are right, but can only prove it if no one on the other side of the argument can say anything in reply.redirect n. Relic of a wheel war that lies forgotten for at least a year after the event. An elaborate trap set up to lure foolhardy non-administrators into recreating deleted material, which is a blockable offense. For the less daring, the page history serves as an example of what to avoid.redlink n. A clever trap placed for newcomers. It leads directly to speedy deletion: first of the article, then of the newcomer.redundancy n. A fatal, deadly and often lethal flaw or error in the type or style of writing known as ""redundant"", in which ideas and concepts are stated more than once, and statements and assertions are repeated multiple times (generally by being stated more than once). Keep in mind that, in addition, this also may annoy the reader, particularly when a repeated point that has already been repeated is repeated again, to the point of annoyance. It has been said by some that writing of this type also may include from time to time a number of more or less somewhat vague phrases. It is noteworthy to note that redundancy is an excellent, first-rate and high quality strategy or tactic for getting trivial articles fluffed up enough so that they pass the DYK Did You Know 1500 character minimum to qualify for DYK, which has 1500 as the minimum number of characters that is adequately sufficient enough to satisfy its 1500 character minimum. It is important to note that this technique of repetitious writing has been considered by some to be a fatal flaw. redundancy n. A fatal, deadly and often lethal flaw or error in the type or style of writing known as ""redundant"", in which ideas and concepts are stated more than once, and statements and assertions are repeated multiple times (generally by being stated more than once). Keep in mind that, in addition, this also may annoy the reader, particularly when a repeated point that has already been repeated is repeated again, to the point of annoyance. It has been said by some that writing of this type also may include from time to time a number of more or less somewhat vague phrases. It is noteworthy to note that redundancy is an excellent, first-rate and high quality strategy or tactic for getting trivial articles fluffed up enough so that they pass the DYK Did You Know 1500 character minimum to qualify for DYK, which has 1500 as the minimum number of characters that is adequately sufficient enough to satisfy its 1500 character minimum. It is important to note that this technique of repetitious writing has been considered by some to be a fatal flaw. ref desk n. A free but not necessarily accurate resource for homework answers, relationship advice, identifying pictures of scary insects, and tracking down that film you saw ten years ago which might have had a lead character called Steve who drove a red car. An experiment in artificial intelligence that generates random answers from a list of stock phrases such as ""do your own homework"", ""we don't give medical advice"", ""look it up on Google"" and ""it's probably the motherboard"". A place for experts to continue to discuss tangents among themselves long after the original question was answered and the person who asked has stopped caring.reference n. Magic pixie dust, sprinkled in the form of a number at the end of a sentence (technically this is an in-line citation but don't let your mind be dulled by such trivia). A liberal sprinkling of references here, there and everywhere is a vital tool for the hardened editor, as without this, everything in the sentence is widely considered apocryphal, heretical and factual nonsense, even if said prose claimed the Pope is Catholic, and must be aggressively removed. Optionally, the offending editor may be blocked for committing the heinous crime of adding unreferenced content. Note that an article devoid of references is a prime target to be vaporised, especially if it's on an important, but neglected, 19th century French philosopher or major head of state in an African dictatorship. Note: Nobody ever actually bothers to check the information in the reference, so you might as well cite Hello Magazine.regards (Also ""best regards"", ""cheers"" and variants.) Used as prefix to a signature when making a veiled threat or giving ""constructive"" criticism. Its sarcastic use is designed to infuriate the receiver whilst giving the appearance of leaving a polite message. The matching bookend to with respect. N.B. When conversing at Simple English Wikipedia, the identical synonym ""Fuck off"" is preferred. regulars The !owners of an article, project or set of guidelines. (Note: Wikipedia does not have owners, it has regulars.) reliable source n. Any source, no matter how insignificant or patently insane, that agrees with you. See also unreliable source. Not you. * ...not even if you are editing the article about yourself to correct a simple mistake, such as when you were born. * N.B. an unimpeachable source from a respected, mainstream academic journal becomes unreliable if you are its author.Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) n. A place to argue ad infinitum on whether you can use a piece in the Daily Mail to cite that the Pope is Catholic.respect n. Often used as in with respect, or with all due respect, euphemisms for I think you're talking bollocks. Most frequently seen in the postings of editors with aspirations to become an administrator, or those who do not have the courage to say I think you're talking bollocks. See also regards. {{retired}} adj. ""The single purpose of this account was rumbled, so I made a new one."" ""One of my other sockpuppet accounts already made it through RfA, so I don't need this one any more."" Not retired, but sick and tired of being flamed on my talkpage. Lonely, in need of Wikicookies from 12-year-old editors pleading with me to come back. Busy working on a revenge that is truly worthwhile. see also {{Wikibreak}}revert v. & n. —v. To correct the well-meaning but misguided efforts of less experienced editors by restoring an article to its most accurate version (i.e. the condition it was in following your last edit). —n. The source of Wikipedia's most productive editor interactions, the products being edit wars, blocks, and protracted reports on the Administrators' noticeboard. ""Reverted good faith edits by..."" ""The editor I have just reverted is an incompetent fucking arsehole, and I would dearly love to say so honestly, as if Wikipedia permitted an open and free exchange of ideas, but 'Civility' restrictions, and their self-appointed enforcers, prevent me from doing so other than through this bland, condescending, hypocritical, soporific phrase."" RfA or RFA n. An institutionalised ritual humiliation that every candidate applying for access to the administrator tools is required to endure. In many ways identical to an RfC, with the exception that the RfA is often more harrowing for the examinee, who, having done nothing uncivil to warrant the examination, is expected to continue acting in a civil manner ... unlike the subject of an RfC. Wikipedians submit to the process because it is the final rite of passage before becoming an administrator. For RfA-like rituals in non-Wiki cultures, see: Flyting, The dozens, Sun Dance, ""yo mama so fat..."", and admissions. The process by which Wikipedia separates the merely good editors from the good editors who also have an uncontrollable lust for power. A chemical reaction producing in abundance heat, light, hot gas, ash, and other waste matter, the latter of which is often enhanced with administrative privileges. Occasionally the process fizzles, producing only a bad smell.(For a detailed analysis of what an ""oppose vote"", a ""neutral vote"", or a ""support vote"" means at RfA, please see the RfA decoder)RfArb or RFAR n. A request for arbitration. It is recommended that you get into an edit war before you file one of these. RfC or RFC n. A place where editors who know absolutely nothing about the subject chime in in an attempt to destroy an article further. A place where a self-selected group of the loudest naysayers concerned Wikipedians oppose a software update which breaks people's workflow. Also see RfC/U.RfC/U or RFCU n. A former place to bring anyone you had a long-standing grudge against. There, they were subjected to countless attacks by uninvolved editors (also known as ""outside views"") and generally tortured until they agreed to submit to your every whim. Unless they are a popular editor, or have admin friends, in which case the RfC will be dismissed as bad faith and someone will find a reason to block you indefinitely. Update: Despite being a superior way to aggravate and inconvenience an adversary, RfC/U was closed down on 7 December 2014. You'll have to make do with ANI. Right to vanish n. The calm before the vendetta. Invoked as a prelude to sockpuppetry, disruption, and the really good noticeboard drama. ""Vanished"" editors can thus become the most prominent and noisy of all. rollback n.A tool that reverts edits quickly. Its almost mythical status is based on the fact that only administrators can grant rollback. As a result, it is seen as a trophy, an award, a line on the resumé that virtually guarantees a successful RfA. The most satisfying of clicks. Often executed with mouse-destroying force. === S === ""Save page"" button n. Sets in motion a bizarre sequence of events which, by strange quirks of fate, ultimately lead to either a block (see also edit), or purgatory RfA. See also v. t. !Spam – a random list of Wikipedia pages whose topics would be mentioned in the article if only they were in any way relevant to the subject. SEO n. ""Search engine optimization"": the use of Wikipedia article(s) to get attention for something you don't like. Short description n. A description of an article, saving valuable hours of the reader's life so they don't have to bother wading through it. A summary of what an article is, written by people not qualified enough to write more complex and sophisticated prose, such as complete sentences. Also abbreviated as ""ShortDesc"", thus showing even a short description for a short description is not a short description after all. ""Show changes"" button n. Reveals the extent of the productive work put in by others on the same article while you have spent 25 minutes deliberating one stupid minor edit. signature n. The primary means of identifying the perpetrator editor. Ideally, a ""sig"" should contain links to at least five other pages, bear no relation to the Username originally registered, and occupy no less than 40% of the edit window as viewed on a widescreen VDU. Bonus points if one of the links is to a guestbook, the sig changes more than twice a week, and/or the sig includes . See also highly active user, ~~~~. Silence implies consent A phrase used by the party on the losing side of a debate to instigate a Wiki-Staring contest. In real life, when one comes to the realisation that one's opponent is a driveling idiot, one has the option of simply walking away from the argument. Not so on Wikipedia. No matter how carefully considered one's argument and how water-proof one's logic, should the opponent's, ""Yeah, but you're a poopyhead"" go unchallenged, all work has been in vain, all previous points are invalid, and one is, under Wiki-law, a poopyhead until this assertion has been challenged. ""I know you are, but what am I?"" is an effective rebuttal. single-purpose account n. New user who expresses an opinion that you dislike. Demonstrate your intellectual superiority to them by calling them a word that ends in ""puppet"". sleeper sock n. An account that has done nothing objectionable, but must be blocked indefinitely for having the temerity to edit from the same public library that a vandal once used. snow A rationale used to speedily end a debate in your favour before the opposition shows up. sockpuppet n.Anyone who agrees with someone who disagrees with you. A user who has been editing Wikipedia for only a week and is already better at it than you.spam n. Any article about a company or product you've never heard of. These articles can be dealt with in one of three ways: If the article is unreferenced, it can be safely deleted as nobody will bother to check how important it is. If the article is referenced, it can be safely deleted and the author blocked for adding external links. If the article is referenced and well-written but you've either never heard of, or don't like, the author, it can be deleted and the author tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz. Any reliable source used in more than one article. speedy deletion (or WP:CSD) n. (especially to newbies) ""This article is shit. Piss off."" Where you send articles that are created by red usernames. Double bonus points for also changing their red talkpage to blue with your deletion warning template. Using automated tools to tag articles for deletion as soon as they are created, thus boosting your edit count and showing your worthiness to be an administrator. There are many categories, most of which mean that the article just doesn't look right somehow.SPI n. Especially sneaky tool used when involved in an edit war with two or more editors. A forum to present your circumstantial speculation of a suspected sockpuppeteer's efforts and then have them verified by the equally dubious IP speculation of the Checkuser. A favorite haunt of amateur sleuths, conspiracy theorists, and opponents of intelligent design. standard offer n. We're hoping that in six months time you will have undergone your psychiatric treatment, and/or left junior school. After all, how could any sane, mature person doubt the infinite benevolence and competence of the blockers/banners? start-class article n. A stub with at least one reference and an image. These need not have any relation to the text. strikethrough n. A form of meta humor meta humor metahumor. stub n. A small collection of words in no particular order. Punctuation optional, no references or images. Often accompanied by an AfD notice. A means of turning a red link temporarily blue. suggestion n. 200kb of semi-coherent gibberish demanding a solution to a problem that only the author thinks exists. sum of all human knowledge n. A minuscule fraction of a complete description of the universe. Its collection and publication is the stated aim of Wikipedian idealists. Regrettably, the vast majority of human knowledge is of little interest to the vast majority. An anonymously-written condensed version of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which leaves out the bits of no interest to English-speaking teenage boys. synthesis n. & v. An application of logic utterly prohibited in article-writing. Should one source state that A equals B, and another state that B equals C, making the transitive connection that A must therefore equal C singles out an editor as a loose cannon with little respect for proper scholarly research. Their GAN/FAC/RfA may be opposed in good conscience. Such behaviour is, of course, strongly encouraged everywhere else. === T === tag n. & v. Justified vandalism. A way to increase your mainspace edit count for your pending RfA without actually knowing a lick about how to add content to the mainspace. tag team n. & v. Two or more editors who demand adherence to those annoying policies on reliable sources and undue weight. Two or more editors who disagree with you. Either of the above is automatic grounds for an RFCU. talk page n. A discussion page which accompanies every article on Wikipedia. A weapon of last resort, available in case threats of indef bans, full article protection, wheel warring, ArbCom, and Wikimedia's lawyers fail to win the edit war. A place where you rubber stamp major changes to an article such as a large revert, so you can later claim it was ""per consensus."" User talk pages are just like article talk pages, with the additional feature that you can target conspicuous warning templates precisely at individual editors who disagree with you. Admins frequent these pages to endorse each other's bans and to chide users they dislike over their inappropriate use – ""they should only be used for improving articles."" Access to your talk page may be revoked if you write a sufficiently compelling unblock request. talk page abuse n. Having a blocked user post anything to their talk page other than pointless repetitive pleas for forgiveness, which is grounds for revoking their access to their talk page. Having a blocked user post to their talk page pointless repetitive pleas for forgiveness, which is grounds for revoking their access to their talk page.talk page stalker n. See highly active user. {{talkback}} n. A template you should add to another user's talkpage after you've left an extraordinarily witty retort on your own talkpage that must be read immediately. Teahouse n. A place where spammers, POV pushers and people who mistake Wikipedia for Facebook are met with a friendly welcome. A place for discussion which aims to make it easier for new editors to become familiar with Wikipedia's practices by inventing their own, completely different: from thread order, through barnstars badges, and ending on talkback templates. A community handing out awards for tireless efforts put into working on articles. See also: Esperanza. tendentious editing n. Regularly editing about a particular subject matter. This is an inerrant indicator of underhand motives and partisanship. Editors are sometimes forgiven for having such knowledge and interest in a subject as might give an impression of basic competence, but anything in excess of this is dangerous and may result in a topic ban. thank you v. At the end of a sentence, it is a Wikispeak euphemism for ""fuck off"", but much less likely to lead to a visit to ANI than the more direct approach. Thursday n. The day when the pointy-haired bosses' Godzilla invasions are scheduled, with the result of a large storm of complaints, followed by abrupt silence as more technically adept users race each other to find ways to undo the resulting really big mess. This also ensures that over time what experienced users see when editing Wikipedia differs more and more from what new editors see, thus concomitantly increasing the work required to explain to the latter group how to do anything. Today's featured article n. The name given to the article that is chosen to be the day's magnet for vandalism. Fortunately, there is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of inept vandals who fall for it. transwiki v. A process for moving content from Wikipedia into one of its sister projects, then deleting it from both. trivia n. Any information about anything in popular culture. Information somebody doesn't believe should be in an article, even if it is sourced See also ~cruft; indiscriminate information; unencyclopedic. trolling v. Disagreeing with someone who has a higher edit count than you, or who has been on Wikipedia longer than you. trollish adj. Insufficiently meek. trout v. The action of whacking someone with a certain type of colourful fish, since the word ""trout"" is so clearly a verb and not a noun. Generally, this is used to admonish an editor who has done something you disagree with. trust n. Necessary for RfA candidates, and therefore neither defined nor expanded upon since we all know instinctively what it means. Not to be mistaken with ""trussed""—which is what Wikipedia would be, having had ""red tape"" used against it if, as some say, we tried to make clear the nature of trust to assist and inform us in appointing administrators. truth n. Obvious bollox, and as a POV pusher you are rightly subject to ridicule if you believe in truth. Something in which, by long-standing policy, Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever. The Truth n. Not to be confused with truth, The Truth is a vital aim of Wikipedia which must be sought above all else. Therefore edit-warring, incivility are all sorts of other tactics are justified in your pursuit of this noble goal. People who oppose you are clearly deluded. Bots who oppose you are wrongly programmed. So set forth and save Wikipedia from the lies that encompass it! truthiness n. The closest a highly active user who speaks American English can get to the word ""truthfulness"". tweak n. Used as an edit summary when: you couldn't be bothered to concoct one. a proper, reasoned justification for your edit would fill up the article's talk page. your edit is not susceptible to explanation. you really haven't a clue what you've just done.Twinkle n. Tool to abuse utilize rollback without having to bribe ask an admin. Excellent for reverting minor corrections of comma splices with an edit summary of vandalism and leaving a polite threat to block the user if they ever even think of doing it again, all with one click of the mouse. A tool which makes it possible to delete content from the encyclopedia without lowering oneself by touching the keyboard like vulgar Inclusionist riff-raff. Typography Refresh n. A 2014 project to encourage Wikipedians to refresh their memories of the Monobook skin. The normal, everyday, proper appearance of Wikipedia, as opposed to anything introduced after 2017. === U === unanimous adj. What consensus doesn't have to be. As a logical consequence, discussions in which you are the only editor holding the correct viewpoint can be said to conclude with a consensus for your viewpoint, because consensus does not require unanimity, and that discussion's outcome certainly wasn't unanimous, was it? {{unblock}} A means by which a recently-blocked editor can request to have their block endorsed by an uninvolved administrator. The request is then followed with either of two responses: Decline; hasn't addressed reason for block. (Translation: There's no way I'm reading that 30kB of prose and diffs you've produced. You look guilty.) Decline; endorse reason for block. (Translation: I haven't actually read the reason for your block but I'm friends with the blocking admin.)uncivil adj. Did you get here by following the link from incivility? If I'd told you to put your hand in the fire, would you have done that as well? What's happened to the education system so much of our taxes are spent on, when people like you still can't think for themselves? Not incivil. unencyclopedic adj. I don't like it. unfair use adj. or n. Image uploaded by someone you don't like. Image you think is porn. Image with a description in a non-machine-readable format, such as English, which thus must be tagged for deletion by various bots.uninvolved admin n. See involved admin. uninvolved editor n. My friend. My sockpuppet.{{unreferenced}} adj. A tag to put at the top of articles on subjects of which you disapprove. The existence of citations to reliable sources in the article is irrelevant, if not a provocation. unreliable source n. Any source that disagrees with you, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Any source that would require more than 30 seconds of effort to verify. Example: ""The Moving Metropolis isn't in my school library. Therefore, it is not a reliable source for articles about public transportation."" (Note: this conversation really happened) (Also known as Print source) You.unsigned adj. A message appearing on talk pages in the format — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) , that usually identifies a newbie, and whose opinion can therefore be safely ignored. If name is an IP address, the user is almost certainly a troll, a vandal, a sockpuppet or possibly an administrator pretending to be all three as a thigh-slapping party jape. unverifiable adj. Any material in any article that you disagree with, even if cited to multiple reliable sources and supported by an RFC and a four-thousand-word-long discussion at RSN resulting in unanimous disagreement with your POV. userbox n. Wikipedia's equivalent of the E-meter, which enables the usefulness of an editor to be measured scientifically. The proportion of any given editor's userpage taken up by userboxes is in a perfect inverse relationship to the probability of any given edit made by this editor being useful. Some commonly found userboxes and their meanings are: This user is female. This user is male. This user is male. This user is 12. This user is a native speaker of the English language. This user wants to show off that he ""speaks"" other languages too. This user is an administrator. Go vandalise someone else's userpage. This user is not a Wikipedia administrator.This user desperately wants to be a Wikipedia administrator but realises that self-nominations always fail and hopes you'll take the hint. This user failed an RfA under very acrimonious circumstances.This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one some day. This user will never be a Wikipedia administrator. This user is not a Wikipedia administrator and does not want to be one. This user wanted very badly to be an administrator, but it didn't work out. This user is an expert Wikipedia editor. This user makes messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user performs non-admin closures at articles for deletion. This user makes messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user has Rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. This user makes messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user is a member of the League of Copy Editors. This user makes messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!. This user cannot use more than two fingers to type with. This user serves the Wikimedia Foundation in the capacity of.... This user makes really big messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user is a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit. This user wouldn't recognise a featured article if one came up behind them and said ""boo"", and therefore is reduced to making large quantities of small messes for expert Wikipedia editors to clean up. This user identifies as a fascist. This user is a journalist who has realised that their ""my month on Wikipedia"" article is going nowhere and desperately hopes someone will start a flamewar. This user is an anarcho-syndicalist. This user probably read a few pages of a Noam Chomsky book (or listened to approximately two seconds of a Monty Python film) and will doubtless be first against the wall when the World revolution occurs.user page n. The place for editors to boast about achievements, mainly for self-validation purposes. Includes barnstars from editors' sockpuppets, and FA articles editors made single edits to. Can also function to annoy visitors through the extreme use of userboxes. Some need to be seen to be believed, being really odd, and/or as long as War and Peace. user talk page n. User stalk page. Where the bulk of time-wasting takes place. Either for networking with editors you're trying to win over, or else for aggressive rebuttals, or just for idle gossip. Stalking user talk pages is a fine art of general nosiness and intrigue, and is usually more fun than contributing. === V === V1.0 n. An attempt to prove that it is possible to nail jelly to a wall. valuable contribution n. An edit you agree with. See also vandalism. vandal n.An editor with fewer than 100 edits and an opinion. Excellent candidate for a cool-down block. Should help them realize that everything they've done was silly and wrong, and will most likely make them into a valuable and constructive editor in no time. A newbie's term for any editor they disagree with. The term of choice for more seasoned wikipedians is sock.vandalism n. 1. Knowingly and willingly adding nonsense to, or removing content or images from, Wikipedia by an IP editor. To be distinguished from knowingly and willingly adding nonsense to, or removing content or images from, Wikipedia by a registered editor. May be met with severe penalties unless done by a bot, in which case it usually leads to Adminship. A term used by deletionists when any non-U.S. pop culture material, or U.S pop culture older than 1995, is added to an article. 2. An edit you disagree with. See also valuable contribution. 3. An edit you didn't make. 4. A good faith edit by the Best known for IP. vanity n. The principal motive for all contributions to the project. Vested contributor, n. An editor who has become difficult to block, usually because they have a long track record of useful editing and positive interactions with others. This is a bad thing, and vested contributors should be removed from the project as quickly and humanely as possible. Village Pump n. The central venue for the ceremonial drowning of editors who have had two bad ideas in a row, the second being to make the first public. It comprises six sections: Policy – The place where the news first arrives after n00bs commit suicide by pasting {{policy}} on pages without approval from the cabal. Technical – The shrine of the Universal Truth of Troubleshooting: ""Bypass your cache"". It's written in the FAQ at the top, but most people conveniently ignore it for the thrill of a brief word with the developers. Proposals – Here editors strive to formulate the best version of a question regulars are sick of replying to, aspiring to an eventual induction to the Hall of Fame. Idea lab – For ideas that are even more half-baked than in the proposals section. WMF – An effort to add an additional route for the Foundation to fail to communicate with the editing corps, thus providing additional ammunition for the next conflict. Miscellaneous – Nobody really knows what this is for. So you can use it for anything really. There used to be one more section, Assistance, but it didn't survive competition with the Help Desk consortium. VisualEditor, n. A rich text editor for Wikipedia, designed to increase the proportion of fresh contributors by alienating the established contributors with its slow, unreliable, and obnoxious implementation. The device used by more experienced vandals for their noble deeds.voting n. A process that interferes with achieving consensus, as it does not allow the proper weighting to be given to the votes cast by those editors with whom you are on good terms. It is therefore deprecated and considered evil. n.b. Should an editor cast a !vote in opposition to your campaign to delete a topic, feel free to remove that !vote and block the editor if s/he restores it. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is a kakistocracy. And you're in charge! === W === watchlist n. Wikipedia's equivalent of Big Brother, although even the Party couldn't monitor information that did not yet exist. A large shoulder suitable for placement of abundant chips. A subversive anti-productivity tool designed to bring your day-job, or your career, down in flaming ruin. weasel words n.Some argue that under certain circumstances it may be acceptable to add any statement to an article that your dorm mate's brother's cousin told him last Thursday, as long as you feel it could be cited, someday. Perhaps words used by somebody to describe some weasel; or it could be words that might be said by some weasel if it was more able to communicate, hypothetically at least.{{welcome}} v.A template that earns you a barnstar when it's added numerous times with an automated tool. A way to round up new editors to join in your edit war.welcome n. A generic block of vaguely encouraging text placed on a new editor's talk page before outlining in detail how much they suck. WHAAOE acronym initialism ""We Have An Article On Everything"" (actually, we have lots of articles on anything and everything, even one about nothing). ""What Wikipedia is not"" policy A helpful list of the sort of content Wikipedia discourages if it is to avoid turning into a farcical caricature of Encyclopædia Britannica. A Kafkaesque list devised by neo-Nazi book-burners targeted specifically at preventing me from writing about the garage band in which I played tambourine for a summer during high school. If one says A is not B often enough, and loudly enough, then A is not B, even when A really is B. Such robustly optimistic presumption is even occasionally convincing. wheel war n. An escalating disagreement between administrators. The feelings of anyone caught in the crossfire, such as contributors, are disregarded and quickly forgotten by the administrators. The possibility is documented here for completeness – it is largely academic since administrators are all in the Cabal and therefore always agree with each other. wiki n. A model for the creation of enormous, diverse and constantly-updated online libraries of human behaviour, for the benefit of sociologists and social historians. Accessing resources based on this model with certain web-browser technology causes artefacts to appear. For example, in one a partially accurate and occasionally usable online encyclopedia may sometimes be observed (see Wikipedia); in another, a collection of useful and interesting images (see Commons). According to reliable sources, the wiki model was at different times and in various forms proposed by Urukagina, Democritus, Taliesin, Vlad the Impaler, John Locke, The Marquis de Sade, Little Tich, George Orwell, Harpo Marx (in a series of whistles and honks interpreted by Chico), Martin Bormann, Alan Turing, The Doctor, Douglas Adams, Muhammad Bazlul Haq, and a particularly prescient potato on the planet Poozles in the Pinwheel Galaxy, at least before it was collaboratively pulled by its own invention. wikibreak n. A voluntary period of abstinence from Wikipedia, taken for any of a number of reasons. These could include: a cock-up so monumental that, were the editor responsible not friends with at least three admins, they would already be indefblocked. a desire for 'me time', devoted to quiet reflection, therapy, or heavy substance abuse, in the aftermath (or perhaps in the middle) of one of Wikipedia's community review processes. See also AfD, FAC, GAN, RfA, Wikistress. a lack of Internet access, perhaps whilst on holiday. See also the Kid in Africa.{{Wikibreak}} n. ""Hold on, I need to use the bathroom, I'll be back in a minute."" See also {{Busy}}. Wikicops n. A group of editors whose sole purpose at ""the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"" is to prevent anyone from editing it. wiki-drama (alt. Teh DRAMAZ, Teh DRAHMA). n. A discussion that you're losing by being out-consensussed. See also Thought-terminating cliché. The ATP of Wiki-life.wikilawyer n. A Procrustean editor, who believes that if Wikipedia policies do not fit his contributions then they must be hacked or stretched until they do. Wikipedia guidelines and essays are policy if they support his contributions, but policies are guidelines and essays (that don't mean what they say) if they support the other side. Strangely, wikilawyers constitutionally ignore IAR, because it is hard to mutilate. It is hugely counterproductive to call a wikilawyer a wikilawyer: any semi-competent wikilawyer will seize on such accusations as an opportunity to broaden the discussion interminably. wikilawyering n. A gerund used when an editor doesn't have a valid counterargument to a well made interpretation of policy. WikiLove n. A shared spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users, more often than not freely spread by editors on illillegal shubstanances ... hee hee! Damn, thish ish gooood shit! A piece of software which allows Wikipedians to effortlessly spam other users' talk pages with valueless banners containing a boring picture and a half-hearted congratulatory caption. See also: barnstar.wikimarkup n. A mechanism by which the simplest text may be rendered almost impossible to edit. A subtle ploy to prevent editing of Wikipedia by the unwashed masses, and reserve it for the high priests of Wikipedia. Its arch enemy is VisualEditor, which has been all but vanquished, which can only be described as ""revenge of the wiki-nerds"". Wikipedia n. A sandcastle on the shore of the sea of time. Within play dramas on miniature stages, as the actors argue over the exact position of each grain of sand, unaware of the approaching tide. A unique experiment in collaborative editing, invented in 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. The name is derived from the Hawaiian wiki, ""edited at high speed"", and the Greek παῖdh, ""by children"". Evidence that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards may not produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but will certainly produce an ever-growing pile of monkey shit. The first recorded attempt to compile an encyclopedia by giving the janitors managerial control over the writers. A group of 12-year-olds debating the alleged ""notability"" of some ancient dude called Frank Sinatra.Wikipedia Adventure n. An attempt by the famous MMORPG to appeal to the ""children 5–9 years old"" demographic. ""Wikipedia is not a battleground"" A policy statement with which to taunt your opponent during Wiki-battle. Employment of this stratagem will ideally enrage the enemy so that s/he will commit tactical blunders, enabling you and your allies to encircle the enemy camp and inflict further damage. In the resultant melee, you can then administer a final coup de grâce, emerging victorious. ""Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"" A mantra. Helps to alleviate the oppressive feeling of futility that bureaucracy inevitably engenders. Of course WP:WIKIPEDIA is WP:NOT a WP:BUREAUCRACY: Anyone can WP:EDIT and WP:IAR as long as their edit isn't WP:MADEUP, and the change is approved by a WP:CONSENSUS of WP:ADMINs through WP:RFC and WP:AFD, and conforms to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:C, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:5P, WP:NFCC and WP:OMGWTFBBQ.""Wikipedia is not a democracy"" policy statement A democracy is a system in which the majority is persuaded through a complex system of lies, half-truths, bait-and-switching, wedge-issues, and diversion into putting into power incompetent, arrogant and power-hungry leaders who harm the society they are supposed to benefit. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a system in which consensus is persuaded through a complex system of lies, half-truths, bait-and-switching, wedge-issues, and diversion into putting into power incompetent, arrogant and power-hungry leaders who harm the society they are supposed to benefit. ""Wikipedia is not censored"" policy statement Stock response to anyone who thinks that two dozen penis images might be a bit excessive, especially for an article on rice flour. ""Wikipedia is not a social network"" policy statement WhatamIdoing likes this.  129,706 users dislike this. See also: userbox. Wikipedia namespace n. A place for pages about Wikipedia, that primarily exists so you can create an essay and cite it as if it was an official policy without anybody noticing, particularly if you use the WP: prefix eg: ""I reverted your edit because it violates WP:CB."" Wikipedia Review n. Retirement home for former Wikipedia editors who have become so dull, irritating and whiny that nobody on Wikipedia listens to them any more. A place to complain when your fully sourced article about your band/website/school gets deleted by the atheist anonymous idiot pedophile conspiracy. Wikipedia without the articles.Wikipedian n. Free labour. A bored refugee from Yahoo!'s now-defunct flame-war boards. See also: ""Not a Wikipedian"" Wikipert n. A person with pretensions of expertise based solely on reading a Wikipedia article WikiProject n. A group of like-minded editors who have come together in a spirit of collaboration to ensure that those articles within their interest are well-maintained, accurate, detailed (see fancruft) and cannot be successfully edited by anyone else. A group of editors united by their ignorance of and hostility towards a particular subject area.Wikiquette n. A set of rules for how other editors should treat you. WikiSpeak n. See fnord. wiki-stalking v. Reverting all of someone's vandalism Checking whether the error you found in one article has been repeated elsewhere. Noticing that someone is ruining more than one article simultaneously. Viewing another user's contributions to ensure they do not make more than one or two productive edits in a 24-hour period.Wikistress n. Insanity brought on by arguing circularly with the same twits for the last six months. A feeling of angst, grumpiness and the need to listen to emo after someone deleted your page. A condition admins have the tools to inflict upon anyone they choose, including themselves. Slang term for WikiLove. === X === XfD The great expanse of wasteland including places of suffering and darkness such as AfD, CfD and MfD. Here, the ghosts of departed editors can be seen moaning and drifting about the dry, barren earth as their former articles / categories / templates / redirects / WikiSpeak essays are torn to pieces by the ravenous wolves (also known as deletionists). Also known as CRAMITfD (for Categories, Redirects, Articles, Miscellany, Images, Templates for Destruction). WP:X The most non-sensical all-cap blue redirect in all of Wikipedia. WP:XXX Three times the fun of WP:X and three times the popularity. === Y === you n. A person inferior to me. Not even the second person. Unless you are one of them. Someone who can be blocked for obvious disruption (unless one of my sock- or meat-puppets, or some other editor in my cabal). === Z === Zoo n. An exhibition that allows public entry. The live exhibits, their varied surroundings, and the sideshows create a constant source of fascination and entertainment. The casual visitor gains a warm feeling of superiority over the squabbling animals, who can be poked, teased, and jeered at when their harassed keepers' backs are turned. The dedicated student of behaviour finds a huge range of individual and social habits with which to fill their dissertations. Remind you of anywhere? Wikipedia:Glossary – a less humor-filled overview of internal Wikipedia jargon" 351 355 766 WP:TT Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace 351 "=== Standardized warning templates === === All warning templates === All languages: {{subst:welcome-foreign|xx}}, where xx is the language code ('fr' for French, 'de' for German, and so on). {{subst:uw-notenglish}} {{subst:uw-notenglish-es}} {{subst:uw-notenglish-fr}} {{subst:uw-notenglish-no}} {{subst:uw-notenglish-pl}} {{subst:uw-notenglishedit}} {{subst:uw-notenglishedit-es}} {{subst:uw-notenglishedit-no}} If you want to change the name of a series, or propose a new multi-level series, make sure to leave a note about it on WT:UTM, so that it can be fully integrated as a warning template if there are no major objections. Before creating new templates, please check to see if the template in mind already exists, to avoid duplication. Note: User warning templates are generally semi-protected. However, creation of a template does not automatically semi-protect it; be sure to request semi-protection. In the meantime, make sure the template does not erroneously indicate that it is already semi-protected. If you add any templates here, please make sure to add them to the respective page ""Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/XXX templates"". In early 2007, the multi-level templates underwent a harmonisation program by the WikiProject user warnings. The old template grid may still be found here with the details here. Please visit the project pages for some important changes about the implementation of these templates, especially the test templates and the new vandalism warnings. Wikipedia:Barnstars (awarding templates) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars (essay) Template the regulars (user essay) Wikipedia:Mark of Cain (essay) Wikipedia:Substitution Wikipedia:Userboxes Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings Wikipedia:Protection policy" 352 356 769 WP:NSA Wikipedia:No self attacks 352 "Do not make self-directed attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor—even if the contributor is yourself. Self-directed attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community in the sense that it deters users from helping to create a good encyclopedia due to excessive confusion. Derogatory comments about yourself may be removed by any self-important editor or admin looking for someplace to meddle. Repeated or egregious self-directed attacks may lead to an intervention. Contributors are often members of opposing communities, and wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Sometimes contributors find themselves members of both the opposing communities. Through reasoned debate with themselves, contributors can synthesize their views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians. Nevertheless each person is only one member of the larger community despite how many incompatible views they may hold simultaneously. So voting on both sides is right out. The prohibition against self attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack yourself for your history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even your having been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: you make mistakes, but you are encouraged to learn from them and change your ways. Self attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and disorienting to others. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at your content and your actions rather than yourself. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to yourself is not always a personal attack. In disputes, the word ""I"" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to yourself is not always a personal attack. A posting that says ""My statement about X is wrong because of information at Y"", or ""The paragraph that I inserted into the article looks like original research"", is not a personal attack, merely weird. Or sometimes you could say instead: ""The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research"", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to yourself in the first person; providing the DIFF supposedly cuts down confusion, if that is desirable. Similarly, discussion of your conduct is not in itself a self attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. your talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI). Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements with themselves. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement you have made about yourself is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse yourself of violating this policy, even if you believe you are right. Accusing yourself without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Insanity.) There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a self attack as opposed to being just a little strange, but some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against your disabilities) directed against yourself. Confusion over what your religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity happens to be is not a legitimate excuse. Using your affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting your own views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. (Which seems unlikely, given the circumstances.) An example could be ""I'm a train spotter so what would I know about fashion?"" Note that although pointing out your relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a self attack, speculating on your real life identity may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. It also gives the impression that Wikipedia editors are mentally unstable, which may endanger Jimbo's lucrative speaking fees reflect poorly on the project as a whole. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking yourself. Accusations about your behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted (and presumably sane) users. Threats, including, but not limited to: Threats to sue yourself. Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats) Threats to vandalize your own user page or talk page. Threats or actions which deliberately expose yourself to political, religious or other persecution by your government, your employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery and after the perplexed chattering dies down. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why, requesting referral to a competent psychiatrist. Threats to out yourself. References to yourself as being ""in rude health"" and other similar self-accusations.These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging yourself is a self attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to yourself at all. See also: Wikipedia:The twilight zone === Initial options === Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated self-directed attack is not to respond at all... yeah, wrap your head around that one. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding when talking to yourself. While self attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of their own when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia and ignore the voices in their head. If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message to yourself; a post-it note on your bathroom mirror is a good idea, though make sure to remove it before company comes over, otherwise they will promptly leave out of fear. Do not respond to yourself on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational with yourself, even in the face of self-abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, you will often react better to a customized message relating to your specific situation. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground with yourself. Remember, since you are you, you have lots of common interests with yourself! Self attacks do not include civil language used to describe your own actions, and when made without involving your personal character, should not be construed as self attacks, for instance, stating ""My statement is a self attack..."" is not itself a self attack. Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported for ridicule on the administrators' noticeboard. === Recurring attacks === Recurring, non-disruptive self attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should not be resolved through the dispute resolution process; instead, see a therapist about your self-esteem issues. Especially when self attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are equally useless in resolving the conflict; seriously, you need to get help. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a ""streamlined"" source of outside opinion, in case you want total strangers to agree that, yes, you are completely loco. This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that you are willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack themselves (or they would have been defined as both attackers and nutballs) because they want and expect strong discourse. === Removal of text === There is no official policy regarding when or whether most self attacks should be removed, primarily because the whole idea makes people's heads hurt. Removing unquestionable self attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern, outside of the fact that people will wonder what you're tripping on. On other talk pages, especially where your own text is directed against yourself, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true self attack. Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of self attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about yourself, go beyond the level of mere invective and veer straight into the realm of the truly bizarre, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community's sanity. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate, and lets the people that deal with loads of crap have a good laugh. === Off-wiki attacks === Not a damn thing we can do about you swearing at yourself. Seriously, that's just all kinds of messed up. === External links === Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against yourself for the purpose of attacking yourself is... never acceptable, I think. Attacking, harassing, or violating your own privacy sounds like the sort of thing that would not be permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite self attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate self-critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment. The interpretation of this rule is complex, due to the fact that just writing this essay has made my brain hurt, so I can barely imagine what reading it does. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation. Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated self attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of self-loathing reduces the likelihood of the community assuming you are stable, and can be considered mildly amusing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by self attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to involuntary commitment. In extreme cases, even isolated self attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning, followed by even more than usual noticeboard drama. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the ""conduct severely disrupts the project"". Recurring self attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered either ""disruption"" or ""hilarious"". Blocking for self attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment (unless the editor likes that sort of thing). A block may be warranted if it seems likely that you will continue debasing yourself. And everyone will think you are crazy. Everyone. Seriously." 353 357 771 WP:TOP25 Wikipedia:Top 25 Report 353 Prepared with commentary by Igordebraga, TheJoebro64 and Max BuddyRoo ⭠ Last week's report The Academy Awards makes this a mostly film-based Report. Bonus ten, if only for completeness' sake: 26 Tony Curtis - #7's father, present in classics like Some Like It Hot and Spartacus. 27 Jenna Ortega - Hosted Saturday Night Live, while also being in theaters for... 28 Scream VI - ...her rematch with Ghostface. 29 Janet Leigh - #7's mother, best known for the shower murder in Psycho. 30 Ashley Johnson (actress) - The Ellie of #23, so #8 had her playing #21's mother. 31 All Quiet on the Western Front (2022 film) - The other big winner of #5 was Netflix's new adaptation of the World War I novel that already inspired a Best Picture Winner, with 4 awards, including Best International Film. 32 Fairleigh Dickinson University - March Madness is coming along, and a huge upset had East top seed Purdue downed by this private university in Madison, New Jersey. 33 Erling Haaland - This Manchester City striker has been finding the net like a champ, including 5 goals in a single Champions League game against RB Leipzig! 34 Saint Patrick - Irish's patron saint celebrated in #9. 35 UFC 286 - Keeping off another Indian movie present at #5 is the latest mixed martial arts event. === Exclusions === This list excludes the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the talk page if you wish. 354 358 775 WP:NEURO Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience 354 "Welcome to WikiProject Neuroscience, a project that aims to create and improve all Wikimedia neuroscience and brain-related resources. Welcome also Society for Neuroscience members! Please see here for information on how to get started. Don't forget to add {{User Neuroscience}} to your userboxes! Article alerts Good article nominees 03 Mar 2023 – University College London (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Robminchin (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged 21 Mar 2023 – Military robot (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Lethal autonomous weapon by DIYeditor (t · c); see discussion 24 Nov 2022 – Neuromuscular-blocking drug (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Neuromuscular blocking agents by Gambo7 (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2022 – Transgenerational stress inheritance (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Epigenetics of anxiety and stress–related disorders by Beland (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 08 Aug 2022 – Edinger–Westphal nucleus (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Jay Hodec (t · c); see discussion 04 Apr 2021 – Neurobiological effects of physical exercise (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 23 Mar 2023 – Draft:Rick Hanson (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Americanbuddhist (t · c) 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:David Holcman (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by HansMueller321 (t · c) 17 Mar 2023 – Draft:Concept space (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by LunaHP1234 (t · c) 15 Mar 2023 – Draft:Greg Gage (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by SuperSerena1455 (t · c) 14 Mar 2023 – Draft:TRPM3-related neurodevelopmental disorders (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Channelopathy (t · c) 23 Feb 2023 – Draft:David Redish (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Heavysnowfall (t · c) 24 Jan 2023 – Draft:Humsa Venkatesh (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Leedsunitedmotownie (t · c) 17 Jan 2023 – Draft:Diana Sarko (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Ksudheim (t · c) 14 Jan 2023 – Draft:Siddharth Warrier (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Warriersrinath (t · c) 26 Dec 2022 – Draft:Neurogenesis hypothesis of depression (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Sallyboy's Knowledge (t · c)(7 more...) === Comprehensive, Understandable, Accurate === The goal of this project is to help Wikimedia provide comprehensive, understandable, and accurate resources on neuroscience-related topics. We aim to ensure that all neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia are clear, well-referenced, and include proper use of media, and that all neuroscience-related resources on other Wikimedia projects are comprehensive. The end product should be resources with in-depth, qualitative information that are accessible enough to be encyclopedia articles but well-referenced enough for academic use. To fulfill these aims, the project will initially focus on articles covering broad ideas and concepts. The project will then develop more detailed, specific articles as well as other types of resources. This top-down approach will allow Wikipedia to serve immediately as a useful resource that becomes more detailed over time, with other Wikimedia projects following suit. This project's approach is to cover the brain from a cross-species, multidisciplinary perspective. This should provide detailed information about the distinct differences between species, and explain some possible evolutionary/ecological reasons for such differences. We aim to integrate information from the cellular/molecular level all the way up to the cognitive/clinical level. The history of neuroscience will also be an area of focus. The progress of theories and ideas is important to understanding current scientific thinking. This includes ""History"" sections in articles, biography articles, articles on refuted theories, and articles about historical institutions. For people interested specifically in contributing to the history of neuroscience content, visit this page. === Simplicity and depth === Basic questions should have simple answers. A major goal of this project is to ensure that neuroscience resources are not only comprehensive enough for a specialist, but should be engagingly presented and simple enough for laymen and children alike. The following is a list of areas which this project hopes to cover. There will, no doubt, be overlap with existing and related projects but this can only help.(Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.) === Wikipedia === Cognitive neuroscience Cognitive psychology Cognitive psychophysiology Computational neuroscience Cultural neuroscience Developmental cognitive neuroscience Neural development Neural engineering Neuroanatomy Neuroanthropology Neurobiology Neurochemistry Neuroethics Neuroimaging Neurolinguistics Neurology Neurophilosophy Neuropsychology Neuroscience Philosophy of mind Psychiatry Psychopharmacology Social Neuroscience Social cognitive neuroscience Systems neuroscience === Wikiversity === Neuroscience Fundamentals of Neuroscience Anybody can help! Some things to do include: Identify target articles-particularly covering fundamental concepts and ideas. Improve and discuss the proposed structures of articles. Improve articles yourself! Assess article quality and article importance in relation to neuroscience (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment) Leave comments on the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page for feedback. Upload images related to neuroscience Our greatest need at the moment is for images, such as photos, figures, or drawings, that convey scientifically important messages. We currently lack good illustrations for many of the most basic concepts in neuroscience; for example, we don't have a good electron micrograph of an ordinary synapse. If you are the owner of any graphics that might be useful, and are willing to make them available under a license that makes them usable in Wikipedia (you can require attribution, but can't forbid commercial use or modification), please donate them to Wikimedia Commons. Artistic merit is always nice, but scientific value is more important. Image donations will be very much appreciated even if you don't make any other contribution to Wikimedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page. === Focus articles === This section lists relatively complete articles which are fundamental to neuroscience which should be worked on to meet Featured Article criteria. This section emphasizes the general before the specific. Neuroscience/Neurobiology: This really should be a better article. We need images, history, etc. We can borrow some history from brain. Brain: Underway! Note: much being put in the brain article belongs in the human brain article. Human brain Autonomic nervous system Central nervous system NeuronLists of other content to work on include: List of neuroscience topics Popular WP:Neuroscience-tagged pages ...and pretty much everything in Category:Neuroscience stubs. To add yourself to this list, please edit this page and follow the instructions, taking care to maintain alphabetical order. Achaea (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC); Neuroscience PhD student studying place cell in hippocampus. Aeffenberger (contribs); PhD student studying neurodegenerative diseases. Interested in neuroimmunology. Alex Tan (contribs); A medical officer currently working emergency department shifts - will do copyedits and basic checks for correctness and consistency. Amygdalian; Neuroscientist now working in science administration / management Andorin (contribs); (Soon to be) Grad Student in mathematics. Interested in dendritic computation, neurodynamics, parameter estimation and mean field theories. Will do what I can, when I can. Arcadian (contribs); BS computers and psychology, MS computers, currently med student Benjamin Svejgaard; Grad student, pursuing MD and BSc in Cognitive Psychology. New to Wikipedia, eager to contribute. Brad English; Aspiring neural engineer currently taking Human Physiology, Bioinformatics, Programmed Cell Death and Medical Neuroscience at Coursera.org. On a quest to discern whether or not biological immortality is obtainable within my lifetime. Brainist (talk); Medical student interested in anything related to the brain. Constantine Michailidis (contribs); Medical student interested in Applied Neuroscience and Brain-Computer Interfacing. Claire; Brain bee competitor, working at the crossroads of computer science and neuroscience (especially artificial intelligence). CFCF (contribs); Medical student and cognitive science student. Cffisac (talk); PhD student working in neural engineering. CopperKettle (contribs); Just an amateur, interested in psychiatry and neuroscience, more specifically - in the brain development (Reelin pathway) and the mechanisms of schizophrenia. I try to contribute both to Russian and English wikipedias. --CopperKettle 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) D15724C710N (talk) (contribs); Neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and psychology are my main interests, though my background is in computer science. Dailysampler (talk); Currently studying a BSc Medical Science. Also a volunteer research assistant in computational neuroscience. danielkueh (talk) I study neural development. DaringDonna (talk); Interested layperson David Iberri (contribs); I'm a grad student in physiology and make most of my neuroscience edits while studying for exams. Di4gram (talk) BSc Psychology, minor biology, academic focus on behavioral neuroscience and hoping to enter graduate school next year. Finishing my Honours thesis on fear conditioning and the impact it has on social behavior in Zebrafish because rats are too expensive for undergrads. Specific interest in NMDA antagonism and hippocampal neuroplasticity, as well as translational neuroscience. 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) delldot (contribs); I'm working on an undergraduate thesis on excitotoxicity in traumatic brain injury and I'm interested in contributing to articles related to those and other topics. Didiogiorgio (contribs); I am a PhD student focused on computational neuroscience, I am willing to help updating references and adding new concepts I find from new articles. Dr Peter James Chisholm (Talk to me about anything) 13:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) B Med Sc in impulsivity, MBBS, broad general expereince, significant experience in infectious diseases, addiction and ADHD specialist effectively if my countries medical system allowed me to prescribe, which is currently under legal consideration. --Dr Peter James Chisholm (Have a chat, I think quite laterally) 13:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) DemonicPartyHat talk; Student interested in medicine, pharmacology, and neuroscience. Future MD, MPH, possibly also with an MS in neuroscience. Dr.Ashlesh.P (talk) (contribs); I am Physiologist with special interest in cognitive neurosciences. Falk; master student in computational neuroscience at ETH Zurich. Famousdog (talk); BSc in Psychology, PhD in vision science. Fernandahansen (talk); --> BSc in Medical Physics, PhD candidate in Translational Medicine/Neuroscience. Hypoplectrus (contribs) M.D., interested in consciousness, psychoanalysis, psychology, psychiatry Iztwoz (contribs) JeremyA (contribs) John Schmidt (contribs); ""I just noticed this project. Thanks for a good excuse for me to pay more attention to neuro articles. I have a special interest in learning and memory"". JonathanWilliford (talk) (contribs); BS and (Almost) MS in Computer Science with focus on Machine Learning. (Soon to be) PhD Student in Neuroscience. Kenneth Ricciardi; Hospital Teacher in Neuroradiology, Expert in Diffusion tensor Tractography, with special interest in Corticospinal Tract and presurgical planning. Keziah Chow; Undergrad student in Neuroscience and Biochemistry interested in neural plasticity and its role in memory, learning, and human psychological development, especially in children. Kim van der Linde Post-doc in neurobiology, specifically relation between circadian clock, neuroanatomy and circadian modulation of alcohol sensitivity. Kku (talk) (contribs) Ph.D. in Physiology. Thesis on EEG, neuroscience and cybernetics, biopsychology. Laboz125 (talk) Bsc in chemistry, currently pursuing a master's degree in neurochemistry and molecular neurobiology. I am interested in the neuroscience of addiction, anxiety, and depression. Laurenschneider210 (talk) Science communicator with a bachelors degree in neuroscience and research experience in neurodegeneration. Lenov (talk) (contribs); Ph.D. specializing in computational neurobiology, synaptic plasticity, addiction. Looie496 (talk) (contribs); Ph.D. specializing in computational neuroscience of learning and memory. Lova Falk talk (contribs) Psychologist. Works clinically with assessment of ADHD / ASD in children. Mark viking (talk); (contribs;) I did a postdoc in computational neuroscience and machine learning. I have interests in neurophysics and neurogenetics, too. Michael Naunton (contribs) Compsci/AI, now focused on the hippocampus/medial entrorhinal cortex. MTHarden (talk); (contribs;)PhD Candidate in behavioral neuroscience interested in expanding coverage of animal models in the behavioral sciences. Mysteriumen (talk contribs); Student of Pharmacy Neurogeek (contribs); ""PhD, 2006; Occasional editor."" Neurofreak (contribs); ""Graduate student; Master's in Clinical Neuroscience."" Nrets (contribs); ""My main area of specialization is cellular neuroscience and electrophysiology."" Oldak Quill (contribs); ""A neuroscience undergraduate with a wide range of interests within and without neuroscience. My interests cover a wide range within the field: neuroanatomy, cognitive neuroscience, neuropathology and so-called ""neurophilosophy"" (including future studies considering arifical intelligence and brain-computer interfacing). I am, apart from this, a general Wiki(pedia) enthusiast and will thus also hope to improve the prose and structure of articles as well as their referencing and scientific worth"". Paul Wicks (contribs); Postdoc in Parkinson's disease, PhD on motor neuron disease. Trained in psychology, specialise in neurodegenerative movement disorders, more of a neuropsychologist really. PhonologicalLooper (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)PhonologicalLooper ; neuropsych. student interested in dementia and related disease Prof. Dr. Neuroscientist; University professor Pushpa Ramakrishnan (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Pushpa Ramakrishnan Quasihuman (contribs); Undergraduate student in neuroscience. Can help with drawing diagrams, copy editing, etc. Broad interests. R500Mom (talk) (contribs); Mom to 4 year old identical twins with super rare Niemann Pick Type C, often called the ""Childhood Alzheimer's."" Speak daily with many neuroscientists and need help to get their info. onto Wikipedia. RaptorChief (talk) (contribs) razorbelle (talk) (contribs) Renaissancee (contribs) Layperson Revanchist317 (talk); Undergrad, main interest in circadian neuroscience and methods development (optogenetics) Richard☺Decal (talk); Computational neuroscientist. SR (contribs) Graduate student working towards PhDs in clinical neuropsychology & neuroscience. Focus on cortical & subcortical language networks, white matter, and aging. Saintfevrier(talk) Electrical engineer with interest in medicine and neuroscience. Attending a Medical Neuroscience MOOC and translating neuroscience Wikidata items to Greek along the way. Sallison (contribs); neurology and affective neuroscience. Schnoupiadis21 (talk · contribs) PhD student working on early visual processing in mice ScholarBlue (contribs); Biomedical scientist specialising in neuroscience, with an interest in the aetiology of neurodevelopmental disorders, psychiatric disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases; particularly Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢); Shari Garland (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC) - translator. Shashank Reddy.P {contribs} Im a student pursuing my Bachelors in Pharmacy Shushruth (contribs); Graduate student in visual neuroscience. Created the Neuroscience Portal and maintain it as schedule permits. Srobodao84; Clinical, graduate student, researcher; topics body image, body image disturbance, interoception. SJTatsu (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Skiingmalamute (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Tea with toast (talk); Neuropharmacology Teemu08 (contribs); I'm a junior at the UIUC focusing on neuroimaging. I also have major depression, so I research that a lot as well. TjeerdB (talk) (contribs); PhD in human movement science. Thesis on neural dynamics of motor control. Tryptofish (contribs); Ph.D. biochemistry, many years tenured faculty in pharmacology and neuroscience, expertise in ion channels, happy to help with copyediting. Tycho (contribs) Vaughan (contribs); Good to see the group becoming active. I look forward to reading (and editing!) the results... WikiEditCrunch (contribs); Interested in general Neuroscience and Neurochemistry. Xttina.Garnet (contribs) I am neuroscience master's student. Yuniebear (contribs) B.S in Neuroscience Yileying (talk) (contribs) Biophysics student, doing a neuronscience project at the moment. CyberTroopers (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC) : Medical students who are interested in everything related to the brain - anatomy, physiology, psychology, disease, medicine etc (mostly brain surgery). Founder of WikiProject Medicine in Malay Wikipedia. Interested in becoming a brain surgeon. Vuara (talk) Researcher in Neuroscience of Human Consciousness, Qualia. === Inactive users === Users inactive since 2014. If you resume activity, please feel free to move your listing back up! AFriedman (talk) (contribs) I am a researcher who operates an open-access laboratory on Wikiversity. Alan Cone (contribs); BS Biology and Neuroscience, currently a graduate student pursuing a PhD in Biology with a focus in Neuroscience. Working towards being a full-time Neuroscience Researcher and Professor. Anjely9 (contribs); BS Neuroscience, grad student pursuing PhD in Neuroscience BrianMSweis (contribs); BS Biology & Psychology, minors in Neuroscience & Philosophy expected in 2012, pursuing M.D./Ph.D. in Neuroscience beginning Fall 2012. David Adler(contribs) BSc Neuroscience undergraduate student with previous laboratory experience and an interest in computing Devon Ryan (contribs); I'm a grad student working on a novel Kir channel and a periodic paralytic disorder. I'll be making a lot of edits to the relevant pages. Ed Hubbard (contribs); Experimental psychologist/cognitive scientist (PhD, 2004). My research uses fMRI to explore high level perception, numerical cognition and synesthesia. Jean-Francois Gariepy (contribs); Ph. D. candidate in neurological sciences at the Université de Montréal, I'm mainly interested in contributing to History of Neuroscience. Kathryn Thomas (contribs); BS in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia Tech. Kernsters (contribs) Expanding neuroscience-related resources on both wikipedia and wikiversity Phineas G. (contribs); Grad student studying development of the cortex. Rhegium (contribs) Hopefully a soon-to-be Ph.D. student in neuroscience. I am particularly interested in molecular neuroscience. Roy Stanley (contribs); works on bioregenerate neuroscience and chemical regenerate articles. student of biogerentology. Selket (contribs); Doctoral student in neuroscience. Thesis focus on proprioception and BMIs. Shirleybayer {contribs} I am a retired Professor with a research specialty in developmental neuroscience at the cell, tissue, and organ level. I have done extensive work in rat brain development and human brain development. The.Filsouf (talk) (contribs) Cognitive Neuroscientist, various interests. Wojder (talk) (contribs) MD, PhD specialized in: neurology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology. Xurtio (contribs); B.S. physics, theoretical neuroscience grad student, neurodynamic research. Crusio (talk); I'm a behavioral neurogeneticist. Fu Hung Shiu; Underg georgia tech student. Hopefully can contribute to wikipedia Jim Schwoebel (talk); BS in Biomedical Engineering - Georgia Tech. Working on a wikipedia article related to microsleeps Fall 2013. Travza (talk) Undergraduate psychology student with a minor in biology. Subkot (talk) Srobodao84 (talk) Topics: interoception, body image, active inference CatherineGCC (talk) Undergraduate Neuroscience student at Rice University Please add {{WPNEURO|class= |importance= }} to the talk page of neuroscience articles, which will display the {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} template: Please add {{User Neuroscience}} or {{User WikiProject Neuroscience}} to your user space if you are a contributor to the neuroscience WikiProject: Please add {{User Soc Neurosci}} to your user space if you are a contributor to the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative: Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages Neuroanatomy Lab Resource Appendices Wikipedia:Scientific peer review Wikipedia policy on image categorization Cleanup listing Article alerts" 355 359 778 WP: O Wikipedia:Orphan 355 "In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as ""an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace"". These pages can still be found by searching Wikipedia, but it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages; it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web. More colloquially, editors also sometimes use ""orphan"" to refer to pages that do not have as many incoming links as they ought to, even if they do not meet the technical definition for orphan status. There are several factors that can classify an article or other page as an orphan: Orphaned article: An article with no incoming links which meet the criteria for linking below. Isolated article: An article that cannot be reached via a series of links from the Main Page. Walled garden: A group of articles that link to each other, but have few or no links to them from other Wikipedia articles. In effect the entire group is orphaned. Theoretically, a walled garden could have numerous articles if they all link to each other but no others link to them. Orphaned project page: A project page (starting with ""Wikipedia:"") with few or no links from other project pages. Essays are the most likely to be orphaned. Orphaned image: An image not used in any article. Orphaned articles, since they have no links to them from other pages, are difficult to find, and are most likely to be found only by searching, or by chance. Because of this, few people know they exist, and therefore, they receive less readership and improvement from those who would be able to improve them. In particular, if the topic is more obscure, this may make it difficult for many to locate. If not for links to a page, the only way such an article can be found is by a person who knows the topic entering it into Wikipedia or doing a web search, browsing a category in which it is contained, looking at the edit history of a contributor to the page, or having it show up by chance as a random article. An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. In Wikipedia's early days, editors added Template:Orphan to mark both orphaned articles and articles with relatively few incoming links. The use of the template has since been restricted. It is now recommended to only place the {{Orphan}} tag if the article has zero incoming links from other articles. The template is only shown temporarily, under certain circumstances. Adding this template to any article is not strictly necessary, and many editors prefer to add it only when they believe that the article should be linked from many others. A single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag. Three or more incoming links will help ensure the article is reachable by readers. Editors may also remove the tag from any article if they believe that de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful, or if they have attempted to provide incoming links. See § What if I can't de-orphan it? below for more information. The following pages do not count as incoming links: Disambiguation pages Any article in mainspace that is linked only in a hatnote Redirects and Soft redirects ...except that incoming links to the redirects do count Discussion pages of articles Wikipedia pages outside of article spaceThe following pages do count as incoming links: Any article in mainspace except those specifically excluded above (This includes links only present in collapsed navboxes.) List of... articles Set indexes === On redirects === Neither soft nor hard redirects should normally be tagged as orphans. === On disambiguation pages === Disambiguation pages themselves often should be orphaned. The only mainspace pages that should link to them are other disambiguation pages, and articles with hatnote links to them (via templates such as {{Other uses}}). Please do not place the {{Orphan}} template on disambiguation pages. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Links to disambiguation pages. === On set indexes === Pages containing the templates {{Surname}}, {{Given name}}, {{SIA}}, and any other set indexes also should normally be orphaned, as incoming links should usually be amended to target one of the items listed. Please do not place the {{Orphan}} template on these pages either. === On multiple page lists === Some very long lists are split into multiple sub-articles. The sub-articles are not orphans as long as they are interlinked amongst each other and also linked to from the first article in the series. See WP:NCSPLITLIST. === Others === See the section below titled § Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan. There are 129 months of orphan articles in the backlog (Category:Orphaned articles). === Step 1: Finding an orphaned article === Lists of orphaned articles can be found in the following places (in order of priority): Category:Orphaned articles from March 2023—This category holds the latest articles marked as orphans. There are 1,067 new orphans so far this month. Category:Orphaned articles from February 2023—This category also holds the previous month articles marked as orphans. There are 678 articles tagged. Category:Orphaned articles from January 2013—This category also holds the earliest articles marked as orphans. There are 19 articles tagged. Some editors believe it is important to tackle the oldest orphans first. Category:All orphaned articles-This category holds all orphaned articles, de-orphan articles, and a Filter this category by topic section. Category:Orphaned articles—To find orphans from other months and view the backlog. Category:Attempted de-orphan—This category holds articles which someone has tried to de-orphan, but was unsuccessful. These can be saved for later in favor of orphans which have not yet been attempted. Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject—This links to pages listing orphaned articles by subject. Special:LonelyPages—A page from Tools>Special pages>Orphaned Pages. This page updates irregularly and often isn't current, although it is easy to find. === Step 2: Finding related articles === To verify if an article is currently an orphan, at the toolbox, click the ""What links here"" link (or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+j). If the article remains an orphan, continue below, otherwise remove the orphan tag. Note that articles years old in the backlog, or incorrectly tagged by AWB may no longer be orphans. The ""What links here"" shows any articles which mention the name or part of the name of the orphaned article. If the page lists other names or has redirects, consider searching for those terms as well. For the verified orphan article, at the toolbox, click on ""Related changes"" (or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+k), to see changes on pages linked to or from that page. Highly related articles are typically linked: In the uppermost lead of an article In a ""See also"" section (if existent) At the automatically suggested ""RELATED ARTICLES"" below the article. Note that ""Related articles"" feature is supported in Minerva skin (and hence mobile) and in Timeless skin. Find related articles with intersecting categories using the PetScan tool, or reviewing various categories at the bottom of the article. See: Petscan documentation for help getting started. Sometimes, the highly related terms aren't yet wikilinked despite a Wikipedia article existing so it is often a good idea to do a Google search of related terms found this way. Furthermore, the article's categories might contain related articles as well. Consider using Edward Bett's Find Link Tool to search Wikipedia for linking opportunities. An effective way of finding related articles and sections is to search the Web for related terms and appending the word wiki or Wikipedia or site:Wikipedia.org to them. Biography articles often can be wikilinked into: place of birth or death (add into a ""Notable people"" section), or one of the many ""List of xxxxx"" lists.If this doesn't help, then a little more research is required. First, read the article. Then, follow some related-looking outgoing links from the orphan to other articles, and do a Web-wide search for the article topic. Doing these will give you a much better idea of what it relates to. Not only will it probably give you information you can use to add meaningful links from other articles, but it will probably give you enough info to flesh out and improve the orphan itself. (This is, after all, the main purpose of Wikipedia.) === Step 3: Adding links === Be careful to check that the search results refer to the topic of this article, and not something else of the same name. When you find an appropriate parent, insert a meaningful link to the orphaned article. The link can be a meaningful new sentence added within the article, or consider using the {{Further}} template. ==== Added link edit summary ==== When adding a link to an orphaned article, please use this edit summary: Adding link to orphaned article, Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]] === Step 4: Remove orphan template === Once the article has one or more links that fit the criteria, remove the tag, if one is present. Make sure to update the edit summary to reflect the article has been de-orphaned. ==== De-orphan edit summary ==== You may use this edit summary: Successfully de-orphaned! Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]] Check to see if there are articles about the same topic under a different name. If that is the case, it may be suitable to merge the orphaned page to the other, or vice versa. When the merge occurs, links from the other page may provide the de-orphaning. Consider creating reasonable redirects to the article. (Some alternative titles may already have links to them, or searching for the alternative titles may suggest other appropriate links.) Redirects do not technically count as ""articles"" in de-orphaning, but do provide more ways a page can be found. The redirect may also previously exist as a red link on another page, thereby providing some linkage. Place the article name in quotation marks and click search (if the article title is a single word, quotes are not needed). This will list all the articles containing the term. Examine each one, and determine if the term in these articles means the same as the orphaned article. If it does, add an internal link. If it does not, simply ignore it. The same word or phrase that is used in the title of an article may have multiple meanings. If any related articles have a See also section, it is worth considering if the orphaned article may be listed there. However don't just add links there indiscriminately! Adding links to See also could be considered a quick 'easy way out' to de-orphaning an article, and may attract the wrong kind of attention from other editors if poor-quality or only tangentially-related articles are 'dumped' into the See also section of an article they worked hard on. They may be of mind to revert you and even accuse you of mindless link-spamming. So always keep overall quality in mind. Check to see if there are any Lists or Indices of whatever subject the orphaned article is about, or disambiguation pages listing articles with similar titles. If it belongs, you can add it there (although disambiguation links do not count towards de-orphaning). Search categories in which the article is contained and other similar categories for related articles. It may be worth listing the orphaned page in a see also section, or even adding new [appropriate] text (even a minute amount) to one or more of these articles in order to provide a link. These may include adding a new heading with a {{Main}} tag below the heading and possibly a brief description. Identify one or more navboxes containing articles in a category common to the orphan. According to some editors, this is the very best way to de-orphan, for it provides dozens of instantaneous links if a navbox is available. To do this, find the navbox, and add the article where it best belongs. You can edit a navbox by either visiting its title (beginning with ""template:"") or navigating to a page containing it, and clicking the letter ""e"" at the top-left corner. Once you add the orphaned article to a navbox, add the navbox to that article. If no suitable navbox exists, and you have the skills to create one, you can create a new navbox for the orphan and other related articles. Note: While adding a navbox is very effective in increasing the number of links to a page, it is important to assure that at least some of the articles within the navbox have links from articles outside of that navbox; otherwise you are left with a walled garden. === Biography orphan articles === For biography articles, there are several posslble options: Look for the orphan article's place of birth (or death). Open that place article and look for ""Notable people"" section. If that section does not exist, add one. Then add the orphan article there. (Occasionally instead of ""Notable people"" the section title may be ""Personalities"", ""Notable residents"", etc.) Look for date of birth or death, then add the person to that article. Begin by searching Category:Year lists by country. Within that country, (List of years in Sweden for example) click on the year (example, 1980 in Sweden. Next, add a wikilink for the orphan article in the appropriate section (births, deaths, events). Within the Wikipedia search box, ""People from..."" or ""List of people from"" may be helpful to find a place to add the orphan article. Another example, List of Argentines where notable people can be added. ==== Search box examples ==== Some year articles exist or could be redirects. These are a few examples using the Wikipedia Search box: June 1937, article, with daily sections June 1993, Redirects to 1993 article, June Events section Births in 2008, Redirects to 2008 article, Births section Deaths in July 2008, article, with daily sections An article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion. At worst, an orphan is just an article created by a less experienced editor who does not understand that it is necessary to provide sources, links or even categories, or by a more experienced editor who simply cannot find any other pages that can link to the subject. Or it may be a relatively new article that the creator is planning to link from other pages, but has not identified other articles or otherwise carried out that task yet (a page generally should not be tagged as an orphan until it has been around for a little while). Being an orphan is not a reason to delete an article, only to fix whatever issues it has. An orphan, especially if it has been created by a newbie, may need to be flagged with other article issue tags. See {{Multiple issues}} for a list of issues with which an article can be flagged. It may be the case that some articles currently just cannot be de-orphaned. If this is the case then please do not try to 'force-fit' by adding unrelated links to articles where they don't belong just for the sake of de-orphaning. Always keep in mind that our primary goal is to improve the reader's experience, not satisfy the editor's indulgence in statistical achievements. Your priority when adding links should be to maintain article quality by adding relevant and useful links wherever possible. === Article's talk page === ==== Add wikiproject(s) ==== Take a look on the article's talk page and see if there is a WikiProject message box. If not, add an appropriate WikiProject template. More than one message box can be added if needed. This should bring the article to the attention of subject contributors who may be able to help de-orphan. ==== Add talk page orphan notice ==== For Talk page of orphan articles, add the following notice to increase the orphan visiblity. {{Notice|{{see also|Wikipedia:Orphan|Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage}}}} When adding a notice to the talk page, please use this edit summary: Adding notice to orphaned article talk page, Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]] === Notability === Some orphaned articles may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If a thorough search for significant coverage in reliable sources is unsuccessful, appropriate action may include tagging the page with {{Notability}}, a proposed deletion or deletion nomination. === Using the att parameter === When you do encounter an article that you are unable to de-orphan, but still feel that it is possible to be de-orphaned, then add the date you tried to de-orphan it to the orphan tag using the att parameter. The ""att"" is an abbreviation for ""attempt"", as in ""I attempted to de-orphan this article but failed"". The rationale is that although you were unable to de-orphan the article, it is often the case that someone else may be successful. However, if you are certain the article is unlikely to ever be de-orphaned then simply remove the tag. To use ""att"", update the {{Orphan}} tag with: |{{subst:ATT}}. If there are already other cleanup tags and they're within the {{Multiple issues}} template no special considerations are generally required. There are several benefits of using the de-orphan attempt (att) parameter. It is a placemarker for those trying to do initial de-orphaning (i.e., indicates that somebody tried it and when). Also, articles where de-orphaning was tried quite some time ago may be easier now (many articles become easier to de-orphan once more articles in related areas have been filled in). You can be sure you won't end up looking at the same orphaned article twice because once it's tagged with |att=March 2023 it gets removed from the category it's currently in (Category:Orphaned articles from March 2023) and gets placed into the attempted de-orphaned articles category (Category:Attempted de-orphan from March 2023). This category may be a place for those de-orphaners who want an extra challenge. Remember that only a single incoming link is required in order to completely remove the orphan tag, but any additional links will certainly help ensure the article is not isolated, so the attempted de-orphans category may also be a place to hold those articles where you feel there is potential for more incoming links. Also, when placing the |att= parameter, it's unnecessary to remove the pre-existing |date= parameter, as they are two separate and distinct parameters that complement each other. Instead of replacing |date= with |att= simply place it in addition to it. This gives editors the added benefit of knowing when the orphan tag was first placed on the article. Note that this does not double-categorize it, the |att= takes precedence and, as was mentioned above, the article is moved to the attempted de-orphan category for that date, so you're not having to revisit the same article twice when browsing through the monthly orphaned articles category. However, the all-inclusive Category:All orphaned articles still remains regardless; this is deliberate and is needed to categorize the article as still being an orphan. ==== Attempted de-orphan edit summary ==== You may use this edit summary: Attempted to de-orphan. Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]] === Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan === Organisms/Taxonomic/Species articles: Unless they're part of a navbox, it's highly unlikely that these specialized subjects will be linked to from more than one other article (although note that this has no bearing on their notability). Given that there's such a huge number of these and that many of them are one- or two-line stubs, it does not help to improve Wikipedia by tagging every single one with an orphan tag, and in fact may be seen as disruptive by other users. Please focus on the ones where there's at least a chance of inter-wikilinking. ... in popular culture, List of works by ...: Usually the only article that will ever link to these will be the ""parent"" page about the subject itself. Obviously it's not necessary to get multiple links for these. There are many other cases similar to this (ex. ""Lists of ..."" lists, ""Index of ..."", ""Glossary of ..."" etc.) and other navigational types of articles, where just using a little common sense goes a long way in ensuring Wikipedia remains an enjoyable experience for the reader as well as the editor. Surname pages: These are a special case, some may be among those types of articles known as ""set index"" articles, whilst others are encyclopedic articles related to anthroponymy that may be easier to de-orphan. If it's possible to de-orphan these, great. If not, just remove the tag if it's there and don't worry about it. Although a bot or script is capable of regularly checking articles to see if they are orphaned, you can help too manually. When reading an article, you can check what other pages link to it by clicking ""What links here"" in the toolbox, or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+j. You will then be provided with a list of pages that link to that article. If it meets the criteria, and you don't have the time or knowledge to de-orphan it right away, you can add the {{Orphan}} template to the top of the page (after ""Short description"" line), marking it as an orphan. If you use AWB when tagging, be sure to read the page ""AWB and orphans"". Note that WP:AWB has a feature to tag/untag articles with orphan tags. If set incorrectly, AWB can falsely tag articles not orphans, as well as remove an orphan tag that should remain. When creating a new article, it is best to prevent them from being orphans from the beginning. Advice can be found at Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages. Finding possible links may be time-consuming. Don't worry if you cannot make all the necessary edits on the same day, as long as you keep your plans in mind! There are presently a lot of orphaned essays. An essay is defined as ""orphaned"" if none of the following types of pages link to it: Other essays Policy and guideline pages Help pagesDeletion discussions, talk pages in any namespace, lists and directories in project space, and subpages do not count toward meeting the minimum. An orphaned essay is much harder to find than an orphaned article because there are fewer alternative methods available than there are for articles. An essay that is orphaned should be marked with the template {{Orphaned essay}} immediately below the {{Essay}} template. This will automatically place the essay in the category Orphaned Wikipedia essays. The {{Orphaned essay}} tag and the criteria used for orphaned essays are completely separate from orphaned articles. Although the guidance on this page may still apply to orphaned essays, they should be considered less of a priority. Category:Orphaned articles Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject User:R3m0t/Reports—Orphaned talk pages (project completed as of September 2005) Special:Unusedimages Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphans with incoming links {{Orphan}} — cleanup template for orphaned articles {{Orphan image}} — cleanup template for orphaned images {{Di-orphaned fair use}} — deletion template for orphaned non-free imagesSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage § Templates for more. Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages Wikipedia:Build the web Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage Wikipedia:Dead-end pages Wikipedia:Walled garden Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Navbox Wikipedia:Pageview statistics User:Edward/Find link OrphanTalk; A tool to find orphaned talk pages." 356 360 780 WP:PINBALL Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball 356 Welcome to WikiProject Pinball, a WikiProject formed to become a source for improved Wikipedia coverage of the great pastime of pinball. Please consider participating if you have any interest in the game and wish to help us help Wikipedia cover this great game. GoalsMake Wikipedia a quality source for information about pinball. Create guidelines for articles about pinball, to improve article consistency and make article creation and editing easier.ScopeArcade pinball machines, notable home (small-scale) pinball machines, video game pinball simulators, pinball-related devices or equipment. Individual biographies with a strong association with pinball, including those of pinball developers, designers, artists, champions, etc. Companies, organizations, publications and other non-individuals with a strong association with pinball Games ancestral or closely related to pinball, including pachinko and bagatelle (some of which may also be within the scope of WP:WikiProject Cue sports) Video simulation games of pinball (also within the scope of WP:WikiProject Video Games) All articles with a strong association with pinball, even if it is not the primary topic of the article, which may be within the scope of other projects as well (e.g., Tommy (rock opera)). Have a useful resource to share with other editors working on articles related to pinball? Add it here: === Databases === Internet Pinball Database Pinball rulesheets Pinball instruction cards Pinball instruction cards Internet Pinball Serial Number Database (IPSND) === News === Pinball News PinGame Journal Pinball Magazine (Upcoming pinball machines at Pinball Magazine) Skill-Shot Performance Pinball === Manufacturer === Stern Pinball Jersey Jack Pinball Circus Maximus (CM at FB) Heighway Pinball Dutch Pinball Multimorphic Chicago Gaming Company === Forums === The Virtual Pinball Forums Pinball Nirvana Forums Pinball Arcade site and forum VPinball VPUniverse === History === Short Pinball History Pinball History site Spanish Pinball history Russian Pinball history Collection of pinball articles Pinball technology === Books === The Complete Pinball Book: Collecting the Game & Its History by Marco Rossignoli The Pinball Compendium: 1982 to Present by Michael Shalhoub The Pinball Compendium: 1970-1981 by Michael Shalhoub The Pinball Compendium: The Electro-Mechanical Era by Michael Shalhoub The Pinball Compendium: 1930s-1960s by Michael Shalhoub The Pinball Price Guide The PinBotz Guide to the Greatest Pinball Machines of the 80s And 90s by Kevin Strasser Pinball Perspectives: Ace High to World's Series Pinball Snapshots: Air Aces To Xenon Pinball Memories: Forty Years of Fun, 1958-1998 Your Pinball Machine: How to Purchase, Adjust, Maintain, and Repair Your Own Machine === Documentaries === Pinball Passion at IMDb TILT: The Battle to Save Pinball (IGN review) Special When Lit at IMDb Pinball 101 at IMDb The History of Pinball Pinball Madness A Lifelong Love Gottlieb Tour Chasing Ghosts at IMDb Things That Go Bump in the Night Movie === Museums === Pacific Pinball Museum, a museum in Oakland, California Pinball Hall of Fame, a museum located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Museum of Pinball, formerly the world’s largest pinball museum with over 500 vintage and modern pinball machines in Banning, California. Silverball Museum, a museum located in New Jersey and Florida. Seattle Pinball Museum, a museum located in Seattle. Paris Pinball Museum, a museum located in Paris, France. Pinball Museum Solothurn, a museum located in Solothurn, Switzerland. German pinball museum, a museum in Neuwied, Germany. Pinball museum Schwerin, a museum in Schwerin, Germany. Vintage Flipper World, a museum in Ann Arbor, MI. === Search === Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL === New articles that contain the word pinball === === Recent changes of everything related to WikiProject Pinball === An automated project watchlist of recent pinball related edits. Note: Some edits may not be relevant to this project. === Bot-generated list of articles needing cleanup === an automated pinball cleanup listing === Article alerts === You can find all Pinball article alerts here and subscribe at the bottom of this page to get informed for example about Pinball articles for deletion or miscellaneous discussions and nominations. No Article alerts at this time. === Selected new articles === Here you can announce and add links to new created or expanded pinball related articles. === Assessment === Feel free to sign up as a participant in this project, and add yourself manually or with the userbox {{User WikiProject Pinball}} to Category:WikiProject Pinball participants. Any help is very welcome. :) Feel also free to make suggestions or ask questions on the project's talk page. Fractalchez - Longtime pinball player and enthusiast, current league & tournament organizer DuoDeathscyther 02 - Casual pinball player; created or improved these pinball articles David Pro - Longtime pinball player and enthusiast, has created these pinball articles Rich Fife - Longtime collector and enthusiast. SarahStierch long time pinball enthusiast and will lend a hand when possible to articles (especially the pinball article itself. VMzB - 8-bit era veteran, especially interested in the electronic guts of pinball machines (and some arcade games) and their repair. Imho IPDB is a great resource and we should try to refer to it, or even establish automatic data transfer. GeneralPinball Glossary of pinball terms List of pinball machinesGamesThe Addams Family (pinball) Revenge from Mars Twilight Zone (pinball)CompaniesBally Manufacturing Midway Games WMS Industries (Williams Electronics)PeopleSteve Ritchie Jorian EngelbrektssonTechnologiesPinball 2000Video game simulationsMetroid Prime Pinball Good Article Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire Digital preservation & creationThe Pinball Arcade Visual Pinball {{Infobox Pinball}} {{WikiProject Pinball}} {{User WikiProject Pinball}} Parent projectWikiProject GamesRelated projectsWikiProject Cue sports (pinball ultimately derives from billiards, by way of games like bagatelle and bar billiards) WikiProject Video games (electronic arcade games, the original video games, were an outgrowth of pinball) 357 361 781 WP:CCN Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard 357 Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard was a noticeboard that handled disputes generally concerning ethnic or religious conflict, however in a discussion among the community, its lack of use and lack of active volunteers was brought up as concerns, so it was closed in favour of other existing processes like the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you require assistance with resolving a dispute, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 358 362 784 WP:GODWIN Wikipedia:Godwin's law 358 As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. This observation is known as Godwin's law, named after its originator Mike Godwin who later served as general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. Although Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, discussion on our talk pages nevertheless suffers from the same symptoms as other forums on the internet. Godwin himself believes that comparing disagreements in internet discussions with the Nazis trivialises the Holocaust. His law reminds us to stick to the point in discussions and avoid demonising one's opponents. Godwin's law (Wikipedia article on the law) User:MGodwin (Mike Godwin's Wikipedia user page) Wikipedia:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity, a Wikipedia-specific corollary 359 363 786 WP:NSMT Wikipedia:No single merge target 359 "One well-established exception to the general notability guideline is the issue of when content is not separately notable, but has no single merge target. The classic example of this is WP:BAND clause six, which as of this writing reads: ""Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."" Such content is kept despite the lack of (or marginal) notability, because it serves an encyclopedic purpose to do so. Why an exception to notability guideline?Many types of content are verifiable through reliable or otherwise appropriate sources, but don't separately meet the WP:GNG criteria of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. Normally, that content is merged somewhere appropriate, but prior to this essay, no universal guideline had been written on what to do with content that had no single merge target: Some such content had been kept (especially per WP:BAND), others had been redirected to one possible merge target, and other content had probably been deleted (contrary to the WP:ATD policy) as too unimportant to keep Why not just delete it?One of Wikipedia's deletion policies is that alternatives to deletion are pursued whenever reasonable. When content doesn't meet criteria for individual standalone articles, but is both verifiable and does not run afoul of WP:NOT it is merged, rather than deleted. However, consider the following situation: a particular musician has been a member of three separate, notable bands, but not a whole lot has been written on him as an individual. If we assume for the sake of argument that he's not, in fact, notable, where do we redirect his article? To the first notable band in which he performed? The biggest? The most current? Each of these alternatives has possibilities and drawbacks, but each is superior to deletion. However, consider another particular musician, who was only ever part of one notable band. If his coverage is insufficient for a standalone article, deletion policy is clear that it should be redirected to his band per WP:ATD. Now, the question: why would it ever make sense to delete the first musician's info and keep the second's after a merger to his band? But isn't this just for bands?The original context where this was articulated was, indeed, a band. However, other fictional elements, biographical articles, and perhaps even Wikipedia topics that have not been considered yet may fall into the same category, of lacking sufficient notability to justify a standalone article, yet having no single merge target. Consider a television character who was part of two notable shows. Thus, the principle first articulated at WP:BAND clause six can be appropriately applied to any content: That lacks coverage sufficient to meet the general notability guideline Yet has appropriately verifiable content And cannot be merged to a single target per deletion policyIn such cases, the content is best retained as a standalone ""article"", containing information common to its multiple possible merge targets, with prominent links to each such target. In essence, it becomes much like a hybrid of a disambiguation page and an article." 360 364 787 WP:POPE Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic 360 "The Pope is Catholic. You probably knew that. But does a person completely ignorant of Christianity or religion in general know that? What about a person who is isolated from knowledge of the Western world? At some point in everybody's life, each of us did not know the Pope was Catholic. (Perhaps you were young then, but young people can use Wikipedia, too.) All of us are born ignorant, and only come to knowledge through learning. While there is no need to go into highly specific detail, particularly about the fringe, it's always good to provide some context. Even if something is very well known among English speakers, please remember that Wikipedia exists in many languages. Even though many Westerners know that Pope Francis is not a Methodist, does everyone in the world know that? (Let's ignore the fact that not everyone has access to Wikipedia. Yet. One of Wikipedia's goals is that they will.) Wikipedia (or content from Wikipedia) may be used as a learning/teaching tool, especially in less-developed regions of the world that lack educational resources. People in such scenarios may be able to read a Western language well enough to find Wikipedia very useful, but will be unfamiliar with knowledge those living in more industrialized regions take for granted. To use another popular example, Paris is in France. Most people are familiar with the famous city. But some people may have a poor background in geography. A bare ""Paris"" is also ambiguous with the dozens of other places named Paris. Maybe you meant Paris, Texas, United States. Context will usually make this clear, but it is better to be explicit and remove all doubt. Simply writing ""Paris, France"" instead of just ""Paris"" can go a long way towards clearing up confusion. This also provides an opportunity to build the web by linking ""France"", i.e., ""Paris, France"". A link is not always necessary, however, especially if the subject of the linked article is well-known. Don't make assumptions, and don't be afraid to explain something. Be bold in updating pages. Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue" 361 365 788 WP:USHIST Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History 361 "Welcome to WikiProject United States History. Some Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of United States history and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and all subpages of this page contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. The WikiProject United States History is a project aimed towards the development and expansion of articles on the History of the United States, including: To provide guidelines and recommendations for articles that describe all aspects of United States history. To improve Wikipedia's coverage of United States history by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles. To address POV issues and tentative edits in articles within the scope of the project. To serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to the history of the United States in Wikipedia. The project generally considers any article related to prehistorical, historical or modern-day affairs of America and its territories to be within its scope. As history we regard the study and interpretation of the record of humans, families, and societies as preserved primarily through written sources. In other words, ambition of the project is to cover articles related to: the history of ancient America the history of the native Americans the history of European settlement in America the present day history of America any and all articles relating to important historical AmericansAll of these articles should be included in the Category:History of the United States or one of its subcategories. === Article alerts === Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Novelist58 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) === Active participants === Andy85719 (talk · contribs) U.S. History Guru Bedford (talk · contribs) specialized in US History from 1763–1877 Beggarsbanquet (talk · contribs) Updated June 2020: I'm a music historian and while I am knowledgeable about a variety of broad historical topics (not just music), I am most interested in adding to articles on American composers, musicians and musical styles/movements. Also focused on cleaning up WP:FRINGE such as pro-Confederate pseudohistory. Beginning (talk · contribs) (talk) BillyJack193 (talk · contribs) (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Native American history, Civil War, American folk music Buaidh (talk · contribs) – Historical outline of the United States CanonLawJunkie (talk · contribs) (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I'm a US ""Civil War"" re-enactor and believe it was an International Conflict of Interests, not a civil war in one nation. Caponer (talk · contribs) (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) – Biographies of Founding Fathers of the United States and their families. Cdtew (talk · contribs) {talk} I'm interested in Colonial and early Federal history, as well as the history, specifically that of North Carolina Cdtuba (talk · contribs) {talk} Just U.S. history in general Charles Edward (talk · contribs) - expert Hoosier History (Indiana), an generally knowledgeable of all facets of national history. CJK09 (talk · contribs) - California history; western US history 1804-1876; general 19th century US history especially 1844-1876; Native American history especially pre-subjugation; westward expansion and Manifest Destiny Cliotropic (talk · contribs) (talk) US women/gender/sexuality as part of WikiProject Women's History; US 19th & 20th century, especially 1898-1945; social, legal, cultural, policy history Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) (founder) Creez34 (talk · contribs) (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Revolutionary war-Gulf War CsikosLo (talk · contribs) Southern USA/CSA Darwinek (talk · contribs) Deep South, race relations, American History from the Civil War to World War II. Dilidor (talk · contribs) Colonial through Revolution and all things New England DiverDave (talk · contribs) DiverDave (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC) maritime history, colonial period (especially Massachusetts) Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) All American history, and especially Philadelphia events. Dunnsworth (talk · contribs) Recent US Military History Ebt66 (talk · contribs) Military history in general; military intelligence and special operations; American Revolution from 1765-1790 (specifically espionage and irregular warfare); American identity; social, religious, and political extremist groups Encycloshave (talk · contribs) Founding era; Federal Convention. Failure2002 (talk · contribs) talk 03/07/2011--historiography, political, cultural intellectual all periods. Still pretty new and really appreciate advise (UTC) Fesmitty77 (talk · contribs) (Reconstruction) ForgottenHistory (talk · contribs) (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Futurist110 (talk · contribs) (talk) July 8, 2012--20th and 21st century U.S. history, historical U.S. demographics, Presidents, First Ladies, U.S. federal elections GenQuest (talk · contribs) joined: 28 Aug 2010. Historically accurate place names and dating; geographical changes or events; the Revolutionary War; colonial, territorial and state border developments; bios and genealogies; grammar and English. Gosox5555 (talk · contribs) (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Articles relating to the American Revolutionary War (especially early Revolution) and Colonial period, with a particular interest in Massachusetts. Also an interest in political history and political parties. Happyme22 (talk · contribs) (Specializing in presidencies from FDR to current George W. Bush; focus on Ronald Reagan) Historical Perspective (talk · contribs) (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 19th century US political history, Civil War, maritime history, Massachusetts history Hoppyh (talk · contribs) presidents, Virginia history Ianlopez12 (talk · contribs) (from Washington to Obama) Isinbill (talk · contribs) (talk) United States colonial history (especially in the Southwest) John Carter (talk · contribs) DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov jojhutton (talk · contribs) (Presidents, War History) jrtayloriv (talk · contribs) DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov ktr101 (talk · contribs) Just finished a course on it, so pretty much everything is my specialty. LightSpectra (talk · contribs) – Most U.S. history, especially political parties; not especially good with military history LuckyWiki26 (talk · contribs) - presidents, elections, politics, wars, biographies Knope7 (talk · contribs) - women in government, presidents and first ladies, women's history, law Knope7 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC) MBUSHIstory (talk · contribs) - Law, environment, politics Monsieurdl (talk · contribs) (Specializing in early American history from 1600–1783 with many personal resources) Morriswa (talk · contribs) (Allen (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)) (interested in editing articles about roads of the United States, whether Interstate, U.S. Highways, or state routes) North Shoreman (talk · contribs) Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Women in US history, minoritized populations and individuals in US history. Parkwells (talk · contribs) (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)]] 19th c., northern and southern tier migrations, also post-Civil War migrations and settlement on MS frontier, 20th c. Great Migration, ethnic and social history Perry Hotter (talk · contribs) (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC) History of the American Old West, particularly the Gunslingers Presidentman (talk · contribs) Anything U.S. history, but especially presidents and states, etc. Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) Civil War, California history Rockhead126 (talk · contribs) U.S. politics, mainly from 1900 to present. Some military history. Biographies, elections Sm8900 (talk · contribs) Smb1138 (talk · contribs) US History 1760–1800 and 1945+ Sutherland4l (talk · contribs) (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Thanoscar21 (talk · contribs) TomCat4680 (talk · contribs) (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Interested in Presidents, Michigan history, historical places, roads and buildings, etc. Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs) (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) American Civil War and World War 2 Wallie (talk · contribs) (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC) US History, esp WW2 (Pacific) and ACW. Wikigold96 (talk · contribs) Wisconsineditor (talk · contribs) American History & Wisconsin State History Dualus (talk · contribs) 99 Percent Declaration Weatherby551 (talk · contribs) (talk) Chenoeh (talk · contribs) 19th century U.S. social history, U.S. South, race and slavery Somuchtolearn (talk · contribs) Native peoples, pioneers/settlers/frontiers Samuel Peoples (talk · contribs) U.S. history, Arkansas history AcrosstheLitVerse (talk · contribs) military and political history Peterk17700 (talk · contribs) U.S. history, Minnesota History ChristopherTheodore (talk · contribs) Popular Sovereignty in the United States Dennishidalgo (talk · contribs) The U.S. in the Atlantic World and the Western Hemisphere The Red Morrigan (talk · contribs) War for Independence, Civil War, War of 1812. Also famous historical Americans such as James Otis Jr.. Aaie21 (talk · contribs) Olorin3k (talk · contribs) colonial New England, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, colonial Virginia, Germanna settlement, War for Independence, role of religion in American culture, early Kentucky, The Travelling Church Amphictyon1 (talk · contribs) I was formerly pmoneymcw123 but i forgot my password. I'm getting my degree in U.s History so I'll try to do as much as I can as well as clean up and bulk up articles. Please contact me if there is anything you want me to do! I wanna help yo Ryanlintelman (talk · contribs) 19th century US History, film history, popular culture, Civil War Libertybison (talk) Mostly Founding era and Civil War but I can find myself working on any historical period. Henrikcg (talk · contribs) From the Beginning of America in Jamestown, to the Transcontinental Railroad. Vast knowledge in World War 2, and currently studying Watergate. Jmehlhaus (talk · contribs) Fairly knowledgeable in political theory at most points in US history, specifically early and middle 20th century Kestenbaum (talk · contribs) U.S. political history Ellsie.c (talk)Ellsie.c various eras TommyBoy (talk · contribs) government and politics with an emphasis on the states of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia. ReconIsAnOtaku7 (talk · contribs) U.S. political and military history Mrspaceowl (talk · contribs) U.S. political, employment and popular cultural history JMA1984 (talk · contribs) U.S. History afh1858 (talk · contribs) U.S. West and Indigenous history Timothy (talk) United States History generally, colonial and early republic era particularly, Spanish Colonial America, California History, bibliographies TheAnatomyMan (talk · contribs) I enjoy all United States History, but I specialize in the Reconstruction era, as well as the Gilded Age (mid 1860s to about 1900); I also emphasize my work on political history. S.shedore (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC) MBJAnderson (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Tamaz.young Tamaz.young (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) meliredMelired (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Luisa Koala Maryland GlobeGores (talk · contribs) 20th century US political history, especially elections and legislative history. TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Louisiana Purchase history, Louisiana history, southern history, and historic houses and landmarks. PrecariousWorlds (talk · contribs) 10:16 27th June 2022 Terrickisaiah555 (talk · contribs) Interested in general US history, particularly in it's early years of formation, as well as the expansion to the West. === Inactive participants === BGinOC (talk · contribs) Historian — No edits since October 2010 BradMajors (talk · contribs) (particularly, New York prior to 1783) - No edits since March 2008 Crehberg (talk · contribs) Civil War, Deep South, Great Depression. - Three edits in February 2011, nothing before that since August 2009 Deavenger (talk · contribs) Overall U.S history. I might go more to doctrines and foreign affairs also. - No edits since August 2009 EQuintan (talk · contribs) - No edits since December 2009 Gentleman Historian (talk · contribs) General and Colonial American History. - No edits since December 2010. Only 6 total edits all for December 2010 Hahaandy1 (talk · contribs)(talk) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I can help with anything from the colonial period until reconstruction but particularly in the Early Republic — No edits since February 2009 Happyandrew1994 (talk · contribs) (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) --American Revolution, early Maritime history — No edits since April 2010 Hargrimm (talk · contribs) - No edits since September 2010 Leobold1 (talk · contribs) American History from the Civil War through WWII — No edits since October 2010 Lizconno (talk · contribs) - 2 Edits to user page in March 2011, Nothing else till September 2010 Nanten (talk · contribs) American History from 1750–1865, plus World War II. - No edits since October 2010 Ogram (talk · contribs) (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Salem witch trials - 1 edit in January 2011, nothing before that till Septmeber 2010 Samurai262 (talk · contribs) I can help improve American Revolution and American Civil War. - No edits since June 2010 Secisek (talk · contribs) - User account blocked indefinitely in March 2010 for disruptive editing. Sean (talk · contribs) - No edits since December 2010 ShatteredSpiral (talk · contribs) Emphasis on both the American Revolutionary and American Civil wars, including John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Thomas Jefferson articles. - No edits since October 2010 Simplyianm (talk · contribs) Hello. - 4 edits in May 2011, appear to be just random edits, nothing before that since December 2010 StarsTrainsAndRandomThings (talk · contribs) Interested in pretty much everything. Those who don't know their history end up just repeating it. - No edits since April 2009 Tnfranklin (talk · contribs) (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC) - No edits since December 2010 Wabash Canoe (talk · contribs) (talk) Articles related to the United States Constitution - No edits since May 2009 WendyB (talk · contribs) American History — Only 1 edit and that was to add name as a participant in the project back in June 2010 ClaudeJTurner (talk · contribs) Carrying the Flame === Assessment === === Featured content === Robert F. Kennedy assassination ==== Candidates ==== (FLC) Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Women's Suffrage === Good articles === ==== Candidates ==== List of feuds in the United States === New articles === Please feel free to list your new United States history-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,000 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. Owen Biddle, Sr. Revolutionary war colonel, and member of the prolific Biddle family --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Col. William Munroe – just created as a draft, not yet ready for prime time. Includes information about the second-in-command for the Colonists at the first shots of the American Revolution. La Balize, Louisiana – already featured on DYK in May Robert Purvis – added more material, featured on DYK === Collaboration and review === Collaboration of the week Peer review Assessment {{User WikiProject US History}} – userbox {{WikiProject United States History}} – Project banner, to be added to the talk pages of relevant articles. === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject United States History is one of the United States WikiProjects." 362 366 791 WP:NGR Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great 362 "Nothing is perfect, and Wikipedia is no exception. This page enumerates user opinions on why Wikipedia is not so great. For formal criticisms, see Criticism of Wikipedia. Much of the presented criticism is debated in separate essays: ""Wikipedia is succeeding"", ""Wikipedia is failing"", ""Why Wikipedia is so great"", and ""Replies to common objections"". The following opinions are grouped into related sets. Since 2003, problems of inaccuracy (below under: Accuracy) were considered by some as the biggest issue. However, others have felt ""POV pushing"" (or bias, below under: NPOVness (non-bias)) to be a bigger problem, because statements could contain accurate facts while expressing only one point of view about a subject, rather than being a balanced, impartial treatment. There have been documented problems caused by open, anonymous gatherings of people on Wikipedia, such as the writing of vitriol (noted in 2003) or wiki-gangs (noted in July 2005). Another problem is that anyone can edit articles at any time, so people can vandalize articles, as long as they have an account. Some schools have been banned from making an account and that helps a little, but people can still vandalize out of school. A single centralized Wikipedia server lacks robustness against server or network problems. It also makes no sense given the distribution of users by language worldwide. Mirrors of Wikipedia are not always swiftly updated. Misinformation which is quickly corrected on Wikipedia itself may persist for some time in the mirrors. Heck, it took me less than a minute to type this sentence up. And it's just that easy to edit. Wikipedia itself prevents any real solution to this problem by failing to encourage others to improve articles, instead demanding that Wikimedia be the cited source for any copy, even a vastly improved copy such as those that appear often at Wikinfo. Wiki markup is great, but it is not accessible to most users. Go to any page and click ""Edit"". Although help with editing is available, if you don't know how to program or if you're not previously familiar with mark-up text, it is hugely discouraging. The current support for text editors is not much better (Wikipedia:Text editor support). (The current list of proposed usability improvements includes 9 separate proposals concerning the text editor and the editing process, so this issue is not unknown in the Wikipedia community.) There may be many people out there who would like to contribute but can't, perhaps especially women – Wikipedia is dominated by male editors. === Lack of transparency === More than one thousand pages are deleted from Wikipedia each day. Most of Wikipedia's readers are unable to view its deleted articles, and numerous proposals for public access to these articles have been rejected. Many articles have been rapidly deleted via the proposed deletion and speedy deletion processes, while others have been deleted according to subjective criteria such as lack of significance or lack of notability. === Restrictions on freedom of speech === Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its editors may face numerous restrictions on freedom of speech, including various types of sanctions. Certain images have also been blacklisted from Wikipedia, since they have been deemed potentially offensive. Editors can be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia if their usernames do not conform to Wikipedia's username policy. === Bureaucracy === Despite claims to the opposite, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, with increasingly complicated rules that can be edited by anyone, and a hierarchy of privileged users who enforce these rules, sometimes contradictorily. These rules have been used to delete useful information and informative images and to deface articles through over-application of bureaucratic processes. Debates and deletion discussions, as part of the bureaucratic process, divert individuals from editing and improving articles. === Behavioral/cultural problems === People raise endless objections on Talk pages, instead of fixing what bothers them. On the other hand, people can be too bold in updating pages instead of discussing changes on Talk first. It's impossible to tell in advance how contentious something is because there's no serious indication other than an edit summary and the relative frequency of recent page edits. The self-esteem of a bad writer with a fragile ego may be damaged by people always correcting horrible prose, redundancies, bad grammar and spelling. This is especially true if proofreaders not only correct but upbraid the poor writers, who can perhaps offer expert knowledge or change subjective statements despite their mediocre use of English. That unnecessary discouragement repels contributors whose only fault is poor writing, not poor thinking. If you revert or ban too quickly, sometimes a useful contributor will be turned away. If you revert or ban too slowly, then extra time will be citing additions. Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is controlled only weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed. A user can in effect exercise ownership over the topics they have the time and energy to defend. Self-appointed censors, fanatics, or other sufficiently dedicated users can further an agenda or prohibit new ideas through persistent attention to a particular page. Even listing examples of this creates problems, such as false accusations and harassment. People revert edits without explaining themselves (Example: an edit on Economics) (a proper explanation usually works better on the talk page than in an edit summary). Then, when somebody reverts, also without an explanation, an edit war often results. There's not enough grounding in Wikiquette to explain that reverts without comments are inconsiderate and almost never justified except for spam and simple vandalism, and even in those cases comments need to be made for tracking purposes. There's a culture of hostility and conflict rather than of good will and cooperation. Even experienced Wikipedians fail to assume good faith in their collaborators. It seems fighting off perceived intruders and making egotistical reversions are a higher priority than incorporating helpful collaborators into Wikipedia's community. Glaring errors and omissions are completely ignored by veteran Wikiholics (many of whom pose as scientists, for example, but have no verifiable credentials) who have nothing to contribute but egotistical reverts. There is also no acknowledgement ever that multiple communities might be using Wikipedia not by choice but because they feel they must react to changes or to people using the website. === Controlling problematic users vs. allowing wide participation === The very worst problem is that people think in terms of ""controlling"" users, and defining them as a ""problem"", as if there necessarily would be some judgmental view that could achieve that fairly. Would you talk about ""controlling problem citizens"" in a democracy? Absolutely not. Instead we closely and rigorously control words like ""suspect"", ""criminal"", ""illegal"" and make them meaningless and totally ineffective except in the context of a very fairly arbitrated adversarial process with a long history. There's none of that when some influential ""Wikipedian"" labels a person ""a problem"". That said, there are balance and bias problems introduced by lack of controls. Anonymous users with very strong opinions and a lot of time can change many articles to support their views. Aside from IP blocks and bans for the most obnoxious, there is no means of preventing this other than attention by experienced editors, who are rare. There's no hierarchy of regular, senior, topical editors to make final rulings on extremely complex matters, e.g., by forcing two with very different views to agree. IP range blocks can reduce participation if they are for ranges selected and assigned dynamically by IP providers, both dial-up and broadband, making Wikipedia administrator vigilantism a particular problem. It may even be impossible to protest an unjust ban using the wiki channel itself, which is very unreasonable. If Wikipedia follows the pattern of every other 'community forum' on the net, small groups will become powerful to the exclusion of others. Thus the priority, inherent bias and hostility issues are likely to get worse. The increasingly nebulous ""troll"" could be used as an excuse for excluding people from the decision making processes behind the encyclopedia. The insistence that a cabal must exist typically stems from this concern. Geeks run the place. Wikipedia has become more and more hierarchical in order to 'defend freedom' from 'trolling'. This despite the fact that the Internet troll article itself acknowledges the obvious subjectivity of the term, and that it's effectively a power word used to dehumanize others. There are administrators who can delete articles. There are no checks or balances on this power built into the system, other than the attention contributors have time to give, whereas their ability to delete and ban is built in at the coding level. Administrators can seriously damage the site if their account is broken into, e.g., by history merges. Editors have learned that formation into ""gangs"" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely ""revert favour"" once they have reached the limit of their daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything. === Personal interests of contributors and others === This site is creating large numbers of wikipediholics who could be doing something more useful. Calling them addicts or cultists might not be entirely incorrect. Authors cannot claim authorship of any article. This makes it hard to use even the authorship of astonishingly good articles as a credential, in part because they may change before anyone looks. Those disaffected with humanity are provided with an outlet for their vitriol, rather than having to become misanthropes, terrorists or political researchers. Some people will take great pleasure in demonstrating the idiotic futility of such garbage. This seems like a positive quality of Wikipedia, until one realizes that any sufficiently toxic or stupid view will quickly acquire more adherents, and that defenders of a particular view tend to create factions which might soon exist offline. Any group perceiving itself as beleaguered or disadvantaged will band together more readily, and achieve common cause more readily. Instead of just stating the facts, many authors feel the need to attack their own pet peeves of the article's subject. They adopt pedantic tones as they correct ""common belief"" or a ""false assumption"", when facts alone are sufficient. The fact that any editor can edit any article regardless of competence in the subject matter may imperil the quality of articles on highly technical subjects. In case a dispute over the content of such an article ensues, an editor without specific competence can easily reorganize the content of the article based on faulty understanding of the subject. Deletion reviews rely on users making reasonable decisions for Wikipedia. In practice people treat the reviews as popularity contests for the article rather than attempting to follow policy (hence articles like fuck which are essentially dictionaryshut up, Beavis articles). In theory the admins should fix this by checking the policy arguments, but in practice they usually count votes. === Accuracy === This is the single largest problem about Wikipedia (or is POV pushing bigger?). And, in passing what does ""POV"" mean; this very entry fails to explain. And what does ""pushing bigger"" mean in international English? In itself this is a perfect of ""Wikipedia Speak"" which nobody except a Wikipedia obsessive can understand. Anyone can add subtle nonsense or erroneous information to articles that can take weeks, months or years to be detected and removed (which has been happening since at least 2002). Deliberate hoaxes can also be perpetrated. Even unregistered users are capable of this. For example, someone can just come and edit this very page and put in ""pens are for cats only"" or add mention of some unrelated topic: like how great pineapple pizza is. Dross can proliferate, rather than become refined, as rhapsodic authors have their articles revised by ignorant editors.Of course, the upside of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. But the downside is that it is an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. So, if someone wanted to, they could edit Abraham Lincoln's page to say he was a professional wrestler. For this reason, Wikipedia should be treated with caution as a research source. === Completeness === Wikipedia contains an abundance of articles which are merely a line or two long, and people simply attach {{stub}} instead of finding information to add to the topic. Editors who find stubs are often not experts in the subject but want to learn more. Consequently, if they do actually add any content, it might lack in quality. Anyone can remove huge amounts of text from articles or even the entire article itself, ruining lots of work. This is referred to as ""blanking"" by those in the Wikipedia community, and is considered vandalism. Such ""blanking"" is typically fixed (by reverting to the previous version of the page, before the text was removed), within minutes. However, within those few minutes, or in the few cases where such blanking is first noticed by a viewer who is not aware of the history feature of Wikipedia pages, a page may seem to be severely lacking information, or be otherwise incomplete, due to this removal. Anyone can insert huge amounts of text into an article, destroying readability and all sense of proportion. Attempts to redress this are often futile and occasionally result in warnings, due to the inherent bias in the Wikipedia community that bigger is somehow better. === Deletionism === While some have expressed a concern for ""data hoarding"", others have pointed out that Wikipedia has access to a large amount of server space and is not bounded by the traditional constraints of a size-limited physical encyclopedia. The general prohibition on certain subjects or levels of detail has caused some to migrate to other wiki-communities. === Concerns about large-scale negative cultural and social effects === Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor – indeed trivial – factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London), the radical philosopher Martin Cohen accused Wikipedia of having ""become a monopoly"" with ""all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators imposed too"". Cohen cites the examples of the Wikipedia entries on Maoism (which he implies is unfairly characterised as simply the use of violence to impose political ends) and Socrates, who (on Wikipedia at least) is ""Plato's teacher who left behind not very many writings"", which to readers of the Times Higher Education at least, is patent nonsense. The example of Socrates is offered to illustrate the shallow knowledge base of editors who may then proceed to make sweeping judgements. There are many instances which have been discussed both within and outside Wikipedia of the supposed 'Western', 'white' bias of the encyclopedia, for example the assertion that 'philosophy' as an activity is essentially a European invention and discovery. Cohen accuses Wikipedia's editors of having a 'youthful cab-drivers' perspective, by which he means they are strongly opinionated and lack the tools of serious researchers to adopt a more objective standpoint. === Unnecessary articles === For modern (for example, post 2000), nearly every episode of several television shows have articles. While premieres and finales may be deserving, there is little to no reason for every episode to have its own entry while the other shows do not have any information at all. And that is why Wikipedia is not so great: because a huge amount of space is devoted to meaningless articles maintained by control freaks. This problem has been addressed by the proposed deletion and speedy deletion processes, which allow Wikipedia administrators to delete these articles rapidly. === NPOVness (non-bias) === The issue of text neutrality (or ""NPOVness"") involves several concerns about the content of Wikipedia and the choice of articles that are created: The possibility of a neutral point of view – a ""view from nowhere"" – can be questioned on philosophical grounds. And even if such a neutral point of view is achievable in principle, in practice it is often hard to find consensus on what views count as neutral. No article is actually written from a neutral point of view. Which facts about a topic are worth mentioning, and the manner and degree of detail in which they should be presented, are questions decided by the interests of the authors. Even the idea that a NPOV is achievable is in itself a POV. Cory Doctorow (in a response to other criticisms by Jaron Lanier) emphasized the value of transparent history: ""being able to see multiple versions of [any issue], organized with argument and counter-argument, will do a better job of equipping you to figure out which truth suits you best."" But this doesn't help the casual reader and certainly would not help one equipped with only a static CD or print version in some future third-world village. Doctorow acknowledges: True, reading Wikipedia is a media literacy exercise. You need to acquire new skill-sets to parse out the palimpsest. He argues it's fun, but he writes for a living and studies these things. Political topics can end up looking like CNN's Crossfire rather than an encyclopedia article, with point-counterpoint in every sentence when a neutral statement of fact would do better. (e.g., Bill Clinton did this good thing but some say it was bad. He also did this bad thing but some say it was not so bad as opposed to Bill Clinton did this thing and then that thing.) To put it another way, good writing makes NPOV flow like an encyclopedia; not-so-good writing makes it flow like ""Crossfire"". But even given that peer review will improve the standard over time, are there really enough good writers with enough time involved in Wikipedia to mitigate this weakness? Extremists tend to dominate and polarize discourse on politics, economics and any other inherently contentious field. A corollary is that only the most contentious topics or aspects of a topic draw enough attention to really improve. Doctorow (passim): The Britannica tells you what dead white men agreed upon, Wikipedia tells you what live Internet users are fighting over. Wikipedia is indeed inherently contentious, which makes it a good real time strategy game, but is it a good encyclopedia? Doctorow says: ""Wikipedia entries are nothing but the emergent effect of all the angry thrashing going on below the surface ... if you want to really navigate the truth via Wikipedia, you have to dig into those ‘history’ and ‘discuss’ pages hanging off of every entry. That's where the real action is, the tidily organized palimpsest of the flamewar that lurks beneath any definition of ‘truth’"". But while conflict theory and market-based methods assume that editorial imbalance and editorial biases are most effectively limited by adversarial process, this may simply not be true. Some independent research (by the Thomas J. Watson Research Center labs) did seem to indicate that the very best articles resulted from extremist attention and attempts to moderate it, e.g., evolution, abortion, capitalism, Islam. This may also be true of articles about politicians. But only a tiny number of the articles ever become the subject of a troll war or even more than a limited edit war. So if an adversarial process is required, most articles just aren't getting it. NPOV is a syntactic, not semantic, protection (concerned only with how things are stated, contrary to popular belief among Wikipedia editors it doesn't determine how well or fairly or evenly things are presented) and ideologically refusing to offer more than ArbCom, is an editorial cop-out quite possibly imposed by Jimmy Wales' insistence on staying in charge. One failing, as Robert McHenry argues in an article on balance and its lack at Wikipedia, is to consider the demographics of the users at all or explicitly plan the balance of the product as was proposed as far back as 2003. McHenry argues that letting chaos and Internet trolls set all the priorities isn't the way to achieve encyclopedic balance, and asks: In the absence of planning and some degree of central direction, how else could it have been? There are some good answers to this, notably a more regular overall governance method, but they weren't implemented. A fully qualified editorial board was never actually recruited at all, though many names were kicked around once. Consensus on Wikipedia may be a problematic form of knowledge production. What may appear to be a ""point of view"" may actually be greater knowledge and subtlety of thought than most Wikipedia users, including editors, possess. A consensus model (i.e., ""What most people think"" or what Wikipedia editors think is neutral) may leave us with entries defined by ""Flat Worlders"". The systemic failures mean the NPOV problem of Wikipedia is too easily seen as the fault of the person who changed the article to become problematic, rather than a systematic fault of Wikipedia. It is an unfair double standard to attribute Wikipedia's strong points to Wikipedia itself, but its weaknesses to those responsible for the problems. This is however a familiar theme – in cults. There are in fact some definitions of a ""Wikipedia cultist"" which echo some of the published criticisms. A new Internet user coming to Wikipedia for the first time (often through a link directly to the article via a general web search) will not know that articles are supposed to be NPOV and that if they detect these parts they can and should rewrite them. Doctorow says, The important thing about systems isn't how they work, it's how they fail. Fixing a Wikipedia article is simple. But that is fixing only the article. Fixing the process that fails to alert the reader to the fact they can (or might have to) fix the article, gets no attention at all. It's just left as consequence of various technical decisions. There's almost no effort to orient or train new users, and certainly none to deliberately recruit communities of under-represented people (to the balance concern above). Many users reflexively defend their text when possible POV is pointed out rather than reflexively making a zealous attempt to strip POV from their text instead. If text is perceived as POV, then it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia. This term means ""bad"", but it is used in a pretty much random way. In reality there are three steps to seeing large amounts of your contributions removed by faster (not ""better"") editors: Someone will say ""this is POV"" and change it to say nothing at all, or the opposite of what it said. When you restore it, even in mediated form, it will be demanded that you provide more sources or citations, even on pages that have almost none, or in fields in which very few references publish in the conventional way – abusive and selective requirements to defend claims are all over the place. Finally, you will be labelled an Internet troll for failing to comply with these demands, and the so-called ""Wikipedia:community ban"" (a form of lynching) will be imposed to ensure no view seriously challenging that of the majority will ever manage to ""stick"" on Wikipedia pages. Even if it's correct. Especially if it's correct! Truth is not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Because there's no way to split irreconcilable POVs, unlike Wikinfo, you might have to work with people who believe the polar opposite to you on a given subject, and their opinion might win the day for reasons other than being correct. For example, a monomaniac, no matter how ignorant or even malicious, may ""win out"" eventually, because non-monomaniacs have other things to do than argue with them. Alternately, you might not have to work with anyone who believes the opposite to you. The stability of an article is relative to the people who are paying attention to it. Especially for less visited articles, these are not representative of all relevant POVs. Thus, often you will establish consensus for something which is still horribly POV. For instance articles on small indie bands will inevitably praise the band, because few who dislike their music are even remotely interested in their article. And, since the risk of being called an Internet troll is high, even those who do are going to be outnumbered, and possibly abused. Many people with causes come here to ""get the word out"" because publishers laugh at their stuff and site hosting costs money. So we get detailed articles about obscure activists, while the opposing establishment figures get stubs whose content is a litany of all the evil things they've done to the obscure activists, e.g., Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch vs Accounting scandals of 2002. Many people with national or ethnic heroes come here to ""get the word out"" as well, meaning the importance of the contributions of an individual to a particular field of endeavour can tend to be overstated (even grossly overstated) because of their belonging to a particular nation or ethnic group. Most, if not all, contributors have a political bias, even if they pretend not to or think they don't. Effectively, they are all working to subvert articles one way or another, as politics defies NPOV. Yet attempts to define Wikipedia:political disputes continue to fail in part because people who pretend to be ""not political"" claim it's just an editorial problem, not a real world issue creeping in. They even refuse to recognize Wikipedia:identity disputes as a distinct type of problem, which is more or less insane. If one group happens to have more resources, i.e., time, than other contributors, their views will prevail. Of all the so-called problems of Wikipedia this one however is least problematic: just invite their opponents who have a stake in correcting it, as Wikipedia is a big visible reference that's hard to ignore. Articles tend to be whatever-centric. People point out whatever is exceptional about their home province, tiny town or bizarre hobby, without noting frankly that their home province is completely unremarkable, their tiny town is not really all that special or that their bizarre hobby is, in fact, bizarre. In other words, articles tend to a sympathetic point of view on all obscure topics or places. Ideas to which most people related to new technologies are hostile (for example, arguments in favor of digital rights management) get reverted without thought even if written to NPOV. This is part of the systemic bias problem, as open content editors oppose DRM ideologically – an excellent example of how treatment of a Wikipedia:political dispute ought to be different than other editorial disputes. Wikipedia is hostile to whole fields of inquiry, as when there is controversy between ""hard"" scientists and scholars in any other field, Wikipedia will favor the scientists. In part due to rules on citation and what constitutes a ""journal"". This very readily leads to scientism, as articles rarely address epistemological differences between the ways various sciences experiment and disprove claims. Even within ""hard"" science, the relative certainty of something like the atomic weight of gases (easy to verify by experiment in any lab) and the absolute potential bogosity of a new physical particle (verifiable only at vast expense in equipment that costs many billions each), is never addressed. Though a few articles like infrastructure bias do explain that issue, use of terms like ""universe"" or ""cosmology"" for instance will strongly favour astronomers' views. Users can avoid POV criticism by cherry-picking NPOV details of an issue. By neglecting certain facts and presenting others, a series of NPOV statements as a whole may compose a very POV picture. As most Wikipedians miss the forest for the trees, such POV problems are rarely identified. And any attempt to systematically point that out, for instance, to remove anarchism, militarism, economism, scientism, legalism, or consumerism, is just as ""systematically"" squashed by those who share one or more of those biases themselves. === Readability and writing style === The writing quality of some articles is sadly lacking. In such an article, paragraphs lack any cohesion and trail off without conclusions. Entire sections are composed of orphan sentences, created by piece-meal additions from random users. Similarly formed are the monstrous super-sentences, whose loose multi-layer clauses require the utmost concentration to comprehend. Users whimsically write equation-sentences (""The event is what caused excitement in the scientific community"" instead of ""the event excited scientists""), knowing nothing of conciseness. Punctuation and spelling are very good, but style and clarity are ignored. Wikipedians embrace bad ""correct"" writing, recognizing its faults only when told (or not). Use of passive tense actually seems to be encouraged in an effort to be boring, even when active past tense would be far better. And direct quotes are also sometimes discouraged even when they are entirely appropriate or necessary to the article's claims, or where paraphrasing would be almost certainly misconstrued. Many Wikipedians write in a way that is considered acceptable within the author's peer group, but is less comprehensible to the general reader. This may include the use of jargon. There's currently no systemic effort to remove it. In a related problem, large articles constructed via numerous (individually reasonable) edits to a small article can look okay ""close up"", but are often horribly unstructured, bloated, excessively ""factoid"", uncohesive and self-indulgent when read through completely. In short, adding a sentence at a time doesn't encourage quality on a larger scale; at some stage, the article must be restructured. This happens nowhere near often enough. Users who try to do this inevitably encounter hostility or resistance, until they figure out that they should do it with a throwaway pseudonym, not a real username. Wikipedia articles have a somewhat haphazard usage of American, Australian, British, Canadian, etc., as well as spelling and usage variations of the English language. There is also use of non-English words and names when English equivalents exist. See Manual of Style. === Translation issues === Translations will always lag behind edits in other languages, meaning those who read Wikipedia in different languages might get different versions of the facts. Some never get English versions. Geek style of language. In languages other than English, a computer geek or a geekish person is often unable to express themself in a fluent written standard language, and prefers a heavily English-influenced, colloquial and unpolished geek jargon. This sort of language is often unreadable or aesthetically very displeasing to anyone who reads mainstream literature and press, and makes a singularly unprofessional impression. Besides, it roundly and soundly defeats the very reason why there should be an encyclopedia at all, i.e., providing scientific information and learning for the general public in an accessible language. The fact that writing well is a professional, or semi-professional, skill which has to be particularly learned and acquired is not nearly clear to all Wikipedians. Also, in small-language Wikipedias, the ""anti-elitism"" of the Wikipedia project too often translates into downright amateurishness. In other-language Wikipedias written in endangered, small languages, the linguistic quality of articles can be severely compromised when well-meaning enthusiasts with very limited proficiency in the language try to contribute by writing new articles or tampering with existing articles. Such people can be unable to write a grammatical sentence in the language or even be so linguistically naive they don't understand why it is so important to write grammatically. Their contributions can even drive away more proficient speakers from joining the community. In fact, the self-correcting nature of the project is turned upside down in such Wikipedias, when tamperers attack perfectly fine articles and try to add snippets of information that are already included in the article, but which the tamperer is not able to spot, because they simply aren't proficient enough in the language to understand the article (cf. the edit history of the article about Winston Churchill in the Irish-language Wikipedia). Currently, the problem is very acute in the Irish-language Wikipedia, which has a very bad press among the larger Irish-speaking community. In fact, the project seems to depend on only one person for grammatical accuracy. The fact that Wikipedia has so many language editions creates various Wikipedia language communities, and each active Wikipedia has its unique feature, but affects the problem that the facts presented in different language editions might be conflicting. Users who read different language editions might be perplexed. Different language editions of Wikipedia often have different templates and functions, resulting in the fact that sidebars, templates, infoboxes, charts and tables often can't be included in the translated article, because of calls to non-existent functions or templates that will cause error messages. Subsequently, translated articles often lack interactive maps, tables or even support for writing systems and pictures that the original did have. === Overall quality (net-level) === Despite being a quite huge online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia still lacks plenty of crucial articles, e.g. theoretical geography, administrative neutrality, Swedish nationalism & ColorMatch RGB. Popular topics (like abortion) get written about inordinately, whereas less popular ones may never receive much attention, or are hard to find. Geek priorities. There are many long and well-written articles on obscure characters in science fiction/fantasy and very specialised issues in computer science, physics and mathematics. Other topic areas are less active. Systemic bias in a particular field. For example, the overall quality of inorganic and organic chemistry articles is much better than that of physical chemistry articles. Absence of concrete examples in the mathematical explanations make them impenetrable to non-mathies. Much nonsense is added, and though it's often quickly reverted, it remains in page history making diffs impossible. For example, ""Mommy Tulips live in the Philippine Islands. Many baby tulips sprout from her. For more information, please e-mail us at [email here]."" What's that about? Not enough of it goes to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, which has now been semi-deleted anyway. Different viewpoints tend to create their own closed topologies of pages, and interlinking and comparison can be poor. This is exacerbated by the different camps tending to use different terminology (indeed, it is probably why they do). There's not enough effort to spot pages that must be merged, and sometimes inappropriate merges confuse general with specific abstractions too much. In many topics, a lot of content is there, but it's not well linked together. New users simply do not understand that articles are supposed to be heavily inter-linked and almost everything is already defined. Many users will associate accreditation and cite Wikipedia as a reference. Many institutions will not accept this as certified fact. Similarly, it can sometimes be very difficult to collect information as one may become lost in a quagmire of subtly different entries. Some of which are wholly biased but due to factional efforts have become the central article, e.g., the constant effort to redirect Islamist to Islamism which is like redirecting scientist to scientism. The more balanced articles, like Islam as a political movement, are routed around wherever possible to increase exposure of the fanatics. Articles become longer much more quickly than they become better. Wikipedia's strong community bias against deletion of text encourages the accretion of many authors' partial (or mis-) understandings of a topic while making it difficult for a rewriter or editor to synthesize them briefly without causing offense. There seems to be a distrust of subject matter experts, as alleged in a 2005 article by project co-founder Larry Sanger who calls it anti-elitism. He also criticizes the project's epistemic collectivism and claims it has been taken over by trolls. Which may be true, but as per above it seems almost inevitable, as trolls created it in the first place by picking contentious topics to fight over (Sanger and Wales could reasonably be seen as just the first two such trolls, to judge by their heated exchanges now). Non-sensical articles. Wikipedia has a large number of articles which could be considered rather irrelevant for something billing itself as an encyclopedia, such as ""teh"" (a misspelling of the word ""the""), List of films that most frequently use the word ""fuck"", Goatse (an Internet shock site), Toilets in Japan, and The Flowers of Romance (British band) (a band that never played live or recorded any material). Infiltration by soapbox-seeking extremists, racists and the like remain a problem. This may not apply to the English-language Wikipedia with its large user community, but again, Wikipedias in smaller languages are very vulnerable to takeover attempts by extremist boarding-parties. Besides, the ""geek priorities"" problem is seen even here: impractical, misanthropist and extremist political views are extraordinarily common among unsociable geeks. Radical Leftist, Crypto-fascist, neo-Marxist, white supremacist, afro-centrist, racist, racialist, Islamist, and white nationalist organizations (among many others) trying to infiltrate mainstream politics often use Wikipedia as a way to introduce themselves to a wider public on their own terms. Articles about controversial Internet personalities or reality television celebrities might end up deleted due to widespread grudges among Wikipedians against such persons, even though they fulfilled any reasonable notability criteria. The same applies to articles about controversial themes. Articles like ""Bronze Soldier of Tallinn"" and the issue of displaying prophet Muhammad's pictures have been known to ignite flamewars. === Limited vocabulary === In Wikipedia, some words are essentially banned, creating a more than limited vocabulary. The prime example is the word ""big"". In no article of Wikipedia is the word ""big"" used, unless it is in the title of the article. Expressions such as ""it is a large cat"", ""it is a large park"", ""it is one of the largest"", or ""the largest snake"", are common. However, Wikipedia never uses expressions such as ""it is a big mammal"", ""it is one of the biggest cities"", ""it is the biggest country"", etc. The words ""big"" and ""biggest"" are essentially banned from Wikipedia, without justification, as the word ""large"" is not more formal. That is only an example that shows the limited vocabulary Wikipedia has to offer. Since 2021, Google and Big 4 are paying Wikimedia Enterprise for information; that's not great.Justice for Iran has reported that Iranian government may be interfering in Farsi Wikipedia. The inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and its wide variety of audiences and members makes it so that fairness and equal evaluation cannot be easily maintained. Certain articles will remain in favour of others that are identical in terms of quality, merely because those who evaluate the latter do not like the article, or have a different perspective on the article being evaluated. Articles are sometimes plagiarised from other sources, infringing on (international) copyright, particularly when no credit is given. The Wikipedia:Copyright problems process catches only a fraction of these. Images are a particularly bad case, as it is difficult to spot plagiarism when the uploader lies, but the pedantry and bureaucracy of the tagging scheme leads to other usable and useful images being deleted and removed. Edits by scholars and experts who disagree with some of its core values are repelled. This creates a very significant bias problem. Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in fact absolutely necessary. Worse, they've failed to create any project to work on these core descriptions of Wikipedia:itself to better understand the project's collective view of itself. If you can't say even what all Wikipedia users have said it ""is"", what use is it to try to understand their goals? No possible improved process could come without consulting this data, but if genuine self-references and meta references aren't differentiated and tracked better, it can't be easily consulted. See m:governance for an example of a process that might be so applied. Because Wikipedia is widely used, often showing up high in Google searches, and its dangers are not well understood by many people, misinformation in Wikipedia articles can easily spread to other external sources. In turn, the external source (which may not have cited the Wikipedia article) may be used as justification for the misinformation in future revisions of the Wikipedia article. This is sometimes called an echo chamber or ""citogenesis"", and some well-known Wikipedians including Wales have done it. Wikipedia, especially as it is propagated widely, presents an ideal target for smear campaigns and vicious rumors against individuals. While such smears can be found and edited, the rumors sometimes continue to exist in page histories, on Wikipedia mirror sites and in web-caches. Editing Wikipedia is tedious in the case of conflicts. There is no assistance to users caught in it, which is terrible for newbies. Personal preference as well as just pure meanheartedness often outrule any sense of right and wrong. Admins are not immune to this either. If a user is blocked indefinitely, their block log says ""an expiry time of indefinite"", which is a very unsensible sentence. Similarly, when they try to edit a page, it says ""your block will expire indefinite"". The charge of vandalism is broadly applied to useful edits which might oppose the view of other editors. In fact ""Vandalism"" is to ""Wikipedia"" as ""Witchcraft"" is to ""Salem"", or ""Communism"" is to ""McCarthy""; the term is levied about too broadly. The ""Arguments to avoid"" seem to cover every possible argument. As this also eliminates simply voting, users do not have a voice unless they can come up with an argument that is not instantly rejected. The overly strict fair use policies and guidelines, i.e., Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, prohibit the exhibition of fair-use images on user pages, even if the user's intention is to list all the fair-use images they have uploaded to English Wikipedia. Also, they strongly encourage users to use Linux free-software screenshots instead of Windows proprietary software ones, thus cause many software genre articles, such as raster graphics editor unable to contain Windows proprietary software screenshots, e.g., Microsoft Paint or Adobe Photoshop, which are far more familiar to most readers than Linux free software, e.g., KolourPaint or GIMP, and cause confusion to them. Wikipedia editors use fashionable jargon instead of meaningful language: even on this page the neologism systemic is used when more often than not systematic is meant. Concerning this page: I hope a comment about Wikipedia's Search is somewhere on this page, but before I used the term in this comment, I did a browser page search for the word 'search' on this page, and found it only twice and that context dealt with web search issues. Wikipedia is a good place and getting better, but the search function of Wikipedia should be discussed more here. However, I have decided Wikipedia's search function is actually quite good. The general problem of data hoarding has cluttered Wikipedia for many years, despite guidelines to write summary-style ""encyclopedic"" text backed by sources. Due to the immense scope of topics (with many pages deleted per day), it is difficult to deter data hoarding, such as sports or music articles which list dozens of scores, chart ranks, or other statistics, rather than just note the top-ten numbers and then link to sports record books or music-chart websites. Information of genuine editorial value, such as how often any given link is clicked from one article to another, is never made available, to help correct the cohesion of related articles or discover two names for the same thing (which would link to a lot of the same articles but never to each other). Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia Wikipedia:General disclaimer: a page that describes some of Wikipedia's key weaknesses Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding" 363 367 793 WP:CORNWALL Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall 363 "This WikiProject aims to organize and improve the quality and accuracy of information in Wikipedia articles about Cornwall and all things Cornish. Since these articles are important for new users, research, education, and the pursuit of accumulated knowledge we hope for success in our efforts to provide a consistent format and standard to our articles. We need your help! If you have some knowledge about Cornwall or its related articles and you would like to participate, you can: Join us - add your name to the members list here Complete a task on the to-do list... Expand a stub... Assess an article... Discuss the Project... Add a photo... This project covers articles relating to Cornwall in the United Kingdom. As one of the six historic Celtic nations, Cornwall has a distinct culture and identity. Cornwall has its own flag, language, patron saint and anthem. There is a movement for greater autonomy in the county. The Duchy of Cornwall is one of two royal duchies in England, along with the Duchy of Lancaster. Iconic Cornish images include pasties, surfing, tin mines, and clotted cream. Cornish sports, and sports teams. Cornish individuals from all periods.WikiProject Cornwall hopes to improve the standard of all related articles to introduce Cornwall's unique culture to the wider Wikipedia audience, and to educate and inform the world about all things Cornish. Cornwall article statistics Did you know 17 Mar 2023 – 1866 Helston by-election (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Harrias (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 17 Mar 2023 – 1866 Helston by-election (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Harrias (t · c); start discussionRequested moves 25 Mar 2023 – Merchant Royal (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Royal Merchant by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussion To be notified of additions to the noticeboard you will need to add all five sections to your watchlist. You can access them by clicking on ""edit"" of each section. There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Cornwall. === Featured articles === King Arthur • William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville • Doom Bar • Loss of MV Darlwyne • Red-billed chough === Main page featured articles === King Arthur • William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville • Doom Bar • Loss of MV Darlwyne • Red-billed chough === Featured lists === List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players • List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England === Main page featured lists === List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England === Good articles === Bal maiden • 1983 British Airways Sikorsky S-61 crash • British people • Climate of south-west England • Clotted cream • Constantine (Briton) • Cornish people • HMS Cornwall (56) • Henry Pering Pellew Crease • Cromwell's Castle • HMS Falmouth (1910) • Gallos (sculpture) • Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall • Harry's Walls • Robert Peverell Hichens • Kitty Lee Jenner • King Charles's Castle • Laura Knight • Large Black pig • Launceston Castle • Henry Martyn • Old Blockhouse • Oliver's Battery, Tresco • Pasty • Pendennis Castle • Penhallam • Port Gaverne • St Catherine's Castle • St Mawes Castle • Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument • Augustus Smith (politician) • Battle of Sourton Down • South West Coast Path • Squab pie • Stargazy pie • SS Suevic • Tamar Bridge • Theodore Paleologus • Zennor Head === Former good articles === Isles of Scilly === Good article nominees === 1866 Helston by-election === Did you know? articles === Antoinette (barque) • B3306 road • Bagnall 0-4-0ST ""Alfred"" and ""Judy"" • John Bettesworth-Trevanion • Bewnans Ke • Bible translations into Cornish • Bodinnick • William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville • Richard Bonython • Boscastle to Widemouth • Evelyn Boscawen, 6th Viscount Falmouth • Brown Willy • Brown Willy Cairns • S. H. Burton • Busybody (horse) • Caerhays Castle • Caerthillian to Kennack • Calstock railway station • Cape Cornwall Mine • Carbis Bay Hotel • Climate of south-west England • St Colanus' Church, Colan • Coombe Junction Halt railway station • Cornish fairing • Cornish Riviera Express • Cornish dialect • Cornubian batholith • Jonathan Couch • Henry Pering Pellew Crease • Cruel Coppinger • Devon and Cornwall Rail Partnership • Disused railway stations on the Cornish Main Line • Doom Bar • Tom Dorrien-Smith • Duchy Home Farm • Eastern Isles • Saint Endelienta • Falmouth Lifeboat Station • Fir Hill Manor • Fowey Lifeboat Station • Gallos (sculpture) • Godrevy Head to St Agnes • Goeznovius • Gook (headgear) • Great Wheal Fortune • Gunnies • Haig Fras • Ben Harvey (rugby union) • Battle of Hehil • Helston Castle • Robert Peverell Hichens • Holman Projector • Huer's Hut • Ictis • Jamaica Inn • Kitty Lee Jenner • Kelly's of Cornwall • King Arthur and King Cornwall • Burchard Kranich • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England • William Lobb • Looe Bridge • Job Edward Lousley • Thomas Luny • St Laud's Church, Mabe • Jill Martin • Melor • Mermaid of Zennor • Merthen Manor • Church of St Morwenna and St John the Baptist, Morwenstow • The Mousehole Cat • Mystery (lugger) • Bryan Pearce • Alexander Pendarves • Penhale Sands • David Penhaligon • Penlee Lifeboat Station • Penzance A.F.C. • Phoenix United Mine • Piper's Hole • Plymouth Sound, Shores and Cliffs • Polperro • Polruan to Polperro • Promontory forts of Cornwall • MV RMS Mulheim • John Ralfs • Mike Raven • Red Moor (nature reserve) • Redruth railway station • Restaurant Nathan Outlaw • John Rogers (divine) • Rosenannon Downs • Round Island Light, Isles of Scilly • Scilly Boys • Saint Senara • Augustus Smith (politician) • Battle of Sourton Down • Sperris Quoit • Spirit of Mystery • Squab pie • St Austell Clay Pits • St Ives Lifeboat Station • Stargazy pie • Steeple Point to Marsland Mouth • SS Suevic • Tamar–Tavy Estuary • Terras Bridge • Tetha • SS Thames • D. M. Thomas • Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War • Tin coinage • Tinner's Arms • Tregenna Castle • Thomas Tregosse • Robert Tresilian • Truro Cathedral School • Ventongimps Moor • Wally the Walrus • Welcome Nugget • West Cornwall Bryophytes Site of Special Scientific Interest • Wheel of Fortune (horse) • Wingletang Down (St Agnes) • Zennor Head • Zennor Quoit • St Senara's Church, Zennor === In the News articles === Jethro (comedian) === Featured pictures === === Picture of the day pictures === These templates are all used in article and talk spaces within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall: === Navigation boxes === === Stub templates === === Talk page templates === === Project userboxes === ==== Related userboxes ==== === Barnstars === === Shortcuts === These shortcuts can be used to quickly link to a page in talk pages, edit summaries, etc.: WP:Cornwall - links to the Cornwall WikiProject main page. WP:CornwallGuideline - links to a guide detailing the consensus reached regarding Cornwall-related articles and the county/country issue.Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Templates for the full set of Cornwall WikiProject templates. Please feel free to add yourself here, and indicate any areas of particular interest. WikiProject Celts WikiProject United Kingdom WikiProject UK geography WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe (United Kingdom) WikiProject England WikiProject Wales WikiProject Scotland WikiProject Northern Ireland WikiProject Europe WikiProject European Union Portals Portal:CornwallCategories Category:Cornwall stubs Category:People from Cornwall Category:CornwallUsers Cornish Wikipedia Users Members of WikiProject CornwallWikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral point of view List of topics related to Cornwall WikiProject Cornwall Watchlist (external) Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Cornwall" 364 368 794 :WP:SEALION Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing 364 "Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The arbitration committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.) Rather than focusing on content the arbitration committee has focused on behavior. The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with ""civil"" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or manipulate Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions. As a result of the arbitration committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on proper sourcing and appropriate weight. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways: The impatient ones tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil, and get sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility. The patient ones tend to go more quietly. They become disillusioned by the never-ending problems and the lack of support from the Wikipedia community, and stop editing on these topics or quit the site entirely.This is an untenable situation. On occasion the Arbitration Committee acknowledges the existence of this problem. In response to suggestions that ArbCom use a related arbitration case to set down some ""far-reaching, well-written, solid, effective principles for dealing with POV pushers who are civil"" it was suggested to formulate a list of principles and remedies. The original impetus for this page was to provide such a list, though in the end ArbCom declined to address the issue. These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors: === Locality === They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. === Neutrality === They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that ""it is verifiable, so it should be in"". When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research. === Editing === They revert war over such edits. They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets. === Discussions === They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem. === Sources === They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral. They ignore their burden to demonstrate verifiability, insisting attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article. When pressed for reliable sources, in lieu of honoring the request they: use a source to verify claims outside its author's expertise. For example, a foreword to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact; engage in cherrypicking; and cite non-English language sources most people can't read, or obscure books that most people can't find. Topics affected by this problem include: Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and abuse of talk pages as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues. Just as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR cannot be applied in isolation, WP:CIVIL should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility. The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated. Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is ""stay on topic""; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honor. Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of disruptive single-purpose advocacy. Likewise, this remedy is not meant to apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics but adhere to Wikipedia's core policies. Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the arbitration committee could designate ""lead"" editors who have considerable expertise on that article or topic. Lead editors would be empowered to direct discussion, determine consensus and designate discussions as closed. However, the arbitration committee has done this only very rarely, and there is considerable opposition to it doing it at all: the committee is expected to deal with behavior, not content. If an editor insists on continuing to bring up an issue which has been discussed and decided, especially if they have no new information that can add to the issue, they should be pointed to the previous discussion, warned, restricted and ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. An ""involved administrator"" (for the purposes of allowing uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on problem users) is one who has a current, direct, personal conflict with a problem user on the specific issue at hand. Previous interactions on other articles or topics does not make one involved; previously editing the same article (but a different matter) does not make one involved. Broad definitions of ""involved"" that exclude administrators who have any prior experience with the article or editors in question are counterproductive. They result in overemphasis on superficial civility at the expense of more complex and long-term behavior. See WP:UNINVOLVED. === More on civil POV pushing === WP:Don't bludgeon the process (essay that verges on guideline-level acceptance) WP:Gaming the system (guideline) Gish gallop WP:Tendentious editing (ditto) WP:Wikilawyering (ditto) CIVIL POV Pushing Strategies (user essay) POV pushing (user essay) Sealioning (article, on the general concept) === Other relevant pages === === Related arbitration cases === Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (2006) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion (2008) Sea lioning, from the original Wondermark comic" 365 369 795 WP:DOF Wikipedia:Department of Fun 365 "The Department of Fun is dedicated to providing the Wikipedian community, both young and old editors, with humour to encourage them to stay at Wikipedia, indirectly improving the encyclopedia. Below, you can find links to fun pages or fun things to do, other Wikipedian Associations, and a list of members who help with the creation and upkeep of entertaining or fun pages. Please, if you have ideas for activities or competitions, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or join the Department of Fun. And above all, enjoy yourself! No whats or buts. If there is any work that needs to be done please post a task and the Department of Fun will see that it is dealt with.Add new tasks to the bottom of the To Do List, by ""Editing"" this section. Use an asterisk, followed by your Task Description. Replies require a colon, Template:Done not required, but encouraged. Sign with four tildes~~~~.This Section Is NOT For General Discussion. By the way, we'd like to take this moment to remind you, please don't run with scissors unless you or someone close to you is having a medical emergency, in which case scissors are not usually needed. === Project Template === {{Department of Fun}} creates: === Advertisements for talk pages === === Navigation Boxes === {{Wikipediholism}} {{Wikipedia fauna}} {{WikiLove templates}} {{Word Association}} {{Civility}} {{WP:UBS}} === Article or Policy Guideline templates === {{humour}} {{humorantipolicy}} {{humorous essay}} === Member userbox templates === ==== See Template:Userboxtop for grouping multiple userboxes. ==== === Templates for user pages === === Icons === ==== DoF ==== A DoF icon has been created. Use {{User:Hi878/DoF Icon}} to put it on your user page. It is based on {{topicon}}, so it can be positioned in the same way. Fixed Click for details, instructions, and an example of what it looks like. === Contests === Wikipedia:Contests (article-writing and other kinds) are another fun thing to do, all of which encourage users to make contributions. WikiQuizzes, a game made up of various quizzes pertaining to a wide variety of subjects where users obtain points and awards. New quizzes are added often. WikiCup, The WikiCup is a championship which takes place every year on Wikipedia. The cup is played and won by skill of editing, in which the purpose of the cup is to encourage mainspace editing and to make editing fun here on Wikipedia. Entry is available for any registered user; experience doesn't matter. Last topic pool, a pool for guessing what the topic of the last article created on Wikipedia may be, and other pools. === Events === Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout – On July 18, 2009, Wikipedians were asked to voluntarily refrain from editing all non-article areas of Wikipedia for 5 days, and instead dedicate themselves to creating, cleaning up, and building articles. The Dramaout was a huge success and will likely become an annual event. Wikipedia:Martin Luther King Day of Service – On January 15, interested Wikipedians will work collectively on some of the thankless, but worthwhile maintenance tasks that have serious backlogs. Community bulletin board – For more event postings === WikiGames === ==== Active Games ==== Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure Wikipedia trading card game The Elimination Game: WikiMedia – Finding out which Wikimedia project is the GREATEST OF THEM ALL!!! What the Wikipedian saw – a tour of the inner sanctions of Wikipedia. A story that you can edit! The Longest Wiki-Story Continue this story related to Wikipedia and while you're at it, add your name to the list of Legendary Storytellers! (I hope we get at least 1000 pages worth of Wikipediholism in the story.) Are You A Wikipediholic? Test — Take this test to see how high you rank. Cheaters will be crushed by the elephant. Versions ordered from least to most funny: Standard Legacy Modern Word Association – One person says one word, then another says a word that relates to it, and so on. Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia This particular page is actually really fun. Based on the game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, users are able to find the common links between any two pages. Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game Although difficult to win, the Wiki-Link Game guarantees a random walk that might be diverting. Wikipedia Roulette To play Wikipedia Roulette click the link, and if a page comes up that you have edited, you win. Extra points if you can either contribute something to, or correct something on, the page you land on. Wikipoem – A collaborative project to write a poem! Wikipedia:Wikirace – A game for two or more players to see who can reach a certain page first. You know you've been on Wikipedia way too often when you... Three word story – Fun for the bored! Toppling records! Don't try to delete this one...or else! Wikipedia:Oops Defense – Add your examples of ""Oops!"" situations you've encountered Fear Test – how brave are you? The Odd Editor – What would strange people and animals contribute to Wikipedia? Now you can decide! === WikiActivities === Pink Saffron's Epic Campfire - Talk page for discussing Wikipedia adventures and incidents (inactive) ==== The WikiGame Graveyard ==== May these games rest in peace. Wikifun This page deals mostly with a trivia/scavenger hunt type of competition. The winner of a round goes on to create new tasks for the next round and so on so forth. Wikipedia:Wiki Game – Multiplayer game, see who can ""find their way"" to a specific page in the least number of clicks. Wikipedia:WikiRPG Help improve Wikipedia while playing a game! WikiQuiz – A contest similar to Wikifun but easier! another wiki quiz this one different WikiJeopardy! – A former game show on IRC. Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy – Following the first link of most articles eventually leads to Philosophy User:StarfoxRoy/Freestyle A fantasy game to compete with Tony Hawk and Skate series of videogames that anyone can edit! Chess anyone? I make a Chess game! :D Wikipedia:Chess – More chess Unencyclopedias and Vandals A game where you improve Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Picture Book – Tell a collaborative story ... with pictures! WikiLadders (deleted), open two random articles and try to get from the first article to the second article using only the links on the first page. Shaun9876's Amazing Game of Awesome! Did you win? ==== Wikipedia Movies ==== Currently only offered in script until it becomes possible, through technological advances, to edit movies like Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia the Movie (2006). Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back. – The sequel to the above. (2008) Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo. – The sequel to the sequel to the above above the above. (2010) Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals – The sequel to the sequel to the sequel to the above above the above above the above. (2011) Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey The beginning of a new saga. (2012) Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor The sequel to the directly above. (2012) Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story – A prequel set between the above two. (2017) ==== Wikipedia Musicals ==== Wikipedia: The Musical – a musical about a Wikipedian situation. (2011) === Humor === ==== Funny (haha) ==== ______ Keep it blank. User:Dannyniu/sandbox/The Ultimate Hoax of All Hoaxes User:Thomas888b/Updatetheday Here is a list of fun things I post on my user page. It's small, But it's growing. Wikipedia:List of jokes about Wikipedia Wikipedia:Silly Things Self-explanatory. Wikipedia:Talk page highlights, some of the strangest exchanges that have ever occurred between editors. The Editor510 Museum Of Wonderment, a new light-hearted museum. Visit and edit NOW. NOT Tomorrow. NOW. Silliest wikilink of the month award Wikipedia:God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry? Wikipedia:Featured article criteria/another level of detail Wikipedia:List of cabals Wikipedia:April fools Every year on April Fools' Day, some editors may decide to pull a few pranks on Wikipedia.Or have massive edit wars over the title of a section documenting said pranks.Wikipedia:Terminal Event Management Policy Wikipediholic This page describes the pros/cons of Wikipediholism and also includes a test to see how ""wikidicted"" you really are. Unusual articles This page is for Wikipedians to list articles that seem a bit unusual. The sandbox used for edit tests can sometimes be quite amusing. You might browse through the page's history to see what fun, or outright mischief, has happened to this page. If you remove something offensive from the sandbox, you might be awarded the ""Atlas Award"" -- named after Charles Atlas, the famed bodybuilder, who based his mail order sales business on his claim to have been a ""98-pound weakling"" who had had ""sand kicked in (his) face"" by bullies. The sandbox is not a litterbox. The page for vandalism and vandalism only, made by littleb2009, can be more amusing than the sandbox. The IP range 67.183.136.0/22's sandbox made by the IP range 67.183.136.0/22, is more amusing than the page for vandalism and vandalism only. There is also a humorous green divbox encouraging you to ""vandalize"" it. It also contains the world's largest Wikipe-tan. Religion and Wikipedia Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia — Excerpt: Jimbo loves me this I know, For the Wiki tells me so . . . Wikipedia Anti-rules is a compendium of... uh, advice. Wikipedia Anti-regelm is the same as the one above, except in Wikipediholicish German. Humor category at Meta meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles Rage comic about HWY Cup – The link Grand Theft Jimbo – A project for an upcoming Grand Theft Auto game starring Jimmy Wales How the Senate or other such body might act if it were a wiki. How Wikipedia can influence the course of history (originally posted in a sandbox here on Wikipedia). Go here to see the End of Wikipedia. Miniature Fun Department: Made to put a smile on your face. Don't worry, it'll grow. WP:ANI *gets popcorn* WP:Articles for dilution A Wikiproject to determine whether certain articles should be diluted or not. Template:Uw-constructive1, a user warning template for editing constructively. ==== Funny (weird) ==== List of bizarre and inane categories Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles A list of some true gems of hilarity that have alas fallen victim to deletionism over the years Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, strange and often, but not always, trivial edit wars throughout the history of Wikipedia Vandalism sonnets at User:Geogre === Songs, poems and other literary fun === While Meta:Hotel Wikipedia is the official theme song, there's no reason not to make up your own songs. Since it has been recognized that the Wikiholic in particular needs lots of ways to create their own culture or at least encounter their own despair, we probably needs lots more songs on the Wikisong list. Don't worry! You don't have to write music, just rip off a tune everyone knows and change the lyrics, marking it TTTO for ""to the tune of"" the victimized song. These songs can be sung in public, but, that may only compound your problem. Just humming a few bars of the song can remind people of the Wikipedia-themed lyrics and create yet more in-jokes that will further isolate you from non-Wikipedian human contact. Which we encourage. There also exists (as of 20 March 2011) a poem and a soliloquy about Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Poems about Wikipedia. === Quizzes === WikiQuizzes, (see Contests) Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz – a quiz for lovers of cricket Portal:Fish/Quiz – the Fish quiz Portal:India/Quiz – the India quiz Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Quiz – Australian Football League quiz Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Quiz – a The Beatles related quiz Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/Quiz – a Futurama related quiz Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors/Quiz – a Warriors quiz === Galleries === A Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery – by User:Athaenara Wikipedia:Facebook directory – A Wikipedian photo gallery Wikipedian User Page Design Gallery Visual cardlist for the Wikipedia expansion of Magic: The Gathering – by User:GeeJo Some Wikipedians have formed voluntary associations to participate in various activities on Wikipedia. Consult their pages if you are interested in participating. WikiFun Police, a WikiProject devoted to the improvement and development of the humorous aspects of Wikipedia. not to be confused with Wikipedia Fun Police :) Association of Apathetic Wikipedians Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists Birthday Committee Harmonious editing club Welcoming committee Anti-Fun Police Motto of the day Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign Wikipedia:Invisible Association of Wikipedians Parent WikiProject WikipediaGrandparent WikiProject InternetGreat-Grandparent WikiProject ComputersGreat-Great-Grandparent WikiProject TechnologyGreat-Great-Great-Grandparent WikiProject ScienceGreat-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent WikipediaGreat-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The InternetGreat-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The EarthGreat-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The Solar SystemGreat-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The UniverseGreat-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent ExistenceNot-so Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The cult universeNot-so Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The universe you get stuck inNot-so Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The expanding universeNot-so Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The oldest Grandparents (excluding Egyptian tombs)Not-so Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The Ties, socks, and underwear grandparentNot-so Great-Great-Great-Grandparent The not so photogenic grandparentNot-so Great-Great-Grandparent Grandparent with strange hobbyNot-so Great-Grandparent Grandparent who needs a real hobbyNot a Grandparent Not ur grandparent!Grandson Grandfather paradoxWho's slept with your mum... Me Your dadFather's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate WikiProject BelgiumThe dog that bites a lot That one St. Bernard that you never got the name ofThe guy that gets bitten You; ...also see Bite force quotientFather's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate's new roommate's friend from when they were two years old's sister's husband's son's wife's mother's favorite actor's second-cousin twice removed WikiProject Football" 366 370 800 WP:NH Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire 366 "WikiProject New Hampshire is a WikiProject intended primarily to better foster and improve articles about the U.S. state of New Hampshire with a spirit of cooperation. Live Free or Die! Articles, templates, images, and redirects having to do with New Hampshire currently up for deletion are usually listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Hampshire. Note that this only catches articles from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but not articles meeting the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, and sometimes misses articles that are Proposed for Deletion. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire/Article alerts, on the other hand, should catch all of these, and more. === Places === White Mountains National Forest, needs more pictures, text, and organization. Crawford Notch, needs more history, info, and pictures. Merchantsauto.com Stadium, needs pictures and more content. Cannon Mountain Ski Area, the ski area with the most vertical drop in NH needs more content and pictures. Nashua, New Hampshire, among other NH towns, cities, and unincorporated places. It was almost up to FA status. Someone should nominate it for GA status. Manchester, New Hampshire, the largest city in NH. Concord, New Hampshire, the capital of NH. Peer Review. Appalachian Trail, an important part of NH hiking culture. New Hampshire, of course. Pinkham Notch, reached GA status and was a FA candidate. Peer Review. Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, being completely redone. Bristol, New Hampshire, needs some copyediting and revision. List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire, needs development including photos. === Schools === Pinkerton Academy, biggest high school in NH. Produced some notable alumni. Could be re-copyedited. Phillips Exeter Academy, boarding school that has produced many notable alumni. Concord High School, could use another photo, and needs to have more information added. Lin-Wood High School, this article had once been nominated for deletion. Archive of deletion discussion. While the decision then was to keep it, the article could still use some improvements. === People === Dan Brown, author. Robert Frost, poet. This article needs to be better referenced. John Lynch, former governor of New Hampshire. Colin Manning, press secretary to the aforementioned Lynch. Recently saved from WP:PROD; needs additional info and citations. Franklin Pierce, former President of the United States—a FA, which appeared as Today's Featured Article on November 23, 2014. Alan Shepard, first American astronaut in space—a FA. Daniel Webster, politician—a former FA, which in this case appeared as Today's Featured Article on April 8, 2006. Delisting discussion. === State government articles === Government of New Hampshire, of course. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, many of the links in the ""Titles"" section are still red. === Culture === Live Free or Die, could use some information about possible alternative mottoes that the legislature considered, if any, when they first made it the state motto. Could also use some more in-line citations. Manchester Monarchs, neither of the pages it disambiguates to have a single picture yet (excluding the logo). === Other === The Pledge (New Hampshire) - de-stubify, save dead links, etc. add more New Hampshire related articles here! === Review, Assessment & Statistics === WikiProject New Hampshire Assessment Guide - rates articles related to this project for quality and importance. This counts as a ""collaboration"" because it fits in with the Wikipedia:1.0 program. Even if you have no interest in rating articles yourself, it is still worth checking to see which articles need work. === WP:USA === WikiProject New Hampshire is supported by WikiProject United States. === Mountains === WikiProject New Hampshire has (or had) a subproject focused on the mountains in the state called WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains, but it seems to be inactive now... === Dartmouth === Dartmouth College is in New Hampshire, and thus WikiProject Dartmouth College exists, although it seems to be inactive. === State Highways === WikiProject U.S. Roads has a task force for New Hampshire. Template:New Hampshire is a box to go at the bottom of all New Hampshire-related articles. Template:Project New Hampshire is a (deprecated) box to go at the top of the talk pages of all New Hampshire-related articles. Template:NewHampshire-stub - We have a Stub! See below for more info. Template:User New Hampshire - A Userbox for Wikipedians in NH. Automatically adds your page to Category:Wikipedians in New Hampshire. Template:User WikiProject New Hampshire - Automatically adds your page to Category:WikiProject New Hampshire participants. === Government infobox === The look of the Government section of the Shrewsbury article is a start for a MA infobox. The infobox used is Template:Infobox Mass Town Govt. It gathers information about the town, county, state, and federal elected officials. I started an NH Government infobox... feel free to check it out and make changes as needed.Apparently it was deleted in 2008 because it was ""abandoned"" though... and also simultaneously moved to User:Prezboy1/Infobox_NH_Town_Govt for being ""abandoned and redundant""? (Redundant with what, though?)Expand this list. === Categories to be included in this project === Category:New Hampshire === Categories to which this Project should refer === Category:State highways in New Hampshire Category:Transportation in New Hampshire Category:Government of New Hampshire Category:Ski areas and resorts in New Hampshire Category:New Hampshire stubs Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Hampshire Category:High schools in New Hampshire Category:Middle schools in New Hampshire Category:Elementary schools in New Hampshire Lots more… Here are some images that were either created by/for this Project, or would just be handy for this Project. Please add more! === Required photos === For New Hampshire-related articles needing a photograph, use {{Image requested|in=New Hampshire}} in the talk page, which adds the article needing a photo to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Hampshire. You can help Wikipedia by uploading freely licensed photographs for these articles to Wikimedia Commons. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on other web sites. The Image Existence Checker shows articles in this list that have images. === Maps === All towns, cities and unincorporated places in NH have maps, such as the one pictured right, at the Wikimedia Commons at Category:Maps of New Hampshire. The maps are located in the categories for their respective counties. Each town or city or unincoporated place should have a map image in the {{Infobox City}} template. For Portsmouth, New Hampshire the file would be Image:Rockingham-Portsmouth-NH.png (County-City-NH) The image would be placed in the following fields as shown: |image_map = Rockingham-Portsmouth-NH.png |mapsize = 250px |map_caption = Location in [[Rockingham County, New Hampshire|Rockingham]], [[New Hampshire]] It's Template:NewHampshire-stub. Its corresponding category is Category:New Hampshire stubs. The secondary stubs have all been updated with the state emblem featuring the Old Man of the Mountain. Here are what they look like: New Hampshire Geography - {{NewHampshire-geo-stub}} New Hampshire Politicians - {{NewHampshire-politician-stub}} New Hampshire Highways - {{NewHampshire-road-stub}} New Hampshire School - {{NewHampshire-school-stub}} === Proposing/Using new stubs === Here is a quick link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals page, so the Stub Sorting people don't get mad and we don't have 3 different versions of the same stub. When new stubs are created they should be updated onto this page for quick reference. New Hampshire-related articles should have the following link inserted at the top of the talk pages. {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|NH=yes|NH-importance=}}If you wish to add an assessment to the article, please follow the directions here. It will come out looking like this: For personal talk pages, users can place the following into their respective talk pages: {{Project New Hampshire member}}It will come out looking like this: === Userboxes === WikiProject New Hampshire is one of the United States WikiProjects. This is a list of all sub-pages of this project page, displayed here (un-retitled) for easy reference: === Active participants === To join WikiProject New Hampshire, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of participants. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. Assawyer, founded October 11, 2005 Epping, New Hampshire SailorfromNH 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Greg Britten, Penacook, New Hampshire YixilTesiphon 15:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Even though I'm from Texas... DavidWBrooks 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Mont Vernon, New Hampshire Jokermage ""Timor Mentum Occidit"" 06:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Henniker and Concord, New Hampshire Sudachi 02:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Merrimack, New Hampshire Kaszeta 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Grantham, New Hampshire Jfg284 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Masshole Xcm 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Salem, New Hampshire Lupinelawyer 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Jefferson Marc29th 21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Concord, New Hampshire FrostHeaves 13:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Milford, New Hampshire Icelandic Hurricane 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC) my location is a secret! DougOfDoom talk 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Manchester, New Hampshire BulldogsBullet (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC) I have a very large interest in New Hampshire Nhprman 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Manchester, New Hampshire Prezboy1 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Keene, New Hampshire Húsönd 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) hails from Portugal, loves New Hampshire Log'a'log 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Nashua EvaGears 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Derry, New Hampshire Cooljeanius 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Concord, New Hampshire Samurai3 14:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) SnowFreak91287Concord, New Hampshire alifbaaDover, New Hampshire Æetlr Creejl 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Manchester is one of the candidates for my future home. MrRadioGuy Dan LeveilleTALK 10:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Berlin, New Hampshire ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Goffstown, New Hampshire 98.182.41.120 (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Peterborough, Jaffrey and Fitzwilliam. All so cool Toonami Reactor (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC) The27thMaine, 24 January 2009, Barrington, New Hampshire Allventon (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC) User:Arverniking Joseph Yankois, 6 May 2009, Manchester, New Hampshire (residing Québec, Québec) Emika22 (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Lancaster, New Hampshire Tckma (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I currently live in Ellicott City, Maryland, but I lived in Nashua for a year and a half. I miss NH dearly and I would love to move back if the opportunity ever presents itself. Found5dollar (talk) Recently Moved to Laconia from Massachusetts. SGGH - England, but marrying a local. cfrye66, 16 September 2011 (New Hampshire Revolutionary War History California, but my family is from Wilton since 1770.) Steve Lux, Jr. - Hopkinton, New Hampshire -- Calidum 00:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Overlasting Peace Massachusetts resident, but an extremely frequent visitor to the White Mountains. Nick2crosby (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I currently reside in Groton, New Hampshire. Ram1055 (talk · contribs) 09:01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) ASFLOCK (talk · contribs) 18:29:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Milford, New Hampshire === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. Arghman 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Goffstown, New Hampshire Davidp313 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Manchester, New Hampshire archmac - Goffstown, New Hampshire === Participant identification === WikiProject New Hampshire participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject New Hampshire participants. For other New Hampshire user templates see Category:New Hampshire user templates." 367 371 808 WP:USUAL Wikipedia:Usual caveats 367 The term usual caveats, in the context of deletion debates, refers to the idea that an editor's recommendation is subject to change if certain external events take place. These caveats are ways to hedge one's bet, so to speak – a subject might not be notable at the time of the debate, but may become notable later. This applies in many cases where the subject is young, is at the outset of their career, or where their activities just haven't yet received the coverage necessary for an article. The purpose of citing these usual caveats in the deletion debate is to specifically note that the subject's notability may change in the future, and to specifically highlight (and support in advance) the idea that a new article would be welcome if and when the subject's notability changes. Generally, articles for deletion involving living persons will center on the idea that the subject's accomplishments, or the coverage of those accomplishments, do not demonstrate notability. When recommending that the article for such a person be deleted, then, these caveats would apply. A new article could be created for this subject if: The actor or actress receives a high-profile role in a notable production, The athlete signs with and competes for a top-tier professional team, or participates in the Olympic Games, The musician or band makes it onto the charts with a hit song, or wins a notable award for a new album or single, The politician wins a future election. The researcher publishes additional notable papers in the appropriate journals.The core idea here is that the subject is not notable for their accomplishments, or for the coverage of those accomplishments, at the time of the deletion debate. For living subjects, the caveat is that they might later become notable, and in that case an article would be appropriate. When an article is deleted via an articles for deletion debate, it cannot simply be recreated without addressing the concerns that led to its deletion in the first place. If the article was deleted because the subject was not notable at the time of the debate, you must show that the subject has since become notable – usually by showing that their activities since have met the relevant notability criteria. For your politician, you show that they have won or are a major candidate in an election. For musicians, you cite the fact that their latest single hit the charts. Articles that are recreated where no new notability exists are likely to be deleted. This is a frequent enough occurrence that we have a speedy deletion criterion for such articles: criterion G4. Showing new notability is the only way (short of deletion review) to trump this criterion. Even then, the rationale for creating a new article must be clearly stated – why is the subject notable now, when they weren't then? Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Too soon 368 372 809 WP:GENEALOGY Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy 368 "The WikiProject for Genealogy aims to improve genealogy-related articles and to standardize and verify genealogical information on Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is not and never was intended as a genealogy software, this area may still be further improved. Nearly all royalty articles include a section of brief ancestry, as well as a list of spouse(s) and issue. This practice may possibly be extended outside the bounds of royalty and aristocracy where encyclopedically relevant, while keeping within Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. This project covers all Wikipedia articles related to the subject of genealogy, including businesses, individuals, websites, software, etc. that are involved in the genealogical field. It also covers any genealogical information on notable families, usually formatted as family tree charts, ahnentafel pedigree charts, or lists. Templates to create family trees and ahnentafels are also in the scope of this WikiProject. Improve articles related to genealogy as a hobby, profession, and academic field. Standardize and verify family trees and ahnentafel charts on Wikipedia. Standardize and verify lists of descendants on Wikipedia. Discuss the creation of a Wikimedia genealogy project. Find genealogy-related articles and add the WikiProject Genealogy banner to their talk pages. Such as family articles Give importance and quality ratings to genealogy articles needing assessment. Make improvements to our current article collaboration. Expand articles needing expansion. Fix articles needing cleanup. Improve and harmonise contents presentation within family articles To assess articles, use the WikiProject Genealogy banner on the article's talk page. Under class, give the article a quality rating: FA, FL, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, List, or NAUnder priority, give the article a priority/importance rating: Top, High, Mid, LowFor example, a good article of high importance will use this code: {{WikiProject Genealogy |class=GA |priority=high }} Genealogy articles by quality Genealogy articles by importance === Importance scale === Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be ""Top-Class"" in one context may be only ""Mid-Class"" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). === Quality scale === Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy/Article alerts The most common template used for displaying ancestry trees is {{Ahnentafel}} (for what the German word Ahnentafel means see the Wikipedia article ""Ahnentafel""). For help on how to use {{Ahnentafel}} and other templates and methods that are available for displaying family/ancestory trees see Help:Family trees and the documentation within the templates. === Current template discussions === Place below any templates that are potentially useful for members of this project and that are currently the subject of a discussion (most recent first): These should automatically appear in Article Alerts. === Wikidata equivalent === A Wikidata ancestry equivalent similar to WikiTree, for a language independent encyclopedically relevant database, likely containing mostly monarchs and such. Thus, each generation where ancestry is deemed relevant in biographical articles would not need a complete reformatting, while access and implementation over the language board would be facilitated. Naturally, if applied, a new template rendering from this wikidata family tree would be needed. Also, precaution of personal integrity would be a main issue. Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join this project. Currently active participants are also listed here. The following are registered members of this WikiProject: User:JohnAlbertRigali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently not very active on Wikipedia, but now trying to resurrect this WikiProject nonetheless) User:KuatofKDY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) AKA: Darius von Whaleyland (had previously attempted to resurrect the project and standardize genealogical boxes currently in use at Wikipedia; also the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization and a frequenter to any royalty page) User:Kthapelo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (very interested in genealogy, and tracking how people tie together through their blood lines) User:OlliffeObscurity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (amateur genealogist with advanced knowledge of genealogical systems and terminology; strongly agreeing with and frequently adhering to the project goals!) User:Iamthecheese44 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (amateur genealogist with many years of experience; interest is in royalty pages and genealogy in general. Member of Ancestry.com, Geni.com, and others) Dan Koehl (talk) Founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy Dec 9, 2002 ([link to first edit]) Interest is European middle-ages nobility and royalty, but also genealogy in general. Member in Wikitree, Geni.com and several other genealogy websites. User:Mark Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Interest in Hawaiian Royalty, British royalty and European royalty as well as genealogy in general. User:CM2G0005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) British, USA, eastern European experience. Aspire to start articles and expand stubs, translate, edit, and source other language settlement pages into English with reliable sources from The Wikipedia Library. User:CsikosLo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur genealogist Interest is European middle-ages nobility and royalty, but also genealogy in general. User:Weitzhandler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Genealogist Interested in Jewish Genealogy in general, but my dream is to have a free open world spanning family tree I'd love to see a Wikimedia genealogy project. I invite project members and passersby to contribute to this discussion at Meta-Wiki. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC) I'm with Another Believer. To restrict this project to Wikipedia in the Eglish language is not a very good idea. What about a domain Wikitree, Wikigenea or something similar? Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) User:Gap9551 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Strong interest in a Wikimedia genealogy project aimed at building a public single tree (one profile per person), including an option for adding living people using privacy controls. People with Wikipedia entries in any language, or with content on other projects, can be linked. I'm currently a member of Wikitree and WeRelate. Gap9551 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC) ChristianKl (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC) User:Adityavagarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Happy to help! User:AndersHellstrom2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur. Genetic genealogy/tools/websites, links in notables' articles to genealogical material or websites when appropriate. Salgo60 Swedish genealogy has free church books online and we have done a lot see Swedish Church parishes, Phabricator project space wmse-riksarkivet-tora I have initiated or populated properties Dictionary of Swedish National Biography ID (P3217), Hembygdsportalen ID (P6192), Swedish Gravestone ID (P5259), Swedish place name register SOFI (P5536), Swedish Portrait Archive ID (P4819), Swedish National Archive reference code (P5324).... User:Rollidan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur. I'll help where I can! User:Tea and crumpets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Professional genealogist. Want to improve accuracy of genealogy-related articles and genealogical content on Wikipedia. Also see talk page for my thoughts on project goals.Tea and crumpets (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC) User:Tamsier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur genealogists with years of experience. I am particularly interested in Sub Saharan Africa family history and genealogy, especially Senegambian precolonial royalty.Tamsier (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) User:Ibn_Daud Amateur genealogists. I mostly focus on early Rabbinic genealogy Ibn Daud (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC) User:Brookford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) European, mostly Belgian genealogy. --Brookford (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) User:PunkAndromeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur genealogist, focused mostly on European and New Zealand European genealogy* User:Carsrac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur genealogist, focused mostly on Dutch and European genealogy, active member of Geni.com, translator for Geni.com and MyHeritage. Active in Wikidata and nl.wikipedia to correct the genealogy errors and add genealogy info.* User:Eewilson Intermediate–Advanced amateur genealogist with decades of experience primarily on research in the Midwestern United States (Indiana and Ohio), Southeastern United States (North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia), and those with ancestry in the Society of Friends (Quaker). —Eewilson (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC) User:Firvales73 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Terrickisaiah555 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur with quite a few years of experience. I'm quite familiar which just about all the main sites and resources available. Hoping to help where I can. User:StarTrekker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amateur with great interest in ancient Roman prosopography. User:WiltedXVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Azurerae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) === Userbox === Feel free to insert the Template:User WikiProject Genealogy on your user page with the following code: {{User WikiProject Genealogy}}. === Wikimedia genealogy projects === Wikipeople ProjectWikimedia genealogy project GlobalFamilyTree === Partner projects === WP:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Biography WikiProject Ethnic groups WikiProject Genetics WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject Historical information WikiProject Human Genetic History WikiProject Lists WikiProject Royalty and Nobility === Tools === Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. === Genealogy databases === WikiTree Rodovid WeRelate Familypedia FamilySearch MyHeritage geni.com rootsweb" 369 373 811 WP:BOBSLED Wikipedia:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause 369 "Wikipedia's Jamaican Bobsled Team clause is a humorous relative to Wikipedia:Process is important. The essay concerns the importance of following the malleable guidelines, policies, and processes reached via consensus within the Wikipedia community. In short, the Jamaican bobsled team should have never had a chance to compete, bobsledding being a winter sport with snow and ice, and Jamaica being a tropical country, devoid of both. Against the odds and beliefs of many people ""in the know"", the team became an eventual success, competing in many world events, qualifying for the Olympics numerous times and winning numerous events and trials. Often, after a short time, a consensus may appear evident during the run of a process, whether it be at Articles for Deletion or Requests for Adminship, or even something minor such as a discussion on a source at an article's talk page. There is often a temptation to ignore the process and end discussion prematurely, citing an emerging/evident consensus after a short time. The Jamaican Bobsled Team clause implores editors, when faced with this temptation, to think of the real-life team. Initially, most people would have probably thought that a team of bobsledders from a tropical region would not have a snowball's chance in hell of success. However, the team defied the odds. Often, even if a significant number of editors feel, for instance, an article should be deleted after one day due to lack of evidence of notability, it doesn't harm anything to allow the deletion process to run for its full seven days. At worst, nothing changes and the article is deleted. At best, either (a) a true, incontrovertible consensus is reached, reducing possible challenges and appeals in the future, or (b) evidence that was not clear at the beginning of the process is presented closer to the end, and a good article becomes the end result. Wikipedia:Process is important Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which implores editors to ignore the rules only if they ""prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality."" WP:STEAM, Wikipedia's ""Steamroller clause,"" a humorous essay. WP:SNOW, Wikipedia's ""Snowball clause,"" the opposite of this essay and things that bobsleds tend to ride over. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, self-explanatory, perhaps." 370 374 814 WP:BOX Wikipedia:Boxes 370 On Wikipedia, Box or Boxes may refer to: Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page used for test edits, whose shortcut is WP:SAND Wikipedia:Userboxes, whose shortcut is WP:UB Wikipedia:Navbox Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the policy page section, whose shortcut is WP:SOAP Wikipedia:Too many boxes, an essay Template:mbox, the core of the maintenance banner templates 371 375 815 WP:POVSOURCE Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields 371 "Editors, sources, and academic disciplines or fields of study may have points of view (POV) and perform original research (OR). Even some edits can reflect a POV. If that was not permitted, probably most of Wikipedia could not exist. Articles must have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and no original research (NOR) but that does not restrict any editors, sources, or fields, or some edits. While conflicts of interest (COI) are discouraged, an editor with a COI may sometimes still edit, after declaring the conflict. Advertising is not permitted. It is not neutral. If you feel like writing an ad, what you should do instead is write neutral content based on sourcing. If you find this difficult, you can ask other editors on an existing article's talk page to help, or ask Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create an article on a topic you feel is missing. === Field POV === Disciplines have inherent biases. For instance, perhaps some people argue that one plus one equals two because of the grace of a deity, and that absence of that grace could mean that arithmetic would fail. But mathematicians generally reject that. So the believers would find the field of math to have a vital theological misunderstanding and would conclude that math is biased in having a POV regarding a deity. Nonetheless, Wikipedia reports on math and on theology in accordance with the mainstream of each field of study. We do so even if fundamental premises of a field of study are accepted on faith, even if questioning them is not allowed in the faith community, and even if no source found questions or scientifically proves any of the fundaments. You, as a Wikipedia editor, are free not to edit an article if you believe the field of study has a bias that you are unable to counterbalance. Someone else can do the editing. In most major fields, most people believe in the internal consistency of their agreed-upon premises and main body of knowledge. An outside critic may find an inconsistency or conclude it's all nonsense, and a source outside the field and criticizing it may be citable in the article about the general field for a point of criticism, but otherwise probably does not belong in Wikipedia. For example, a grace-of-a-deity view does not belong in most descriptions of mathematical method or theory. But, as an editor, you may subscribe to any view you wish and you may decide what to edit and not to edit, as you wish, as long as articles retain NPOV. === Fields with original research === An academic field is generally supposed to create new original research. When we report about this research using a secondary source's explanation of the research, that's not original research in a Wikipedia article, and that's all that matters to Wikipedia. There is a caveat. Generally, Wikipedia does not report original research performed in a field, but waits for a secondary source to report it and then reports what the secondary source reports. But that is not because Wikipedia objects to the field having original research. It's to make sure that Wikipedia reports what people familiar with that field consider as having been reasonably enough established by the original research. The secondary source serves as an intermediate filter. Wikipedia, through that filter, still accepts that the field has produced original research. === Source POV === Many quite reliable sources have biases. Possibly, all do. A health book recommending herbal remedies likely is biased toward herbs for health. A health book recommending medicines or surgeries and opposing herbs likely is biased toward medicines or surgeries for health. The scientific method tends to produce consistent results but not eliminate bias. Not only are people who are wrong but persistent in their beliefs biased; people who are persistently right are also biased. We just prefer the bias of those who are right over those who are wrong. As long as a Wikipedia article neutrally reflects good sources, the sources cited being biased doesn't matter. Even a bad bias can be a bias we can live with. Handle with care. What matters is the article; the source is less important and it may be possible to reconcile a problematic bias with the need for neutrality, because a source with a bad bias may still have something useful. For example, a then-former psychology professor from Harvard University apparently believed that numerous people credibly reported having been abducted from Earth by space aliens. At best, the professor seems to have hinted at too many to be statistically likely and it may never have happened. The professor compiled a database of reports of alleged abductees but systematically excluded some considered as lacking credibility. Despite the professor's bias and my doubt about their judgment, what remains useful are the professor's criteria for exclusion. While I don't think the criteria were stringent enough, they are a start and could be reportable in Wikipedia, not only in an article about claims of abduction from Earth, but also in an article on unlikely personal claims in any field. === OR in a source === Sources often contain original research. Most times, we're fine with that. If sources stating original research were removed from Wikipedia, there'd hardly be any Wikipedia left. There are subject areas with so much conflicting secondary material available that citing them would make articles too long, so Wikipedia may be more selective in those areas, requiring more evidence of scholarly or scientific consensus before inclusion of research studies. (There are specially stringent and specific rules for topics involving human medicine--see WP:MEDRS.) But in most subject areas, scholars and journalists can do original research, such as interviewing people. Biographies are often good examples of sources acceptable for Wikipedia even though they contain original research. We're usually happy with original research that's in a source. Just edit the Wikipedia article so the resulting article does not present its own original research. === Editor POV === We don't much care who you are. So we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you. Human beings have biases. Probably most editors have biases that lead them to select which articles to work on and what to add or delete. Those personal biases are fine with us, as long as the result is an article that's neutral. However, editors that contribute from specific points of view must maintain rigorous commitment to policies and guidelines to ensure their contributions are not interpreted as civil POV-pushing. There's a view that editors driven by causes may not edit in those causes. That is not true. There is a guideline that editors with conflicts of interest may not edit in fields in which they have that conflict, or must edit only with extra care, and that includes an employee. It includes an editor who has had something published somewhere else who wishes to cite it in Wikipedia. The COI guideline lets those editors ask other editors to consider an edit or a citation. But simply believing in a cause does not invoke the COI restrictions. A cause-driven editor may edit articles whether related to the cause or not. Caution is advised, but permission stands. And caution is advised regardless of passion. The concern about cause-driven editing is fundamentally about accuracy. An editor deeply attached to one view of a subject may have become very knowledgeable about all sides, and even if all they know is the one view they may know its pros and cons quite well. An editor with no interest in a subject may hardly know its substance and may little know how to search for information about it. The passionate editor may therefore be better able to edit accurately, while the disinterested editor may be unable to recognize errors or omissions or to judge the quality of sources. On the other hand, the disinterested editor may be able to report all sides because they don't care who wins while the committed editor may propagandize for one side and against all others. Both kinds of editors can do a great job and both can do a miserable job. We don't care about personal passion. What we care about is accuracy in reporting what sources say. === OR by editors === Go ahead. Do original research. We don't care. As long as you don't put your original research into an article, we don't mind. And don't insert another editor's original research, either. This is useful in an indirect way. Your doing original research may lead you to recognize ideas that direct you to sources you can cite. So your original research can't be reported in Wikipedia but maybe something related can be. Do it. This is different from editors, sources, and fields, yet not entirely different, because edits can cause a point of view as long as the article it's in afterwards has no point of view as a result; but, on the other hand, an edit cannot create original research. If the edit is the creation of an article, the article must be neutral, so an edit creating an article must be neutral, even if the article is a stub. And if the edit is the creation of a section and if the section must be neutral (a criticism section and sometimes other sections do not have to be), then the edit creating the section must be neutral, even if the section is meant to be expanded later. For example, an edit to an article on a religion might add this sentence: ""According to ..., a good person can attain bliss.Source."" This may well be an edit with a POV. But if the article presents a reasonable balance of views about bliss and about good people even after being edited, then it doesn't matter that the new sentence focuses on just one point of view. In this case, the article remains neutral. Units within articles, including leads and sections, can receive a nonneutral edit as long as neutrality is the result. Some sections do not have to be neutral. Examples include criticism sections and pro and con sections. If a biography describes a person as a criminal in one section and as an artist in another, neither section has to repeat the other section just for neutrality. The section about being an artist does not have to say the person was a criminal. The section about criminality does not have to say anything about art. That's because the article is taken as a whole when judging the article's neutrality. A section is judged the same way unless the section is obviously meant to be one-sided; in that case, the article as a whole will still be judged for neutrality. However, we do not include information about relatively minor crimes unrelated to the field in which the subject works, unless they have received very wide responsible coverage, or unless they are public figures. No way exists for an edit to state original research without the result being the article stating original research. So an edit cannot state original research. When Wikipedia objects to an advertisement, the objection is to that which advocates for one view and omits or distorts competing views. That, by definition, cannot be neutral. Neutrality is required, so advertising is forbidden. Don't write an ad, not for Wikipedia. Instead, for Wikipedia, write something neutral. We interpret advertising to include advocacy, no matter how meritorious the cause. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Articles about advocacy organizations describe what they do, but not include advocacy for the cause, or general information about the field in which they work. === Essays === Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Wikipedia:Controversial articles Wikipedia:Creating controversial content Wikipedia:Describing points of view Wikipedia:Don't teach the controversy (the phrase doesn't mean what you think it means) Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work Wikipedia:These are not original research" 372 376 820 WP:TIGERS Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers 372 The following was posted by William Pietri to welcome back a banned editor on a hotly disputed article. Several people have praised it as embodying perfectly the Wikipedian ideals, especially this excerpt: Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem. Pietri's posting is an excellent example of staying cool when dealing with people with strong opinions. Another posting on WikiEN-l is also particularly pertinent: Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. It is inescapably true that, on occasion, all of us fall prey to that particular conceit. Or: Beware of the Tigers; William Pietri's comment in its entirety: Above there are a variety of unsigned edits from somebody who is very excited about their topic. Or perhaps it's a few somebodies; it's hard to tell (hint: sign your edits using four tildes and the system will automatically put in your name and a timestamp). I'd like to address that or those somebodies. I have no vested interest in this topic. I am a San Francisco software consultant and occasional writer. I've never met Guy, never met you, and never met or even heard of Simon Wessely. I've given little thought to CFS, and until seeing this article, never had call to question that it's a real illness. I only popped in here because I saw that Wikipedia's founder had commented on Guy's talk page, and I was curious to see what prompted a visit from on high. I'm sorry to say it, but your conduct here is well outside the bounds of what is considered appropriate on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, Guy has done nothing to justify the accusations you've made. He seems to be working hard to take material with a strong point of view and try to wrangle it into the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia. Although different editors might have gone about it differently, any good Wikipedia editor would have tried to do the same. And frankly, I feel like he's displayed admirable patience in the face of what Wikipedians take as very provoking behavior. Now I understand you feel like he's being unfair and twisting your prose. I also recognize that you don't get why your behavior seems so far out of line. Those are reasonable feelings to have, and they're typical of a passionate person whose first foray into Wikipedia is a topic where they have strong views. As you come to spend more time on Wikipedia, you'll see why: Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem. I see you've been blocked from editing for a week. When you get back to it, consider first working on some articles where you have knowledge but aren't so passionate. (You may find that hard, but consider that Wikipedia has made it for years without the perfect article on Simon Wessely; another few weeks won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better work here with a bit more experience.) For example, if you've just gone through the process of writing a book and dealing with lawyers about a potentially controversial book, consider working on related articles like index or publishing or libel. Also consider reading through the Wikipedia policies to get an appreciation for what we're up to. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Five pillars. You'll come to see that although these may feel constraining, they will work in your favor over the long haul: when people with opposing views to yours turn up, we will be equally dilligent in making sure that they don't delete inconvenient facts or links to your views. When you do start back on this article, consider starting small. Put in a single sentence that you feel is fair, accurate, and neutrally stated. Give it a few days to see how people react, and then add another couple. And a couple of days later, see how you like your work. As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article. And when you do get back, best of luck. I took the hour or so to write this because I think your passion and writing skill would be a great asset to Wikipedia. You got your fingers burned on your first go here, but I'm hoping that won't stop you from appreciating what we're trying to do here and joining in. Regards, --William Pietri 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[1] meatball:DefendAgainstPassion Wikipedia:The Truth 373 377 824 WP:GNOME Wikipedia:WikiGnome 373 "A WikiGnome is a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamoring for attention. WikiGnomes work behind the scenes of a wiki, tying up little loose ends and making things run more smoothly. Examples of WikiGnome-like behavior include improving punctuation, fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, adding categories, repairing broken links, and many other repetitive (but important) tasks. Typical behaviors are ticking the ""This is a minor edit"" box before saving any edit, and not providing an edit summary. The WikiGnome is the original example of WikiFauna, having originated in the first wiki WikiWikiWeb. A WikiGnome is also known as a WikiGardener (not to be confused with a WikiFarmer). Many highly active wiki contributors exhibit WikiGnome-like behavior as part of their work, while others may limit themselves to WikiGnome activity. WikiGnomes are considered to be friendly like WikiFairies and WikiElves. The rough opposite of a WikiGnome is a WikiOgre. WikiGnomes love to work in the shadows making what are called minor edits in various nooks and crannies of Wikipedia. Look at recent changes and you may even spot one at work. WikiGnomes who are feeling familial or desirous of a grander sense of purpose often adopt a typo, gaining fulfillment by raising themselves into existence on the article namespace. Of course, editors are encouraged to garner up some courage and come into the light of day as a gesture of open friendliness and straightforwardly make their edits without being afraid of what others think. The list of Wikipedians who wish to advertise their status as WikiGnomes is at Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes. If they so choose, users can advertise their WikiGnome-like qualities on their pages by adding a userbox to their user page with the following code: {{Template:User wikipedia/WikiGnome}} If editors prefer not to use userboxes, they can still list their user pages in the WikiGnomes category by putting the following on it: [[Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes|{{PAGENAME}}]]Another way for someone who self-identifies as a WikiGnome to advertise this is to display a small picture of a mushroom or WikiGnome at the top of the page next to their username, which can be done by adding the following to your user page: {{WikiGnome topicon}}If editors do not wish to advertise themselves unduly, they can make a simple textual note of their interest in wikignomic activities. WikiGnomes have a humble and very unassuming nature, yet Wikipedians should know that they still need to be told that their work is valued from time to time. If WikiGnomes don't occasionally feel the love from the people whom their work has helped, they might sneak into the kitchens of such users at night and sit on their dairy products. Their needs are modest in this regard, however, and it only takes a brief word to them once in a while to avert such an unfortunate event. A collection of kind messages left for the WikiGnomes can be found at Wikipedia:WikiGnome/Kudos. Examples of WikiGnome-like work include: Adding ISBNs of books that people mention. Making an entry for their articles in the list of books by title. Tracking down the authorship of ""someone once said"" quotations. Organizing word pairs into tables. Repairing links to disambiguation pages. Adding links to text already in an article or to useful categories. Adding redirects. Finding sources for ""citation needed"" tags. Adding examples and details to information referred to in the text (for example, adding ""such as Silence and Deep River"" to the line ""Shūsaku Endō has written important books""). Clarifying vague information in the text (for example, replacing ""the 2009 flu pandemic was the first in 40 years"" with ""the 2009 flu pandemic was the first since the 1968 Hong Kong flu""). Fixing lint errors. Providing helpful advice to new editors, or alternately posting welcome messages. Providing help to other editors, at various forums and various pages around Wikipedia, such WP:Help Desk, etc. Helping to maintain ""project pages"", i.e. pages, essays, and resources that may be outside the main namespace (i.e. outside of the article namespace). Wikipedia:Gnome Week Media related to WikiGnomes at Wikimedia Commons" 374 378 830 WP:PC Wikipedia:Pending changes 374 "Pending changes protection is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances on Wikipedia while allowing a good-faith user to submit an edit for review. Intended for infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such troublesome edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer (also called a ""reviewer""). There are relatively few articles on Wikipedia with this type of protection. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor (also called an ""IP editor"") or a new user account, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as ""pending review"". The latest accepted revision is displayed to the general public, while logged-in users see the latest revision of the page with all changes applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as ""pending review"" and are not visible to most readers until they are reviewed. Both logged-in users and unregistered users who click the ""edit this page"" tab edit the latest revision as usual. If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title pointing to the pending changes. Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and copyright violations. Administrators may apply pending changes protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or insertion of content that violates copyright. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage. Editors without administrator privileges can request page protection if the above criteria are met. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested of any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain: vandalism violations of the policy on living people copyright violations other obviously inappropriate contentReviewers are sufficiently experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. Reviewers have a similar level of trust to rollbackers; all administrators have the reviewer right. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia. Reading the reviewing guideline, where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended. Reviewers and administrators will see a pink watchlist banner on their watchlist whenever there is a pending edit needing review. If a reviewer or administrator wishes to disable it, they can paste #mw-fr-watchlist-pending-notice {display: none} to their common.css. Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above. Reviewer rights are granted upon request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. While any administrator has the technical ability to remove the reviewer permission, removal should occur only as the result of consensus from a discussion or when an editor requests the removal of their own permission. Discussion regarding removal of the reviewer permission should normally occur at the Administrators' noticeboard. Discussion with the involved editor and/or a request for a second opinion at the Pending changes talk page is recommended before formally requesting removal. Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits (at most a few hours). Backlog management should be coordinated at a community level. The backlog can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges. As of July 2021, edits are rarely unreviewed for more than a day or two and the backlog is frequently empty. In the edit history, accepted revisions are highlighted, which improves readability. Additionally, visible tags are applied to indicate why particular edits were accepted (""automatically accepted""/""accepted by [Username]""). As of September 2018, this highlighting is still permanently lost for past changes on a given page whenever the pending changes setting is disabled. When pending changes are enabled again, the highlighting will only be applied to newer changes. Therefore, it is a good choice to leave pending changes enabled when other protections are applied. If an established user edits an article with unreviewed pending changes, is the new version automatically accepted? No. If the user is a reviewer (that is, the user has been granted the ""reviewer"" permission), they will be prompted to review and accept any unreviewed pending changes. If the user is not a reviewer, the edit will also be marked as ""pending review"". (Reviewers can test this by unaccepting the current version of a page under pending changes and then trying to edit.) An exception to this is when a user reverts a pending edit to the latest accepted revision: in this case the revert is automatically accepted. What happens if several IP edits to an article under pending changes result in a null edit? (For example, an IP makes an edit, then another IP undoes it.) If they were all made by a single IP, the new version is automatically accepted. If different users edited, the new version is not accepted (to prevent potential abuse). On which kinds of pages can pending changes be used? At first, it was determined by consensus that pending changes could be used only on articles, subject to the protection policy, and on test pages in project space. A later request for comment found it permissible to use pending changes beyond articles; however, it is restricted by the software to the main and project namespaces, and no request to allow other namespaces was made. It is not technically possible for talk pages to be placed on pending changes. Wasn't pending changes protection dropped? Yes and no. Pending changes protection was deployed on a trial basis in 2010. In 2011, pending changes protection was dropped as a mechanism for protecting pages, until a consensus agreement on its deployment was reached. There have been a series of discussions on using the feature and it was put back into service on December 1, 2012. Since then only pending changes level 1, affecting the edits of new and unregistered users, is being used. As of January 2017 there has been consensus to drop pending changes level 2, and as a result only level 1 is now used. How can you tell if a page has pending changes protection? Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner depending on its level of protection. Also, there will be a drop-down box next to the article title, pointing to the pending changes, if there are any. Below is a list of past discussions and polls relating to the Pending Changes feature: March 2009: First poll 4 to 1 approving original trial May 2010: RFC on some pre-trial issues June 2010 – August 2010: Pending changes trial August 2010: Straw poll 2 to 1 in favor of continuing PC in some form September 2010: Straw poll on interim usage September 2010 – May 2011: Continuation of pending changes without clear mandate February 2011 – May 2011: PC RfC 2011 Ended the original PC trial. March 2012 – June 2012: PC RfC 2012 established consensus to enable PC before the end of 2012. September 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 1 discussed whether to use Level 2 pending changes. October 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 2 discussed when to apply pending changes, the criteria for rejecting edits, and various ideas for reducing backlog. November 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 3 discussed deployment and usage of the pending changes feature. December 2012 – : Pending changes re-enabled on a permanent basis May 2013: PC RfC 2013 is closed as requiring further discussion for implementation. It reopened the question of whether to use Level 2 pending changes. January 2014: PC RFC 2014 opened to determine if there is consensus on how to implement pending changes level 2. By the time it was closed in June, there was no longer a consensus to use pending changes level 2 at all, but if and when such a consensus does develop, there is some consensus on when to apply it. October 2016: DC RFC 2016 opened to determine if the edit filter, bots and ORES should be allowed to defer suspicious edits for review using deferred changes. The RfC passed in its entirety. November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #1 opened to propose lowering the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage criteria. November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #2 opened to propose several things, including implementing pending changes for all articles, implementing it for certain types of articles (including good articles, featured articles, vital articles, and biography of living persons articles), auto-granting the reviewer right for those meeting certain criteria, and creating a semi-automated tool for reviewing. The portion for creating a semi-automated review tool was withdrawn from the RfC as not needing consensus, and the RfC was later snow-closed with consensus against all remaining proposed changes. January 2017: RFC to remove pending changes level 2, after all RFCs on the subject failed to achieve consensus for using it. November 2017: The proposal for implementing deferred changes was marked as dormant, following a lack of work on its technical implementation. Wikipedia:Deferred changes, proposal to allow bots, the edit filter, and/or ORES to defer suspect edits for review (originally Wikipedia:Deferred revisions). Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, the original trial proposal. Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions, a request for a passive reviewing system, part of the original proposal. Wikipedia:PC2012, an overview of the 2012 implementation of pending changes. Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, proposal for a form of user specific editing restriction that is to a classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. Wikipedia:Pending changes caveats, an essay on why the use of pending changes was severely limited. Wikipedia:Timed flagged revisions, a proposal to add timed autoreview to Pending Changes, to function as a softer(broader) protection tool. === Interface === Special:PendingChanges, pages with pending edits. Special:StablePages, pages under pending changes. Special:ValidationStatistics, various statistics pertaining to the Pending Changes feature. Template:Pending Changes backlog, a display of the current backlog, which can be added to user pages. === Logs === Special:Log/stable, actions to enable or disable pending changes." 375 379 831 WP:PAIN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks 375 This process has been discontinued per this discussion.The personal attack intervention noticeboard (PAIN), created on 7 October 2005, was intended as a counterpart to the request for intervention against vandalism page. A person with complaints over personal attacks could, after giving warnings, report a personal attacker on this page. Unfortunately, the noticeboard generated a considerable amount of controversy. While vandalism is usually a clear cut case, and administrator intervention (i.e. blocking) is usually uncontroversial, determining whether a comment is a personal attack, incivil, or just simply blunt and frank, can be quite subjective. That led to a lot of arguments, flame wars, tit-for-tat disputes and wikilawyering on this page. Even after several warnings as well as changes to the header designed to instruct users on how to use this page, this noticeboard continued to deteriorate. Due to this deterioration as well as some particularly poor exchanges in December 2006, the entire page was nominated for deletion, with the result that the noticeboard was closed on 10 January 2007. The closure of this noticeboard does not mean that personal attacks are tolerated; they should never be. It simply means that complaints over personal attacks are moved to different, and more appropriate venues such as the administrators' noticeboard, a request for comments, dispute resolution or, as a last resort, arbitration. === Procedure === Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header 376 380 833 WP:BELARUS Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus 376 "This WikiProject maintains all articles related to the country of Belarus. Branching is possible, but our goal is just to make sure, for right now, that Category:Belarus is properly assessed and all articles are given some sort of quality rating. If you have any questions, contacting me at my talk page will be pretty easier than going here. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Please feel free to add your name in here. Suncatcher 13 (talk · contribs) 19:55:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Zianon (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Cacrats (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Arianna the First (talk · contribs) 19:20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Sennowa (talk · contribs) 15:05:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC) blindlynx (talk · contribs) Jabbi (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC) ReaIdiot (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Czalex 11:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) 22Jasejusttestingzapppp (talk · contribs) 13:37:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC) === Featured Articles === Belarus Belarusian Republican Youth Union Constitution of Belarus Flag of Belarus Hero of Belarus My Belarusy National emblem of Belarus === Featured Topics === === Good Articles === National symbols of Belarus President of Belarus Belarus at the Olympics History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648) Aĺhierd Abukhovich — be-tarask:Альгерд Абуховіч Paŭliuk Bahrym — be-tarask:Паўлюк Багрым Yazep Liosik — be-tarask:Язэп Лёсік Chaika (organisation) — be-tarask:Чайка (арганізацыя) HandMade (band) — be-tarask:HandMade (гурт) Svyatlana Karatkevich, International Commissioner of the Association of Belarusian Girl Guides Mikalai Hrakau, Belarusian Scout Association Chairperson Rouble Zone (band) === Expansion/Improvement requests === Uladzimir Karyzna composer of the lyrics of the national anthem. Use http://www.minsk-region.gov.by/index.aspx?id=88&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 when writing, since it has the most information.I translated most of it. Please help finish it. --Boguslav 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Zvyazda a Belarusian newspaper. Information will come from [1]. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Andrei Kobyakov current PM is a Start level article. Also, there's allegedly a dispute over whether he was really Deputy PM or hid in a cave for seven years. Curro2 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Ivan Sergeychik is unreferenced; there are lots of Wiki mirrors using this material, but I can't find reliable sources. Also, doesn't appear to reach WP:MILPEOPLE. Comments on Talk:Ivan Sergeychik welcome; I have no expertise in this area. Klbrain (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Nina Bahinskaya new article needs some love! blindlynx (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia requested photographs in Belarus. Many of requested images (especially cities) could be found in commons:Category:Populated places in Belarus, commons:Category:Lakes of Belarus, commons:Category:Rivers of Belarus. Will be good idea to add Commons links to articles. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Here is a list of Belarus related wiki alerts, kindly post ones you find important in the appropriate section bellow === Deletion discussions === === Move discusions === (Discuss) – Merge Pahonia into Coat of arms of Lithuania (Discuss) – Razam (Belarusian political party) → Together (Belarus) – Unregistered oppositional liberal party ""Together"", in Belarusian Razam. However, almost everywhere, the logo, photo and on the website and the founders of the name Together is written in Russian. The Belarusian language is rarely used and is mainly used by a narrow national circle. It is important to note that the Belarusian language is an offshoot of the Russian language and a single Russian people. I consider it possible to leave national characteristics and change the article to Together. -- Dgeise (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) (Discuss) – Puchavičy, Minsk Voblast → Pukhavichy, Minsk Voblast – no existing letter č in English. --Maximiljan (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC) === Good article reassessment discussions === (Discuss) – Alexander Lukashenko should be delisted. Was originally GAed back in 2013. Several problems with the article if you ask me. --Jabbi (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) === Attention required === National emblem of Belarus - article needs attention due to ongoing anti-Belarusian nationalistic vandalism (irrelevant POV content being added) --Czalex 11:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Use {{WikiProject Belarus}}" 377 381 834 WP: THREE User:RoySmith/Three best sources 377 Over the years, I've participated in a lot of WP:AfDs. I don't enjoy deleting articles. It means wasted effort of authors, editors, and reviewers. Nobody wins. But, reviews are how we figure out what's crap and what's not. A necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, task, like taking out the garbage or unclogging the plumbing. Often, there will be a lot of references in an article, many of which use poor sources. I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best. When given this offer, your best strategy is to take it. Don't look at this as, That guy wants to delete this and he's busting my chops. It's more like, That guy wants to help me get the article kept and all I need to do is meet him halfway. Look over WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV so you understand what makes a good source in general. If people have been claiming that your article doesn't meet some particular guideline (WP:NBIO, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, etc), read that page and understand what they're looking for. Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing. Be honest with yourself about how good they are. If they're not good sources, people will figure that out real fast and reject them. Then you've lost your chance. Keep it to no more than three. Three good sources is enough to convince anybody. If somebody agrees to look at three, and you give them more than three, they're likely not to look at any of them. That may not be fair, but it's reality. 378 382 835 WP:LIT Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature 378 "Welcome to the Literature Wikiproject main page. This project is devoted to increasing the quality of articles dealing with general literature subjects, literary criticism, and literary terms or genres which encompass several different types of writing. Anyone is invited to join in the effort by adding their name to the members list. A list of current jobs needing to be done can be found in the to do section. We call special attention to our current effort to gather new members and determine project scope and status. For information on assessments of articles within the scope of the project, please go to /Assessment. For deletion discussions related to literature, see: Deletion sorting/Literature. For the project's most popular pages, see: /Popular pages. === Improve the bird's eye view === Wikipedia's coverage of the entire subject is intended to be summarized in the Outline of literature. It in turn is part of Wikipedia's outline system which is one of Wikipedia's main contents systems. Please look it over and fill-in missing topics. If Wikipedia has an article or article section about those topics, please add links to them. === Article alerts === WikiProject Literature was assembled to organize and promote quality coverage of literary concepts and other general pages on literature on Wikipedia. Articles concerning people, such as authors, can be directed to WikiProject Biography. Articles concerning books and book publishers can be directed to WikiProject Books. Articles concerning fiction can be directed to WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Children's literature and WikiProject Fictional characters. Articles on poems can be directed to WikiProject Poetry. Articles on films can be directed to WikiProject Films. Articles on theatre and drama can be directed to WikiProject Theatre. Articles on comics can be directed to WikiProject Comics. Articles on magazines and journals can be directed to WikiProject Magazines and WikiProject Academic Journals. === Members === If this project interests you, you are encouraged to Join by adding yourself to the membership list. === Departments === ==== Assessment ==== The assessment department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Literature articles. The article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in a set of categories that serves as the basis for an automatically generated worklist. ==== Collaboration ==== The project's Collaboration department seeks to identify particular articles that would benefit from a significant collaborative effort. A single article is selected as the focus, and the project attempts to improve it, potentially to featured article standards. The current collaboration article is Literature. Any Literature article is eligible, and everyone is invited to nominate articles. === Task forces === Task forces are informal groups of editors gathered for collaborative work on a particular topic within the field of Literature (as defined in the ""scope"" above); all project members are encouraged to participate in any task forces that interest them. === Featured articles === Total pages in content type is 8 === Former featured articles === Total pages in content type is 13 === Featured lists === Total pages in content type is 12 === Former featured lists === Total pages in content type is 1 === Good articles === Total pages in content type is 42 === Former good articles === Total pages in content type is 9 === Did you know? articles === Total pages in content type is 417 === Featured pictures === Total pages in content type is 19 === Former featured pictures === Total pages in content type is 1 === Featured portals === Total pages in content type is 2 === Featured article candidates === Total pages in content type is 1 === Good article nominees === Total pages in content type is 2 === In the News articles === Total pages in content type is 75 === Main page featured articles === Total pages in content type is 21 === Main page featured lists === Total pages in content type is 4 === Picture of the day pictures === Total pages in content type is 16 === Former featured topics === Total pages in content type is 1 === Level 2 vital articles === Total pages in content type is 2 === Level 3 vital articles === Total pages in content type is 11 === Level 4 vital articles === Total pages in content type is 71 === Level 5 vital articles === Total pages in content type is 285 Writing good literature articles can be hard work! Why not reward someone you've seen do some good work in the area; decorate their userpage with one of these:" 379 383 836 WP:IPSOCK Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry 379 "Use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia is sometimes permitted and sometimes prohibited, depending on the circumstances and the reasons for the additional accounts. Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies and shall face no action; no attempts shall be made to determine if such accounts are linked. But the use of additional accounts for some disruptive or otherwise deceptive purpose is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. One method that is used is a checkuser inquiry. This may determine if multiple accounts are editing from the same IP address. But it is possible that two or more individuals may be sharing the same computer or connection, either as family members or roommates living in the same household, co-workers editing from one or more computers in the same office, visitation of a relative or friend (sometimes on a regular basis), students using a school computer, strangers using the same hotspot (such as a cafe or public library), or one who is piggybacking off a neighbor's connection. With or without a checkuser inquiry, there are other possible signs that two or more accounts could be operated by the same person. Still, determining if a person is using multiple accounts deceptively is not always possible, as the existing signs are not always perfectly clear, and it is impossible to look through the wires to determine if the same individual is operating all the accounts in question. In some cases, an actual admission of sockpuppetry can be the only definitive proof. Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sockpuppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly. Before we go on about what the actual signs are, we need to discuss what motivates people to commit deceptive sockpuppetry, and why these are not good reasons to do so. When detectives set out to solve a crime, one of the first things they may do is to try to determine a motive for the crime. This will lead them to know whether or not a particular suspect would have had any desire to commit such a crime. A motive is a very useful piece of information in solving a crime, because it helps detectives know who would have such interest. While the motive cannot always be determined, it is hard to understand why one would commit a crime without a motive. Likewise, knowing the motivations for sockpuppetry may help determine whether or not there is actual sockpuppetry taking place. Without a motive, there is no apparent reason why one may sock. === Casting additional votes === In discussions, such as deletion debates and talk pages, the outcome is generally determined by consensus. If there is a clear agreement in a particular direction, it becomes the outcome. The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree. But when there are multiple opinions widely held, determining the consensus may be harder and sometimes impossible. Many discussions are relisted or closed as ""no consensus"" in these situations. Everyone's opinion, even those in the minority, is taken into account, and even the minority view may ultimately be the outcome in some cases. Many users have a misconception that the outcome is determined by votes in numbers, and that the more people who vote in favor of a cause, the more likely it is to be the outcome. But that is not the case. Discussions are not a vote, and the outcome is really determined by those who cite policies and guidelines or otherwise have good ideas in their own individual words. Whether or not a sock puppet, those who follow the leader and just go along with what someone else says do not help advance the cause of the discussion. Such votes are generally discounted when determining the outcome of the discussion. ==== Panic ==== It is not uncommon for one whose article is being considered for deletion, especially a newbie, to ""panic"" when they see the proposal. A natural response under these circumstances would be to go ahead and create more accounts and to use them to cast additional votes in a desperate move to salvage the article. Doing this, however, will not help save the article or otherwise advance the cause of the sockpuppeteer. The closing administrator and perhaps others who comment will see that the sock puppet accounts have little or no edit history, thereby prompting such suspicion. If multiple accounts with long edit histories that are operated by a sneaky experienced user are involved in casting multiple votes, at least some of the many signs described below may be present to help reveal the truth. Besides the creator and others who have worked on or otherwise read an article, the only people who usually comment in a deletion discussion are those who specialize in this. While some may favor keeping and others support deletion, these people usually have a history of commenting in other deletion discussions, and they care more about the discussion than the article itself. === Tipping the balance in an edit war === Edit warring is not uncommon on Wikipedia, even and especially among veteran users. It is human nature for one to want it their way. When an edit war occurs, the desired outcome for Wikipedia is a compromise. Sock puppets are sometimes used to distort the balance in an edit war. Current guidelines allow for a maximum of three reverts for each user on a single day, and even fewer reverts may result in a block if it is obvious the user is being disruptive. If two users with opposite points of view are going back and forth, and another user jumps in, this would provide for six reverts for one side versus the three of the other. Seemingly, the user with support from one's own sock puppet account would win. But that is not the case. When an uncontrollable edit war occurs, sometimes administrators must go as far as blocking those involved in the dispute and/or protecting the page in question from all editing by non-administrators. When an edit war does occur, majority is not what determines the outcome. Edit wars are typically resolved by discussion/debate with the aim of achieving consensus. === Covering up === Many editors have already established for themselves a good reputation with a long edit history free of disruptive behavior. To have such is treasured. But then, all of a sudden, one may wish to perform some controversial edit that they do not wish to appear in that history. There are legitimate reasons for doing this. For example, one who does not wish for a good-faith edit to a pornography-related article to appear in one's edit history due to the personal stigma it may accompany is permitted to do this. But it is explicitly forbidden to use a second account to be intentionally disruptive and hide this from one's contributions. This phenomenon is called the good-hand bad-hand account. The editor who does this may be one who wishes to experimentally vandalize, violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy and engage in POV pushing, make threats against other users, or to otherwise disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Some users will create separate accounts to engage in activities that are generally permitted, but may anger other users, such as proposing articles for deletion. While it does not actually distort consensus, having separate accounts that are not identified as such on user pages is frowned upon. It is not uncommon for an account used only to propose one or more articles for deletion to be a suspected sock puppet. In some most extreme examples, one might experiment to see the reactions of others or stir up artificial controversy between two or more of one's own accounts by having them edit war with one another, forming a discussion with two accounts seemingly being two separate people who disagree, or by creating an article with one account, then proposing it for deletion with another. All of these actions would constitute disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. === Circumventing enforcement of guidelines === Wikipedia has a number of systems designed to enforce various policies and guidelines and altogether ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia. Newly created pages are patrolled. Recent edits are patrolled. Vandalism is reverted. References are checked. Some editors, often veteran ones, have come up with sneaky tricks to circumvent these systems and bypass the enforcement using second accounts. For example, one might create an article with one account, then mark it as patrolled with another. One might vandalize a page with one account, then make a seemingly good faith edit immediately after with another, possibly marking it as a reversion of the vandalism. Or one might make a controversial edit to a page that one knows would not be liked by others, and then make a minor edit with another immediately after so the controversial edit is not the most recent and therefore goes unnoticed. === Pump priming === In order to get a discussion started, a user may make an assertion, then have a sock puppet counter that assertion as if there were a real discussion occurring. Also, a user could, with multiple accounts, make such opposing comments within an existing discussion. Pump priming may occur as a method of testing a point-of-view, or the pump primer may actually want a particular outcome, but will give strong reasoning for the desired outcome, paired with weak reasoning for the opposing point-of-view. Pump priming is a direct violation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The following are possible signs that two accounts may be operated by the same person, that the likelihood may be low, or that, contrary to popular belief, there is no likelihood at all. These signs mostly focus on the knowledge the users of the suspected accounts may either have or lack, or the behaviors they exhibit. Most of the signs listed here have been derived from those used in prior sock puppet investigations that when listed as probable signs have led to positive identifications, and when listed as improbable signs have led to negative or inconclusive identifications. When one or more of these signs are present, this does not automatically mean that sockpuppetry or even legitimate multiple account usage is definitely occurring. The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain. === Similar usernames === A pair of usernames consisting of the same word followed by a pair of numbers in succession (e.g. User:SockPuppet1 and User:Sockpuppet2) may be the same person with two accounts. But as a sockpuppet is defined as one using multiple accounts deceptively, it is more likely that such use would not be so overt. If the example of numbers in succession is seen, more likely, one of them was probably made because the username of the other one coincided. In the event that two accounts have a common word (e.g. User:Sock puppets and User:Green sock), the likelihood of the two accounts being operated by the same person likewise is low unless the word or name used is so unusual that it would be practically unknown to anyone else, and the newer of the accounts was formed not too long after the older one (meaning that no one would have known to copy it). === Precocious edit history === Naturally, as one would expect, one who is new to something has little skill, and becomes more of an expert over time as experience is gained. A newbie's edits may be deficient in meeting editing requirements and skills (such as referencing, wikifying, etc., though they should not be discounted), may have some test edits, and may even exhibit some inappropriate behavior at times, up to and including vandalism and edit warring. One with a longer edit history would have more knowledge about correct policies and procedures, and may be familiar with the requirements to provide sources, recommendations to provide internal links and navboxes, and with some more complicated techniques (such as building charts, uploading images, or designing new templates). This commonly leads one to believe that an account with only a few edits that has been performing at a high level of knowledge of wiki rules and language is a sockpuppet. When a new account's first edits appear like those made by a veteran editor, showing good knowledge of how Wikipedia works, it is likely that the account is a sockpuppet. But the user may not be a sockpuppet, and might instead be one who has prior experience with IP editing, has carefully read instructions, policies, and guidelines prior to editing, has worked a lot on other sister projects or has previously edited other websites that use MediaWiki, has read a book on Wikipedia such as Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, or has been coached by another editor known to them (see WP:Newbies aren't always clueless). Or else the account may be a second account used legitimately (see WP:Sockpuppetry#LEGIT) or that of one who has abandoned an earlier account and legitimately started over (see WP:Clean start). Of particular concern is when multiple accounts are used simultaneously, particularly for a common cause, such as commenting on a deletion discussion, thereby giving the appearance of multiple votes. If an account that participated in the debate was created after the discussion began, the comments given by the new account will not be automatically discounted, but its comments may be given less consideration due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. === Excessive support for one's cause === Very often, there will be an editor who will try to edit in a certain manner that is viewed as controversial in the eyes of the majority of the Wikipedia community. Normally when this happens, since Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, the majority view is likely to win and prevent the minority view from making its way into the final outcome of a dispute. Especially when the minority view is extremely unpopular, it is unlikely to get much support. The majority of editors agree on doing the right thing, even if they do not agree themselves with the majority view. What's more, reliable sources that are believed to be accurate are what make true winners. Point-of-view pieces that do not provide information at a neutral stance are not considered to be in the reliable sources category, especially for subjects of a controversial nature. A level of support greater than what can be expected from the overall population combined with other signs can be a possible sign of either sock or meat puppetry. ==== Excessive awarding of barnstars ==== Receiving a barnstar is generally considered to be a great honor. It shows that one has worked hard to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Many users are proud of the barnstars they've received and actively display them on their user pages. Anyone can award a barnstar to anyone. Even an IP user can award or receive a barnstar. There are no qualifications required. This is nice because anyone who wants to award one in good faith can do so. At the same time, anyone who wants to award one in bad faith can do so. It is therefore possible to award a barnstar to one's own sock puppet account, or to one who is acting as a meatpuppet for one's own cause in order to help legitimize the cause. The recipient can then justify their cause by stating ""look, I was awarded a barnstar."" This level of pride does not ever justify favor for the minority point-of-view, or any other actions contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, even when there is no sock or meat puppetry involved. But it has been interpreted as a suspicious sign for sock or meat puppetry. ==== Repeating the same disapproved activity ==== If a single account is used to repeat the same edit, and it is continually reverted, that is well known as an edit war. A single user engaging in an edit war against multiple editors opposing the activity is almost certain to be blocked if the behavior is not stopped. If multiple editors without a long history come into the scene, these may be sock or meat puppets. This may not only include edits to existing pages, but also creation of troublesome pages, uploading of problematic files, copyright violations, personal attacks, spam, or other behaviors in bad faith after being warned. Simply changing the name of a page does not resolve the problem. Editors engaging in such disruptive activity may attempt to be sneaky for using different names for such pages each time, just like they use different names for their accounts that are sock puppets. The names may or may not have resemblance to one another. === Editing identical articles === If two accounts have a history of edits to one or more of the same articles, or especially many identical articles, this may lead to suspicion that they may be operated by the same person. There may be even more suspicion if the edit(s) themselves are nearly identical, and even more so if they are disruptive in nature. Then again, two different people who have an interest or experience in a certain field may work on many identical articles. For example, people living in the same area (who may or may not know each other personally) may edit lots of articles on regional interests. Fans of a sports team may edit articles on many of its players. Those with knowledge in biology may also have studied chemistry. As many musicians also act, those who work on songs of the musician may also be involved with movies the star is in. In all, each article (unless it is lacking of proper wikification) is contained in one or more categories, is linked from one or more articles, and is often listed in one or more templates. Those who view the links or categories will therefore be led to view and often edit common pairs or groups of articles. So if any two or more accounts are used to edit common articles in such groups frequently, it is unlikely two or more of them are operated by the same person. If two accounts operated by the same person are used to deceptively show more support for a cause, such as multiple ""votes"" on an AfD or a controversy created by a fake edit war between the two accounts, a violation has occurred. But if one account is used to contribute useful information to an article, and another is used in an unrelated productive manner (such as to fix spelling errors), no harm has occurred, and no action shall be taken. If a checkuser inquiry or other evidence finds that two accounts are using the same IP address to edit the same articles, this does not necessarily mean the same person is operating both accounts. It is not uncommon for people who live or work together or who otherwise know each other to have common interests, or even to have face-to-face discussions about the same articles. Provided that there is no meatpuppetry or canvassing, and each person is editing in a manner that they naturally would independent of the other, this is acceptable. It is even possible for two or more people to be making disruptive edits to the same article with no connections to one another whatsoever. If there is a subject that is of high interest to an immature or ideologically-bent crowd, and the article is popular among this crowd, it is possible to see more than one unconnected person performing the exact vandalism or POV editing to the article. When this occurs, the proper action is to consider protecting the page in question rather than accusing those involved in the disruptive behavior of sockpuppetry. If those involved have a history of doing the same collectively to multiple articles, then it is more likely sockpuppetry may be occurring. ==== Edit warring ==== In the event of an edit war, it is quite easy for accusations of sockpuppetry to occur. Even veteran editors will sometimes get quite nasty during edit wars and commit three-revert-rule violations, leading to getting blocked from editing. If an edit war involves just two editors, each with an opposing viewpoint, and resulting in numerous reverts, the appearance of a third editor out of the blue supporting one side may lead to examination of that editor's history to determine if this account is operated by the same editor. Some possible signs to look for may be whether or not the third editor has previously edited the article in question or any related articles, though the outcome of such analysis does not provide conclusive proof that both accounts are or are not operated by the same individual, the third account is operated by one known to that of one of the first two, or that any canvassing has occurred. In an edit war involving multiple, possibly numerous editors taking both sides, sockpuppetry accusations are also likely, though identification may be even more difficult. An examination in similarity of editing patterns, habits, or certain other factors may be able to either further confirm or else rule out such suspicion. ==== Deletion discussions ==== Making multiple comments on the same deletion discussion (AfD, CfD, TfD, etc.) with separate accounts is among the most forbidden uses of a sock puppet account. If two or more editors are seen on the same discussion, one may suspect sockpuppetry is occurring, especially if one of the accounts belongs to the creator, a major contributor, or the nominator. There are, however, a large number of editors who regularly make comments on deletion discussions, and therefore, their names are found often together on many such debates. If any such editor is previously known to frequently propose articles for deletion or comment on deletion proposals made by others, this should be taken into consideration before sockpuppetry is suspected. Two users who participate in multiple AfDs together could be a sign of common interests. But it should be noted in the event of a deletion discussion that if there is a user who normally does not participate in deletion discussions, but participates periodically in those of articles that were all created by a single user, but that they did not previously edit themselves, this may be a sign of meatpuppetry. This is especially so if the second account rarely otherwise participates in deletion discussions and has not participated in editing the associated or any related articles. ==== Knowledge that an obscure article exists ==== Some articles are known to many, and at the very least, receive lots of views, if not lots of edits. But other articles are of interest to few, or else may have been around for only a short time, and in all, are little known. If an article on an obscure topic is created, and then, soon after its creation, receives edits from another account (other than those typically made by a new page patroller), this may raise suspicion that the two accounts are operated by the same person, or that they know each other. This may especially be the case if little or nothing has been done to spread awareness of the page's existence. In these situations, analysis of other factors here may help rule sockpuppetry in or out. ==== Connection to the article ==== In all, the people most likely to comment in a discussion will generally fit into one of several categories, as listed below: Has created the page Has made one or more significant contributions to the page Has made one or more significant contributions to one or more related pages that would lead to the one in question being found through a link or common category Regularly comments in similar types of discussions, regardless of interest in the specific page Has commented in a discussion being held on or close to the same day that would be listed on the same page of discussionsEveryone is entitled to comment in a discussion. The lack of such a connection does not automatically make one a sock puppet. But this is something to consider when evaluating one may be using sock puppet accounts. ==== Always there when needed ==== User A creates an article. User B is there to mark it as patrolled, expand it, or make other edits to it that make it seem more like a valid article. User A starts a discussion. User B is there to comment in favor of User A's cause, though User B's contributions show no signs they are otherwise interested in that or any similar causes, or that User B even participates in discussions regularly. An article User A created is proposed for deletion. User B ""votes"" to have it kept, though they have never worked on that article, and they rarely participate in AfD otherwise. In any of the above scenarios, the same pattern is observed between Users A and B on multiple occasions. This may raise some suspicion that either Accounts A and B are operated by the same person, that the operators of these accounts know each other personally, or that they have a relationship with one another on Wikipedia. If indeed such a pattern is observed, trying to observe if other signs are present may be worthwhile at this point. === Chronology of edits === If two accounts have edit histories that consistently show sets of edits made around the same time, one after the other, just minutes apart, but never at the exact same time, this may be reason to believe that they are operated by a single user who is logging onto one, editing, logging off, and then logging onto the other. It is also possible for one person to use two browsers, one logged in to one account, one logged into the other. In either case, these edits are occurring around the same time. However, this is not definitive proof. This may be pure coincidence, as the chronology of one's edits is a reflection of the time one has available to make them. For example, these two editors may get home from work at around the same time on a regular basis, and both go straight to Wikipedia. A lot of editors have more (or sometimes less) time to work on Wikipedia on weekends, holidays, or other time outside of common business hours (which vary by location around the world, though days of the week are mostly consistent everywhere, see Days on and off below). So if two accounts are always editing around the same times, and rarely or never at different times of day, this is not an initial reason to suspect sockpuppetry from the beginning, but it can be taken into consideration—especially when a checkuser inquiry has confirmed that the two accounts are operated from the same computer or connection, but one or both of the users claim they are different people who share that computer or connection. The user may or may not provide hints regarding where they live on their userpage and by some of the edits they have made, which are useful in determining the country and time zone where they live. ==== Days on and off ==== While it may not always be so easy to determine sockpuppetry based on the times of day one edits, as this can be tricky based on common habits of society and different time zone, a better indicator could be the actual days when one edits, or does not. If any account is used only certain days of the week (such as weekends), this may indicate the user is free only on those days. Likewise, if an account is consistently not used on any given day of the week, this may indicate someone who is consistently busy that day. This is so common that you cannot automatically call someone a sock puppet if their days on or off match that of another account. If there is an extended period of time in which one edits or does not, this may indicate either that the user had nothing worthwhile to contribute during that time, or it could indicate that the user simply was too busy or otherwise unable to edit. It is possible that one could be editing either more or less around the time of either a major holiday observed by a large population or a personal vacation. Of course, it is important to be aware that different places and groups of people have holidays at different times on the calendar, so a holiday for one society could be a common time for another. Like in the above example, this does not confirm sockpuppetry, but it can help either to rule it out or to rule it in pending other signs. ==== Accounts with occasional usage ==== While it is possible that an editor may be using one account almost daily and another on rare occasions, the fact that an account is used infrequently does not automatically make it a sockpuppet. There are many real people who seldom edit Wikipedia, and may have some days or weeks in which they make a dozen or more edits, and then may go for weeks or months at a time without any editing. Wikipedia has no minimum number of edits that any active account must make, and an account is allowed to lie dormant for an unlimited period of time, and then resume editing. There are a variety of reasons a regular editor may take a break from editing, which may include work obligations that keep one busy, vacation, holidays, health problems, writer's block, exams and academic obligations or simply finding a lack of articles needing editing. There are also legitimate reasons for operating a second account with occasional usage; e.g., one may want to make occasional good-faith edits on an embarrassing or otherwise controversial topic that they do not want on their edit history, such as pornography or politics. ==== Accounts used only briefly ==== There have also been accounts, often single-purpose accounts, that have been created to be used for only a short period of time, making fewer than 50 edits, then later abandoned. In some cases, these have been identified as sock puppets. But having such few edits is not automatically a sign of sockpuppetry. The user with few edits may simply be a newbie who will one day have many more contributions. It may be someone who tried out Wikipedia, then gave up interest. It may be someone who only planned to make a few contributions ever. Or it may be one who only makes occasional contributions. If an account has few edits, sockpuppetry should only be suspected if the user's behavior is disruptive and it appears to be the work of one who has familiarity with Wiki formatting. === Geography === Not all but many users edit at least some articles on topics likely to be known only to those in a particular city, metropolitan area, or region. Some users go as far as stating on their userpage where they live, and there are editors dedicated to working on articles on their hometown (such as those on local politicians, celebrities, sports teams, schools, businesses, infrastructure, etc.). There is nothing wrong with any of this. An individual secretly operating multiple accounts probably would not be so overt that they would use two or more accounts to edit articles on the same locality, unless they are involved in an edit war on a local article. More likely, Account A may reveal the user's real home, and Account B may pretend to be a different person living in a different place by editing perhaps a few articles pertaining to another area (perhaps some place where they have lived or visited before). It is however possible in the event of meatpuppetry that if one editor supports another, both may have some of the above signs of living in the same area. Just because two or more usernames are those of people who live in the same place does not automatically mean they are operated by the same person, or that they even know each other. And even if two people who know each other personally both comment in the same discussion or otherwise support the same cause, it does not automatically mean one has influenced the other. Still, geography can be a sign when combined with other factors. In a major city with a population of several hundred thousand or more, there are likely thousands of Wikipedia editors, many of whom are highly dedicated and make almost daily edits. The typical editor may or may not know who other editors are, even if they are their co-worker, classmate, next-door neighbor, or a member of the family sharing a household. Therefore, geography alone is not a reason to automatically suspect sockpuppetry. It can only be used to continue to rule in an already existing suspicion. If a checkuser inquiry is performed, this will likely reveal if two users accounts are based in the same area, since many IP addresses are bound to certain cities or regions. Possibly, if two accounts operated by the same person or family members supporting one another's cause have both edited while traveling, and such a pattern can be seen, this could be used to determine sock or meat puppetry. ==== Fictitious locality ==== It is possible that you may find that one who is pretending to live in an area where one does not live and has never lived may edit some article pertaining to that area, but not doing a good job of it. For example, one who was briefly in a place (such as a tourist or business traveler) may edit articles on subjects of interest to visitors to that area, including hotels, tourist attractions, and the airport, but will never write anything about the day-to-day life of a resident in the place (such as local politicians, residential neighborhoods, schools, etc.). One who lived in a place in the past, but does not currently live there or frequent the place may know about what life was like there in the past, but may not be up-to-date about it. The more time one has been removed from the area, the less up-to-date one will be. Additionally, one who is not in the area will not be able to take pictures of anything, and may not be able to read the local newspaper if it is not online. === Fictitious personality === Some sock puppet accounts will be created by one person pretending to be another, who like in the example above, is from another place, or is possibly of another gender, culture, nationality, or profession, just to name a few. For example, a Caucasian person may pretend to be African-American. A male may pose as a female. An Irishman may act like an Australian. A German may pretend to be Italian. A French person may pretend to be Mexican. Or an accountant may want others to think they are a physicist. Given the limit of knowledge one can have, it'll take a really good actor to pass themself off as someone else like this. The ""actor"" may make frequent edits to articles that they perceive are of interest to such a person, and may even go to the extreme of creating a user page describing such a person as if it were all real. But one who has not studied or deeply experienced the real thing will not be likely to know anything above the surface. For example, while a real chemist would know in-depth about many concepts in chemistry, a layperson may just know about the periodic table of elements. In any case, a genuine person may create lengthy articles from scratch and make complex edits pertaining to their personal truth. An actor would make very minor edits and create nothing more than stubs. And the actor will be missing edits on a lot of information known to a genuine person fitting that description. And while one who uses a single account to make all their edits would probably have made edits to at least several areas of interest, a sock puppeteer who has multiple accounts and splits their contributions may use different accounts for different areas of interest, and would therefore have a limited range of topics they have edited. === Lack of establishment into the community === Good-faith editors are for Wikipedia, while sockpuppets are for eroding Wikipedia in one or more ways. Good-faith editors will most likely want to establish themselves in the Wikipedia community. This means that they participate in discussions, cooperate to improve articles, give feedback to Wikipedians via venues such as peer review, and generally perform activities that seal their reputation as a productive editor. However, sockpuppets want to disrupt Wikipedia. It is difficult to willfully establish one's self into a community or project that one despises or wishes to harm, even if not in a genuine manner. In addition, it draws attention to them, the antithesis of their goal of not driving any attention to them. Thus, sockpuppets will usually seclude themselves from the community, making only minor edits in a limited range of areas and avoiding cooperation if possible. === Similar writing/editing styles === Many people have their own unique styles of writing or editing, or other habits. If edits made from separate accounts reflect such a common style, this may lead to suspicion that the accounts are operated by the same person. It is possible indeed that the accounts may be operated by the same individual. But it is not uncommon for people to learn from the writing styles of others, or copy the techniques used by other editors often not known to the editor in question. Different users editing in a similar fashion may be reflective of what an editor learns simply from reading other articles. ==== Common spelling/punctuation/grammar errors ==== There is a correct way to spell every word in our language. Most people know how to spell it correctly, and good writers will endeavor to do so, or even possibly use spell checks to be sure of this. Many words are commonly misspelled, and they may be misspelled a variety of different ways. The same is true for punctuation, grammar, and other standards when it comes to writing. There are some common errors that may be visible in many editors. For example, many writers confuse it's (= it is) and its (= belonging to it). Just because the same error is seen often does not automatically mean that the accounts are operated by the same person. But if there are many common errors repeated a lot by two or more accounts along with other possible signs, this could be an indication of possible sockpuppetry. === Uploading of multimedia === When multimedia, such as pictures, are uploaded, all have a source filename that becomes invisible to most users as it is renamed to a destination filename. But it can still be viewed by some administrative staff. If two Wikipedia usernames have been used to upload files from the same computer username, either two people are sharing the same user account on the computer or sockpuppetry is occurring. === IP sockpuppetry === Some editors may attempt to masquerade as multiple users by constantly changing IP addresses, either by changing that of their own connections, or by editing from many locations. IP addresses are frequently bound to a region, so if all the IP addresses used come from the same area, this may be cause to believe all edits have been made by the same person. Such suspicion must be discounted when the article is on a topic not likely known to those outside the region, as only those living within the region would have interest in editing. On the other hand, some editors use rerouting services to post from a variety of IPs located all over the world. This in itself can be a giveaway when the target article is only likely to be of interest to editors from one region. A few overseas IP editors may well be legitimate (e.g. expatriates or wandering editors), but if the IP editors start to look like a 'flags of all nations' collection, there may be something fishy. Using traceroute on IPs can provide more information—addresses like ""ip-anywhere.net"" or hosting services are sometimes used by rerouting services. Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to their edits, no violation has occurred. Additionally, one who has an account may sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits. This is not considered sockpuppetry. === Browser parameters === The session ID in the browser cookies, as much as the web browser's user agent, which can be seen by CheckUsers can provide clues about sockpuppetry. === Single-purpose accounts === When it is obvious that an account is being used for a single disruptive purpose, there may be reason in some cases to believe that its operator also has an account regularly used for productive editing, and its user does not want their regular account to be tarnished with the malicious behavior being performed by the second account. This may include vandalism, disruptive editing, personal attacks, hoaxes, edit warring, POV pushing, or gaming the system. In all of the above cases, if the account that is used for such a purpose appears to show good knowledge of wiki usage beyond that of a newbie, it is a strong possibility that its operator does have another account. Depending on the situation, a checkuser inquiry may or may not be justified, and otherwise detecting the main account of such a user may or may not be easy or possible. In the event that learning the regular account of such a user is difficult or of questionable justification, it is more appropriate simply to block the problematic account, either temporarily or permanently, depending on the situation. A common IP address does not automatically prove the account is operated by the same person – it may be someone who is simply using the same person's computer or connection. === Behaviors on other sites === Many Wikipedia editors are active not only on Wikipedia, but also on sister projects, Wikipedias in other languages, and non-Wikimedia sites such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, other wikis, or other public venues. When this is the case, they may or may not have usernames identical or similar to their Wikipedia name. Usernames on Wikimedia are global, so a user editing another Wikimedia project site with the same name as an account on Wikipedia is most definitely the same person. On other sites unrelated to Wikimedia, care should be taken not to mistakenly connect innocent users to ones on Wikipedia. If the username is a real human name, it is possible that another person shares the same name, even if that name is relatively uncommon in the overall population. If it is a human name followed by a series of identical digits, this is more likely. But if this is the case, or even if it is not a human name, it is possible that the user on that site is a copycat, or simply pure coincidence. Another factor to look at is knowledge or behavior. Is the user on other sites writing about an identical subject? Are they trying to promote themself, a friend, or a personal point of view? Are they trying to invent a new concept, promote a new word, idea, or otherwise get the word out about something original? If the same information that is otherwise unknown or unpopular is being described on multiple sites, this could be an indication it is coming from the same person, even possibly one who is otherwise trying to cover this up. Please note that having any number of accounts or engaging in any type of behavior on any other sites, including sister projects or Wikipedias in other languages is not a violation of English Wikipedia policy. Each site has its own guidelines for its users, and it is the responsibility of the operators of other sites to handle those who violate them. Many other sites actually allow behaviors that are not permitted on Wikipedia, sometimes including sockpuppetry, publishing original thought, self-promotion, or personal point-of-view. At issue is only one's behavior on English Wikipedia and when one person is using multiple accounts on Wikipedia or when one Wikipedia editor is supporting another's cause to get the word out. If two separate accounts are being used on Wikipedia each to introduce something new on Wikipedia, but a single account on some other site is being used to introduce both those new things, this may be a sign that all of those accounts are operated by the same person. === Being a witness === Being a chance eye witness to a person in a public location logging in and out of multiple accounts may reveal a sock puppeteer. It is important to be aware that there are many legitimate reasons for using multiple accounts, so if this does occur, and you see the names of the accounts, examine the nature of the edits to determine whether or not any violation has actually occurred. If the edits made by the accounts around that time are in good faith and comply with the rules, no negative action shall be taken. Usually, an editor who always acts in good faith and follows the rules is unlikely to be suspected of being a sockpuppet or operating sockpuppets. Even if one operates two or more accounts (which in some cases is permitted), provided that no rules are broken, suspicion is not likely. Only when one's editing becomes problematic in some way is sockpuppetry likely to be suspected. The majority of sock puppet investigations involve one or more accounts with little or no edit history, so accounts that have long edit histories are less likely to become the focus of such an investigation. It is not uncommon for an investigation to include one account with a long edit history, and one or more others with little or none. The following signs are frequently used to trigger a sock puppet investigation: === Use of a single-purpose account === When an account is determined to be a single-purpose account, and is used for some purpose that in one way or another violates Wikipedia policy or is otherwise disliked, this may be a trigger to an investigation. If the single-purpose account appears to be used for editing that is not that of a WP:NEWBIE, this will likely raise suspicion that it is the bad hand of someone with a good hand and bad hand account. This includes accounts that are being used only to vandalize, propose articles for deletion, comment in existing deletion or other discussions, or to support another user's cause(s). If an account's first edit or series of edits are the creation of a page in any namespace, the participation in a discussion, or even proposing an article for deletion, no rules have been broken. Everyone has to start somewhere. Many people decide to create an account after a long history of IP editing. Sometimes, the decision to create an account comes when one must do something that only a registered account can do, such as creating a page. It is not uncommon for the first edit of an account to be a page creation. === Uncivil editing === One of the most common triggers of a sock puppet investigation is a user not editing in a civil manner. This is because incivility creates an offended party who is likely to report it. Since uncivil editing leads to being blocked, an editor opening a new account, who appears to be both uncivil and sophisticated or experienced, will normally immediately come under suspicion of editing in bad faith as a block evading sock puppet. This is particularly true if an editor in a dispute has recently been blocked, and suddenly a new uncivil user appears in the dispute. An account which appears to exist for the primary purpose of making personal attacks on other editors might also be the bad hand of a pair of good hand, bad hand accounts. This type of sock puppet is used by an editor in bad faith, to break rules with one account, knowing it will eventually be blocked, intending to keep the other clean account. Uncivil editing alone is not conclusive proof that an account is a sock puppet, as some editors have difficulty in following this principle, and it is possible for a new uncivil editor to join a discussion at any time. === Planned vandalism === A lot of vandalism is committed by unregistered or newly registered users who seldom if at all edit Wikipedia, but are just being silly or who otherwise do not know better, or are otherwise making some test edit. But some vandalism is committed by those who are experienced users who know the system well. Certain types of vandalism take good wiki knowledge and planning. This includes mass vandalism (using a bot or other program), vandalizing a protected article, moving an article (page-move vandalism), or taking steps to cover up the vandalism so it goes unnoticed. Though not always, these acts are often committed by those using good-hand bad-hand accounts. === Engaging in an edit war === When there is an edit war in progress, sockpuppetry may be and is often suspected, especially if two or more accounts taking one side appear to be behaving in exactly the same manner with no evidence they are operated by two different individuals with no connections. In particular, if the three revert rule is broken, and a block is required as a result, an investigation may take place to determine if the violator is operating any other accounts. === Vote-stacking === It is common during a discussion for one or even several editors to simply say ""per [other editor]."" This in itself is not a sign of sockpuppetry, and in fact, it could be a sign of unanimous consensus. But it is of particular concern if an account, or even several accounts were formed after the discussion began, and take the same side. The same is true in an edit war if more than one account were formed after the beginning of the discussion. Vote-stacking may also be suspected when it would seem obvious to most that the consensus should be one way, but there are so many names saying something else. === Account block === If, for any reason, an account must be blocked or a user must be banned, since the entire IP address or range is affected, an investigation may take place to determine if other accounts may be using that address or range, and whether or not they are operated by the same individual. Wikipedia:Obvious sock is obvious Wikipedia:Consequences of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Lurkers Wikipedia:The duck test Wikipedia:Witchhunt" 380 384 839 WP:TEMPORARY Wikipedia:Temporary versions of articles 380 A temporary version is a saved version of a page in Main Article Space in which the editor who saves the changes actually has plans to make more permanent changes at a later time or date, or has the strong expectation that one or more other editors will. The later time may be a few minutes or days later, or may be indefinite. A temporary version may or may not have an incomplete appearance to the reader. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Technically, few if any pages can ever be complete. Additionally, many pages are about ever-changing subjects and require non-stop updates. Some pages are so complicated that it is impossible to complete them or complete certain changes in a single edit. But there is a desire for them to be in mainspace prior to their completion. Some pages are so long that it is difficult for a single editor to complete the entire page, and help may be needed from others. They can be used as a neutral location when it is likely that some involved editors would not like to edit a draft in another particular editor's user-space. Wikipedia is for the readers more than the editors. A page in a temporary state gives a bad impression of the page and of Wikipedia altogether. Temporary versions may lack accuracy or neutrality. One might view making a temporary version as harmless. But the number of times a page is viewed varies for each article. If an article is viewed around 6000 times in a day, that is approximately 4 views per minute. That means for each minute that passes between saving different edits, about 4 people have viewed the page. This is acceptable if the article is simply incomplete, but is problematic when the information is out-of-date or otherwise inaccurate, especially with a living person or otherwise sensitive subject. Editors can avoid temporary versions by performing all proposed changes in their own userspace, as a draft, and then transferring their planned final version to the article when they are done. There are various templates that can be used to indicate that a page is in a temporary state: {{New page}}, to indicate that the page has just been created and may not be complete {{Newlist}}, for lists that are not complete {{Userspace draft}}, for new articles temporarily in userspace {{In use}}, to indicate that the page is in the process of an update that is taking multiple edits at the present time, and others should not disturb the page {{Under construction}}, to indicate that the page is undergoing a major revamping, but that others are welcome to edit during this process {{Incomplete list}}, to indicate a list is in the process of being built and that others should help expand it {{Dynamic list}}, to indicate the list can never remain in a complete or steady state. The list covers an ever-changing topic, and will likely always need updates. {{Update}}, to indicate that the information on a page is in need of an update 381 385 842 WP:LEPID Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera 381 "WikiProject Lepidoptera The aim of this WikiProject is to set out broad suggestions about how to organize data in the articles relating to the insect order Lepidoptera, which comprises the butterflies and moths. We also hope to encourage the development of important stubs and articles following these suggestions, which are not obligatory except in the case of WikiProject Lepidoptera Article Guidelines. These guidelines are being formulated as policy to give a more uniform look, feel, and organisation to WP Lepidoptera articles and are in the process of being developed through discussion and consensus on the project talk page. In the case of these guidelines (when formulated) editors are expected to follow with exceptions to be discussed on the project talk page before implementation. This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life WikiProject Science WikiProject Biology WikiProject Tree of Life WikiProject Animals WikiProject Arthropods WikiProject Insects WikiProject LepidopteraPortal:Biology To become a member, just add yourself in the right place to this alphabetical list. Alan Cassidy AddWittyNameHere - have access to approximately 70 printed books about Lepidoptera, some in German, some in Dutch, some in English. Most are Europe-centred. Agapema - here to help contribute where possible, with a main focus on (you guessed it) the Agapema genus. Adedotun- have photos to contribute to articles Adityavagarwal - Lepidoptera, etc. editing, adding citations, adding information, etc. Alemah19 - WashU student adding some sections to the Arctia caja page and the Boloria selene page Alexandra Payne Alexlu5418 - I like butterfly and moths and I like moths the most Ambrosia10 - Lepidoptera of New Zealand AncylurisFormosissima Focused on butterflies in Oregon, USA and in the American tropics. Arajan1 - Interested in studying moth and butterfly behavior for my Behavioral Ecology Class. Will contribute to the Mythimna unipuncta and Agrotis ipsilon page. AshLin Aviceda Bastique Benthebutterflyguy Bfpage-I am continuing to add references to the Monarch Butterfly BIRDSANDBUGS - working on creating pages for various moths, mainly saturniidae. BoozalisHannah - working on Heliconius erato page Calibas Catejiang - Currently working on African armyworm Ccccchaton000 - Want to make minor improvements, if I can. Charlesjsharp - Special interest in photography - Sharp Photography Chiefmartinez Chinmayisk ClaudiaEE - Interested in learning about butterflies and moths for my Behavioral Ecology class Camille Rieber CR.Tracy - will contribute to the Diamondback Moth page Daniel Mietchen D. Gordon E. Robertson Dr Mel Ganus from wikiBlind.org - we can help with image descriptions Eddie Campell EmilyKathryn Emilykh26 Engelde - will contribute to the Dryas iulia page Erica Ryu - will contribute to the Cabbage looper page Felderp Aaron Lox - working on the Phryganodes pages Firos AK Foiled circuitous wanderer FozzieH Friesen5000 - Leps of Canada FrigidNinja Gihan Jayaweera - Moths and butterflies of Indian subcontinent and specially Sri Lanka Glacierman Gug01 Guy Manners Hanna peterman - working on Eriogaster lanestris and Samea multiplicalis for a behavioral ecology class Hectonichus Himalayacetus - Pyraloidea globally Roger Kendrick (a.k.a. HKmoths) Inndrid - New to Wikipedia, but hoping to contribute to moth pages as I see the need. IronC* hris | (talk) IvanTortuga iginsberg Jacobdaun Jenniferra - working on limenitis arthemis page for behavioral ecology course Jerryshen - will contribute to the Bogong moth page Jkadavoor J.j.lee — will contribute to Small heath (butterfly) and Choristoneura fumiferana J.M.Garg Jowaninpensans - mines J.Prakash2344 - Contributing to pages on moths and butterflies for a Behavioral Ecology class J.R.Fe.P. — butterflies of Venezuela kaylaholthaus kamalikaindia — butterflies and moths of Indian Himalaya Kelley Zhao Kipd - Denton_Brothers KmarcusBC- Contributing to the page on Parasemia plantaginis for Behavioral Ecology course Krecto176- Contributing to the page on Callophrys xami for Behavioral Ecology course Kugamazog LamBoet Lauraem7 - contributing to the page on Cadra cautella and Danaus chrysippus. Leomk0403 Lepidoptera Lilymalcolm - working on Leek moth for a class project. Liu.emily- working on Galleria mellonella page for Behavioral Ecology class project. Loopy30 LucasKatherine - Contributing to the Heliconius cydno page for a Behavioral Ecology course Manoj Karingamadathil MasterOfHisOwnDomain Meganmccarty Meganav - contributing to Ostrinia furnacalis for a Behavioral Ecology class project. Merenta Metacladistics - Butterflies of Sulawesi -- adding images of pinned specimens Million Moments - pest species minirolls1991 -want to expand the phymatopus page for a university project Mlopez2121 - contributing to Moths and Butterflies for Behavioral Ecology class. Mothman27 - Moths and Butterflies of the USA, mostly midwestern species, and Saturniidae from around the world. Moid Ali - contributing to Papilio Homerus Mperumattam Mishae (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Moths of America, and Moths in general Mllutz - Working on Callosamia promethea and Anartia fatima Mnoronha456 - contributed to Jalmenus evagoras, currently working on Mediterranean flour moth MrX Mullenm05 - interested in contributing to butterfly and moth pages for my Behavioral Ecology class, new here Neilj Nickrz NielsenGW Notafly Robert Nash Noym Ornithoptera Pranita.kaginele ProbablyAPineapple Quantumobserver RV2014 User:Dr. Raju Kasambe Rfairb - Planning to contribute to entomologist & curator pages, cleanup for species and family pages Richard Barlow Richywutang2018 - Also new here. Interested in moths and butterflies for my Behavioral Ecology class. RLO1729 - Revised and enlarged James John Joicey and associated entomologists' pages Ruigeroeland Sahilmehta97 - Will contribute to Raisin Moth - Cadra figulilella for a Behevioral Ecology Project Sandew LA - Interested in butterflies of Sri Lanka Santosh Namby Chandran Sarahxyang Seacactus 13 Sebastiaan van Doorn - Mostly Lepidoptera orientated independent entomologist hoping to contribute on Palearctic species, but willing to look way further. Shreenidhi PM - I am working on Eurybia elvina butterfly Shyamal Sixredspots Sjwang312 Sklopedia8 - Contributing to Eacles imperialis for my Writing for Biologists class Slzeng Squirkl - Moth enjoyer & budding naturalist Space chinedu Srosefuqua - Working on Heliconius melpomene for my Behavioral Ecology class. S.srivatsa - New here, and interested in moths and butterflies in the US and Midwestern US. Stemonitis Sungjaepark -Working on Hemileauca lucina for my Behavioral Ecology course ThorbyTech - still new here. Learning to edit by adding references to species. Tjscott Tonton Bernardo - only moths of Indian Ocean (La Réunion, Mauritius, Seychelles & special interest in Madagascar - as few data available to public. Tony Holkham - Lepidoptera of Britain and Ireland Treichar - Interested in leps of the mid-Atlantic states of the United States. Stacey Uhm - Planning on contributing to the Marsh fritillary butterfly page Vijay Barve Vitaly Charny vkrishnan2 - I am studying the Indian mealmoth and am editing the wikipedia page for that moth. I am also going to be editing the Ostrinia Scapulalis page. Wumi Adekunle- I like butterflies Walter Siegmund t Wilhelmina Will — I've recently created several articles on species from the moth genus Prays, and intend on creating many more, as well as many pages on many other moth/butterfly species. Wloveral (talk) — Butterflies from the Amazon, and butterfly conservation generally Y.shin - will be contributing to the Spodoptera litura page Lily1004 The following guidelines have been established with consensus after reasoned debate in WikiProject Lepidoptera and should be followed. In case of exceptions please discuss first on the talk page. Article importance grading scheme. A suggested format for articles on Lepidoptera is given in the Article formats page. See Moduza procris (commander) and Eacles imperialis (imperial moth) as examples of typical species accounts. Some species have extremely little information and are little more than stubs, so most of these headings are deleted. See Parnassius imperator augustus (imperial Apollo) as an example. Such species in a single genus probably would merit consolidation in the near future, as per the accepted usage. In some cases, the species has additional interesting information which merits separate sections and sub-sections. These are issues such as taxonomy, polymorphy, mimicry, ant-association, migration or any such feature characteristic to that species and warranting a detailed treatment by itself. Hence additional headings are provided on an as-required basis. The sequence of headings, sections and sub-sections may also be changed to represent the information in the best and most convenient manner possible. See Danaus chrysippus (plain tiger) and Papilio polytes (common Mormon) as such examples. === Featured articles === Chrysiridia rhipheus Henry Edwards (entomologist) === Good articles === Lepidoptera External morphology of Lepidoptera Butterfly Abantiades latipennis Helicoverpa zea Lulworth skipper Phengaris rebeli ==== New articles ==== === Article alerts === Articles to be split 08 Dec 2021 – Hypotype (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Leomk0403 (t · c); see discussion === Articles needing cleanup === Lepidoptera articles with maintenance and cleanup category listings === Popular pages === Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Popular pages /Checklist One key aim is to set an extremely high standard of writing quality and user-friendliness in this project. === Use of media and level of detail === The articles try to display as many relevant images as possible. The aim being to be as useful and encyclopedic as is necessary. We would like to have, and in some cases, we have been able to obtain photos of: Adult (imago), egg, larva (or caterpillar) and chrysalis (pupa or cocoon). Male and female forms, polymorphic forms, mimic forms, dorsal and ventral views. Butterflies and moths involved in activities such as nectar-sipping, mud-puddling, mating, basking, migration, etc. Comparison of photos between models and mimics. Photos of any other aspect of natural history relevant such as host plant or parasites. Drawings or illustrations from old books, paintings or sculpture.In the future we would like to attach video clips, list of common and vernacular names, distribution maps and comparison galleries to ease species identification. === Task Set 1 - Get the basic framework up === Prepare viable checklists for each family of Lepidoptera. Get the taxonomic check done through various resources: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/ may eventually be the primary database to lookup WikiSpecies pages on Lepidoptera are growing, so check Lepidoptera overall or Butterflies to see what has been posted on this sister Wiki project. LEPINDEX ([1]). (N.B., LepIndex is not 100% accurate (though very close to it!), nor very up-to-date. Where recent authoritative publications post date the taxonomy in LepIndex, use and cite them.) Markku Savela's site - Lepidoptera and some other life forms.(N.B. Incomplete and incorrect at places, a collection of disparate data; good for a quick and dirty overview). Tree of Life Web site (TOLWeb) (Basically lists of species in genera. Suitable for seeing which species are presently considered valid by the panel of experts for that family/subfamily/genera). WikiSpecies pages on Lepidoptera are growing, so check there to see what has been posted on this sister Wiki project. van Nieukirken et al., 2011. Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In:Zhang, Z.-Q. (ed.) Animal Biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 212-221. [open access paper published in December 2011] Place the stubs. Prepare articles to extent possible up to the required standard. Place images suitably captioned. === Task Set 2 - Improve general standard of the project === Get maximum information, images, links and references for each article. Each article to be made up to required standard. Get a recording for spoken Wikipedia for each stable article. Get short videos appropriately for each article, convert to Ogg Theora, place on WM Commons and link up on the articles. Get maps ready for each species and place in each article. Sloth moth, aka Bradipodicola hahneli Done AshLin (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of insecta Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of lepidopterans (but many are still in the parent category) Lasiocampa quercus (Oak eggar) - I've been working on this article today, but I can't find any information on the range of this species beyond Britain and Ireland, other than mentions in France and Spain. It's in the category Moths of Africa, too. Can anyone help? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Tony - check out the Fauna Europaea entry at https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/962668a0-71b8-47ec-a0eb-d2cd1254db4b and the Lepiforum.de entry at http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl?Lasiocampa_Quercus HKmoths (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Atalopedes campestris Been working on this but it is my first time at doing this level of original work. I don't think it's a stub-class article anymore but not sure how or where to ask for that to be changed. PopularOutcast talk2me 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)PopularOutcast, you just change the banner at the top of the articles's talk page from Stub to Start. Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Laothoe populi The list of synonyms in the info box is enormous and disrupts the flow of the article. Unless anyone objects, I will make this a three-column section in the body of the article. I've repeated this on the article's talk page. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I need help on Atalopedes campestris. I've done the best I can. I am not a biologist so I think some part are not clear or I may have interpreted wrong from my research. I would like some feedback and pointers. Also, is there any way to request photos for larvae and eggs? I've found a handful online but there is no indication of who owns them or what kind of license they have. Also, they are not on reputable websites so I am not even 100% sure they are the right species.PopularOutcast talk2me 02:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Classification updates in Noctuoidea - this stems from my adding a talk note ""Classification of Athetis"" on the recently created page Athetis hongkongensis. Athetis is placed in the subtribe Athetiina, of Caradrinini, in Noctuinae, by Holloway (2011), and also in Kononenko & Pinratana (2013), which were both based on (developed in parallel with) the molecular review of Noctuidae by . The American list (see Results paras 11 & 12 of and Fauna Europaea https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/bb9d98b2-73dc-4b51-af53-cfc41f467c1f both now follow this arrangement. The Acronictinae is not the correct placement for Athetis. I suspect that there will be a lot of incorrect Wikipedia placements of genera in Noctuidae, as most volunteer Wiki editors/contributors have not yet caught up with the major recent upheavals in Lepidoptera classification. This is going to take a lot of effort, as thousands of species pages will be in need of correcting/updating..... We should follow the Zahirian approach as implemented by the American and European listings. The Fauna Europaea website's database already is updated, so there is no excuse to have Wikipedia out of data or incorrect. I can do a few items as time allows, but I am bogged down with other projects at work most of the time, so am looking to all other participants to give a bit of time to check Noctuioidea (i.e. Erebidae, Noctuidae, Nolidae, Euteliidae) taxa, especially subfamily, tribe, subtribe, genera) and their taxonomic placement. See also ; and . It is worth noting that the Fauna Europaea concept of Acontiinae differs from the Borneo listing quite considerably.HKmoths (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I am working on a page about a new species of butterfly. Please, I want the new article that I created in my sandbox to be checked and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems or anything you would like to add let me know. If the article is okay let me know so that I can paste it as a new article on Wikipedia. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Space_chinedu/sandbox. I really appreciate if the new article I made is verified.[[User talk:Space chinedu#Blocked]] Invasive Spices (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Mythimna irrorata (& Timora irrorata) [2] is with incorrect synonyms and appears to be an incorrect merger of two species .... confusing because both species were described in 1881 by Moore, but note the different pagination. Full synonymies can be found on Funet (links below). Please can someone address this issue? Mythimna irrorata (Moore, 1881: 341) - https://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/noctuidae/hadeninae/mythimna/#irrorata Timora irrorata (Moore, 1881: 364) - https://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/noctuidae/heliothinae/timora/#irrorata HKmoths (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC) === WikiProject cleanup listing === This project's listing in one big table By categories === Stub templates === {{butterfly-stub}}For example, placing the stub on a page gives the following effect: It also places the associated stub category Category:Moth stubs on the page. {{moth-stub}}For example, placing the stub on a page gives the following effect: It also places the associated stub category Category:Moth stubs on the page. Aside - the butterfly-stub shows a blue morpho butterfly, a nymphalid, while the moth-stub depicts an Atlas moth, a saturniid moth. We now have stubs for many Lepidoptera superfamilies/families. See here for the full list. === Talk page template === Please place {{WikiProject Lepidoptera|class=article_quality|importance=article_importance|needs-photo=}} at the top of each article's talk page. This will help to direct editors to WikiProject Lepidoptera for guidance. The arguments to be filled for importance and quality can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Article Classification. The value ""article_quality"" is a measure of the quality of the concerned article and will be one of the following: FA, GA, A, B, B, C, Start, Stub, List or Category. Similarly, ""article_importance"" is one of: top, high, mid or low. The ""needs-photo"" item if given a value of ""yes"" will indicate that a photograph is needed. An example of a WikiProject template with values of ""B"" for quality and ""high"" for importance and ""yes"" for needing a photograph will look like this: {{WikiProject Lepidoptera|class=B|importance=high|needs-photo=yes}} and will produce this: === Lepidoptera families listbox template === {{Lepidoptera}}This template creates a box listing the families of Lepidoptera and provides a navigational aid. It also indicates by red links those families which do not have a wiki at all. This template is recommended for taxonomy wikis (above species level), checklists and general articles on Lepidoptera. Placing this template on a page results in a box as shown below: There's also the superfamily template, incorporating some of the historical and hobbyist terminology (not for taxonomic use). === WikiProject Lepidoptera userbox === {{User WPLepidoptera}} results in: === WikiProject Lepidoptera barnstar === {{subst:Lep-star|message ~~~~}} results in: Category:Lists of butterflies by location Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food List of moths Sphingidae species list Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Articles. Wolterbot has added WikiProject Lepidoptera to its subscribed service. Find articles to work on here: Wolterbot's project listing in one big table Wolterbot's project listing by categories Keep watch on project articles here using Tim12357's WikiProject Watchlist. Article alerts for this WikiProject can be found here. === Resources provided by participants of this project === Project Library - A collection of sources from participants of the project. List species authors with wikilinks. Glossary of terms connected with Lepidoptera. List of food plants of Lepidoptera (under preparation). Bingham's Fauna of British India (Butterflies). === Project subpages === For a complete list of project subpages see here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/To do Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Log Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Article Classification Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Unidentified pictures Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Unclear facts Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Family taxobox example Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Genus taxobox example Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Species taxobox example Also relevant Category:Unassessed Lepidoptera articles === Online === Tree of Life website LepIndex 'LepIndex' Project of National Museum of Natural History, London. It is recommended that LepIndex be used as the authoratative reference to check Lepidoptera taxonomy. Queries on the site can be placed at: [3]. WARNING: Just did a check but Lepindex can not be trusted wrt ""original combination""How to cite LepIndex Usage of data from LepIndex in scientific publications should be acknowledged using the following format:Beccaloni, G. W., Scoble, M. J., Robinson, G. S. & Pitkin, B. (Editors). 2003. The Global Lepidoptera Names Index (LepIndex). World Wide Web electronic publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/lepindex [accessed 6 January 2007].If you wish to cite any unpublished information from LepIndex then please credit the person responsible for it (presuming the name of an individual is given). For example, on the card for bibarra Chu & Wang, 1991 there is a pencil annotation by M. Shaffer written in 1991, which indicates that he transferred this species to the genus CANAEA (thus CANAEA bibarra is an unpublished or MS combination). The citation should therefore be as follows:-Shaffer, M. In: Beccaloni, G. W., Scoble, M. J., Robinson, G. S. & Pitkin, B. (Editors). 2003. The Global Lepidoptera Names Index (LepIndex). World Wide Web electronic publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/lepindex [accessed 6 January 2007].Note, however, that some of the 'manuscript changes' written on the cards may have subsequently been published. It is therefore advisable to contact the person responsible for the annotation and ask whether or not this is the case. Note that Mike Shaffer, responsible for many of the manuscript notes in Pyraloidea and Thyridoidea has passed away. Thorough literature searches will be needed to establish if there have been published name changes, but also check the Globiz Pyraloidea database.AfromothsLinking to Afromoths: On the Afromoths website, maintained by Jurate and Willy De Prins at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, pages for species have somewhat dynamic links. Linking to the URL in the browser's address window will not reliably continue to go to that species. Each species page has a ""Permalink"" button - right clicking on that button and selecting ""Copy Link Location"", ""Copy link address"" or similar depending on your browser, will put the permanent link for that species into your clipboard, from which it can be pasted into the link you are creating.Lepidopteran caterpillar hosts database Another project of the Natural History Museum. It is a database of larval foodplants of butterflies. You can search by butterfly_name, butterfly_family_name, plant_name, plant_family_name and country/region. Another interesting taxonomy project from Finland! The gentleman, Markku Savela, uses perl scripts to generate rough distribution maps from the text data on distribution. The site is at : [4] Häuser, Christoph L.; de Jong, Rienk; Lamas, Gerardo; Robbins, Robert K.; Smith, Campbell; Vane-Wright, Richard I. (28 July 2005). ""Papilionidae – revised GloBIS/GART species checklist (2nd draft)"". Retrieved 24 October 2010. Die Großschmetterlinge der Erde, Verlag Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart Band 2 Die Großschmetterlinge des palaearktischen Faunengebietes, Die palaearktischen Spinner und Schwärmer, 1912–1913 in English translation === Print === Charles A. Triplehorn, Norman F. Johnson Borror and DeLong's introduction to the study of insects, 7th edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2005 - Excellent reference for insects. The keys are for North-America but can apply also to European insects.Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.). 1999. Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1: Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Handbuch der Zoologie. Eine Naturgeschichte der Stämme des Tierreiches / Handbook of Zoology. A Natural History of the phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Band / Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband / Part 35: 491 pp. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. For taxonomy...Scoble, MJ. 1995. The Lepidoptera: Form Function and Diversity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-854952-0 Excellent for Lep biology. However, Scoble seems to have changed his mind about some of the taxonomy: here, he has Geometroidea and Uranioidea, but in his chapter in Kristensen, he has Uraniidae and Sematuriidae in Geometroidea. WikiBooks search Google WikiBooks search WikiQuote search Google WikiQuote search WikiSource search Google WikiSource search Nearctica.com for NMorth American butterflies Neotropical Butterflies for Central and South America – post images to the relevant country forum for appropriate feedback" 382 386 843 WP:conflict of interest WP:conflict of interest 382 "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject. When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. To report COI editing, follow the advice at How to handle conflicts of interest, below. Editors making or discussing changes to this guideline or related guidance shall disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia. === Purpose of Wikipedia === As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. === COI editing === Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously: you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known. They may also decide to delete the article or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organizations concerned. === Paid editing === An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called ""paid advocacy"", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer. The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Additionally, global policy requires that (if applicable) you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is: you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation; you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK).Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. The guide to effective COI edit requests provides guidance in this area. To find an article's talk page, click the ""talk"" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things. If you are an administrator, you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity (except when related to work as a Wikipedian-in-residence, or as someone paid by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate). === Wikimedia Foundation terms of use === The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia. === General COI === If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. There are three venues to do this. 1. If you want to use a template to do this, place {{connected contributor}} at the top of the affected talk page, fill it in as follows, and save: Note that someone else may add this for you. 2. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. 3. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}} template: Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry. === Paid editors === If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page, fill it in as follows, and save: The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company). The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article). If the employer and client are the same entity—that is, if Acme Corporation is paying you to write about Acme Corporation—the client parameter may be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}} for more information. Note that other editors may add this template for you. Paid editing without such a declaration is called undisclosed paid editing (UPE). You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing work via an account on any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts. If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. The use of administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF, is considered a serious misuse and likely to result in sanctions or their removal. === External roles and relationships === While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. === COI is not simply bias === Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. === Why is conflict of interest a problem? === On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas. === Actual, potential and apparent COI === An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business.A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages.An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI. Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible. === Responding to requests === Editors responding to edit requests from COI or paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not mean that it is better. Make sure the proposed paid text complies with WP:WEIGHT. Look for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative. Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor. Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Be cautious about accepting content based on self-published sources such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release. If the paid text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; for example: ""Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."" See WP:COIATTRIBUTE below. === Attribution in edit summaries === If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: ""Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."" This transparency helps editors and readers to determine the extent of COI influence on the article. It also complies with copyright requirements. === Paid editors on talk pages === Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted. Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline. Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors. Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia; otherwise, they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Alternatively, a paid editor might write text for Wikipedia within the scope of their employment (a ""work for hire""), in which case copyright resides with the employer. Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Volunteer Response Team (permissions-enwikimedia.org). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter. If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. See WP:COIATTRIBUTE for how to do this. === US: Federal Trade Commission, state law, and native advertising === All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. The FTC regards advertising as deceptive if it mimics a content format, such as a news report, that appears to come from an independent, impartial source: Marketers and publishers are using innovative methods to create, format, and deliver digital advertising. One form is ""native advertising"", content that bears a similarity to the news, feature articles, product reviews, entertainment, and other material that surrounds it online. ...In digital media, native ads often resemble the design, style, and functionality of the media in which they are disseminated. ... The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher's site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception. —Federal Trade Commission, 2015 To judge whether an ad is deceptive under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the FTC considers ""both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information ... Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ..."". State law may have similar prohibitions. While the FTC law may apply only to interstate and foreign commerce, state law applies to intrastate commerce and must be obeyed. At least one state court case found liability for an ad disguised as editorial content. === European fair-trading law === In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. === UK Advertising Standards Authority === The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been ""agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team"". The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code. === Advertising Standards Canada === The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, administered by Advertising Standards Canada, states: ""No advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals the fact that it is an advertisement."" === Legal and other disputes === The biographies of living persons policy says: ""[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."" Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases. === Campaigning, political === Activities regarded by insiders as simply ""getting the word out"" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. === Writing about yourself, family, friends === You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question. === Citing yourself === Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming. === Cultural sector === Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. See also WP:Expert editors. === Wikipedians in residence, reward board === There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there. Another example of acceptable paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this, transparency and neutrality are key. === Solicitations by paid editors === In any solicitation sent to a prospective client, paid editors should disclose the following information: Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor. Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client. Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Wikipedia. Neither the client nor the paid editor own the article. Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Wikipedia. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.Providing a client with a link to this section is appropriate disclosure if it is done in a neutral and non-deceptive manner. Paid editors must also provide a link to their user page which includes a declaration of their paid editing status.If you received a solicitation from a paid editor that does not include this information, we recommend that you not do business with them. They are not following our policies and guidelines. Some of these solicitations have been linked to fraud. See Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. If you think you've received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to arbcom-enwikimedia.org for investigation. === Law of unintended consequences === Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. === No shared accounts, no company accounts === Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name. The account is yours, not your employer's. === Making uncontroversial edits === Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may: remove spam and unambiguous vandalism, remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy, fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors, repair broken links, remove their own COI edits, and add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK. === Supplying photographs and media files === Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. === Advocacy, noticeboards === If a user's edits lead you to believe that they might have a COI (that is, if they have an ""apparent COI""), and there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. Most advocacy does not involve COI. Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at WP:NPOVN, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN, the reliable-sources noticeboard. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI. === Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard === If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline. If for some reason that is not advisable, or if it fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). COIN is also the place to discuss disclosed COI that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP. Similarly, if you're editing with a disclosed COI, you can ask for advice at COIN. During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s). Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves. Do not post private information; see WP:OUTING, which is policy, and the section below, ""Avoid outing"". If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, ask one or more uninvolved functionaries if they would be willing to examine the private details by email. Functionaries are editors with advanced permissions who have signed the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic information agreement. If they agree, follow the advice in WP:OUTING: ""Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted."" The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations. See WP:FUNC for a list of subscribers to the functionaries' mailing list. Alternatively, the arbitration committee can be contacted by email. If the issue is undisclosed paid editing, there is a dedicated VRT/functionaries email address: paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Contact them before emailing private information and be guided by their advice. === Avoid outing === When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to CheckUser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email. Also see the section ""Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard"" above. === Dealing with single-purpose accounts === Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. === Templates === Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}}. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}} Other templates include: {{uw-coi}} (to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest) {{uw-coi-username}} (another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy) {{COI editnotice}} (this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article) {{UserboxCOI}} (for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest, one such template per article) (chronological)" 383 387 844 WP:SHORT Wikipedia:Shortcut 383 "A shortcut is a specialized type of redirect page that provides an abbreviated wikilink to an administrative page or one of its sections, usually from the Wikipedia namespace or Help namespace. These shortcuts' abbreviations in all-caps text are commonly used (linked or unlinked) on community pages and talk pages, but should not be used in articles themselves. If there are one or more shortcuts for a page or section, one or more will usually be chosen to be displayed in an information box on the right labelled Shortcut or Shortcuts, as can be seen at the top of this page. Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. Lists of available shortcuts can be found at: WP:WP / WP:CUTS = Wikipedia:Shortcut index WP:WPR = Wikipedia:Shortcut index/Project shortcuts WT:WT = Wikipedia:Shortcuts to talk pages WP:PORTCUT = Wikipedia:Shortcut index/Portal shortcuts On Meta, shortcuts start with WM:; the list is at m:WM:WM Special:PrefixIndex can be used to find uncategorized or unlisted pages starting with a given prefix; for example, Special:PrefixIndex/CAT: will find some category shortcuts Template:Useful links contains common shortcuts that are often used linked or unlinked in editor discussions or edit summaries; hover your mouse pointer over a shortcut to see a pop-up with its article's full name in it (see § See also) A Wikipedia shortcut can be entered into the Wikipedia search box to quickly bring you to a project page. For example, you can type WP:R or H:R into the search box and then press the enter key (or click the magnifying glass icon), to get to the Wikipedia:Redirect page, instead of having to type in the complete phrase. Alternatively, you can use a shortcut in the URL in your browser's address bar. For example, you are currently viewing the Wikipedia:Shortcut page. The URL for this page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Shortcut. You could then get from here to the Wikipedia:Redirect page by replacing Wikipedia:Shortcut with WP:R in the address bar, followed by pressing the enter key. (If your browser has relative URL entry, simply prefix the shortcut with ./ instead of having to edit the existing URL.) Shortcuts are presented in all capital letters (ALL CAPS); however, the search box is case-insensitive. For example, in the search box, you can type wp:r, instead of WP:R. However, when using the URL method (or when making links) it is necessary to match the capitalization of the shortcut itself. Shortcuts are often used on talk pages in their abbreviated form, decreasing readability for the general reader. For example, some editors are familiar with the bulk of the Wikipedia namespace shortcuts, recognizing what they stand for on sight. Others, however, are faced with pages full of incomprehensible jargon, the meaning of which is not immediately clear. Shortcuts also are sometimes (ab)used to make a WP:POINT, best described by WP:WOTTA. To avoid these problems, a good practice when creating shortcuts is to choose common English words that are easily identifiable and memorable. Another good practice is to be mindful of the general reader and use meaningful terms when citing an obscure shortcut. For example, the piped link [[WP:SHC|shortcut]] gives readers an idea of the subject of the target page, while the bare abbreviation [[WP:SHC]] is unintelligible to those unfamiliar with the term. It should also be remembered that shortcuts are a convenience, not a substitute for titles. Shortcuts should not appear in ""See also"" sections, hatnotes or any other place where a page title is expected. Small link boxes, listing the names of the page's shortcuts, appear at the top of many pages, especially those on policies and guidelines. A shortcut link box can be added to a page, by placing the template {{shortcut|WP:}} (for project namespace) or {{shortcut|H:}} (for Help pages) at the top of the page's text, while editing. For template redirects, {{Template shortcut}} is used instead. The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for). Instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects. Guideline pages with shortcuts pointing to them typically use {{guideline|WP:}} or the {{subcat guideline}} template, such as on this page, instead of the shortcut template {{shortcut}}. Another frequently used template is: {{MoS-guideline|MOS:}}. To learn more about the different shortcut box templates and their functions, see documentation at {{shortcut}}. Among other things, there are templates for making boxes flow to the left and now, anchors are automatically added, making it much simpler to link to a page section. Shortcut names are almost always in uppercase. A shortcut is typically named using the following convention: PREFIX:SUFFIXIn the above form, the prefix is typically one of the prefixes in the following section, and the suffix is an acronym or abbreviation of the redirect target. However quite a lot are simply WP:BAD. If the target is a sub-page, the following conventions are common (where 'Y' is an additional sequence of uppercase characters or numerals): PREFIX:SUFFIX/YFor example, P:HVNY/DYK is a shortcut to Portal:Hudson Valley/Did you know, which is a subpage of Portal:Hudson Valley, which has a shortcut P:HVNY.WP:ACC/P is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Request an account/Procedures, which is a subpage of Wikipedia:Request an account, which has a shortcut WP:ACC.PREFIX:SUFFIXYFor example, WP:AFDLT is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today, which is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which has the shortcut WP:AFD.Shortcuts that do not follow the above naming convention are discouraged, and are typically deleted. The directory of shortcuts contains several conflicts for prefixes of subpages, often caused by a shortcut being 're-targeted' (modified to point to a new target page) without the shortcuts to subpages also being re-targeted. For example, WP:CJ was originally used for Wikipedia:Community Justice, and several shortcuts for subpages were created (WP:CJ/E & WP:CJ/M/1). After several years, 'WP:CJ' was updated to point to Wikipedia:Centijimbos, but the subpage shortcuts have not changed.Before creating a shortcut, use Special:PrefixIndex to ensure that the same prefix is not being used for different purposes. e.g. WP:CJ has several existing uses. No additional confusion would be caused by creating a shortcut WP:CJQ, however creating a shortcut WP:CJ/Q would be adding to the existing mess. There is a long-standing feature request to resolve shortcut subpages automatically. (See T14980.) Prefixes that shouldn't be used for other purposes include: WP:NC – naming conventions WP:AFD – articles for deletionOther prefixes that have become common for a set of pages include: WP:N – notability === Namespace aliases === The following namespace aliases are automatically translated by the Wikipedia servers. They are case-insensitive (so wp: or wP: or Wp: have the same meaning as WP:). For example, both WP:TS and wp:TS link directly to Wikipedia:TS. One unique feature of the WP: alias is its utility in searching for vast number of project pages. This is because most project pages outside the Wikipedia namespace, will have a redirect for the Wikipedia namespace prefix appended to their title and the same for most major shortcuts to them (e.g., Help:Watchlist, with the shortcut H:W, has redirects at Wikipedia:Watchlist and at WP:W. Thus, by extension, most project pages may be found by searching using the WP: alias alone, e.g. WP:Name. For more, see Help:WP search protocol. === Pseudo-namespaces === When the shortcut does not use one of the namespace aliases listed above (WP or WT), it is a cross-namespace redirect and is case-sensitive. However, when a prefix is used by multiple shortcuts, and has broad community support, it is referred to as a pseudo-namespace to distinguish these shortcuts from other cross-namespace redirects. (Note that the term ""pseudo-namespace"" is also used to refer to namespaces without content that are provided by the MediaWiki software and extensions, such as Special:, Media:, Feedback:) The following prefixes may be used freely for the target listed. Other prefixes do not enjoy the same level of community support. It is disputed whether they should be deemed to be pseudo-namespaces. The following prefixes are used for limited or specific uses only. The following prefixes do not enjoy broad community support. As of 2022, creation of ""WikiProject:"" and ""Wikiproject:"" pages is blocked for most users by the title blacklist due to repeated redirect creations against consensus; administrators, template editors, and page movers can override this on a case-by-case basis if necessary. Note that some pages do exist starting with ""WikiProject "" or with ""Wikiproject "" (that is, using a space, not a colon); however, as of March 2022 all of them redirect to mainspace articles rather than to projectspace pages. (For instance, WikiProject Women in Red redirects to Women in Red, not to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.) Portals have occasionally used spaces in shortcuts, e.g. ""Portal X"", or ""X portal"". Most redirects with such patterns point to articles, but, as of March 2022, 144 point outside mainspace. Technical note: The links in the tables above go to a page where the term prefix is not used in the meaning as it has in this section. Rather, the code PrefixIndex there means, as it does for the search parameter, ""the beginning string of characters in a title"", whether that string ends before, during or after the colon character in a page name. Say you want to create the shortcut WP:TS to the existing page Wikipedia:Template standardisation. Create the new page Wikipedia:TS and in it place the following: The resulting shortcut will be WP:TS. Then place the template {{shortcut|WP:TS}} below the heading you created the shortcut for. Finally, check if it works. If you're creating a shortcut to a category, you need to insert an additional colon ("":"") at the beginning of the link, as in the following. The template {{R from shortcut}} must always be included in this kind of redirect. It records that the redirect is a shortcut, and auto-categorizes it into Category:Redirects from shortcuts. (See Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages for more information on categories of redirects.) Many shortcuts are acronyms or initialisms; others are abbreviations or single but memorable words from a longer page title. Before changing a shortcut, consider its existing usage: Above all, check the shortcut backlinks with ""what links here""; changing a shortcut used elsewhere can be highly disruptive. You should take into account how active its target page is. For example, if you just created a WikiProject and want a specific shortcut for it, but the one you want is already in use by another project, it's generally recommended to post a message on that project's talk page asking the members if you may change the link, even if the project is tagged as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}. If it was used in any closed deletion discussions, it is not a good idea then to change the redirect because these discussions cannot be edited. If it has no backlink, folks might still use it directly when searching. If you're not 100% sure that the old target is unused, ask about it on the shortcut's talk page. For controversial cases, go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.To change the shortcut, Click on it. On the page it leads to, click on the ""redirected from"" link below the main title of the page or click again on the shortcut in the tag or on the side of the page. This takes you to the actual shortcut page, which is a redirect. You should notice &redirect=no in the URL. Edit the target #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Whatever]]. Add {{R from shortcut}} if that template doesn't already appear.After changing a shortcut, there are other pages which may need to be updated: If it's already listed on Wikipedia:List of shortcuts or a similar list like Wikipedia:Shortcuts to talk pages, please update that entry showing the new target page. If it's already in use, you should be sure to change it in the pages that linked to it as well, so that they link to the old target. If the old target page mentions its shortcut, then that also should be updated, typically in {{Shortcut}} or similar Wikipedia header templates. Redirects (including shortcuts) to pages on other projects and special pages won't work—this formerly supported feature was abused and hence it has been disabled. The software will display the redirect page instead of redirecting the user to the target. Some redirects to other projects and special pages use the template {{soft redirect}}; however, shortcuts that are soft redirects will appear in the pool of pages that are selected by Special:Random. Soft redirects are categorised into Category:Wikipedia soft redirects. Wikipedia:Redirect Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects Wikipedia:List of shortcuts Wikipedia:List of shortcuts/Project shortcuts (WP:WPR) — WikiProjects and Projects list of shortcuts Wikipedia:Shortcuts to talk pages (WP:WT) — all 'Wikipedia talk:' namespace (namespace 5) talk pages WP:WOTTA, on what NOT to do Wikipedia:WikiProject Shortcuts Meta:Meta:Shortcut (m:WM:WM), shortcuts on Meta Meta:Special:URLShortener, for creating global shortcuts to WMF project pages Category:Redirects from shortcuts Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects" 384 388 847 WP:SHIPNAME Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) 384 "This guideline describes Wikipedia's conventions for naming articles about ships and for referring to ships in the body of articles. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more general naming conventions. See WikiProject Ships for more guidance on writing articles about ships. Ships share names with people, places, animals and other things. Articles about ships must be named to distinguish them from other similarly-named ships, as well as from other things with which they share a name. Civilian ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. These rules apply to named boats and yachts as well as to ships. === Optional prefix === A typical civilian ship article name has the following form: <(optional disambiguation)>An article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name, if that name is unambiguous: NiñaSince the optional prefix is, in fact, optional, it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources: Celebrity Equinox instead of MV Celebrity EquinoxHowever, if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name. Use of the prefix can also provide disambiguation: SS John W. Brown compared to John W. Brown PS Waverley compared to WaverleyIf a ship has had more than one prefix during its lifetime, choose the best-known for the article and create a redirect from the other prefixed names: RMS Olympic should have a redirect from SS Olympic === Italicized name === Ship names are always italicized: Niña, not Niña === Optional disambiguation === When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. Santa Maria (ship) rather than Santa MariaThe date of launching should be used if there are several ships with the same name. Sometimes vessels will share a launch date as well as a name. In that case adding the place of launch is necessary: Mary (1806 ship) Mary (1811 Bideford ship) Mary (1811 Ipswich ship) Military ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. These rules apply to both named and unnamed vessels. A typical military ship article name has the following form: <(hull or pennant number or disambiguation)>Many military ships and boats were not named and are known only by their hull or pennant number (see §Ships with hull number only). Some navies don't use standard ship prefixes (see §Ships from navies without ship prefixes). === Prefix === For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the article name: USS Monitor HMS Queen Mary SMS SeydlitzDo not use punctuation within the ship prefix: USS Monitor, not U.S.S. MonitorDo not use the hull classification symbol as a prefix: USS Nimitz, not CVN NimitzDo not use prefixes that predate their use, even though some authors sometimes ""backdate"" prefixes in this way. In particular, do not use the HMS prefix for English ships from before 1660. The term ""His Majesty's Ship"" was introduced around 1660 and was routinely abbreviated HMS from about 1780 onwards: Henry Grace à Dieu, not HMS Henry Grace à Dieu. === Italicized name === Ship names are always italicized: HMS Dreadnought, not HMS Dreadnought === Hull or pennant number or disambiguation === See §Disambiguating ships with the same name. For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers (Royal Navy, and many European and Commonwealth navies), if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known: USCGC Alert (WMEC-127) and USCGC Alert (WMEC-630) (hull number disambiguation) HMS Illustrious (R87) and HMS Illustrious (R06) (pennant number disambiguation) HMS Royal Scotsman (only one ship of the name – requires no disambiguation)For a ship that does not have a hull and pennant number, and especially when more than one ship had the name, disambiguate the article name with the ship's launch year. HMS Victorious (1785) and HMS Victorious (1895) (launch year disambiguation)In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation. HMS Canopus (1798) rather than HMS Canopus (1797)On Wikipedia, US Navy and US Coast Guard hull numbers are hyphenated (the US Navy itself is not consistent in this respect). Coast Guard hull numbers always start with a ""W"". Pennant numbers do not have a hyphen or space (this matches the number as it typically appears on the side of the ship). Note that not all pennant numbers have an initial letter (""flag superior""), for example HMS Ark Royal (91). Also note that in recent decades the Australian and Canadian navies have moved towards American-style three letter pennant number prefixes. These should be written with a space, for example HMCS Vancouver (FFH 331). If a ship had several hull numbers in her career, use the best-known for an article title. If none of the several hull numbers is clearly the best-known, use the first. Redirect others to the article, listing all in the article's lead section: USS Goldsborough (DD-188/AVP-18/AVD-5/APD-32) was a Clemson-class destroyer in the United States Navy during World War II. (From USS Goldsborough (DD-188)) USS Bogue (ACV-9), USS Bogue (AVG-9), USS Bogue (CVE-9), and USS Bogue (CVHP-9) all redirect to USS Bogue. === Hull number only, alphanumeric names === Many types of ship, such as American PT boats and German U-boats, are officially known only by a hull number. In these cases, it can be best to spell out the ship type (e.g. German submarine U-238), but be sure the ship type name is correct. In many cases, the designation is not an abbreviation and may not relate directly to a ship's class or even type. For example, PT-658 can be a redirect to the main article Motor Torpedo Boat PT-658, but U-238 must be disambiguated, because U-238 also refers to Uranium 238. Articles about vessels with alphanumeric names should use the prefix followed by the name, such as HMS A1, HMS E11, HMS M1. === Ships from navies without ship prefixes === Some navies or nations don't use standard ship prefixes. Titles for articles about these ships have the form: ==== Nationality ==== The ship's country in adjective form; for example: Brazilian Japanese (though later Japanese ships use JS (Japanese Ship) or JDS (Japanese Defense Ship)) Ottoman (though later Turkish ships use TCG (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Gemisi)) German (though early German ships use SMS (Seiner Majestät Schiff)) ==== Type ==== Do not be over-specific about the ship type: Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō, not Japanese light aircraft carrier Shōhō ==== Italicized name ==== Ship names are always italicized: Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov German battleship Bismarck ==== Invented prefixes ==== Do not make up a ship prefix for a navy that did not use one. Thus: German battleship Bismarck, not DKM Bismarck Japanese battleship Yamato, not HIJMS Yamato or IJN Yamato Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, not RM Giulio Cesare Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, not RFS Admiral KuznetsovSome authors use invented prefixes for consistency with ""USS"", ""HMS"" etc. It was not a mistake for these authors to do that in their own works, but at Wikipedia we choose not to do so. To forestall attempts to move articles to the wrong place, you might want to add redirects from popular invented ship prefixes: Japanese battleship Yamato could have redirects from IJN Yamato and HIJMS Yamato. Articles about a ship class should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. A typical ship class article name has the following form: -class === Class name === A ship class may be named for a member of the class (usually the first or lead ship) or the class may be named for an attribute common to all of the ships of the class. When the class is named for a member of the class, the class name is italicized. When the class is named for a common theme or attribute, the class name is not italicized: Evergreen State is a member of the Evergreen State class HMT Juniper is a member of the Tree class not HMT Juniper is a member of the Tree class === Ship type === The type of ship that comprises the class: aircraft carrier, trawler, frigate, icebreaker. Do not be overly specific in the type: aircraft carrier, not light escort fleet assault carrierUse the singular form of the ship type: submarine, not submarinesUses of the class name as a noun are not hyphenated, while adjectival references are hyphenated. Article names that follow the form just described are adjectival because the compound phrase made up of and ""class"" modifies the noun . As such, article titles should be hyphenated: Evergreen State-class ferry, not Evergreen State class ferry Tree-class trawler, not Tree class trawlerIn article titles and in article text, use a hyphen; do not use an en dash (–) or em dash (—). Tree-class trawler, not Tree–class trawler or Tree—class trawler A ship's name is always italicized. Prefixes, hull or pennant numbers, and disambiguation suffixes are rendered in normal (i.e., non-italic) font. USS Nimitz, not USS Nimitz or USS Nimitz USS Nimitz (CVN-68), not USS Nimitz (CVN-68)Use the ship's prefix the first time you introduce the ship, and thereafter omit it. The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat ""HMS""). When writing about civilian ships, consider omitting common prefixes (e.g. ""MS"") from the article body, as italicizing the ship's name is often enough to identify it as a ship. Do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section: HMS Victory was ..., not The HMS Victory was ...Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong: Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred) The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)Occasionally use of the article makes text less ambiguous The Belfast was bombed (unambiguous) HMS Belfast was bombed (unambiguous) Belfast was bombed (ambiguous, though the italics are a hint)Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship. If you do not know how to disambiguate it, link to the index page for its name: this will allow the link to be found and fixed later. Do not give the hull number or other disambiguation information unless it is immediately relevant. Someone who needs to know can follow the link: Vanguard was Nelson's ..., not Vanguard (1787) was Nelson's ... Yorktown was sunk ..., not Yorktown (CV-5) was sunk ... ""the later Lexington (CV-16) was laid down as Cabot but renamed in honour of the earlier Lexington (CV-2)""—disambiguation information is needed.Always use the full name of the ship unless a widely known shortening, akin to a nickname, exists. Do not omit parts of the name just because they are, for example, common for all ships of a shipping company. Edward M. Cotter, not Cotter === Possessive form of a ship's name === When using the possessive form of a ship's name in articles, use the {{'}} template to provide proper styling and avoid encoding problems that can occur when an apostrophe follows italicized text. The apostrophe and ""s"" are not italicized: Linked names: {{USS|Ticonderoga||2}}{{'}}s displays as Ticonderoga's Regular names: ''Ticonderoga''{{'}}s displays as Ticonderoga's === Pronouns === Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns (""she"", ""her"") or neuter pronouns (""it"", ""its""). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason. A ship class can take the name of a class member or it can take a name that is thematically common to all members of the class. When the class takes its name from a member of the class, the name is italicized: Benjamin Franklin-class submarineThematically common class names are rendered in normal font: Town-class destroyer (e.g., HMS Salisbury; there was no HMS Town) Admiral-class battlecruiserAdditionally, ship class names have a noun form and an adjectival form: Natick class (noun form) Natick-class fleet tug (adjectival form)When creating links to ship-class articles, useful editing shortcut templates are: {{sclass}} (italicized font, hyphenated) and {{sclass2}} (normal font, hyphenated). See the template documentation for usage guidelines. Use the noun form when the class name does not modify another noun: Construction of the Natick class began at ... ... last tugboat of the Natick class.Use the adjectival form when the class name modifies another noun: Natick-class names ... ... two Natick-class z-drive tugs ... It is extremely common for many ships to share a name. Therefore disambiguation needs special attention. For older ships predating the modern pennant/hull number system, the most widely recognisable fact about the ship is its date of launch or construction. This is a unique identifier for a ship with a particular name in navies where names are customarily re-used and is applicable generally to all ships, unlike local naval identification numbers: HMS Vanguard (1748) HMS Vanguard (1787) HMS Vanguard (1835)In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch. HMS Canopus (1798) rather than HMS Canopus (1797)In a few cases, one ship is so much better-known than others of the same name that she need not be disambiguated. For example: the article for Horatio Nelson's flagship is HMS Victory; other Victorys are listed at List of ships named HMS Victory. the article for Charles Darwin's vessel of exploration is HMS Beagle; other Beagles are listed at List of ships named HMS Beagle.It should be noted that European navies reuse pennant numbers, so ships of the same name may have the same pennant numbers; the second and third RFA Sir Galahad (L3005), for example are disambiguated by launch year: RFA Sir Galahad (1966) RFA Sir Galahad (1987)Make an index page that lists all the ships in a navy with the same name: USS Enterprise lists 8 USS Enterprises HMS Vanguard lists 10 HMS VanguardsFor well-known names that are shared between navies, or between military and civilian ships, also disambiguate at the usual Wikipedia disambiguation page for the name: Nautilus (disambiguation) refers to ships named Nautilus. Discovery refers to ships named Discovery.Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, in the form of Set Index Articles, such as List of ships named Albatross, with naval ships such as HMS Albatross, SMS Albatross, USS, etc. redirecting to the list. For editing guidance, see WP:SHIPMOS. An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name. Examples: Article at HMS Royal Charles (1655), with a redirect from Commonwealth ship Naseby Article at Cutty Sark, with a redirect from Maria do Amparo Article at Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, with a redirect from Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral KuznetsovBut if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship. For example: USS Phoenix became ARA General Belgrano If an entire class of ships was reclassified (such as in the 1975 USN ship reclassification), be consistent and make the decision once for all the ships of the class: The Knox- and Garcia-class frigates are named with the FF (frigate) classification, not DE (destroyer escort). (Justification: known as frigates for the majority of their service.) The Castle-class corvettes are named with pennant numbers starting K, not F. (Justification: best known for service during World War II.) Articles about a ship class should be named (class name)-class (type); for example, Ohio-class submarine. Do not be overly specific in the type; for example, use ""aircraft carrier"", not ""light escort fleet assault carrier"". Use the singular form of the ship type; for example, ""submarine"", not ""submarines"". Uses of the class as a noun are not hyphenated, while adjectival references are hyphenated, as in Ohio-class submarine: if in doubt, do not hyphenate. Note the separation of submarine as a separate link; this is not required, but does allow the reader to look up the general term directly instead of being plunged into the technical discussion of a ship class. When the class is named after a member of the class, italicize the class name, for example the Lion class of battlecruisers is named after HMS Lion. But when the class is not named after a member of the class, the class name is not italicized, for example the Battle class of destroyers is named after battles; there is no HMS Battle that is a member of that class. Ship classes may need to be disambiguated by either nationality or launch date: United States Porpoise-class submarine British Porpoise-class submarine King George V-class battleship (1911) King George V-class battleship (1939) Articles which name the country or navy in the article title should conform to the country-specific guidelines. This states that: In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: ""(item) of (country)""... This will usually hold true in other geography-specific topics, such as for cities, continents, provinces, states, etc. Note navies are country or geography-specific. List of ships of the line of Italy, not List of Italian ships of the line List of naval ships of Portugal, not List of Portuguese naval ships List of ships of the Canadian Navy, not List of Canadian Navy ships Early naval vessels of New Zealand, not Early New Zealand naval vessels Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy, not Royal Navy Coastal Forces Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water – Essay on the pretentiousness of referring to ships as she." 385 389 850 WP:E1 Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet 385 "There are many situations that occur on Wikipedia in which one may assume that one or more accounts are sockpuppets. Something is really fishy. All the signs are present, it seems. The suspecting editor may find that the suspected user's behavior looks all too familiar and resembles that of someone who already exists. But this is not always the case. There are many good faith behaviors that have a lot in common with sockpuppetry and are totally unavoidable and are actually helpful. It is important to assume good faith whenever possible and not jump to the conclusion that sockpuppetry is occurring just because one or more signs are present. Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sockpuppet investigation. === Brand new accounts === Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it’s now 2023. Wikipedia has been around long enough for people to have read it and learned about it, without creating an account, for years, now. Its policies, guidelines, and processes are extensively documented on Wikipedia itself; and are even, now, documented outside of Wikipedia, in books such as John Broughton's Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Furthermore, these policies and guidelines are linked to from the {{welcome}} template that is often the first thing placed on new users' talk pages. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that someone with a modicum of intelligence manages to learn about how Wikipedia works, and what to do, before, or immediately after, creating an account. Also, the person could have previously edited other wikis. It shouldn't be surprising either that someone knows of, for example, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion discussions have never been secret, and they have sometimes been observed by journalists. Indeed, the Salt Lake City Weekly published a guide to Wikipedia covering a whole range of things from the Counter-Vandalism Unit to the Manual of Style in February 2008, with followup articles the next day talking of the various noticeboards of Wikipedia, including the Administrators' and Conflict Of Interest Noticeboards. It is far from impossible for someone to learn of the internal workings of the project before creating an account.The step from not having an account to having an account is not now and never really was the dividing line that signals a metamorphosis from inexperienced novice to experienced editor. Indeed, Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to have well-known long-term editors, who have made a point of not creating accounts despite encouragement to do so, who have years-long edit histories. Don't automatically cry ""sockpuppet!"" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency. ==== Brand new accounts are not single-purpose accounts ==== On Wikipedia, a single-purpose account is defined as one that is used to edit a single page, group of pages in a common category, or to perform the same type of edit to any number of pages. Not all single-purpose accounts are bad, and they do not all violate Wikipedia policy. When an account is brand new, it is possible that it has been used initially to edit just a single page or a group of related pages. But in the future, it'll be used to perform other edits that are barely related or not related at all. Such an account is not a single-purpose account. And there is no deadline to perform that edit that makes it no longer appear as one. ==== First edit ==== One may assume sockpuppetry when someone's first edit is something more extraordinary, such as page creation, editing outside of mainspace, or something else that is more complex. However, sometimes such an editor has previous experience editing without an account, and finally decided to create one. === Accounts exhibiting similar behavior === Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting. It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another. Over the years, Wikipedia has developed standards, not because they are written as guidelines, but because they customarily appear that way in articles. ==== Editing common articles ==== If two accounts edit two or more identical articles, ""sockpuppetry"", one may cry. If they edit many more common articles, this may help enforce this belief even more. Now what? Truth is, many people have the same interests. For example, if one is a Detroit Lions fan, one may edit lots of articles on Detroit Lions players, past seasons of the Detroit Lions, and stadiums where the Detroit Lions have played. And there are many Detroit Lions fans out there. In the above example, all the articles belong to the same category. Now, how about if two editors both edit a lot of articles in two different categories. For example, two accounts are used both to edit lots of articles on Detroit Lions players, and lots of articles on Lady Gaga songs. This may be more indicative of sockpuppetry. But then again, with the hundreds of thousands of Detroit Lions fans, and millions of Lady Gaga fans, the likelihood of such an overlap is very high. Now throw in another factor. Two accounts editing articles on the Detroit Lions, Lady Gaga, and now the more obscure category of Quantum chemistry. Something is getting fishy now. How can you possibly believe these are two separate people? There are several answers here: The world is populated by more than 7 billion people. That in itself is a huge number. Narrow that down to those who speak the English language, and you've still got nearly 2 billion, by no measure a small number. You can narrow it down even more to the Detroit Metropolitan area, and you're still talking about 4 million people, and with this high a number, coincidence is by no means impossible. Many editors look at the edit histories of other editors. If they review just one edit by an editor, they will look at personal edit histories, and they may get involved editing all the other pages recently edited by the other, possibly all in the same order. This does indeed occur. The two people may know one another. They have a life outside of Wikipedia that does not get publicly recorded, and they may talk to each other about these articles. While not actually committing meat puppetry, one may learn about the existence of the articles from the other. ==== Participation in discussions ==== Have you ever found an article that seems so bad, you know for sure it does not belong on Wikipedia? You or someone else proposes it for deletion over and over and over again, thinking it is a sure goner. But every time it is put up for AfD, quite a large number of users come to the article's defense, and there is no choice for the closing administrator but to keep it. And every time it is up for AfD, it is the very same users who come to its defense. ""Sockpuppetry"", you may think, as you see those names over and over. These accounts are surely operated by one person. Or they are friends of one another in real life. Something is fishy. But maybe they do not know each other at all. Maybe each one is a real, individual person, and they have never interacted with one another. It is possible that each of these people has the page on their watchlist, and whenever it gets put up for AfD, they will know, so of course, if they want it kept, they will come to its defense. Editors may suspect very frequently other editors of being a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. The phobia is mainly because of the fear of a disruptive sock. Often, editors who are or were followed by a sock in a particular topic area consider any new editor editing in that area with edits that oppose their POV, a sock. The following may be overreactions (sockophobia), although inherently valid reactions to potential sockpuppet situations: === Symptoms === Biting the newcomers. Tagging new editors' userpages with sock tags without going through SPI or reporting to an admin. Invoking sock-puppet exemption to edit war your favoured version into the article. Reverting every other SPA's edits, calling them a sock. Not following WP:TALKDONTREVERT if an SPA reverts you, and re-reverting instead. Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits. Reverting all contributions of SPAs or even an actual sock without checking if some of the edits were good. Not properly explaining the policy to new users, assuming them to be experienced editors. Outright reverting when seeing the sockmaster's IP range making any edit. Assuming only IP editors who support your view or unambiguously vandalize to be normal IP users. Striking or blanking new users' comments. Striking or blanking talkpage comments added by a sockmaster's IP range even on unrelated topic areas. === Facts that are ignored === There are several reasons why the IP or the account might not be a banned user (or another indefinitely blocked editor): Before reverting the IP, ever wondered why they just don't range block them to get rid of the blocking headache? They sometimes don't because there are sometimes too many users (in some known cases, millions) editing on that IP range; see IP address#IP address assignment. It is possible that a different person made the edit, unless it's the same content being added time and time again. Sometimes, accounts that have a single edit on a main article are labeled as a sockpuppet; there is a good possibility that one of the IPs editing there just created an account. === Suggestion === If you are sure about a certain account being a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor, before shooting the gun (i.e. tagging the editor's user page/s with sock tags and reverting all of the editor's edits), file a case at sockpuppet investigations with evidence. Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:An obvious sock is obvious Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Duck Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets" 386 390 852 WP:ATWV "Wikipedia:Avoid the word ""vandal""" 386 "Im not a vandal One problem newcomers and inexperienced editors have on Wikipedia is using popular terms in a wider variety of circumstances than is appropriate. One such word is ""vandal"". According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, vandalism is ""editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."" This definition is excessively broad, even for the purposes of broad policy coverage. It goes on to restrict what constitutes ""vandalism"", however, saying emphatically that ""[e]ven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."" Note that the definition does not mention: Edits that push a particular point of view Edits you don't like Edits contrary to your objectives Edits that are ""clearly wrong"" (either according to you, or even in reality) Edits that stop you from doing The Most Important Thing Possible.As a result, the word ""vandal"" should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be constructed as good-faithed. Non-vandalism disruption may also occur. Instead of calling a person committing such disruption a ""vandal"", you are better off discussing that person's specific edits with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits or arguments, not the person. Wikipedia:Preserve Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Wikipedia:No personal attacks – people may consider the term ""vandal"" an attack Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black (WP:KETTLE) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Wikipedia:Witchhunt Wikipedia:Passive Aggressive Template:Uw-notvand - A warning template for users who misuse vandalism warning templates." 387 391 858 WP:CDS User:Callanecc/Essay/Community discretionary sanctions 387 "Community discretionary sanctions are a form of general sanctions that can be authorised by the community for certain topic areas, group of pages or page which are especially contentious or experiencing sustained disruptive editing. They allow administrators the ability to impose sanctions and restrictions to make a more acceptable, collaborative editing environment. Community discretionary sanctions are similar to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions however they have been modified for use by the community. == Definitions == The community is the body which in empowered to authorise community discretionary sanctions for a page or group of pages. CDS/E (""community discretionary sanctions enforcement noticeboard"") is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests. AN (""administrators' noticeboard"") is the venue to request that community discretionary sanctions be authorised and is the alternative venue for appeals. A notification is formal notice that informs editors an area of conflict is covered by community discretionary sanctions. An appeal includes any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction. An area of conflict is a topic or group of topics in which the use of community discretionary sanctions has been authorised by the community. An editor is anyone and everyone who may edit and has edited the encyclopedia. The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure. A sanction includes any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed under this procedure. == Authorisation == Community discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the community by a consensus of uninvolved editors, usually at the administrators' noticeboard. If it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, the community may revoke authorisation. Unless the community specifies otherwise, sanctions imposed prior to such a revocation remain in force. == Guidance for editors == Within an area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and refrain from gaming the system.DecorumCertain pages (typically, CDS/E and AN) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of community discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct. == Awareness and notifications == No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that community discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions is current). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months: The editor has given and/or received a notification for the area of conflict; or The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at AN, ANI or CDS/E; or The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict; or The editor ####Some thing about sanctions expiring?###NotificationsAny editor may advise any other editor that community discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message designed for each area of conflict (see Template:CDS) is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. A notification: is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault, cannot be rescinded or appealed, and automatically expires twelve months after issue.Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. == Role of administrators == When deciding whether to sanction an editor, and which sanctions may be appropriate, the enforcing administrator's objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles. To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. While community discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: impose a sanction when involved; modify a sanction out of process; repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions; repeatedly fail to log sanctions or page restrictions; or repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction.Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be restricted from participating in community discretionsary sanctions enforcement or referred to the Arbitration Committee for further action. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes. To act in enforcement, an administrator must at all relevant times have their access to the tools enabled. Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions. == Expectations of administrators == Enforcing administrators must not be involved. They are accountable to the community, and must provide justification for any enforcement action they mete out. Participating in routine enforcement actions, enforcement discussions, or referring matters to the administrators' noticeboard does not render an administrator involved. Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal, though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist other administrators in reaching a conclusion. ProportionalityEnforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly after having been initially notified of the sanctions. == Placing sanctions and page restrictions == Broadly construedWhen considering whether an edit falls within an area of conflict, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. SanctionsAny uninvolved administrator is authorised to impose revert and move restrictions, interaction bans (which can apply in all areas of Wikipedia), topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AN or CDS/E. For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; nor to enforce community discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope. The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor's talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued, which may be a link to community or administrative discussion, the appeal process and the page which details the sanctions and log. ####The templates **** and {{uw-csblock}} may be used for notifying users of sanctions. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction. Page restrictionsAny uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists) or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place. Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate. EnforcementShould any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, receive a fresh further sanction. The further sanction must be logged on the appropriate page and the standard appeal arrangements apply. LoggingAll notices, sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for that purpose. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. == Appeals and modifications == Appeals by sanctioned editorsAppeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has two possible stages, the editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; and request review at the community discretionary sanctions enforcement noticeboard (CDS/E) or the administrators' noticeboard (""AN"").Modifications by administratorsNo administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at CDS/E or AN.Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new more restrictive sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. For an amendment or appeal request to succeed, the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN is required. If consensus at AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. == See also == Category:Wikipedia general sanctions" 388 392 859 WP:HOLE Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground 388 "Wikipedia has guidelines on biographies, living people, and what constitutes a notable musician, and discourages autobiography and vanity. Despite this, some article subjects are nominated for deletion because in the end, even after reading the article, one or more of the community decide that ""I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground"" (also paraphrased as ""I wouldn't know him from Adam""). This is not a judgment on the quality of the individual themself. They may be a worthy, indeed estimable person, a pillar of the community, respected and admired by all who know them. But think of it this way: every town has a mayor. Tens of thousands of towns in each of hundreds of countries, with new mayors every few years, many hundreds of thousands of hard-working, sincere, committed individuals – and only one of them is Clint Eastwood. Typical holders of provincial and state elected office are deemed notable, but what about those running for office? Or those running for their party's nomination for office? Politics, like horse racing, cannot function without the also-rans – who sometimes come from nowhere in the last furlong to confound the bookies – we discuss them, we may admire them, we might even vote for them, but in the end we can't write encyclopaedia articles about them because there is not sufficient information from neutral secondary sources to allow us to do so. A lack of encyclopaedic notability is no discredit to a subject. And many of those who work quietly and tirelessly for the community are perfectly happy not to be placed in the spotlight. So if you want to write about someone, especially someone who is still alive, it is best to ensure that you establish the significance of your subject with verifiable citations from reliable sources, and understand the guidelines above before starting. It may be an idea to work an article up in your user area before launching it on an indifferent world. Because if you, the author, don't do these things, why should we care? There is, of course, a difference between a subject who is not notable, and one whose notability is simply not established by the article (a difference which is not always readily apparent for a given subject). With luck, editors will notice the difference and expand the article. To give luck a helping hand, please do ensure that when writing biographical articles you give enough of a flavour of the subject to allow other Wikipedians to see what it is that makes that person special and worthy of note. Consider the case of Eric Moussambani. Let's imagine for a moment that you have come across a redlink and decided to fill it in. So you could write this: Eric Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any claim of notability. Of course someone should pick this up and fix it, but where is the hook? The motivation? In short, how is this notable? Now how about if you wrote: Eric ""The Eel"" Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals, at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.Wow! This more clearly explains why this man is notable. Can anyone remember who got the Gold, Silver and Bronze medals? Maybe, maybe not. But the public won't forget Eric the Eel in a hurry, and that makes him notable. So there you have it: it's great to create articles, it's fantastic to write everything you know on a subject and then have others add what they know until you have a really great article – but if the limit of what you know is that ""Joe Bloggs is the city dog catcher in Mudhole Flats, Idaho"" consider posting at Requested Articles to help establish notability. Otherwise how will we know the subject from a hole in the ground? WP:Fart Wikipedia:Why should I care? Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual" 389 393 860 WP:backlog WP:backlog 389 "This backlog page lists tasks that should be done to improve Wikipedia (assuming the cleanup templates were placed correctly). Helping reduce backlogs is an important issue, so please feel free to help out and/or develop this page (or ways to quantify these things) further. Wikipedia talk:Backlog is the discussion page for this page, and the technical Village Pump page is where technical issues are discussed. See Category:Wikipedia backlog for more categories, and Wikipedia:Task Center for brief guides. Click any linked number for that category's articles prioritized by their number of incoming links. Category:Accuracy disputes (March 2008—28) Category:Article sections to be split (July 2021—1) Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements (January 2006—4) Category:Articles lacking in-text citations (August 2006—26) Category:Articles lacking page references (July 2008—1) Category:Articles lacking reliable references (November 2006—3) Category:Articles lacking sources (March 2007—261) Category:Articles needing additional references (June 2006—11) Category:Articles needing cleanup (May 2010—27) Category:Articles needing sections (February 2023—1) Category:Articles slanted towards recent events (May 2009—1) Category:Articles sourced by IMDb (December 2007—1) Category:Articles sourced only by IMDb (August 2010—4) Category:Articles that may be too long (May 2009—1) Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction (October 2007—1) Category:Articles to be expanded (January 2007—16) Category:Articles to be merged (February 2022—6) Category:Articles to be split (August 2016—1) Category:Articles with a promotional tone (March 2009—2) Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations (November 2021—933) Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations (December 2018—2) Category:Articles with dead external links (December 2008—7) Category:Articles with disputed statements (March 2008—7) Category:Articles with minor POV problems (April 2010—4) Category:Articles with peacock terms (October 2009—7) Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose (May 2010—3) Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases (October 2009—58) Category:Articles with too few wikilinks (March 2023—0) Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability (February 2010—3) Category:Articles with trivia sections (October 2016—2) Category:Articles with unsourced statements (February 2007—1,822) Category:Articles with weasel words (December 2007—3) Category:BLP articles lacking sources (January 2007—43) Category:Dead-end pages (March 2023—7) Category:Orphaned articles (January 2013—19) Category:Recently revised (November 2022—4) Category:Self-contradictory articles (April 2012—1) Category:Unreferenced BLPs (June 2019—6) Category:Userspace drafts (October 2006—1) Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating (November 2008—1) Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification (January 2007—1) Category:Wikipedia articles needing context (October 2009—117) Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit (March 2022—2) Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (July 2007—6) Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations (September 2008—3) Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite (April 2009—1) Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical (November 2007—1) Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention (July 2007—4) Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest (September 2009—22) Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues (December 2007—63) Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup (November 2012—9) Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup (August 2009—5) Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes (October 2011—0) Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup (August 2010—7)See alsoWikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year For statistics on how a specific category's size has changed over time, use toollabs:apersonbot/cat-track. Not all categories are available; a category is only tracked if its page transcludes the {{CatTrack}} template. Otherwise, at present there does not appear to be any other project-wide collation of backlog statistics. A discussion may be required to determine if one is wanted or needed. {{backlog}} – adds a category to Category:Wikipedia backlog {{Backlog status}} – used in the ""Status"" section above. It has code in it that has been commented out that allows for the focus on a particular backlog {{Backlog count}} – date and count for backlogs categories that is updated by a bot {{Backlog progress bar}} – progress bar for tracking backlog elimination {{Backlog of the week}} – transcludes a box highlighting a randomly chosen backlog updated each week Wikipedia:Maintenance, managerial tasks that are not necessarily backlogged. mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#February 2018, presentation on Wikipedia backlogs" 390 394 862 WP:HMM Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal 390 This project was considered semi-active. If you are interested in becoming an active member please join the discussion here. Did you know 19 Mar 2023 – Life Is but a Dream... (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Aria1561 (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion 14 Mar 2023 – Metal Masters Tour (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted) 17 Mar 2023 – Faraz Anwar (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by M.Ashraf333 (t · c) was closed as keep by WJ94 (t · c) on 24 Mar 2023; see discussion (3 participants)Categories for discussion 27 Mar 2023 – Category:Heavy metal festivals in Denmark (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Estopedist1 (t · c); see discussion 27 Mar 2023 – Category:Heavy metal festivals in Estonia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Estopedist1 (t · c); see discussionRedirects for discussion 29 Mar 2023 – Primus sucks (talk · edit · hist) →Primus (band) was RfDed by Justarandomamerican (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 26 Mar 2023 – AC/DC (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Vaughan J. (t · c); start discussion 24 Mar 2023 – Eternal Blue (album) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DannyMusicEditor (t · c); start discussion 24 Mar 2023 – Spiritbox (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DannyMusicEditor (t · c); start discussion 21 Feb 2023 – Dopethrone (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Andrzejbanas (t · c); start discussion 11 Dec 2022 – The Ghost Inside (album) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DannyMusicEditor (t · c); start discussionArticles to be merged 18 Mar 2023 – Courtney Cox (musician) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to The Iron Maidens by 162 etc. (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 30 Dec 2020 – Ashley Ellyllon (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Jax 0677 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 18 Mar 2023 – Draft:Michele Guaitoli (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 15 Mar 2023 – Draft:Doom Picnic (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Salzarm (t · c) 14 Mar 2023 – Draft:Fasma Hellas (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Dimitrisbolanis (t · c) 13 Mar 2023 – Draft:No More Hollywood Endings (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Kingofstillport (t · c) 09 Mar 2023 – Draft:Hanabie. (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 22 Feb 2023 – Draft:Debustrol (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 11 Aug 2021 – Draft:The Obelisk (magazine) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Ritchie333 (t · c) Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references (links) Checklinks - Edit and repair external links (references). Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. Main tool page: toolserver.org metal-archives.com (Essential for fast double checking, but not a reliable source since it's community-based) 391 395 865 WP:SCOUTMOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Style advice 391 "This guide aims to promote professionalism, simplicity and cohesion in Scouting-related Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout articles and among series of articles. When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is substantial reasoning. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The article name should be the full and current name of the person, organization, event, camp or award. Non-English names should use the processes outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article names. The article title is subject to the same sourcing standards as the article content. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognized authorities and organizations rather than conduct original research. === Redirect pages === Redirects should be created when an article may have an alternative or historical name, may use different capitalization or similar issues. Applicable templates should be applied to such redirects. Example: The historical name Girl Scouts of America redirects to Girl Scouts of the USA and uses the template {{R from former name}} to alert editors as to the reason for this redirect. Note that {{R from historic name}} is intended only for place names. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) === Disambiguation === When an article title would be the same as another title, then the disambiguation process must be applied. Where the article title would be very similar to another title, then a disambiguation page should be created or updated and the appropriate hatnote applied to the articles. Disambiguation should be applied only where needed. Sections or divisions of Scouting associations often use names that are very similar with those of other associations; these should always be disambiguated with the parent association or country. Example: Venture is a disambiguation page listing five different Scouting sections with similar names including Venturer Scouts (Australia) and Venturing (Boy Scouts of America). Scouting should be used as a disambiguation term only where Scouting is highly significant to the subject of the article. Example: James E. West (Scouting). Multiple Scouting associations may exist within a geopolitical region. Example: The Scout Association and Girlguiding UK both exist within the UK. Article types such as ""Scouting by country"" or ""Scouting by region"" should have an overview of each association in the covered region. To maintain equal weight, individual association articles should not try to cover multiple associations. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, it is not a comprehensive Scouting guide nor a how-to manual. Although Scouts will find much of interest, writing should not assume they are the target audience. Example: To many readers the term trading post used in some Scouting associations will evoke the image of a colonial building where pelts are traded for goods; in actuality it is simply a camp store. In addition to standard style guides, formal style guides of the Scouting organization that is the subject of the article will be used. === Style guides === These formal guides are used by the Scouting WikiProject. Please refer to the appropriate formal guide(s) regarding appropriate capitalization, spelling, etc., when working on Scouting-related articles, portals, and so on. If you have any questions which are not specifically answered in them, please post a question to the project talk page. Boy Scouts of America: The Language of Scouting Order of the Arrow: Branding and Style Guide (2015) Girl Scouts of the USA: Girl Scout Glossary (Archived version) The Scout Association (UK): The Scout Association's Style Guide Scouts Australia: Brand Manual (2016) Scouts Canada: Brand GuideFor usage in other contexts not related to the Scouting Movement, refer to the Manual of Style for guidance. === Capitalization === When Scout, Scouting, Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Guide and Scouting-related award names, progression levels, age sections, other language equivalents (i.e. Second Class, Varsity Scout, Eagle Scout, Bronze Wolf) are used in articles in the context of the Scouting Movement, they are considered proper nouns and are always capitalized. Example: ""a group of 50 Scouts"", not ""a group of 50 scouts"". For usage in other contexts not related to the Scouting Movement, refer to the Manual of Style for guidance on capitalization. Do not capitalize event names unless the reference is to a specific event. Examples: ""pinewood derby"" and ""national Scout jamboree""; but ""Valley District Pinewood Derby"" and ""2010 National Scout Jamboree."" Editors often add articles on subjects of local or non-national interest, such as camps and units. These articles often begin as crufty stubs that do not meet notability guidelines and are soon deleted or merged. Managing articles of this nature takes up limited resources best used elsewhere and dealing with the merge and deletion of articles can be contentious. Editors are encouraged to use a top-down approach; expanding high-level articles to the point where they can be split into smaller articles of good quality. Thus, a national article may beget a regional article that begets a camp article. Camp articles should be at least a Start class article with multiple sources. If the article cannot stand on its own, it should be merged into the Council article or regional article. Scout units such as troops, packs, groups or the like should not be included as separate articles or as sections within a regional article unless they truly meet notability standards. The creation of redirects for potential local or non-national articles is encouraged; this alerts an editor who may be interested in creating such an article that there is a higher-level article to use as a springboard. Applicable templates should be applied to such redirects. Examples: Pipsico Scout Reservation redirects to Tidewater Council and Greater Pittsburgh Council redirects to Scouting in Pennsylvania. Both redirects use the {{r with possibilities}} tag to alert editors that this redirect exists because there is a possibility of creating a full article. Infoboxes are used to provide a consistent summary of the subject; navboxes help readers browse through related articles. The main infobox is {{Infobox WorldScouting}} and is used for organizations, events, awards and camps; a number of other specialized templates are available for use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Templates. Non-free images used in infoboxes should be directly related to the subject; the use of generic logos is not recommended and usually constitutes a purely decorative use. Navigation templates specific to Scouting can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Templates. Non-free images should not be used in navboxes—this is considered a decorative use. The following suggested layouts are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines should be discussed to gain consensus. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps an article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Suggested sections not applicable to the subject should not be included. Articles in a series should use a consistent layout. See also and External links sections should be avoided when possible by using wikilinks and references in the body of the article. === English === Articles on topics that have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the appropriate variety of English for that nation. In the handful of universal articles such as Scouting the project consensus is to use American English. === Trivia === Avoid lists of trivia by working these bits of information into the main body text. Sections on history, impact or popular culture can help to structure such material. The main article for Scouting in the media is Scouting in popular culture. === Cruft === Do not include: Recipents, staff, alumni or other persons unless they really meet notability standards. Detailed information presented in other articles; include a short synopsis with a wikilink to the proper article. Non-notable details. Example: Do not include the number of fridges in the kitchen, construction of latrines and the like. Individual campsite details within a larger camp; a short, common description is preferred. Lyrics to camp specific songs or prayers not used at a national or regional level; see Wilderness Grace for a number of variations on this prayer. === Requirements === Articles may include the requirements for an award or advancement but should not include verbatim copies of these requirements. Most requirement lists use second person tone, use jargon and usually include prerequisites or other requirements that are defined elsewhere. Requirements need to be summarized and prosified. The article should include only general details on how the requirements may be met, but there should be proper references to a site or document that does give details. Historical requirements should be in a separate section from the current requirements. === See also and External links === Links included in the See also and External links sections should be integrated into the body of the article whenever possible and used as references. Links that are already used in the body of the article or in an infobox should not be replicated in these sections. These sections are often used as a quick and easy way to add material to an article. This is not necessarily bad, as a maintaining editor can see the worth of such a link and incorporate it in the body of the article as needed. Links must be examined as to their relationship to the context and scope of the article; if the link does not fit the context and scope, then the link should be redacted or moved to the proper article. ==== Formatting ==== A best practice is to use citation templates to format external links. Web links should include the accessdate field; as these links age, they should be checked to see if they are still live or relevant and the accessdate updated. The proper use of templates also help to prevent titles and descriptions created by editors that may be exhibit POV and makes it easier for another editor to work a link in as a reference. ==== Sister projects ==== When there is applicable material on a sister project such as Wikiquote, Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons, then the appropriate project templates should be added to either See also or External links. ==== Portal ==== If the article does not have an infobox that includes the portal link, then {{Portal|Scouting}} can be added to the beginning of the See also section. Other WikiProject portals may also apply. ==== Unit links ==== A particular problem with Scouting articles is the addition of unit links to articles that are of a national or world-wide scope. Example: Troop web sites often get added to the article Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America); with over 42,000 troops in the BSA, even a small percentage of such links would be overwhelming. A better practice is to link to an external web page that lists such units. The Open Directory Project contains many such links, for which the {{dmoz}} template is useful. Example: *{{dmoz|Recreation/Scouting/Organizations/Boy_Scouts_of_America/Troops|Boy Scouts of America: Troops}} givesBoy Scouts of America: Troops at Curlie Lists should have criteria for inclusion and formatting guidelines clearly defined on the article talk page. Example: Talk:List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). The use of non-free media in lists usually fails the test for significance. , Reliable sources in content review processes Wikipedia has three systems for citing sources: embedded citations, author-date referencing (Harvard) and footnotes. These systems should not normally be mixed; converting an article from one system to another should be discussed before changes are applied. The preferred method is to use footnotes formatted with citation templates to provide clear references in an article. This method is not mandatory, but is considered a best practice. Using citation templates also makes the references accessible to reference management software such as Zotero. A tutorial on how to use these systems together is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/References. Categories specific to Scouting articles are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Categories. Processes for images used in Scouting articles are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Images. These include a list of applicable Wikipedia polices and guidelines, quality guidelines and information on using images with project templates. Processes related to maintenance such as creating, merging, moving and deleting Scouting-related articles are outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article maintenance. These processes include the use of project templates and how to announce maintenance related issues to the project community." 392 396 866 WP:NOA Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count 392 "This is a list of Wikipedians by number of article creations. It runs once a month, on the 1st, and takes one day to two weeks to complete, depending on load. To opt-out: add your name to this page and your position in the list will appear as ""Anonymous"". To display a template that will help keep track of this accomplishment, add {{User article count ranking}} to your user page. For an alternative list of the same thing with more data see Wikiscan Creating articles is just one way in which editors can contribute to the encyclopedia. Mass creation of stub articles lacking notability is not encouraged and under some circumstances can be disruptive. The order of the top 100 editors in this list has been scrambled in order to discourage mass stub creation. For more information the FAQ describes how the list is created, etc.. As of the last update on 2023-03-01 there are 6,625,153 mainspace pages created by 801,731 unique users. The top 10,000 users created 4,519,543 pages or 68.2% of Wikipedia. === 1–1000 === === 1001–2000 === === 2001–3000 === === 3001–4000 === === 4001–5000 === === 5001–10000 === Continued at 5001–10000. 1. How often does it update?As of October 2021, it will start on the 1st and completes one day to two weeks later.2. What if it doesn't update on time?Post a question at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by article count.3. What if the data is suspect - the numbers don't seem right or my name is missing?Wait for the next run to confirm. The next run might clear it up. Also compare with prior runs.4. How does it count creations?Only pages that exist at the time of list generation are counted, not deleted pages. Because the list is generated by looking at the user associated with the oldest edit to a particular page, it may fail to account for scenarios such as a user creating a redirect that is later expanded by a different user. Or an article creation that is later converted to a redirect.5. How does it work technically?Due to the size of Enwiki it does not use SQL queries because of CPU and memory load, rather it is 100% API driven. At the start of each run, it generates the complete list of ~6 million article titles (via API a few hours). For each title, it queries the API to see who made the first revision. This is saved in an index file (comprising two columns, article title and who made it). The purpose of the index is speed so that in future runs it doesn't have to check the API for every article because the article creator doesn't change and only needs to be determined 1 time. The next time it runs, it generates a new list of ~6 million article titles and for each checks to see if the article is in the index from the previous run, and if not (ie. a new article or renamed), retrieves the creator data from the API and adds it to the index (this takes 12-48 hours). Likewise any deleted pages (in the old index but not the new list) are removed from the index. It then counts the index and posts the top 10,000. It operates in under 40MB of memory because it doesn't hold the full list of users in memory, and doesn't load the full index into memory (via merge sort). As such it can scale indefinitely as Wikipedia grows in size and is easy on WikiMedia resources.6. How can I watchlist the list?Watchlist one of the sub-pages such as WP:List of Wikipedians by article count/1–1000. Watchlisting this page (WP:List of Wikipedians by article count) will not work since regular updates are made to the sub-pages which are transcluded into this one.7. Where does it run?It runs at the WikiMedia datacenter on Toolforge on the Grid, a network of 40+ computers to which jobs are submitted. Because the Grid is inherently unstable by design, resources come and go, the bot is designed to crash and restart without loss of data mid-process. It runs in the continuous pool meaning that if it crashes it is automatically restarted by the Grid.The bot runs from /data/project/botwikiawk/pgcount/pcount.awk. The GitHub page.8. How long does it take?It depends on resource load on the Grid, but in most cases it should finish in no more than 48hrs. If building an index for the first time up to 7 days or more. Periodically the index will be purged and rebuilt to account for username renames.9. Where was it discussed?Wikipedia:Request_a_query#WP:MOSTARTICLES_query (September 23, 2019) Wikipedia:Bot_requests#List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count (September 16, 2019)10. Why are the Top 100 Randomly Sorted? A concern was raised here (April 2021) that a goal to be #1 could result in unhealthy competition or self-aggrandizement which can lead to questionable editing practices such as machine-assisted stub creations. Would that lead to the same problem to be among the top 100? Possibly, but the software can be adjusted to the Top 500 or whatever might be required. Short of having no list at all there is no perfect solution but this helps to de-emphasize the #1 position. This is a software option that can be disabled.11. Does it work with other language wikis? Yes! It was designed with that in mind. Contact the talk page to set up. It currently runs on Enwiki, Trwiki, and Slwiki. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits List of bots by number of edits Encyclopédistes § Number of articles https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ – X!'s create pages tool" 393 397 867 WP:HATCHEAP Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap 393 Hatnotes can save users time, such as by eliminating the need to use a disambiguation page or alerting the reader they are at the wrong article. For the desired effect, the hatnote must be displayed prominently up front. As with the article title and first sentence, this prominence requires responsibility. Hatnotes are cheap, taking little space. However, overuse can leave the reader feeling peppered with undesired information, similar to online ads, an undesirable kind of cheap. The key is keeping the information relevant to the reader. 1. If the number of articles of a similar name is low, use hatnotes to alleviate the need for an extra disambiguation page. 2. Removing a hatnote will not save database memory. Only remove hatnotes that are a net negative for readers. 3. Do remove hatnotes that are: misleading confusing needlessly astonishing 4. Do not add hatnotes for their own sake. See Wikipedia:Hatnote for more. 5. Hatnotes can be used as alternatives to a move discussion: where a hatnote addition is a legitimate and likely outcome of the discussion, the discussion can be avoided by adding the hatnote. Consensus should still be sought via discussion (or the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, for less contentious topics). Wikipedia:TWODABS Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap 394 398 871 WP:WS WP:WS 394 In Wikipedia, WS may refer to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Sahara Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost Wikipedia:Wikisource Wikipedia:Wikispecies Wikipedia:WikiSpeak Help:Whitespace, for information about whitespace Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, for the inactive project that used to use this shortcut Wikipedia:World Scientific 395 399 872 WP:CS2 Help:Citation Style 2 395 Citation Style 2 (CS2) is a method of referencing Wikipedia articles produced by the {{Citation}} template. All of the templates that belong to CS2 and to Citation Style 1 (CS1) are processed and rendered by the CS1 Lua module suite. There are various benefits to using a template, most notably that doing so produces a consistent look. You are not required to use CS2 or any other citation template. As of October 2016, Wikipedia:Citing sources § Variation in citation methods (WP:CITEVAR) states: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. When you use any template, please consider reviewing its documentation. You can find it at the template's page in the template namespace by searching for Template: plus the name of the citation; for example, to find the documentation for {{Citation}}, enter Template:Citation in the Search box. You might need to scroll down a bit to find it. Citation Style 2 differs from Citation Style 1 in these specific style characteristics: uses a comma to separate individual elements of a rendered citation (CS1 is a fullstop) terminal punctuation is omitted from the rendered citation unless overridden by |postscript= (CS1 is a fullstop) CS2 templates present a citation generally as: With author:author (date), title, publisher, identifiersWithout author:title, publisher, date, identifiersFor example: Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972), Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses, Monty Python's Flying Circus Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses, Monty Python's Flying Circus, November 16, 1972 === Dates === Dates are generally included by three parameters: date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in the same format as other dates in citations in the same article. Must not be wikilinked. or: year: Year of publication edition being referenced. Discouraged in favor of date, except in the rare case that all of the following conditions are met: the publication-date format in the template is YYYY-MM-DD the citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator orig-date: Original publication year, for display (in square brackets) after the date (or year). For clarity, please supply specifics, for instance |orig-date=first published 1859 or |orig-date=composed 1904. This parameter displays only if there is a value for date (or year).When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd Dates formats per WP:DATESNO: Do not wikilink Use month before day or day before month styles and use them consistently throughout the article Access and archive dates in references should be in either the publication date format, or YYYY-MM-DD === Anchors === Shortened footnotes and parenthetical referencing may create links that will jump to an anchor created by the CS2 template. Anchors are always created but may be modified by use of |ref=. The standard is formatted as CITEREFauthorslastnameyear. For example: Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972), Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses Creates an anchor named CITEREFElk1972.|ref=ID: Creates a custom anchor defined by ID. This is useful where the author and/or date is unknown. Error checking: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a script that may be enabled to display errors when using Shortened footnotes or parenthetical referencing. 396 400 874 WP:OBVIOUSSOCK Wikipedia:Obvious sock is obvious 396 "Yes, dear Wikipedians, an obvious sock is quite obvious. For instance: If Editor A is blocked for harassing Editor B and then a brand-new account, Editor C, comes along and mimics the harassing behaviour of blocked Editor A, then A and C are obviously the same user. This may also be called the DUH principle. It all goes back to the old adage: ""If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"". It is very unlikely that new Editor C would share the same disdain for Editor B that was expressed by Editor A. Coincidences happen, but not that often. This also applies to plain vanilla vandalism. Long-term vandals often have their own ""pet"" articles that they like to target, so if Vandal B comes along and starts vandalizing some articles that are on Vandal A's pet article list similarly to Vandal A, then you are relatively safe in assuming that they are the same user. It can also be applied to when Vandal A gets blocked for vandalising an article, and Vandal B comes around and reverts the undo of the vandalism in the timeframe of seconds after the typical account creation, then it's a sock. The principle of ""assume good faith"" always applies, but assume good faith is not a suicide pact and bad behaviour should not be ignored. Sometimes it is quite right to call a spade a spade. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets" 397 401 875 WP:HART User:Tyrenius/Historical artists 397 It is a mistake and an anachronism to judge historical artists on the same terms as contemporary ones. Today, anyone can call themselves an artist, regardless of any talent, skill or status in the art world. Thus the need for WP:NOTABILITY to determine who does and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Up to the latter part of the 19th century, this was generally not the case. An existing master would accept a pupil on merit, who would then be trained to the requisite standard of the day, following which he would be an accomplished artist in his (or rarely her) own right. Works created by such an artist have an automatic significance to a greater or lesser extent—in a way that cannot be guaranteed for an artist today—either as an imitation or development of their teacher, or an example of a historic school. Such works are now found either in situ, e.g. with murals in notable buildings, or held in various collections, including, almost invariably, those of museums—again an endorsement given to the minority of today's practitioners. It is normally the case that even minor historic artists have a place in Wikipedia and information about them should not be simply deleted. At the very least, that information should be included in a section of their master's article, concerning pupils. Such relationships are valuable material for art historians. It should be noted also that the internet may not readily provide sources. See WP:HISTORYBIAS. One very authoritative online source that should be tried (search engines cannot reach it) is the Union List of Artist Names accessible here at the Getty Research Institute. This also has the advantage of recording a large number of spelling variants, which are very common in historic artists - a WP article may sometimes exist under another name. Some historic artists not on the Getty Union list have survived AFD, so if an artist is on the List this should be taken as prima facie evidence of notability. 398 402 876 WP:JSTOR WP:JSTOR 398 Access or apply for this resource → JSTOR indexes thousands of periodicals and considers ~700 of these as JSTOR essentials. The Internet Archive provides access to millions of articles from full runs of about 500 of these periodicals, which can be searched at https://scholar.archive.org/ . === Userbox === Add {{Wikipedia:JSTOR/Userbox}} to your userboxes! This helps us share our project with other experienced users. 399 403 879 WP:GEOBOT User:FritzpollBot 399 This bot performs a number of mundane tasks, the details of which can be reviewed below: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 4 - Approved. Updates User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO with lists of open biographical AfDs sorted by date they were added to the log. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 3 - Approved. Bot grabs the title of articles from other language Wikipedias that do not exist on en-wiki for Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. For further details, chat to me or look at the linked request. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 5 - Under construction - due Monday 12th October 2009. Performs administrative tasks for Wikipedia:Article Incubator and gathers statistical information. 400 404 887 WP:MEDCAB Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 400 The cabal, which never existed, now does not exist even more than it did not exist before, as it would have chosen to no longer not do informal mediation if it did exist, but instead has not chosen to go on to not do other (heh, heh, heh) things which are not more important than those which we didn't do before.There is no cabal! (Long live the cabal! Expect us.) 2. ^ At least the final public ones. 401 405 891 WP:ELEPHANT Wikipedia:Blind men and an elephant 401 "The blind men and an elephant is a fable that originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. Different observers of an event providing contradictory interpretations of the same event is also known as the Rashomon effect. The phrase is derived from the title of the Japanese film Rashomon (1950), where the accounts of the witnesses, suspects, and victims of a rape and murder are all different. The blind men and the elephant story has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives. WP:WEIGHT: ""Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ""see also"" to an article about those specific views.""WP:BALANCE: ""Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."" When two reliable sources contradict each other when providing information on the same event, choosing to believe one source's version of events instead of the other's, and deliberately omitting the latter from being used on Wikipedia in favour of the former does not show neutrality. The omitted source could actually be true, just not proven true yet. Still, it would be best advised to add the source which is more reputable. If both sources are equally reputable, it is better to include them both in the Wikipedia article, explaining in text how they contradict each other, e.g.: ""This source says he was born on 21 October, while another source says he was born on 23 October."" Also beware to avoid synthesis of published material, which is the combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. For example, if one source says a leaf is red and another source says it is brown, then do not say that the leaf is reddish-brown as neither source comes to that conclusion." 402 406 893 WP:AAAA Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid 402 "Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid (AAAA) draw a controversial analogy between Wikipedia's coverage of nations against which controversial allegations of apartheid have not been made, and the apartheid regime of Israel. Sorry, America. Oh, no, wait, it's Saath Efrika, isn't it? It is asserted that this results in a de facto apartheid, a form of discrimination against those states lacking the necessary allegations of apartheid article. Jamaica: A Government spokesman for Jamaica had noted that the lack of an article on allegations of Jamaican apartheid (now created) was resulting in his nation being falsely portrayed as peaceful and tolerant. Jamaica has reportedly commissioned its Foreign Office to collect the necessary evidence and sources for a well-supported Wikipedia article on Jamaican apartheid, as soon as they've finished their spliffs and come back from the beach.Other complaints have been made concerning the fact that Wikipedia's ""allegations of apartheid"" series is based purely upon national lines, and not racial or ethnic themes. An aggrieved spokesman for the Terribly Important Nation of Cornwall (TINC) proclaimed that ""We consider absence of Allegations of Cornish Apartheid to be a serious slight to our robust nationhood, and are considering pursuing the case through the Commission for Racial Equality"", the colloquially-named ""Cornish Waiver"". Similar complaints have also been made by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the latter commenting that ""Wikipedia seems to be a very English thing"". Prominent figures in Edinburgh and Westminster also decried the lack of attention paid to the UK's minorities, with frequent references made to the West Lothian question reversed, the so-called noitseuq naihtol tsew. Representatives of the Isle of Man have announced that a commission has been established to determine an appropriate response. Representatives of the Isle of Wight were on the yacht and could not be reached for comment. === Allegations of allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid apartheid === See also: AAAAAAAAA!Prince Roy of Sealand declared that while the criterion of having a population greater than one precludes his country from introducing policies that could be perceived as apartheid, that policy is ""representative of the bigotry inherent in Wikipedia's policy which insists that countries have people. We demand the creation of a new category 'Nations that would have allegations of apartheid made against them if they had a sustainable population.'"" Wikipedia's policy of megalomaniacal point of view requires that all countries, including micronations, have an Allegations of apartheid article. Wherever possible this should be drawn from primary sources, the more polemical the better. The sister project WikiApartheid exists for the collection of primary allegations of apartheid for use in allegations articles. Allegations of apartheid articles should be created by substing the {{apartheid-allegations}} tag with the country name as an optional argument. This automatically adds the {{weasel}}, {{npov}}, {{articleissues}}, {{globalize}}, {{original research}}, {{primary sources}}, {{notability}}, {{prod}} and {{afd}} tags. Ideally the text of the article should be at least as long as the tags, unless this would mean using reliable sources. Once an AAAA article is started, a delegation of Wikipedia most no[ta]ble POV warriors has to be sent to gather competing versions of The Truth™ and report to Wikipedia about the allegations, reporting each other at least daily on the admin noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, Wikipedia:Signpost, helpdesk and Requests for Arbitration. The article can be deleted in case members of the delegation fail to get back to Wikipedia within 21 days, with automatic monthly listing at deletion review thereafter. If not deleted, the article instead has an automatic monthly listing at articles for deletion, followed in each case by a deletion review, whatever the outcome." 403 407 894 WP:WPO Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera 403 "WikiProject Opera is a group of editors writing and maintaining Wikipedia's articles on operas, opera composers and librettists, opera singers and other opera-related subjects. The project also maintains the Opera portal. On our talk page, all editors working in the area (not just members) can exchange ideas and ask questions. Over the years we have developed project guides to writing, structuring, and formatting opera-related articles and for categorizing and assessing them. Our copyright guide focuses on issues particularly relevant to the project's topic area. New members are always welcome! If you are new to Wikipedia, the first thing to do is to become a registered user—see Wikipedia:How to log in. (There is also an FAQ at Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.) Then add your name to our Members list. You may also like to visit the Opera portal to get an idea of the range of opera coverage on Wikipedia. For more about WikiProjects in general see the WikiProject guide. Opera composers and librettists Operatic works Opera singers and operatic voice types Opera houses and opera companies (sometimes but not always the same) All genres of opera from Afterpiece to Zeitoper, including grand opera and operetta Opera terminology Other opera-related topics including opera publications, recordings, and biographies of opera designers, directors and managers. GuidesOpera article writing – a general guide to titling, writing, structuring, and formatting opera-related articles. Opera article styles and formats – a supplement to the Article writing page with a more detailed guide to the style and formatting of opera articles Categorization – a guide to categorizing opera-related articles Assessment – a guide to assessing articles in the project's scope Copyright – a guide to copyright issues on Wikipedia with a special focus on those that are particularly relevant to our topic area.ResourcesOnline research – advice on publicly accessible, trustworthy and particularly useful sites for researching articles on opera-related subjects and finding public domain images Frequently performed opera composers – a list of the most frequently performed opera composers compiled by Scarabocchio from the Operabase performance statistics page, with links to Google searches for each composer Anniversaries – a list of anniversaries in (births, deaths, premieres) for editors who may wish to plan work on a Featured Article or a Did You Know? entry to coincide with the date or to propose articles for the Composer and Opera of the Month collaborations. The project was started by Viajero in June 2004. The Opera Project's original logo was this photo of the Sydney Opera House. Its current logo, based on the facade of the Palais Garnier, was designed by Javitomad in October 2007. The number of active participants grew from 2 in 2004 to 11 by the end of 2005. As of December 2010, there were over 35 active participants listed. In May 2006 there were 1,835 articles on opera subjects, rising to 3,530 in June 2007. The project reached the 5,000 article milestone on September 4, 2008 with La púrpura de la rosa. As of February 2023 there were over 13,000 articles under the Opera Project banner, including 7,900 biographies of opera singers. Approximately 25% of all opera-related articles were rated stub class. In October 2006, the project began Composer of the Month, a monthly collaboration focusing on creating articles for operas by various composers in The Opera Corpus. It now focuses on improving opera composers' biographies and the coverage of subjects related to their works. In November 2007 a second monthly collaboration was added. It was originally called Singer of the Month and focused on creating articles for singers. From January 2009, this was changed to Opera of the Month and now focuses on improving existing articles on operas and subjects related to them. The archive of all the past monthly collaborations is here. The Project was featured in the 18 May 2009 edition of The Wikipedia Signpost. In July of that year, Portal:Opera was promoted to featured status. Descendant WikiProjects: WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan and WikiProject Richard Wagner. Similar WikiProjects: WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Composers. The main article is, of course, Opera. For a complete listing of articles indexing operatic topics, see Category:Opera-related lists which includes: The opera corpus – an extended list of over 2,500 works (not all of which have Wikipedia articles yet) by more than 775 composers. List of operas – an alphabetical list of operas with Wikipedia articles, with their composer and premiere date List of important operas – an annotated chronological list of operas which are included for their historical significance or widespread popularity (or both). List of major opera composers – an annotated compilation of the most frequently named composers on ten lists by opera experts List of opera librettists – an annotated alphabetical list of opera librettists and their works List of opera houses – a list of the world's opera houses (not all of which have Wikipedia articles yet) arranged by continent, and then country WikiProject Opera popular pages lists the top 1,000 pages within the scope of the project ordered by number of views. It is automatically updated each month. The table below shows the current assessment status of all articles under the project's banner as well as the other classes of pages carrying the banner. (Class ""NA"" refers to redirect pages.) A full list of current and former ""recognized content"" (Featured articles, Featured lists, Good articles, and Did You Know?) under the WikiProject Opera banner is available here. === Featured articles and lists === This section also includes articles under the banners of our descendant projects – WikiProject Richard Wagner and WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Dmitri Shostakovich • Her Majesty's Theatre • Mozart in Italy • Rhinemaidens • Thespis • Trial by Jury • W. S. Gilbert • Agrippina • Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky • Bedřich Smetana • The Bartered Bride • L'incoronazione di Poppea • H.M.S. Pinafore • L'ange de Nisida • List of important operas • List of major opera composers • List of operas by Mozart • Bayreuth canon • Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria • Tosca • L'Orfeo • Gianni Schicchi • Rinaldo (opera) • Nixon in China (opera) • English National Opera • Kathleen Ferrier • Georges Bizet • Les pêcheurs de perles • Monteverdi's lost operas • Royal Opera, London • Richard Wagner • Carl Nielsen Further recognized opera-related content, including Good articles, is available here. See also Category:WikiProject Opera templates === Project banner === {{WikiProject Opera}} (code: {{WikiProject Opera|class=}}) should be added to the talk pages of articles within the project's scope. Articles in the descendant projects (Gilbert and Sullivan and Richard Wagner) are normally not included. The banner was added to all identified opera pages by SatyrBot in June 2007, and again by MelonBot in May 2008. Since then, banners have been added manually. All pages with WikiProject Opera banners are in Category:WikiProject Opera articles. === Invitation, welcome, and userboxes === {{Invite opera}} (code: {{subst:invite opera}}) for inviting users to become project members {{Opera welcome}} (code: {{subst:opera welcome}}) for welcoming new participants There is a selection of userbox templates indicating project membership here. Alternatively, you can simply add Category:WikiProject Opera participants to your user page. === Infobox opera === Template:Infobox opera is available as an option for articles on individual operas. If used, it occupies the top right position in the article, e.g. Gianni Schicchi. Note that unlike navigational templates, Infobox Opera and the image it contains will appear in both the desk top and mobile versions of Wikipedia. === Portal template === {{portal|Opera}} – for placement in the ==See also== section of opera related articles. === Stubs === All opera-related articles with stub templates can be accessed from Category:Opera stubs with the exception of articles about composers which currently share a stub template with other genres and can be accessed from Category:Composer stubs. {{Opera-singer-stub}} for biographical articles about opera singers who do not fall into the following national sub-categories:{{Germany-opera-singer-stub}} · {{Italy-opera-singer-stub}} · {{UK-opera-singer-stub}} · {{US-opera-singer-stub}}{{composer-stub}} for biographical articles about composers{{Opera-bio-stub}} for biographical articles on all other persons related to opera – opera directors, librettists, managers, administrators, opera critics, etc.{{Opera-struct-stub}} for articles about opera houses{{Opera-company-stub}} for articles about opera companies or opera festivals{{Opera-stub}} for articles on operas in languages not covered by the sub-categories below, and for opera-related topics that do not fit into any of the other major stub categories, e.g. opera terminology, arias, albums, publications, etc.{{English-opera-stub}} · {{French-opera-stub}} · {{German-opera-stub}} · {{Italian-opera-stub}} === Navigation boxes === Category:Opera templates contains navboxes for the source works of operas, e.g. {{A Midsummer Night's Dream}}, opera house staff (e.g. {{Berlin State Opera intendants}}), and some opera awards as well as: {{Opera genres}} {{Opera lists}} {{Opera terms}} {{Opera categories}}Horizontal footer navboxes for individual opera composers can be found in Category:Opera templates and/or Category:Operas by composer navigational boxes and can be recognized by their title which is generally the full name of the composer, e.g. Template:Giuseppe Verdi, Template:Vincenzo Bellini, etc.. They are used for easy navigation from one opera to another by the same composer, and many of them have links to more than simply their operas, e.g. other compositions, other articles related to the composer, etc.. They are placed at the foot of the page for each article on a work by the composer. In these templates only the operas which have an existing article should be listed. When not all of a composer's operas have articles, it can be helpful to include a link in the navbox to the complete list of their operas, if one is available. See Template:Étienne Méhul for an example. As with other opera lists, the operas are arranged in chronological order by the date of first performance, but date of composition may be used in individual cases if there is a significant gap between composition and first performance. What constitutes a significant gap will vary according to circumstances, but the most obvious examples are operas such as Donizetti's Le duc d'Albe (composed 1839, premiered posthumously 1882).Category:Opera navigational boxes lists opera navboxes, which can be used as footers on the articles for those operas. They contain links to related articles such literary sources, adaptations, discographies, individual arias, etc." 404 408 897 WP:INFOPAGES Wikipedia:Project namespace 404 "The project namespace or Wikipedia namespace is a namespace consisting of administration pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia. Pages in this namespace will always have the prefix Wikipedia:. They can also be reached by alias WP: or the standard (for any MediaWiki site) prefix Project:. Its namespace number is four (4). Project pages or Wikipedia pages are pages in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. WikiProject pages, which are included in the Wikipedia namespace, are usually referred to as WikiProject pages to distinguish them from project pages as a whole. Meta – Some people refer to pages in the project namespace as meta pages. However, this can be confusing, because Meta is actually the name of the site dedicated to all Wikimedia projects at meta.wikimedia.org. Pages within the ""Project namespace"" themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. These administrative pages are intended for use by editors or by automated tools for the organization and governance of the encyclopedia. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform to the same content protocols or style conventions as articles. Nevertheless, these pages, as with all pages, should be accessible and must comply with Wikipedia's conduct and legal policies. The project namespace is not a free web host and should not be used as a long-term archive to host pages that look like articles. Articles in the project namespace under construction may be moved to the draft namespace or Userspace draft allowing time for their development and feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. Stalled or abandoned drafts and pages in the project namespace that violate policies applicable to non-content pages may be subject to deletion. Editors may not violate copyrights or harass anywhere on Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these types of pages are subject to expeditious deletion. See below for more information. The project namespace pages are organized according to their function within the overall project schema. This includes Wikipedia official policies and guidelines, process pages, discussion pages, optional essays, maintenance pages, informative pages, and historical pages. For lists of pages in the project namespace, see: Wikipedia:Directories and indexes – a handy list of Wikipedia's directories and indexes. Wikipedia:Department directory – a list of the different administrative divisions of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia – an enormous list of the Wikipedia community, intended to help find anything not in the encyclopedia itself.A main gateway for the project namespace is Community portal. The Community Portal includes categorized links to the more commonly used pages related to the project. A link to the Community Portal page is available in the sidebar. === Policies and guidelines pages === Policies and guidelines pages describe Wikipedia's best practice and clarify principles that are widely accepted by the community and have been through the Wikipedia review process. These pages are marked with the {{policy}}, {{guideline}} or {{MoS guideline}} template. For summaries of key policies, see List of policies. For summaries of key guidelines, see List of guidelines. For summaries of guidelines about Wikipedia's house style, see the Manual of Style contents page. For information on editing policies or guidelines see Edits to policies and guidelines. Category:Wikipedia policies – contains important rules that are widely accepted and procedures for important processes such as deletion; there are relatively few of those. Category:Wikipedia guidelines – contains consensual rules-of-thumb that are not strict, but are considered by most editors to be useful most of the time. Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style – contains style guidelines widely accepted among editors. ==== Process pages ==== Process pages help facilitate application of the policies and guidelines governing all Wikipedia pages (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). See Wikipedia processes for details. Category:Wikipedia processes === Information and discussions === Many pages in the Wikipedia namespace have nothing to do with rules or implementation of those rules, and thus do not belong in the above categories. See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays for more information. ==== Discussion and noticeboard pages ==== Some pages are designed for discussions, such as the Village pumps. Others serve as noticeboards to draw attention to discussions taking place elsewhere, such as the centralized discussions page and various requests for comments pages. While many of these pages operate like talk pages, some of them have posting rules (at the top of the page) which may be administratively enforced, and they also have their own talk pages, usually about the management of the noticeboard or other process in question. To ask a question or make a request, see the request directory. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. Category:Wikipedia discussion Category:Wikipedia noticeboards Category:Wikipedia requests ==== Maintenance pages ==== Maintenance pages are used to help facilitate the organization and clean-up of articles to bring them up to encyclopedic standards. These editor- and bot-generated pages typically contain articles and other pages requiring maintenance or attention. (e.g., Wikipedia:Dusty articles). The Special namespace also contains bot generated maintenance reports (e.g. Special:UncategorizedPages). See Wikipedia maintenance for details. Category:Wikipedia maintenance Special:SpecialPages ==== How-to and information pages ==== Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially. In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. These pages are typically marked with the {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, or {{Supplement}} template. There is a large amount of overlap between the Help namespace (which provides mainly technical information) and the Wikipedia namespace (which provides mainly procedural information and interpretation). For this reason, redirects and hatnotes are often set up between these two namespaces. See Help:About help pages for more information. For a listing of how-to and information pages, see the help directory. Category:Wikipedia information pages Category:Wikipedia how-to Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages ==== Essay pages ==== Essays about Wikipedia may be written by anyone; some represent widespread norms, others only represent minority viewpoints. Essays can be long monologues or short theses , serious or funny, informative or opinionated. Essays like information pages have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Essays are typically marked with one of the various {{essay}} templates. See Wikipedia:Essays for more information. For a listing of essays, see the essay directory. Category:Wikipedia essays ==== WikiProject pages ==== Pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration and organization on a particular topic area. Many WikiProjects compose ""advice essays"" about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area. Pages with Wikipedia:WikiProject prefix form a WikiProject pseudo-namespace. These pages are typically marked with the {{WikiProject status}} or {{WikiProject advice}} template. For a listing of projects, see the directory of WikiProjects. For additional resources, or if you have any questions, please visit the WikiProject Council. Category:WikiProjects === Historical pages === A historical page or process is one which is no longer in use, or is no longer relevant or consensus has changed about its content. They are kept as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. These pages are typically marked with the {{historical}}, {{superseded}} or {{dormant}} templates. See HISTORICAL for more details. Category:Wikipedia history Wikipedia:Historical archive Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people Essays and information pages may be established by writing them and adding {{Essay}}, {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, or similar templates to the page. Essays and information pages in the ""Wikipedia namespace"" should not be used to create an alternative rule set. Creation of new guideline and policy pages require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community before publication (see WP:PROPOSAL for procedural details). For general recommendations about the creation and improvement of existing guideline and policy pages, see Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard. The project namespace contains many pages and a lot of information. Try to avoid creating new pages unnecessarily. Before creating a new page, you should consider looking through the topical index, essay directory and help directory to see if the material belongs at a page that already exists. It is strongly recommended that you propose a WikiProject at the proposal page, if there are enough willing editors to participate in the project. Already existing WikiProjects can be found in the directory of WikiProjects. Iif editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on ""requests for comments"" for further input. The usual deletion process is to post a request at miscellany for deletion to have project pages deleted. Make sure that a notice of the request is posted to the talk page of the affected project. If the project is under a parent WikiProject, a notice should be posted there as well. Essays, information pages, and other informal pages that are only supported by a small minority of the community may be moved to the primary author's userspace over deletion. The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia related subjects and viewpoints on user pages. Policies, guidelines and process pages should not be nominated for deletion, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. The {{Disputed tag}} template is typically used for claims that an essay, WikiProject advice or information page was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established. See WP:Local consensus for more details. It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, or redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. See WP:INACTIVEWP for more details. If a project page clearly satisfies a ""general"" speedy deletion criterion, it should be tagged with the appropriate template. For issues only affecting specific revisions on a page (where other page versions are fine) revision delete is usually more appropriate. To request revision-deletion for copyright violations, see {{Copyvio-revdel}} for details. For a complete listing of past and current project namespace deletion requests at MfD, see all MfD pages with Wikipedia prefix. The Wikipedia namespace began after the January 2002 release of the Phase II software. Prior to that, an index of related pages was maintained at Wikipedia utilities, which remained for some time afterwards at Wikipedia:Utilities. This list of pages in the project namespace has been replaced by the pages as described above. By default Wikipedia's search engine is restricted to the Article namespace. Typing the project page prefix Wikipedia: (Wikipedia followed by a colon) or WP: (WP followed by a colon) provides search results for the ""Wikipedia namespace"". You can also use the Special:Search box below to locate Wikipedia/Project namespace pages. See Help:Searching for more information. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace for a listing of Wikipedia namespace banners." 405 409 901 WP:DIAR Wikipedia:Interpret all rules 405 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The community has developed rules and guidelines to limit abuse of editing privileges, to improve the quality of articles, to reduce conflict and to streamline and to write the encyclopedia. These policies and guidelines are important and much thought and debate goes into each one. These rules exist in order to further the encyclopedia. It's acceptable not to know or even follow every rule but deliberately ignoring the rules is problematic. Always interpret the spirit of a rule. Those who make the rules (or guidelines) do not necessarily have the power to predict all possible cases - and in any case, they might be wrong. Edit in a way that best achieves the goal of each policy, although that may sometime mean going against the letter. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bad rules should be changed or struck down, never ignored. Invoking the principle of Interpret all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this policy will achieve agreement, even if someone notices that you violated a particular clause of a rule. As a piece of wisdom: ""Those who break rules are dumps, but the dumpiest is the one who doesn't help others when they need him at times."" Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy" 406 410 902 WP:NAWARDS Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals) 406 This essay provides criteria for use in deciding whether an award or medal should or should not have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability essay generally indicates an award may merit an article. This criterion applies to: Awards granted to individuals, groups of individuals, or organizations. Awards granted by a government, military, international body, non-governmental organization, or private entity. === Criteria === For an award to be presumed notable, it should meet all of the below criteria: An award which meets general notability guidelines and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy is presumed to meet notability requirements. This is not a guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article dedicated to a particular award. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related awards into a single article or list. Notability is not inherited. An award is not notable simply because it is awarded by a notable entity or has been awarded to notable individuals or entities. Claims of notability must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that an award meets a criterion. Verifiable, independent, reliable sources that substantiate a claim of notability must actually exist. Sources used to establish notability must address the award itself directly and in-depth. Sources that are primarily about recipients of an award, rather than the award itself, do not establish notability. The award is not excluded by any of the exclusionary criteria outlined below.Note: Individual awards contained in Lists of awards articles do not need to meet notability requirements per WP:LISTN, however, the list itself must meet this criteria just as any other list would. ==== Other considerations ==== The award may be presumed notable by meeting general notability guidelines when: It is granted by a nation and the award is at the level of the highest and most prestigious awards that can be granted by that nation. The award is usually granted in a public ceremony that is regionally or nationally well-publicized by independent sources. The award is granted as part of a well known nationally broadcast awards ceremony. The award is granted in specific cases after independent, individual, consideration rather than being automatically granted as part of a routine. This criteria alone is not by itself enough to presume notability. === Exclusionary Criteria === The following are reasons which probably exclude an award as meriting a stand-alone article. The award has been granted solely to individuals or organizations to themselves or is granted by an entity they fully or overwhelmingly control. The award is granted to an individual or organization in exchange for payment or another form of remuneration. The award is granted for promotional reasons by promotional entities. The award has been created by a local government and the award is generally unknown outside of that local government's area. In these cases, the award may merit inclusion in the article about the local government. The award has been created by a local chapter of an organization, is granted solely by the local chapter or very few of the chapters of the organization, and the award is generally unknown outside of those chapters. In these cases, the award may merit inclusion in the article on the organization. It is unclear what the award is granted for or what basis is used for determining who or what receives the award. === Invalid criteria related to the notability === The following are considered invalid arguments for the notability of an award. The award is granted by a nation or international body, therefore the award must be notable. The award is only granted to an individual who has achieved a particular rank or position, therefore it must be notable. Individuals or organizations receiving the award are notable, therefore the award itself must be notable. How long the award has been in existence. === Alternatives to Deletion === The following are suggestion may be alternative to deletion: If a series of articles about awards or medals are not notable individually, perhaps they can be grouped together into a list provided they can meet WP:LISTN. For example, a number of military awards from a country could be grouped together as List of military awards from country An article about an award could be merged into the article for the entity awarded it and the article redirected to that section. For example an award for an outstanding firefighter in a department could be merged into the article about that fire department. === Notes === 407 411 904 WP:ANTHWY Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica Highways 407 "OUR QXZ AD: Antarctica Highways and Routes WikiProject Our purpose is to provide information on highways in Antarctica. Wikipedia:Road humor WikiProject Nunavut Roads WikiProject Hyperspace bypasses WikiProject Highways WikiProject Antarctica Participants add this to their userpage: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica Highways/Userbox}} Triadian (founder) Never been there, but honestly, would it make a difference? (Look what I've started... muahahaha!) Studious Human - Working on a page for the Trans-Antarctic Highway (I've never been to Antarctica so I will be referencing from online secondary sources for the majority of information on the Trans-Antarctic Highway) Rschen7754 What is the naming convention for these highways? Stratosphere Working on the mass transit systems and bridges to S. America. Myselfalso I'm hoping to make it down once the bridges to the continent are complete. Vishwin60 Definitely coming down here once WikiProject Bridges build the bridges. Also looking on eBay for some stuff I could bring down. ROASTYTOAST I swear I've traveled on one. ACBestMy Contributions 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Alright! I'll Bring My Tool Kit! Lost in the glaciation: Working on defunct roads due to collapsed ice shelves. WikiLeon Shooting pics of Antarctic highways for the Commons. If only the fog and snow flurries would let off. Mr. crabby I was caught drunk driving on an Antarctica highway. (I hate those penguin state troopers) Jhughes89 I went on one, in a dream User:Brianhe As the original author of McMurdo-South Pole highway I definitely need to be on this project. Chicken7 Once there's are highway to Antarctica I'll go and research Yamaka122 This is a very important topic that every encyclopedia should include. Think of the penguins. John Carter 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - A criminally overlooked subject of staggering importance to walking waterfowl. Wizardman - With effort we could probably get all articles involved to FA status.--Wizardman 18:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC) master sonT - C - It was that cold? Gonna need some well cured concrete for these highways Okiefromokla - I used to be a penguin Wiki Wistah 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) - Am looking into reports that U.S. Congress has US$315M for a bridge here .... milk the cows - I am a penguin. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC) - I'll shovel the snow with my raccoon friends and sell the snow for a huge profit! :) --Fightingirish 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I plan on a comprehensive profile of spur routes there Can't sleep, clown will eat me fortunately I have the latitude to help out. OZOO (What?) I'm working into becoming a penguin. Æetlr Creejl I hear they're building a ""Route 66"" going from McMurdo to Vostok. Brian Schlosser42 When will the connector to the Bering Straits Bridge be completed? —Coastergeekperson04's talk will design an expressway from the South Pole to Amudsen-Scott. Canuck85 Remember folks, always watch for penguins crossing the street! Comte0 Interested in roads crossing the frontier between Australia and France. 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pumpmeup - I specialize in State highway yammawothcigoffimus, crossing the Australian Antarctic territory. -- lucasbfr My area of expertise is Penguin Paths, thanks to Yetisports. -- Advanstra Mapping the long distance Icebus routes • Freechild'sup? Urging the usage of public transportation and HOV lanes on all Antarctic highways. — ComputerGuy890100 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC) All about HOV lanes! Dancingwombatsrule Really useful project!! I'm interested to know if there are double yellow lines in Antartica? Malik Shabazz I hope to visit one day, so I'd like to know about the highways. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) My OCD involving roads meets my OCD involving travel. Asenine - BIG PROFIT! That's the one. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! Anything for the Antarctica DOT. Clockwisekid (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) - I FINALLY have an outlet for my Antarctican-highway related knowledge :) User:Candlewicke (talk) - I'll be working on the proposed highway linking Antarctica to Europe. But where to house those penguins fleeing from the melting ice caps? Dravecky - Antarctica's elaborate highway information radio system needs coverage. Cadwaladr - If this project had existed when my grandma was alive, she would have liked it. Dough4872 - I will work to create an elaborate numbering system for Antarctica highways, similar to the Interstate Highway System. Have to find a way to get there though. (I don't plan on going anytime soon as I am not a fan of the cold weather) SriMesh - I will create route junctions boxes for all the Walrus crossing intersectons at all the Penguin Paths. TStein - Covering the physics of the Antartic Highways ~EdGl ★ 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC) The Bushranger - Beware of the penguins. I think it's brilliant. (C/SSG)G2sai(talk) 01:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Fredddie™ 04:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) - We're gonna need a bigger salt truck. Wonder if there's a route log... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Proud to help out with this important work! Outback the koala (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) walk victor falk talk I'll contribute with roadkill trivia. Did you know than an Hercules almost landed on a penguin the next-to-last winter? I specially like the ""Goals"" section of this project. If you guys don´t mind, I would like to take care of the second phase, sounds hard work! But I will obviously always keep an eye for the third one. After all, that is the FINAL GOAL, right? FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I wonder if they have a carpool lane... Fatmandan420 (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC) As a roadgeek, I feel I must be a member, and hope to one day be a contributing member of the WikiProject. VIWS talk 11:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) User:Arzino, talk 14.52, 26 August 2011 (CEST) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) - My favourite Antarctica highway is the one with the snow on it. Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) - Will make articles on the Half Moon Island Penguin Routes. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk): These Antarctic highways ensure speedy travel for penguins when tobogganing across the continent. I also believe that these highways shouldn't just suddenly end and send our flightless friends crashing into the chilly water without warning. Proper signage must be in place. Joined 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC). [Darwinfish is scared of penguins because of their fish-eating habits, but bravely joins anyway. ] Will work for signposting and mapping penguin paths, so I can more easily stay off them myself. Any interest in forming a lobby for the creation of a network of dedicated Antarctica Fish Paths for fish with feet? darwinfish 23:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC). I hardly know anything about the continent at all except that it's really cold and has lots of penguins and ice shelves, but why should I care? In fact, I might make a userspace article about the ""NAFTA Superhighway South Pole Extension"". Since both are conspiracy theories and/or hoaxes, count me in! --Random Combo LOL (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I know little about roads, but this is one area where I can help. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC) KAS( talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ""WATCH FOR ICE ON BRIDGE"" Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Hoping to go late this year and get some on-the-ground (or on-the-ice) data! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Why not? Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC) shorts and t-shirt weather, crack open a few beers, DWIs, in Key West's southernmost sister city. As a wannabe PhD in the history of Antarctic road construction from the 3rd to 7th centuries, you can count me in! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) User:Sarah Palin: I am currently planning to build a new highway in Antarctica, with a bridge from which you should be able to see Chile! I will happily write the article, once i figure out how to write standing on my head to stay upright while im down there!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC) ... all numbered roads are notable, whether they're numbered by penguins or anyone else. This continent is a great place to find fish, which I also like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Project of critical importance...vast network of Antarctica highways has almost no articles written yet! Much work to do here! --MONGO 01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Tezamen (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Uamaol (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Hope to go there one day and earn my Polar Medal !!!111!1 Epic Genius (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I'm part of USRD. Maybe this is just as interesting. I'm planning to write articles about the South Pole's street grid and arterial roadway system – at least when I am able to make it down there... :) Donna Helene Cant wait to start writing CoffeeRansacked (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Kew Gardens 613 (talk) I hope that there is light rail in the median of the highways so that penguins can quickly get to the sea from where their chicks are. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Datbubblegumdoetalkcontribs 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia needs more articles about Antarctica highways! I'm not a member of any other highway projects, but this appeals to me. I'm wondering how many traffic lights are present currently? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Evensteven (talk) I like deep subjects, and you can't get deeper than way down S... - Wait a minute! Top o' the world to ya! Come on, put on your polar ice cap, and we'll soon get the drift of things. Evensteven (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) CoffeeRansacked2 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Kevon kevono (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) We should grant Antartica to Iraq. ALLAHU AKBAR hueman1 (talk) Interested with the underground limited-access toll road that will connect the North Pole to the South Pole. This is the perfect project to join during the great covid 19 shutdown of 2020. I just wish I had heard of it one day earlier. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC) I second ϢereSpielChequers: what a delightful and practical WikiProject to which I humbly submit my services during this shutdown :) RubenSchade (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Proud to serve for Antarctica. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC) TheLastClassicist1750 How fascinating! Rando For The Penguins Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC) important. MoyaiViper The police force pulled me over for driving without a park pass. Clyde Drove from DC to the ferry in Buenos Aires, great experience but I almost hit a penguin Monkeisepicer1 There is a great lack in transportation for penguins. 56independent I'm sure i can work on creating and updating Catalan and Spanish translations but knowing the temperature difference between the three continents of the Iberian Peninsula, South America, and Antartica, i'll have to make a template saying ""Muy frio! No pasar cuando invierno!"". Articles on Antarctica Highways should be named with the convention: Antarctica Route x (where x is the route number). If a more common name can be found for the highway, use that instead. For foot trails, the naming convention is Antarctica n Trail (where n is the name of the trails). For routes made by penguins, the naming convention is Penguin Path z (Antarctica) (where z is the route number). Please note that Penguin trails use the Principle 2 format from WP:SRNC; this is to ensure SPUI's happiness. Phase 1: Find Antarctica Highways Phase 2: ???? Phase 3: BIG PROFIT!!!!! Phase 4: WINNING! (may require kidnapping Charlie Sheen) Phase 5: Complete rewrite and relaunch as a serious project after the East Antarctic Ica Cap melts === Antarctica Highways found === McMurdo–South Pole Highway 995-mile-long (1,601 km) compacted snow road linking McMurdo Station to the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station Casey Station Road (a 1.5 km highway) Penguin Path 482 Antarctica Route 1 Lack of signage leaves some penguins confused Big Road Sign And you thought the signage at Death Valley was bad. USSR Communist driving a VW on an Antarctic road in 1963 amid the secret Ice Race of the Cold War Penguin Path 1, otherwise known as March of the Penguins Causeway. Similar to the Collaboration of the week, but on a smaller scale, you might want to ""adopt"" an article. This would involve doing the research, writing, picture-taking (if possible), or doing construction work for either a non-existent article or a stub. Of course, everyone else can still edit an adopted article, and you can work on other things too, but the idea is to find a focus for a while, to try and build up the number of quality articles the Project has produced. Example article: User:SPUI List of all subpages of this page {{Infobox road}} {{User:Dough4872/Antarctica-highway-stub}} {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica Highways/Userbox}} {{User:ACBest/WikiProject Antartica Highways}} Category:Transport in Antarctica === Did you know? === There are no paved roads in Antarctica[um, we built plenty of masonry roads... - Elder Things]. It is cold in Antarctica[relative to Triton, its balmy as Jamaica, mon]. If you lived in Antarctica, if a police officer asked you where you lived, you can't say ""next to my neighbor's house"", although you'd see penguins, seals, killer whales, etc. constantly. [ALLAHU AKBAR][relative to Kevon kevono, ''Where does your neighbor live? Next to my house'']. There are ants in Antarctica. You really really really dont want to explore any ancient cities which may become exposed in Antarctica due to global warming (see first item on list) Image:Antarctica Route 1.jpg Transport in Antarctica South Pole Traverse (Antarctica Route 1) Penguin Path 306 This project now engages in assessments. Editors willing to help assess the staggering number of articles we deal with are urgently needed! === List of Article Assessments === South Pole Traverse Class: Importance:Top Penguin Path 306 Class: Importance:Mid Like many other projects, we believe it is vital to bring focused attention on given articles to improve them. Given the, ahem, lack of manual dexterity many of our members might have, it also will help to have those members who can type assist those who can't. In particular, anyone with a full bladder is asked to step outside and help them quickly. Editors who can assist in translation from Aptenodytes and other related languages would be extremely valuable. Anyone who can assist is welcome to indicate as much here. Please list any articles for peer review here. Serious peer review will only be considered from editors residing in Antarctica, who are active editors year round (especially during Antarctic summer, when normal people would be outside screaming at the sky, instead of sitting in a cramped quonset hut staring at a white screen...) Wikipedia:Meetup/Antarctica Forum for meetups at Antarctica" 408 412 905 WP:FG Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group 408 Welcome to the Family Guy work group of WikiProject Animation. This work group/task force includes within its scope all articles related to the animated sitcom series Family Guy, including its characters, episodes, seasons and so on. All of these articles should be contained within the Category:Family Guy or one of its subcategories. The work group does not cover any American Dad! episodes and characters and the spinoff The Cleveland Show animated series by Seth MacFarlane. To join the Family Guy work group, edit this section and add # {{user|yourusername}} and any comments to the following list of members in alphabetical order by username. === Member userbox === You may place {{User Family Guy work group}} on your user page to display the following userbox: This template will add your user page to: Category:Family Guy work group membersYou may also place {{User WikiProject Animation}} on your user page. Any articles that are within the scope of this project should be tagged with the {{WikiProject Animation}} banner and add |family-guy=yes as this will automatically put the page in the appropriate categories, such as Category:Family Guy work group articles. === General tasks for members of the Family Guy work group === Tag related articles. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Identify articles for creation Identify articles for improvement Review importance and quality of existing articles === To do items for anyone === === Things you can do === === Colors === These are taken from some Family Guy artwork. === Family Guy work group in-house essays === Neither of these are official Wikipedia guidelines, but they are recommended for editors of Family Guy articles. Episode citation style – recommended method for using video as cited source. Family Guy trivia‎ – caution against adding Family Guy mentions to non-FG articles. Wikipedia is not a joke book – suggestions for avoiding unencyclopedic detail. Please see {{WikiProject Animation}} for assessment information. {{WikiProject Animation|class=|importance=|family-guy=yes|family-guy-importance=}} - to be included in talk pages of Family Guy related articles. Places articles automatically in Category:Family Guy work group articles. For the talk pages (adjust to suit):{{WikiProject Television|class=Start|importance=Low|episode-coverage=yes|episode-coverage-importance=Low|needs-infobox=yes|needs-image=yes}} {{WikiProject Comedy|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Animation|class=Start|B-Class-1=|B-Class-2=|B-Class-3=|B-Class-4=|B-Class-5=|B-Class-6=|importance=low|needs-image=yes|needs-infobox=yes|American-animation=yes|American-animation-importance=Low|family-guy=yes|family-guy-importance=Mid}} === Navboxes === {{Family Guy}} - for articles relating to Family GuyFor main project templates, see the main project page for WikiProject Animation. === Featured articles === === Featured lists === === Good articles === === Former good articles === === Good topics === === Former featured topics === === Did you know? articles === === Main page featured articles === No Article alerts at this time. Official website Family Guy at Curlie Family Guy Wiki, an external wiki Family Guy at The Big Cartoon DataBase 409 413 912 WP: PERM Wikipedia:Requests for permissions 409 "=== Handled here === Account creator (add request • view requests): The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the request an account process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease. Autopatrolled (add request • view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability. AutoWikiBrowser (add request • view requests): AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the rules of use and registration requirements on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access. Confirmed (add request • view requests): The confirmed flag may be granted to new users who have not yet hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status. These are users who have not had both 10 edits and 4 days experience. People with this flag can upload files and edit semi-protected pages before hitting the autoconfirmed flag. Users requesting this flag must indicate clearly why they should be exempted from the customary confirmation period. Event coordinator (add request • view requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles. Extended confirmed (add request • view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. The flag allows users to edit pages under extended confirmed protection. File mover (add request • view requests): The file mover user right is intended to allow users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy, with the ease that autoconfirmed users already enjoy when renaming Wikipedia articles. Mass message sender (add request • view requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use. New page reviewer (add request • view requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite. Page mover (add request • view requests): The page mover user right allows users experienced in working with article names to move them, subject to policy, without leaving behind a redirect. They may also move all subpages when moving the parent page(s). General guidelines include making 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite. Pending changes reviewer (add request • view requests): The reviewer flag is granted to users who are experienced enough with Wikipedia editing and its policies for contributing to the process of reviewing articles placed under pending changes. Rollback (add request • view requests): Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it. Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here. Template editor (add request • view requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates. === Handled elsewhere === Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere: Administrator and bureaucrat access: Requests for administrator or bureaucrat access need to be posted at requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratship, respectively. Bots: Request for bot flags should be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Edit filter: Requests for access to the edit filter manager group and the edit filter helper group should be made at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Interface administrator: Requests for interface administrator access should be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Only current administrators may become interface administrators. IP-block-exempt: While the IP-block-exempt right can be granted by administrators, this flag is not handled here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be submitted via the Unblock Ticket Request System or, if there are significant privacy concerns, email the checkuser team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org or contact a CheckUser directly. Checkuser and Oversight: These rights are only granted by the Arbitration Committee, and only after strict scrutiny. More information can be found here. AfC reviewer: This access is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Redirect autopatrol list: Addition to the list is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. Steward permissions can only be granted in yearly elections, and are rarely given. Global permissions such as global renamer, sysop, IP block exempt, rollback, etc should be made at meta:Steward requests/Global permissions. If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat. This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard. The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency. === Requestors === To make a request for a permission, click ""add request"" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission. Any editor may comment on requests for permission. === Administrators === Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse. Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality. === Account creator === === Autopatrolled === ==== User:Jsgoodrich ==== Jsgoodrich (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights I am requesting autopatrolled rights because I have been an editor on Wikipedia for 16 years and have created 33 articles. I just had a first-year Wikipedian with autopatrol rights move an article to draft space because he did not understand how Supreme Court Cases articles are written. I think I have shown that my articles to Wikipedia are for the benefit of all. Thus I think that my articles, when created, should not add to the backlog as showing me as a trusted user. Thank you for your time on this request. Jsgoodrich (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Jsgoodrich: Thank you for your long history of contributions to the project. As someone who's also been around a while, I can say that one of the biggest things that's changed since the early days is sourcing expectations. Jamiebuba moved the article you're talking about to draft because it didn't have any inline citations, and I think the vast majority of editors nowadays would agree that that is a major problem. I see you've now added citations, so I've moved it back to mainspace; please note that you were also free to move it back to mainspace yourself at any time. Otherwise, Not done because your rate of article creation does not require autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Supreme Court Cases on the project are not needed of in line citations, there are thousands of articles without a single inline cite. While I want to improve them, that is why as I get time I am adding articles. However as an attorney and teacher I don't get a ton of time to do this. This is the stuff that causes me long breaks in wiki, experts are treated badly by editors that can't respect the work that experts do. The number of attorneys writing wiki articles are small. Yet an attorney who took the time to read three opinion and wrote a supreme court case that is in the news was moved out of wiki main space to draft by one user with less than one year of editing. I again request autopatrolled be granted. Jsgoodrich (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Ixtal ==== Ixtal (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Although I have less than 25 articles created, I think writing a GA shows enough understanding about articles that I can be trusted with the right and therefore reduce the NPP backlog. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has created roughly 12 articles. — MusikBot talk 12:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === AutoWikiBrowser === ==== User:Pedantical ==== Pedantical (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Hi! I'd like to use AWB to more efficiently work through backlogs of unsupported parameters in templates and overpopulated categories. Thanks :) Pedantical (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has approximately 484 non-automated edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 02:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:ULPS ==== ULPS (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Hey! I'd like access to use AWB to automate standard wiki maintenance items like fixing typos, adding/editing short descriptions, fixing citations, etc. Thank you :) ULPS (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has approximately 144 non-automated edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:多多123 ==== 多多123 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)I saw someone else using this, I would like to have access to it in order to ratify errors in WikiText in a more rapid fashion. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 11:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has approximately 254 non-automated edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 11:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Confirmed === ==== User:JasperTheCoolKid ==== JasperTheCoolKid (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Reason for requesting confirmed rights JasperTheCoolKid (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I have been four days old and I have made 10 edits. Already done You are already auto confirmed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Illusion Flame, I don't know where you've got this from, but your reply is patently incorrect. stwalkerster (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I clicked the text “edit count” button, scrolled all the way down and saw they have auto confirmed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Hrm... I see that it does indeed have a timestamp for +autoconfirmed there, but that timestamp is in the future(!!; as of writing by about 10 minutes), so it seems that XTools makes assumptions that a user will get +autoconfirmed at the relevant time, despite that not always being true. I'd recommend checking Special:UserRights in future - if a user is truly considered autoconfirmed by the software, then you'll see a line like ""Implicit member of Autoconfirmed users"". stwalkerster (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I see. That’s weird!! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)As a user, I’d be available to edit semi-protected in knowledge and help Wikipedia. I would also be helpful in guiding unregistered users how semi-protected pages are used. JasperTheCoolKid (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Not done Your account is not (quite) four days old yet. Give it another couple of hours and you should become autoconfirmed automatically. stwalkerster (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Nhnnguyeneee ==== Nhnnguyeneee (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Reason for requesting confirmed rights I want to add or update several valuable pieces of information to those Wikipedia pages locked for vandalism prevention. I promise that I will not have any acts of trying to deteriorate Wikipedia pages. Thank you Nhnnguyeneee (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Already done (automated response): This user already has the ""autoconfirmed"" user right. — MusikBot talk 09:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Already done – You are already autoconfirmed. Double checked, the bot is correct. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Vincit8 ==== Vincit8 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Good morning,I appreciate the purpose of sharing knowledge among people,I ask for this permission. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincit8 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Not done – Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you are used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5 percent of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that more than 95 percent of the articles can use your help right now! stwalkerster (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Sampada26 ==== Sampada26 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Reason for requesting confirmed rights Sampada26 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) They didn't provide an explanation as to obtaining confirmed status, though they're one edit from becoming autocomfirmed! Tails Wx 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Not done – Not done, as there has been no reason given. Please reread the text at the top of this page and submit another request only if appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Kcatena1010 ==== Kcatena1010 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Reason for requesting confirmed rights I am a good editor, and I can add signatures and more. Thank you. Kcatena1010 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Already done (automated response): This user already has the ""autoconfirmed"" user right. — MusikBot talk 03:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Event coordinator === ==== User:Hadi ==== Hadi (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Last year we had problems with a blocked IP range at the beginning of an editathon here in Switzerland. Now we plan a similar event and I hope to prevent such problems when I get the right as Event coordinator. The planed event is supported by Wikimedia Switzerland: link. I often organize editathons for the German WP and sometimes in other languages as English. - Hadi (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Hadi, event coordinator will not allow you to bypass an account creation block on an IP address. My advice would be to use the Program and Events dashboard to create the accounts instead, which will allow you to bypass the block. stwalkerster (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you @Stwalkerster for your answer. I found an other possibilty by Requesting a temporary lift of IP cap Hadi (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, that's a way of bypassing the 6 accounts per IP per day (much like the Program and Events dashboard), but again that doesn't let you bypass an account creation block. If we know the IP address ahead of time, we can look to whether it's possible to enable account creations via that IP range, but it's probably easier just to use the dashboard for this. stwalkerster (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks again @Stwalkerster. Last year we didn't have the problem of creating accounts (we told the newcomers to create these before to come to the event), but many of us were not able to edit. Would this problem really avoided with the Program and Events dashboard? Hadi (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The P+E dashboard will only let you bypass the account creation problems. If you were unable to edit while logged in, then it's likely the block itself would need to be changed. Without knowing what the block or IP address is, I can't say if that's a reasonable option or not. stwalkerster (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Revmlibrary ==== Revmlibrary (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)I am running a multi-day edit-a-thon through the Outreach Dashboard. For some reason, we ran into the IP account creation cap issue. I checked to make sure that participants were using the dashboard prompt to create accounts, and I was not manually flagging attendees as confirmed. Tomorrow is the second day of the edit-a-thon, and I'm worried the same thing will happen! Thanks for your assistance. Revmlibrary (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Extended confirmed === ==== User:Page.Security ==== Page.Security (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)I'd like to have the extended confirmed rights in order to activate some functionality on some toolforge projects. I am already a wikitech/toolforge user and my username there is Devnull. Page.Security (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Not done TYour account has zero edits to article space so there no benefit to this project in granting it early. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:RowanJ LP2 ==== RowanJ LP2 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Hello, I am the alternate account of an already extended confirmed account, and I would like extended confirmed access for this account when I'm in school, thank you. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC) === File mover === === Mass message sender === === New page reviewer === ==== User:Zippybonzo (public) ==== Zippybonzo (public) (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)LEGITSOCK of Zippybonzo, would like to review pages on a computer I don’t trust with my main account credentials. Zippybonzo (public) (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has 0 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 06:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm a little confused. What's the point of having a ""public"" account if it's going to have the same rights as the main account? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell, as a temporary way for me to take down the redirect backlog while using the computer that is for public use. Zippybonzo (public) (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Then why not just use your main account? When both accounts have the same rights, there's no security benefit to using one over the other, methinks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Request withdrawn, given the point of a public account is to not have the same user rights, I'll just do some reviewing when around on my main account, or just use my main account. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === Page mover === === Pending changes reviewer === ==== User:Lflin16 ==== Lflin16 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Hello! I wish to be granted pending changes rights because I want to help out in pending changes. I have experience editing in the recent changes patrol, and therefor have experience with counter vandalism. I have read all relevant documentation, and I believe I am eligible for Pending changes reviewer rights. I would also be open in being granted a trial period, if that suits better. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]), has had an account for 29 days and has 84 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 05:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Rollback === ==== User:MP1999 ==== MP1999 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Hello I'm Interest to revert Vandalism on enwiki from few days , I'm enough experience of how to revert vandalism, if you grant me rollbacker for 1 month trial, so I have help to gain more experience. -MP1999 talk 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Automated comment This user has 197 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please put this request on hold for 2 days. -MP1999 talk 14:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @MP1999 It may be better to just withdraw this request and reapply in two days. Just a non admin suggestion! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Am I now eligible for this? -MP1999 talk 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Ryanisgreat4444 ==== Ryanisgreat4444 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)Trying to deal with vandalism cases. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Done — please take more care in warning those you revert though. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== User:Zippybonzo ==== Zippybonzo (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)While I am obviously not the most experienced wikipedian, as seen in my previous requests for this permission, I feel that I after have taken a short time away from major editing, which admittedly isn't the best idea, but I have still been around reading some policies, which has lead to me considering myself capable of being a rollbacker, along with the fact that I have developed policy knowledge from being a NPR and PCR since the last request I made. I would benefit from the perm, because the tools such as Huggle and SWViewer would make it possible for me to make more contributions and SWViewer is somewhat possible to use on mobile, which is often when I don't edit Wikipedia because I am on mobile. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Done (temp) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === Template editor ===" 410 414 914 WP:RFD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion 410 "=== March 29 === ==== First President of the United States ==== First President of the United States → George Washington (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Propose retarget to Presidency of George Washington. Reason: while readers might be interested in George Washington, I think the title is more related to his presidency. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== PRussian invasion of Ukraine ==== PRussian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect is misleading, as Prussian is a redirect to Prussia which itself was involved in historic conflicts with political entities in the Ukraine. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Whilst this might be a typo, yes it seems odd. I agree this needs deleting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Implausible typo, completely changes the meaning. Unless there's a relevant diambig it could direct to instead that involves conflicts between Prussia and Ukrainian entities. — Czello 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: The meaning is different when referring to Prussian vs Russia. The capitalization would of ""PR"" would also make it unnecessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: I suggested R3 on the article's talk page to save editor time, but since we're here now, let's just handle it here. There is the obvious issue that Prussia is a historical entity and thus should not be confused with Russia. There is further the implausibility of Prussia arising as a simple typo in place of Russia as the r key and the p key are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard layout. I suppose now's my chance to say that we don't need to create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects to address every possible typo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Keep as creator. There is no article called ""Prussian invasion of Ukraine"". It is a plausible typo of someone accidently hitting the p key. With an article with a total 50 million views (including redirects), probably hundreds have made this typo. Also, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I doubt anyone who types PRussian invasion of Ukraine by accident means to go anywhere but the Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. @Hey man im josh @Mvqr @Czello @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Is it really that plausible given the positions of the keys on the keyboard? Should we have ""ERussian invasion of Ukraine"" as well if we're basing it strictly on keys accidently being hit? Even if it were, I'd still vote delete based on the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Why is the typo plausible (when the P and R keys are not near each other on the keyboard)? Why not have a LRussian Invasion of Ukraine, or ORussian Invasion of Ukraine, or MRussian Invasion of Ukraine? — Czello 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Implausible typo and potentially misleading given the history of Prussia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Whether a DAB or redirect for Prussian invasion of Ukraine if it were to exist, in my view is outside of the purview of this RfD. The capital PR make it relatively unlikely for someone trying to target things about historical Prussia, but also the confusion with Prussia makes the redirect itself not WP:CHEAP as it's an ambiguous and relatively unlikely typo in my view. TartarTorte 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Shah Reza Pahlavi ==== Shah Reza Pahlavi → Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Reza Shah because the words ""Shah Reza Pahlavi"" has greater affinity to him. NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP ==== Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 0 page views most years, most views likely accidental search hits. Clutters WP namespace, title improper. Opal|zukor(discuss) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Kv bhu ==== Kv bhu → Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target page. Could be a short form of KV Bhutan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Ferdinand I of Spain ==== Ferdinand I of Spain → Ferdinand II of Aragon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This should be a disambiguation between Ferdinand I of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, or should outright be deleted. While Ferdinand II of Aragon was the first Ferdinand to rule a (mostly) united Spain, he wasn't numbered as Ferdinand I. This is evidenced by the fact that the next Ferdinand to rule Spain was Ferdinand VI of Spain. This redirect feels extra strange considering that Ferdinand V of Spain also redirects to the same place. Estar8806 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Primus sucks ==== Primus sucks → Primus (band) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) You have not proposed a discussion. You have proposed a deletion. Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand. Again: what are you trying to accomplish? Please be specific. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @C. A. Russell The nom clearly proposed deletion, so I bet they would like to accomplish the deletion of that redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, obviously. That's not an especially helpful remark. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked. The redirect has been proposed for deletion. By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. It looks a bit like G10 to me, for what it's worth. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [1] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable. I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) You have no idea what you're talking about (""the redirect disparages the band""). It's not subjective. G10 has no relevance to this redirect. The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on "" sucks"" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X. Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Keep it's a term of endearment by fans encouraged by the band: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/does-primus-really-suck-249254/ Primus bassist, vocalist and all-around figurehead Les Claypool explains that in the band’s early days, “We’d just get up there and say, ‘We’re Primus, and we suck.’ And it kind of caught on.” The band helped it along with PRIMUS SUCKS T-shirts adorned with various things that suck, such as a vacuum cleaner or a baby with a bottle. “I think it’s the greatest thing, myself,” says Claypool. It probably should be mentioned in the article but that isn't a hard and fast rule if it's a commonly enough related to the target, which this is. Skynxnex (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Based on Skynxnex's comment. Would however definitely prefer that it be mentioned in the article so people don't get the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Shah Pahlavi ==== Shah Pahlavi → Reza Shah (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I propose we disambiguate this redirect because in addition to Reza Shah Pahlavi, these words can also refer to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Nv8200pa talk 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Support disambiguation - It could even be reasonable to redirect to the younger shah, considering he is often simply known as ""the Shah"" and by far a primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Pahlavi dynasty#Heads of House of Pahlavi: Both of the Pahlavis to hold the title Shah are listed with some context TartarTorte 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === March 28 === ==== Secret court ==== Secret court → Star Chamber (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned at target. The term is ambiguous (see, for example, FISA Court). I propose deletion, as search results are probably better here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) retarget to Secret trial -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Secret trial as plausible synonym per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Robert Matthew Montgomery ==== Robert Matthew Montgomery → Miami Marlins minor league players#Matthew Montgomery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Montgomery was released from minor league baseball in 2014, so he no longer appears on the target roster page (or anywhere that would be good to target this redirect to). Recommend deletion as the subject is non-notable and there's not a single great target. Hog Farm Talk 21:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== North Street School ==== North Street School → Feilding#Education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] North Street School is a very general name and there could be many schools with that name. Google's first results are a Greenwich, CT school anyway. PalauanReich (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Woodsdale ==== Woodsdale → Woodsdale, Tasmania (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There's at least 3 additional towns this search term could refer to (Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate: Seeing no overwhelming WP:PTOPIC, DABing makes sense. TartarTorte 15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate; no primary topic. J947 † edits 18:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate There is no primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Bulang ==== Bulang → Brown University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned at target. The pages that point to this redirect refer to Bulang as an ethnic group or as an island. Pointing to Brown University doesn't make sense. I think this page is better left as a red link until an appropriate article can be created. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Blang people which gives ""Bulang"" as an alternate spelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Blang people per Presidentman. --Lenticel (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Luoshanji ==== Luoshanji → Los Angeles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Kangzhou → Connecticut (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Per point 8 of WP:R#DELETE and WP:RFOREIGN. Creator left an edit summary stating these are colloquial Chinese names for the targets. Redirects in a language other than English that point to articles not directly related with the language should be deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment – Both Chicago and Los Angeles seem to have a sizable Chinese-American minority (See: History of Chinese Americans in Chicago, History of Chinese Americans in Los Angeles). These two linked articles may also be a better target than the cities themselves. Though, this depends on whether the Chinese languages are still spoken among the immigrant population: the Chicago article doesn't make it clear while the Los Angeles article makes it seem to be the case. Randi Moth TalkContribs 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Somehow I managed to misread ""Connecticut"" as ""Chicago"". My bad, this comment only applies to Los Angeles in this case. Randi Moth TalkContribs 13:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget Luoshanji to Chinese exonyms#United States where mentioned, since it's unambiguous. Disambiguate Kangzhou for whatever meets WP:DABRED or WP:DABMENTION (currently Kangzhou (Northern Zhou) mentioned at Kang County and Kangzhou (Tang dynasty) mentioned at administrative divisions of the Tang dynasty). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk ""Isdatelstwo Nauka"" ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk ""Isdatelstwo Nauka"" → Nauka (publisher) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk → Nauka (publisher) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo ""Nauka"" → Nauka (publisher) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN → Nauka (publisher) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete: not mentioned at target, unlikely search term. greyzxq talk 22:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment This appears to be romanized Russian, which machine-translated as ""Academic Research and Publishing, Production and Printing and Book Distribution Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences"" [2]. This could refer to the target article, but it is an unlikely search term. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Based on this website, there might be a connection. The publisher is listed as Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij I knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo ""Nauka"". (Still, WP:RFOREIGN might still apply.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I have merged the 4 discussions into one, as the redirects are related to each other and it's very likely that they'll end with the same result. Randi Moth (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Unclear if these redirects should be deleted or kept...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: Different forms of Russian transliteration, all obscenely long, The first two appear to be based on German, which is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia in any case. It is not likely that any user would query for these terms, nor do their Russian Cyrillic equivalents appear in the destination article Nauka (publisher). How is this discussion still open after a week? Fishing Publication (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, while the romanization schemes used here are German, it is a fact that many English-language publications include foreign-style romanizations in their citations due to lack of familiarity with Russian romanization conventions, and primarily-English-speaking readers will often have to rely on bibliographies and databases maintained by German conventions (or other non-English conventions, Finnish and French also having widely-adopted standards) who correctly apply their own romanization conventions. The first two redirects appear to be written Duden-style (naive German), and the second two are either DIN (scientific German) or ISO (French), as the redirects do not use any of the characters that differ between ISO and DIN (see this guide to the various standards). As long as these terms are not ambiguous with any other potential search target (they do not appear to be), they should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Genital sex ==== Genital sex → Sexual characteristics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Target term not mentioned in the article; the title could refer to any of various sex acts that involve genitals. A previous RfD for the redirect suggested targeting to the current target, but seeing that the target is not mentioned... I suggest either disambiguating or deleting. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Plausible search term. Primary sexual characteristics mentioned at target page include anatomy of internal/external genitalia, which ""genital sex"" seems to be used for; see Google Scholar search results with certain partial matches omitted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: disambiguation is used when a term is mentioned at multiple target pages. Search results for ""genital sex"" show the phrase being used for either sexual characteristics, as above, or for sexual intercourse. However, Sexual intercourse does not use the phrase ""genital sex"", so a disambiguation link to that article wouldn't be very helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) setindexify -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === March 27 === ==== William.A. Anderson ==== William.A. Anderson → William Anderson (New Zealand politician) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Obvious punctuation error, was only at this title for about an hour so we don't need to worry about preserving links from outside of wikipedia. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per above: implausible/an unlikely search term and there is no need to preserve the history. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Air flow management ==== Air flow management → Data center#Environmental control (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The phrase as worded isn't exclusive to data centers. This phrase could also refer to designing ventilation and air duct systems in buildings in general. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Airflow which has a management section. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @AngusWOOF: As far as I can tell, the Airflow article has no ""Management"" section? It has a ""Measurement"" section though ... which looks similar is spelling? Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ah, yeah, measurement section, but still dealing with airflow in general. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Airflow and tag as {{r from related topic}}. Article explicitly refers to ""managing airflow"" (along synonymous terms like ""regulates"" and ""control""). If someone feels this isn't enough of a mention, it would be easy to incorporate this exact phrase into the article without affecting the meaning. With its sections on ""Control"" and ""Uses"", if more content on this topic were added to Wikipedia that article would be the logical place to put said content. – Scyrme (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Christian Biblical Council ==== Christian Biblical Council → The Way International (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The BLAR comment of Deckiller said was merged months ago. Jay 💬 10:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per {{R with history}}. Content from this stub was merged into the target many years ago and is visible in the article history, although it was removed from the article itself not long after. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete There are several better methods of dealing with the history than holding on to a redirect that points nowhere because of ancient nonsense from 15 years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of bluray players → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of blu-ray devices → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of bluray devices → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of blu-ray players → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of Blu-ray devices → Blu-ray (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] While I understand redirects like Blu-ray player, these are misleading as the target does not contain a such a list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Looks like the bottom five targeted the first redirect as it was an actual list at the time. The next edit turned the list into a redirect for the reason, Wikipedia is not a review site or something for people in-the-know; this section is heavily outdated and there are floods of BD players on the market now anyways. Still, this might be a {{R with history}}. However, I should mention that there was a successful AfD in 2019 for List of HD DVD devices following the successful 2018 AfD for List of HD DVD releases. As for redirects 2-6, the most usage any of them has had is ""List of bluray players"" with just 313 views in almost eight years. (Currently leaning towards keeping the first and towards deleting the rest.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I overlooked this the first time, but this edit from the Blu-ray article created the table that was later split off into ""List of Blu-ray Disc devices"" a few month later. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Why not. I'd be down with Super Goku's suggestion too. SWinxy (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. There is no such list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: There's unanimous agreement to delete redirects #2-#6, but not yet a clear consensus for #1.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete all, treating the first one as a soft delete allowing a REFUND to restore the blanked article. It seems there wasn't any actual merge so there is no reason to keep the history. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Volvo F4 ==== Volvo F4 → Volvo S40 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect page makes no sense. Volvo F4 was a series of lorries 1975-86. Volvo S40 was a series of cars 1995-2012. There is no resemblance whatsoever. Glaucidium (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Volvo Trucks#Past products (with or without the page anchor). Skynxnex (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Volvo Trucks: It seems during early development it was called the F4, but never released under that name. TartarTorte 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Volvo Trucks per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Template:Großes Bild ==== Template:Großes Bild → Template:Wide image (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Implausible foreign language redirect, I propose to delete per WP:RFFL Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC) rewrite as a ""sustitute only wrapper"" like Template:Infobox mountain/Berg and others. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Frietjes The redirect does not change the parameters though, these wrappers exist mostly for parameter translation AFAIK Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) the auto-substitute feature would change the name and fix the ""dir"" parameter, for another example, see Template:Références. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Comment – There seems to be precedent to include these redirects on citation-related templates, see {{Non-English citation templates}}, in order to assist the content translators. In that case, it seems useful to have a single template handle the translation of the argument names as to not have to look up their exact form after translation and whatnot. However, I don't see the discussed redirect being as useful since only the alt text is a named argument in this case, and it doesn't exist in the German Wikipedia. Randi Moth (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) rewrite per Frietjes. On German Wiki Vorlage:Großes Bild redirects to Vorlage:Panorama which is the equivalent of Template:Wide image. So, yes, it would makes sense for this one to be substituted by the latter. That would help editors importing the template by saving time. Bermicourt (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Unless someone is willing to write a draft of the ""rewrite"" vote somewhere, as far as I'm concerned, those votes may ""no consensus"" this discussion. There cannot be an expectation that RFD closers know how to write templates. Relisting to allow more time for a potential resolution for the ""rewrite"" votes.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Aryaee ==== Aryaee → Zoroastrianism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I have not idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Looks like an Anglified spelling of Persian āryāī, meaning 'Aryan'. – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more try.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Aryan per Uanfala. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Delete, there are several variations mentioned at Aryan but no Aryaee or āryāī. The Persian version is mentioned as ariya. However, if there is a reliable source, this can be kept regardless of a mention. Jay 💬 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC) The ariya mentioned there is Old Persian, whereas āryāī is Modern Persian. Regardless, I'm not sure myself if retargeting to that article is a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Try again, given the most recent comment at the buzzer ...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church ==== Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Outline of Heresies in Catholicism → List of heresies in the Catholic Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is not a WP:OUTLINE. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Looking at the histories, evidently Outline of Heresies in Catholicism was created first, then moved to Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church amending the case and making it more consistent with other titles, then it was moved again to Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church to make it ""more concise"", and then finally merged (apparently after this discussion) with the current target of all these redirects. Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church and delete the other two, as they no longer serve a purpose. Might also be worth including the draft-stage redirects in this discussion (I think they can also be safely deleted now too). If content from the merge survives at the target then Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church needs to be kept to preserve the history. The only significant history pertaining to the other two is that they were moved, but this is redundantly recorded in the history of Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church along with a number of other moves (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Heresies in Catholicism, and Draft:Outline of Heresies in Catholicism), so nothing important would be lost by deleting them. Some old links buried in a few archives might be affected, but it might be better if the stopped working anyway since they're misleading (they imply that an outline article exists; it doesn't). – Scyrme (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme: What do you think about the discussion that followed the relist? Jay 💬 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Heresy in the Catholic Church is a prose article not an outline. (Wikipedia:Outlines § What an outline is not) Redirecting from a format with a particular function to an article that doesn't have that function seems to me to be misleading and unhelpful. In this case ""closest"" to what the reader wants isn't good enough; that same rationale could be used to justify treating every prose article as an ""outline"" of its topic. It disrupts an intentional pattern and undermines reader expectations regarding what ""outline of..."" articles are and how they should be structured and used. Neither target is ideal, but a list article is closer in function than a prose article. Additionally, the reason for keeping these is to preserve the history, but retargetting would break the connection between the history and the relevant destination. While a template could be placed on the talk page to note the connection, I don't think the case for retargetting is strong enough to break the direct connection. – Scyrme (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church as a redirect with history. It is a reasonable redirect to a related topic. The other two are reasonable search terms as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Keep; even if not truly an outline, this is the closest to what a reader is looking for when searching this. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: what about the article Heresy in the Catholic Church? Veverve (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @Veverve: Are you suggesting a retarget now? Jay 💬 10:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) @Jay: No, I was asking those users (re-ping: @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name:) why they believed a list of heresies declared as such by the Catholic Church was considered an outline, but not Heresy in the Catholic Church which is the article that details a Catholic vision of what a heresy is. I could accept a retarget to Heresy in the Catholic Church as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) In that case, I change my vote to retarget per about. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I would also be OK with retargeting to Heresy in the Catholic Church. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: Although neither is truly an ""outline"", isn't a list closer in function than a prose article? And why break the direct connection between the redirect and the article with which it was merged? – Scyrme (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I'm fine with either — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I too have no preference. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete I'm not convinced either proposed target is suitable - the search term ""outline of"" means one is clearly looking for an outline, not some other type of article, and thus a redirect to something else is more confusing that helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)@Pppery: To clarify, does your delete also apply to the redirect with substantial history or only to the two without said history? Or do you feel the history doesn't warrant preserving in this case? – Scyrme (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the need to preserve history when the entire significant content was written by just two editors: The Transhumanist and Marikafragen * Pppery * it has begun... 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== KWBD ==== KWBD → KDLH (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This callsign isn’t mentioned at the target article at all, that’s why I think this redirect should be deleted. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Weak delete - looking back through the article history, KWBD was a callsign for a cable-only WB affiliate run by KDLH starting in 1995. When the WB and UPN merged to form The CW and went digital-only, KWBD became a sidechannel, KDLH-DT2. This was described in the article when the redirect was created, but was unceremoniously removed entirely in 2009. I say weak delete because the entire section was unsourced and I don't support restoring it, and also because KWBD is evidently also the name of a fictional station in a fantasy television organization (league?), the existence of which is my TIL for today, and good indication I need to get off the internet and go outside for a while. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Nominator comment, I think, we should re-add the information with reliable sources. From Bassie f (his talk page) 09:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to The WB 100+ Station Group as an {{R to list entry}} — KWBD is mentioned there (most, but not all, cable-only WB affiliates were part of The WB 100+ Station Group; this one was). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget per WCquidditch * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Amar Bail ==== Amar Bail → TV One Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention of the term at the target. —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. No relevant content at target (there wasn't any at the time of the redirect's creation either [3]). This is the name of a book by Umera Ahmad (mentioned in her article, but with no other content), presumably it was adapted into a television film by this channel. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I hadn't seen the list entry for the programme at List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan). However, like with the novel, there's no content beside the bare mention, so I don't think this makes for any better redirect target. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan): Mentioned under the drama series section. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Redirect to Umera Ahmed as author of the original. TV One seems to be the adaptation, but isn't notable enough on its own yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold → List of generation II Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of Pokémon in Pokémon Silver → List of generation II Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold and Silver → List of generation II Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect titles are inaccurate. The second generation of games (Gold, Silver, & Crystal) introduced 100 new Pokémon but the games also contained the original first generation Pokémon as well. The target only contains a list of the 100 new Pokémon. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep: The Nominator is technically right but I’ve gotta cite WP:CHEAP here. Yes, the target only mentions the new Pokémon added in generation 2 but someone could type this into the search bar trying to look for the new Pokémon added in generation 2. I should also mention that the target’s title is also incorrect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Comment:I still see these redirects as an issue due to the inaccuracy of the titles. I think, if someone were to search these terms, they would be expecting to find an entire list and not just the new Pokemon introduced in these games. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Would a retarget to List of Pokémon work? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I think it would make more sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Phil Bale ==== Phil Bale → Christian Bale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Though ""Philip"" is Christian Bale's second middle name, it does not appear as though he ever by the name. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) We do have a stub about Philip Bale, but I have no idea if he ever went by Phil. - Eureka Lott 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Dwayne Bowles ==== Dwayne Bowles → Dwayne Johnson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Was never known as Dwayne Bowles. His father, Rocky Johnson, was born as Wayde Bowles but legally changed his name to Rocky Johnson (which was the moniker he went by) before Dwayne was born. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. No details in any of his bios that he goes by this name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Ora 7 Jon(2023 film) ==== Ora 7 Jon(2023 film) → Ora 7 Jon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Counting the variation with a capital F for film, this is the third time this page has been re-created by a user. Based on the missing space between the title and the disambiguator, it's an improperly formatted title and unlikely search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Speedy delete it was only at the title for around 7 minutes so I think R3 applies per WP:RDAB, will tag as such. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as temporary housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Arthur Fleck Wayne ==== Arthur Fleck Wayne → Joker (2019 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] That is not the character's full name, and the narrative reveals he is not related to Thomas Wayne. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep {{R from search term}} / {{R from incorrect name|Arthur Fleck}} / {{R from avoided double redirect|Arthur Fleck}} -- and it is not revealed that he is not a Wayne in the film. The film's Thomas Wayne claims he is not the father, while the Fleck's mother claims he is. There is no elucidating flashback to the conception moment with a different man, so it falls within the film's very misleading narrator ethic, as not everything presented in the film is happening, whether it is with Thomas Wayne or any other incident. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Rosalind the rover ==== Rosalind the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Rosalind Franklin the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Franklin the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete all per WP:PANDORA; we don't have redirects for English the language or Mercury the element nor do we need them. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two. ""Rosalind the rover"" seems to have coverage as an alternate name ([4],[5],[6]); the other two don't. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two per Edward-Woodrow. Why has WP:PANDORA not been formally killed yet? Contrary to the misinformation it espouses, we judge redirects on their own merits not on whether our crystal ball predicts that other redirects that have some unspecified similarity with a different redirect might be created potentially using the other redirect as justification. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep all as they have had similar pageviews over time, which is a little over a view per month. I see why ""Rosalind the rover"" might be preferred (as User:An anonymous username, not my real name pointed out), but the pageviews suggest otherwise, and ""Rosalind Franklin the rover"" is also attested too (e.g. [7], [8]). Duckmather (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Keep first two, Delete Franklin the rover Does not follow the last name convention as with people. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Sirish ==== Sirish → Ceres (dwarf planet) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Allu Sirish; there is no reason I can find that it should go here. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: It should never have been created. Allu is a possible interest, but is not the primary topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate, since it can also refer to Sirish Gurung. The current targeting is because it's the Beltalowda translation of Ceres, but this isn't an Expanse wiki and that's not an appropriate target. - Eureka Lott 04:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Beltalowda translation of Ceres? What are people think, inserting transient recent fiction fandom into Wikipedia?! User:EurekaLott, can you help me understand RfD-ers? Why keep a bad redirect that should never have been made? If it hadn’t been made, would you now create it to point to a DAB? Why not let the internal search engine do its job? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The title can plausibly refer to multiple people for whom we have articles. Why wouldn't we want to disambiguate (or to be more specific, set-indexify) it? - Eureka Lott 05:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Because the internal search engine is a more robust solution. It picks up things people didn’t think of, and its results change as mainspace changes. With the redirect, the reader doesn’t get the internal search results. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per Eureka Lott. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - neither of the suggested targets are known by the mononym ""Sirish"", thus any resulting disambiguation page will only contain partial title matches which the guideline instructs not to include. Dab pages are not search results, we have a search engine for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Creating WP:SIAs for given names and surnames is normal practice, and isn't covered under WP:PTM. Cases like this are exactly why {{Given name}} has the ""type=both"" parameter. - Eureka Lott 01:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Weak Delete per Ivanvector: the argument for creating a disambiguation is not enough to overcome the reasons for deletion. The disambiguation would be unnecessary anyway. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Setindexify per above. At least in this scenario, Allu Sirish does not show up in the search drop-down and Sirish Gurung shows up far down the search results. A set index page is standard practice and a better bet. J947 † edits 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Dissenting catholic ==== Dissenting catholic → Cafeteria Catholicism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I created this redirect about two years ago, and I have a feeling that this redirect may have a better target than the current one. The topic of ""Theological dissent in Catholicism"" might be a warranted article, and the natural place would be to point this there, but I can't quite find anything on that topic precisely. Alternatives like Heresy in the Catholic Church and/or Mater si, magistra no might fit, but I'm not sure that either would be the best place to point this. Any ideas? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC) After thinking this over a bit more, I think I weakly prefer a retarget to Mater si, magistra no. It's a slogan of the ""dissenting Catholic"" movement that began in the 20th century, but I ultimately would prefer to target an article on that movement should one ever become written. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - the current target fits better than, say, Lapsed Catholic, I think. Mater si, magistra no is an article about the slogan, and not really about the moral position, and also links to Cafeteria Catholicism anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Dewaywala ڈیوے والا ==== ==== Time location ==== Time location → Moment (time) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Obviously the target is incorrect at the moment (haha). Very weakly prefer a retarget to spacetime over deletion. J947 † edits 06:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Couldn't this also refer to a Time zone? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Instant. Presumeably that was the intended target rather than a medieval measure of time. This would be helpful for someone looking for the temporal equivalent of a ""location"" in space (or ""point in space""), so a point in time. (That latter phrase was a redirect to Time, but I've since retargetted it to Instant - my move edit summary has my rationale.) I don't agree that this is likely to refer to Time zone, unless someone can demonstrate that it has been used that way in some sources. Spacetime seems like a stretch. – Scyrme (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to instant. I've also started a requested move at Talk:Moment (time), since I doubt the article with that title is the primary topic for the term. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Instant, per others. Regards, Bassie f (his talk page) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Timely moment ==== Timely moment → Moment (time) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] An unhelpful redirect as it stands, redirecting to a technical unit that bears no relation to this phrase. It has no coverage on Wikipedia or Wiktionary – thus delete. J947 † edits 05:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - Timeliness and Timely redirects to Punctuality, but that doesn't work for this. There are number of uses of this phrase on Wikipedia, but none of those make good targets either; they are articles for biographies, songs, films, etc. not the general idea and I don't think any of those uses refer to punctuality. (As an aside, perhaps an RfD for Timeliness and Timely is warranted? I was surprised that they redirected to punctuality. They aren't always the same thing. I was expecting something like Kairos, but more general rather than specifically Greek.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Wikipedia:Technical move request ==== Wikipedia:Technical move request → Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete because it is too wordy to be used over WP:Technical moves and is the only redirect in singular form which is not usually used, making this an unlikely redirect. BhamBoi (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. I find it useful and note no reason to delete has been given in terms of WP:R#DELETE. Note also WP:R#KEEP reason 5. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, seems reasonable. J947 † edits 04:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Seems reasonable and useful. Not seeing a good reason to deleted it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. I don't see a reason to delete this one. Glades12 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === March 26 === ==== Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son) ==== Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son) → Phillipe-Ignace François Aubert de Gaspé (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Phillipe Aubert du Gaspe (son) → Phillipe-Ignace François Aubert de Gaspé (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Everyone is someone's son: this isn't a good disambiguator. I suggest this is deleted, or retargeted to Aubert de Gaspé. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé may reasonably refer to the target or his father, who also has a Wikipedia article. Usage of ""(son)"" is more comparable to the Jr. suffix here. That being said, I'm not sure whether the disambiguator is plausible. Randi Moth (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep. If I recall correctly, the French (and by extension the Québécois) disambiguate in this regard by using fils, meaning son. Therefore this seems a particularly valid redirect – anyhow, there are plenty ways to disambiguate in such a fashion so the creation of these sorts of redirects should be encouraged in my opinion. J947 † edits 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Well, given that it looks like this article's title was for years incorrectly spelt (emphasis on looks), the justification for this redirect – also incorrectly spelt, seemingly – is lesser. Still, harmless. J947 † edits 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) At the very least, bypass the double redirect. Certes (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Three-Body - TV series ==== Three-Body - TV series → Three-Body (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Some Like It Hot - musical → Some Like It Hot (musical) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Tom Atkins - actor → Tom Atkins (actor) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Prey - 2022 film → Prey (2022 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Voyage - ABBA album → Voyage (ABBA album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Don't Look Up - 2021 film → Don't Look Up (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Happy New Year - ABBA → Happy New Year (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Friendly Fascism - book → Friendly Fascism (book) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Spacecraft bus - JWST → Spacecraft bus (James Webb Space Telescope) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Spacecraft Bus - JWST → Spacecraft bus (James Webb Space Telescope) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Pointless (just one week old) redirect per WP:RDAB, WP:PANDORA...are there any more of these out there? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Update: also nominating all the ones of the same form thanks to the finding below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) To the nominator's question, I spot Some Like It Hot - musical, Tom Atkins - actor, Prey - 2022 film, Voyage - ABBA album, Don't Look Up - 2021 film, Happy New Year - ABBA, Friendly Fascism - book, Spacecraft bus - JWST, and Spacecraft Bus - JWST, all by the same creator. That goes back to November 2021; I imagine there's more past that. Will leave it to the nominator to decide bundling etc. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks a bunch for checking! I've gone ahead and added those to the nomination. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - @Tamzin and Rhododendrites: (and others) - As OA of the RDs - no problem whatsoever re the final decision re these RDs - should note (as before at User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects) the following: Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less ""WP:Redirects"" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending "")"" and/or ending ""?"" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the ""Village Pump"" some years ago ( see ""Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped "")"" in titles?"" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these daysIn any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)ADD - If interested, I recently (3/20/2023) posted the related WikiProblem (bug?) of dropping WikiArticle Title endings and creating WP:RDs as a recommended possible Solution (and other related Solutions) on the Village Pump - Technical at the following => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - as well as - at => User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Delete consistent with thev long-standing essay Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete seem like implausible search forms.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep all. I don't understand why anyone would want to delete these redirects? They're all unambiguous, plausible search terms for the target that are demonstrably useful in some situations (WP:R#KEEP). We don't require readers to know our titling conventions in order to find what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Thryduulf. Not particularly helpful to create, but rather less helpful to delete. J947 † edits 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Thryduulf. Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions, and these redirects don't seem to be actively harming the encyclopedia. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: Per Thyrduulf. They're possibly useful and unambiguous. I'm not seeing how it would be beneficial to delete these titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Digvijay Chautala ==== Digvijay Chautala → Sonipat Lok Sabha constituency#Election results (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] redirect should be deleted -- name of a candidate in the previous election, no notability, no relevance, very confusing that the name of a private individual redirects to a page about an election Fishing Publication (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Digvijay Singh Chautala. The article appears to be on the same person. Randi Moth (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)It appears that the article I mentioned has been BLAR'd to the same target as the currently-discussed redirect. I do not agree with deletion, however there are several potential targets. Political families of Haryana#Devi Lal's Chautala clan appears to be a good target. Randi Moth (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Digvijay Singh Chautala: I reverted the blank-and-redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Life Before Earth ==== Life Before Earth → Abiogenesis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as unhelpful/unclear; not what this article is about. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete, as it is a wrong title as well. Earth itself predates the existence of life, so there's no ""life before Earth"". There is in fact a theory that life may started elsewhere and then came here (Panspermia), but the relation is too convoluted to be a workable redirect to that article either. It's, in fact, a side theory: the main panspermia theory is that life may survive in the vacuum under certain conditions and meteorites may carry it from one celestial body to another (from elsewhere to Earth, but also from Earth to other places). Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Delete, as above, this redirect makes no sense and has no value. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - As OA of the ""Life Before Earth"" ""Redirect"", seems there is sufficient (and ample) discussion of the ""Life Before Earth"" topic in the ""Abiogenesis""- related discussions ( see => ""Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Life before Earth - or not?"" - and => Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5#First sentence..."" - and => ""Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#Life from ""Inanimate Matter"" or ""Simple Organic Compounds""?"" - as well as => ""Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead"" ) - to justify the ""Redirect"" to the ""Abiogenesis"" article - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, well two of these discussions were started by you and in any case, talk page discussion is not reason for a redirect to an article. Anyone searching this will not find what they were looking for. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Nonetheless - seems such ample discussions (and the many related ""WP:RS"" ""references"") of the ""Life Before Earth"" topic sufficient to be ""redirected"" to the ""Abiogenesis"" or ""Panspermia"" articles (or some related article) I would think - in any case - if interested, additional related discussions re ""Life Before Earth"" are here => ""Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better ""short description"" of ""ET life""?"" - and here => ""User talk:Drbogdan#LifeBeforeEarth"" - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as an unlikely search term, inherently ambiguous, and incorrectly capitalized anyway. I'm also a bit at a loss trying to understand anything the redirect creator writes, since it's full of oddly placed quotation marks, ASCII arrows for no apparent reason, overuse of italics and bold, etc etc etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Thank You for your comments - quotation marks (and ASCII arrows) help to define hyperlinks and urls (not always apparent in my experience) - and seem to have worked very well over many years - without any similar concern noted by others - nonetheless - style, limited test effort in a few instances, does Not extend at all to MainSpace articles which remain conventional of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, 35.139.154.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), while allegedly a brilliant person IRL, this person's edits mostly seem to reflect their talk page discussion style: difficult to understand gibberish injected into well-written articles. This may be worth looking further into. I would hate to ask this unnecessarily, but could this be a case of WP:CIR? An anonymous username, not my real name 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete incorrect, since abiogenesis doesn't relate to life before Earth, and there isn't another sensible target. The closest I can think of is Panspermia, but I don't think it would be described like that. Hut 8.5 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) The redirect may be referring to the book by Sharov and Gordon which is used in a citation at the target. However, I find the words ""life before earth"" plausible as a search term by readers who are looking for an article that talks about life not originating on Earth, but having been seeded here, which is Panspermia. Also see article on how this can be a simple layman term. While Life off earth or Life beyond Earth redirect to Extraterrestrial life, the mention of origin of life at that article again refers to Panspermia. If the interest is in the theory of deliberate seeding of life on Earth, Directed panspermia is a section at Panspermia and linked from there. I'm willing to hear more about why two particpants didn't find Panspermia a suitable enough target, or how the redirect may be ambiguous and may refer to multiple articles. The capitalization is not a big concern, it can be renamed. Jay 💬 12:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Panspermia for the lowercased title per Graeme. Add a hatnote to Extraterrestrial life for readers expecting to read about life that may have existed on other planets per Scyrme. That article has sections on various planets and moons with hatnotes to their individual articles. Oppose a retarget to Earliest known life forms as that is specifically about Earth, and the mention of Panspermia is only in an image caption. Mentioning Panspermia there in a section called Fossil evidence would be WP:UNDUE. Jay 💬 05:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I'm also fine with refining to Extraterrestrial life#Characteristics, the section mentioned by Scyrme. Jay 💬 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)retarget to Panspermia. This was the first thing that I thought would be suitable, and there is no more suitable action for this mentioned so far. But it would make more sense if this was lower case, so no prejudice about deleting the title case version, and making life before earth a redirect to panspermia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Comment - Abiogenesis means, literally, the Origin of Life (OoL) from nonliving matter - Life may have originated on Earth - or, actually, somewhere else (Panspermia) - Abiogenesis does Not literally mean that Life began on Earth exclusively - this notion was thoroughly discussed earlier on the Talk pages of Abiogenesis and elsewhere - no problem whatsover to target the RD (ie, Life Before Earth) to Abiogenesis, Panspermia or some other related article - or even - to rename the RD to Life before Earth or similar - should note listing of WP:RS Relevant Referenes includes studies by NIH scientists Sharov and Gordon as well as other researchers (see => User talk:Drbogdan#LBE-References) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healhy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. ""Life Before Earth"" with its particularly phrasing and capitalisation is formated like the title of a work not a Wikipedia article for a general topic. Searching the exact phrase ""Life+Before+Earth"" I was able to find a number of articles with that title, suggesting it is plausible that a searcher is actually looking for a proper noun not a general article about abiogenesis or panspermia. Since Wikipedia doesn't have content about any of these works, the title should remain vacant.That said, ""abiogenesis"" ordinarily refers to the origin of life on Earth not in general, and this is reflected in the content of Abiogenesis the vast majority of which is concerned with terrestrial abiogenesis. Of-course ""abiogenesis"" could encompass extraterrestrial abiogenesis and the article does mention panspermia, but it is not the main topic of that article. The article is predominantly concerned with Earth and the conditions that made life on Earth possible, with even extraterrestrial factors being mentioned in the context of their effect on the Earth. Furthermore, the phrase ""life before Earth"" does not necessarily indicate that a reader is looking for anything about where life originated whether abiogenically or not. It says nothing about where life originated or how, only when. Perhaps the searcher is interested in whether life was possible on other planets before Earth became habitable, not necessarily even in the context of panspermia but simply whether it could even have existed indepenently long before the Earth was inhabited. That's a reasonable thing to ask, even without getting into fringe theories. As far as I'm aware, there is no article or section that deals with that particular question. With these considerations neither abiogenesis nor panspermia make good targets for even the lowercase version. If the lowercase is created, my preference would be for it to point to Earliest known life forms, an article which mentions abiogenesis and panspermia but isn't narrowly focused on 'origin of life' topics, rather it's concerned with the broader question of the earliest life (a redirect to Earliest known life forms). – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Jay: Although the term ""panspermia"" does only occur in an image caption, the actual concept is discussed in the text following the sentence begining The possibility that.... If you feel this is undue, then perhaps it should be removed. That said, taking a closer look at Extraterrestrial life it seems that article does cover the particular question I mentioned: during a habitable epoch when the universe was only 10–17 million years old. Life may have emerged independently at many places throughout the universe, as it arose on Earth roughly 4.2 billion years ago through chemical processes. (Extraterrestrial life § Characteristics) In light of that, I now prefer Extraterrestrial life for the lowercase. – Scyrme (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete if this were to exist, it should not point to abiogenesis. This is not about non-biological origin of life, it is about life before Earth. That's not a related statement. Extraterrestrial life would be the only valid option as a target. Panspermia would require that life spreads, also not a related statement. A time-like curve and resolve the lack of a non-biological origin to life. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Secondary Period ==== Secondary Period → Mesozoic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as misleading; the Mesozoic is an era, not a period. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I do not support or oppose the nomination, but I *do* believe it should be handled in the same manner as Secondary period (which redirects to the same place, Mesozoic) and Primary period (which redirects to Paleozoic). Jdaloner (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate/Keep – Periods within the Mesozoic era do have synonymous names as secondary periods, and there is evidence of ""secondary period"" being used as a uniting term for all three, such as these Google Books results: [9] [10] [11]. Since its use is verifiable, this is a plausible search term to lead to the Mesozoic era. Misleadingness is not a problem here, since the target is not unexpected. {{R from incorrect name}} can be used, however. However, it is ambiguous. On Wikipedia, this term is commonly used for star brightness cycles based on results of a search. Variable star may work as a link in that case, though I'm not sure whether it is covered properly there. Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target. It does seem plausible for Mesozoic to be the primary topic, making a DAB page unnecessary, though. Randi Moth (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ""Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target."" Secondary education itself does not refer to its topic as such, and I've never encountered ""secondary period"" as a reference to secondary education. Searching around for ""secondary+period"" most of my results appeared to be related to finance/law (Google, Bing), astronomy/space (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect) or various periodic phenomena in biology (ScienceDirect; usually alongside references to an ""initial period""), not education. Education seems like a stretch to me. Did you find something I didn't? – Scyrme (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Found it be used in Education in Thailand and assumed it to be more common. Of course, Wikipedia articles themselves are not a good indicator whether this is common or not. If using ""secondary period"" for education is implausible, then keeping the redirect to Mesozoic is fine with a hatnote added linking to the variable star cycles per WP:ONEOTHER. Randi Moth (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Looking at Education in Thailand, it could just be a particular editor's choice of wording, perhaps to avoid confusion as elsewhere it uses ""level"" not ""period"" (""elementary and secondary levels"") but at the particular instance where ""period"" is used ""level"" has been used in reference to a particular qualification (""Three levels of TVE""). – Scyrme (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Disambig. Google searches show three distinct uses, geological time (possibly it's an outdated term) [12][13][14], education [15][16], and something related to (the law of) financial leasing [17][18]. I can't immediately find the term mentioned in a finance-related article and don't understand it anywhere near enough to determine if there is an appropriate article, but this has the strongest case for being primary topic. Also prominent in search results are partial title matches for Long secondary period variable stars which might make a good see-also. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC) A draft for a disambiguation page would be helpful, since I'm not sure what articles would be linked for each sense. Additionally, what would be done about Secondary period (which has the same target) and Primary period? The better location for a disambiguation page would be the lowercase form, since proposed entries aren't all proper nouns. Additionally, if only Secondary Period is disambiguated, with Secondary period and Primary period being left as they are, it would introduce inconsistency, which could produce surprises for some readers. – Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep consistent with Secondary period. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Color Lines (Loop) ==== Orange Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Green Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Purple Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Brown Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pink Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These redirects are a bit odd as they have two places they can target. One is the line itself, every one of which's article describes its path as going through the loop, or its current target. It is also possible that these are just implausible redirects and could be deleted instead of trying to find an appropriate target for them due to lack of usage. TartarTorte 19:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC) None of these have mainspace links, and they receive few pageviews. However, redirects are cheap, and these could be conceivable search terms. If we were to keep these (as opposed to deleting them) I would suggest retargeting each page to the relevant line's ""Route"" (or equivalent section):Orange Line (Loop) → Orange Line (CTA) #Route Green Line (Loop) → Green Line (CTA)#The Loop Purple Line (Loop) → Purple Line (CTA)#Routing Brown Line (Loop) → Brown Line (CTA)#Route Pink Line (Loop) → Pink Line (CTA)#Station listingAn anchor tag could possibly be added to the relevant portion of the Pink Line's station listing for greater clarity. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Refine to The Loop (CTA)#Operations, which provides a detailed description of the relationship between these lines and the loop. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== When Quads Won't Leave ==== When Quads Won't Leave → John Callahan's Quads! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how this relates to the target, but it is not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Hmm... the only sources I found are this book from 2005 [19], which refers to When Quads Won't Leave as a ""sitcom in the works"" from John Callahan, these two web sources, [20],[21], which describe it as a half-hour program from the same, and an interview on a blog that identifies When Quads Won't Leave as an early title for John Callahan's Quads! [22]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Queen’s Slipper ==== Queen’s Slipper → Australian Paper (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Wrong venue? @Onel5969: Seems the redirect text has an article under it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Removed the uncited material, it's back to a redirect, which does not appear on the target. Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Okay, strike that, but now I wonder if this redirect should be tagged with {{R with history}} since that content could have potentially been used to create an article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Not mentioned at target. Appears to be a playing cards company based on its entry in List of oldest companies in Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: It appears that Australian Paper (aka Paper Australia/Opal Australian Paper) is the manufacture of Queen's Slipper cards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (PDF; Pg. 17 specifically), 6 (PDF), 7. So I believe that there is a connection between the two. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and add {{R without mention}} notable brand of playing cards. Website points to Paper Australia Pty Ltd which is the same as Australian Paper. https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/3199571Z:AU?leadSource=uverify%20wall AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Keeping redirects that are not mentioned is almost always more confusing than helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Public display of dead ==== Public display of dead → Gibbeting (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. ""Public display of the dead"" or ""public display of dead bodies"" would be expected; without the ""the"" (or ""bodies"") this is phrased like a search query not a title, so let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Agree with Tamzin. (Also the gibbeting article does include gibbeting as a form of execution - not strictly 'display of dead' - but where initially live individuals eventually die from starvation or thirst, and their bodies are then left to decompose). Paul W (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Public display ==== Public display → Gibbeting (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including Publication § United States and maybe Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) My first thought was Exhibition. Is that not the primary meaning/topic? Publication § United States and Public display of affection are a passing mention and a partial match respectively, which aren't really adequate for disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as ambiguous and likely gto be confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: It's an ambiguous term, but my first thought was the same as Scyrme's. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. There are many forms of public display. A navigational entry makes sense to help disambiguate between them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) What articles do you propose be listed? It's true that there are many forms of public display, but a disambiguation page isn't for listing 'types of X'. I'm not sure what could be referred to simply as a ""public display"" except an exhibition, not including partial matches. – Scyrme (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Very ambiguous term Paul W (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Luka magic ==== Luka magic → Luka Dončić (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] All references in the target article to 'magic' refer to Magic Johnson -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Comment It's a verificable nickname,[23] though not common enough to go in the lead per MOS:NICKCRUFT. It seems unencyclopedic to list in the body every non-mainstream nickname of a sportsperson.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - a valid alternative name according to [24]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per above – nicknames need not be mentioned for a redirect to be helpful; to tell the reader either ""here is what the term Luka magic refers to"" or ""huh, I see, you don't want to type out that surname, here we'll get you to the target anyway"". J947 † edits 04:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Elijah Bynum ==== Elijah Bynum → Hot Summer Nights (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Bynum has now directed two movies, the other being Magazine Dreams. The redirect is unhelpful and confusing for readers. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== List of terrorists ==== List of terrorists → Terrorism#Perpetrators (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect target is not a list of terrorists, nor does it contain a list of terrorists. Either this should be deleted per WP:REDYES to make room for an article, or it could reasonably be retargeted to List of designated terrorist groups as {{r to related topic}}. I favor the latter option over the former. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to List of designated terrorist groups per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget per above. ""Terrorist"" is such a loaded and controversial term that having an article at List of terrorists is probably not feasible or good for the community's sanity. List of designated terrorist groups might be the closest we can get while keeping the inclusion criteria objective. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget: Per nom. As others have mentioned the term terrorist can be subjective, so the designated terrorist groups does make the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete and salt: Someone entering ""List of terrorists"" is most likely searching for a list of people who have been labeled ""terrorist"" rather than a list of organizations, and the proposed target leaves the reader wondering where there is such a list. However, any article on it (or even a list of people who have been labeled terrorist) would be a BLP and POV nightmare, because the term is so heavily loaded and subjective. Category:Terrorists doesn't exist either, and for a good reason. Deleting this redirect for good is the only sensible option. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Κλέφτης ==== Κλέφτης → wikt:κλέφτης (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is the English Wikipedia. It's nonsense to keep a soft redirect in another language. Proposing deletion or transwikifying to elwiki. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete in the spirit of WP:RLOTE, as this word apparently means ""thief"" in Greek (per wiktionary), but thieves are not a particularly Greek topic. Don't transwiki the redirect either since both el:κλέφτης and wikt:el:κλέφτης both already exist. (The elwiki article is an unsourced stub though; if anyone reading this can speak Greek, I would appreciate if you expanded it.) Duckmather (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and Duck. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC) === March 25 === ==== List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots ==== List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots → David Gandy#Magazine photoshoots (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The article used to contain a list of magazine photoshoots, but it was removed in 2019. gnu57 22:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Doree ==== Doree → Dory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Propose to disambiguate here, but don't know precisely what to include in it. Currently redirects to the boat dory as some flavour of alternative or incorrect name. However, there's a number of other articles which seem to be also closely related to this term. Lots of partial title matches, most of which should not be included in a dab page: Brioche Dorée, Flavescence dorée, Porte Dorée (disambiguation), The Gilded Cage (2013 film) (La Cage Dorée), Golden Youth (film) (Une jeunesse dorée), Maison dorée (Paris), Dorée River, La Dorée, jeunesse dorée (Glossary of French words and expressions in English#J), Aiguilles Dorées, and La vierge dorée. Lots of names of people, which should all be included in a mixed Doree/Dorée dab page: Doree Macy, character in My Past; Doree Shafrir; Ada Dorée; Suzanne Dorée; Doree Lewak; Doris Doree, acting name of Doris Doscher; Françoise Thérèse de Voyer de Dorée (what a name); Doree, character in Too Much Happiness; perhaps many-mentioned Doree Post; Dorée Malone, List of Blueberry characters; perhaps Victor Dorée; and Herbert John Doree, 1918 Liberal candidate in Willesden East (UK Parliament constituency). Finally, a Captain Doree is mentioned at the FA Battle of Pulo Aura, but at the Carmarthen (1802 ship) that he captains he is known as John Dobrée. Looking about Wiktionary, dorée is French for golden / gilded. Unlike wikt:dorey – a term which on en.wp redirects to dory despite Dorey (surname) – wikt:doree is solely an alternative form of dory (fish). The fish's name comes from the French word. And a couple of other questions: is the boat dory the primary topic for dory? Where should dorée point to? There's much to consider here. J947 † edits 22:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Fine by me! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== War pigs ==== War pigs → War pig (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This currently goes to war pig, which is about the general concept of a pig used in combat. I was expecting it to take me to War Pigs (a famous song by Black Sabbath) when typing this into the search bar. I'm unsure if this should be a retarget to the song or if we should create a dab, but I think that the current status of pointing at war pig is not optimal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to War pigs (disambiguation). I think war pig has a greater affinity to War pigs than War Pigs, but it has a fifth the pageviews. J947 † edits 22:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) (This means the dab page must be moved to this redirect's name, of course.) J947 † edits 22:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. There's an adequate hatnote to avoid confusion. I can't see a pressing case to ignore WP:PLURALPT: ""the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular."". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reading through again, as nom, I agree that we should disambiguate at War pigs by moving War pigs (disambiguation) there. I don't see a clear WP:PTOPIC for the term, and I don't think this is the normal case given the existence of another entity that differs only in capitalization. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== White Points ==== ==== Oiled (road) ==== Oiled (road) → Asphalt concrete (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Oil (road). Also, the non-disambiguated version of the redirect's title, Oiled, doesn't exist and has never existed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC) My opinion did not hold weight at the previous RfD, however I'd like to repeat it here. Perhaps the redirect can be moved to Oiling (road) to indicate that this is about a process, but we still need to find a target that makes the term helpful by mentioning how the oiling is done. There is some mention at Road surface#Thin membrane surface. The previous deleted redirect was used at California State Route 54 and it's a redlink now. Jay 💬 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)@Rschen7754, Garfie489, Brianyoumans, and Tavix: pinging the other participants from the previous RfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have tried to look up articles relating to what this is, and despite my industry experience i still dont know what it is. The articles all refer to something which doesnt happen in my experience. Im guessing it maybe happens more in America than it does Europe, but even the pictures ive seen of the process dont normally involve oil in my experience. I think its neither Asphalt or Bitumen, but some other product. None of what i could find gave any real information on it. Garfie489 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per oil (road); this lightly-attended discussion is getting no traction so should default to the same outsome as it's more highly-attended predecessor. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Chaos carolinense ==== Chaos carolinense → Chaos (genus) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Chaos chaos → Chaos (genus) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as a clear case of WP:REDYES; species names generally do not redirect to their parent genera because they are worthy of their own articles. (Note that one of these two appears to be an outdated synonym with a complicated history, so it should remain a redirect, just to a different article that does not yet exist.) An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC) An odd case of having a redirect from a species synonym in absence of the actual species article. I would think that targeting it at the genus would be the sensible setup here, to be retargeted once the preferred target exists. What's the benefit of deleting them instead? REDYES does not seem to apply because these are intended to be redirects, just ultimately with another target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Ah, thank you for cleaning up the target article—I had been under the impression that C. carolinense was a valid name. I guess problem solved, in that case. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Elmidae, and since the problem has been solved by fixing the target. CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Move first without redirect to Chaos carolinensis. Keep the second. Jay 💬 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Do not move any of the redirects without redirect since none of them have any edit history that needs to be retained. If nee redirects need to be created, by all means, but that's not a valid reason to move edit history of a page that has always been a redirect to a new title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC) For the second, Uanfala's dab looks good. Jay 💬 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Struck off vote for the first per Pppery and the below discussion. Jay 💬 08:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Elmidae, unless a separate species article is non-viable, don't we normally avoid having redirects from species to genera? On another note, C. carolinense appears to be the valid name here: I've checked against source for the synonyms in the infobox [25] as well as the source for the small tree at the bottom of the article (that's Pawlowski and Burki (2009): our Chaos appears only in the first image). It's also consistent with the naming of the other species in the genus (they have neuter endings, like -ense, while -ensis would have made this masculine/feminine). Chaos chaos is a different case though, as there also exist a band an an album with the name, so disambiguating seems like the best option here. I've drafted a dab below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Now I notice that some other sources do use C. carolinensis [26]. – Uanfala. – Uanfala (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, it's not exactly clear-cut - there are definitely sources using both variants. But in the mean I agree with the conclusion argued at Chaos_(genus)#Early_history_and_naming_controversy, which is that the field appears to be converging on carolinensis. By our structures, one of -ense or -ensis must be a redirect rather than an article, and following the genus article that redirect should be -ense. Given that (that it's fated to be a redirect), my argument is that its current state of pointing at the genus article (in absence of a species article to point to) is more nearly correct than it being a redlink - since it is never going to be an article. Does that make sense? :p (re-ping because I forgot to sign: @Uanfala:) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Interesting section. But as far as I can see, the convergence is towards Chaos carolinensis vs. Chaos chaos, Amoeba carolinensis, or Pelomyxa carolinensis. I've checked the last two refs of that section, and even though they do use the -ensis form, they don't discuss the ending. It appears more likely that this is a plausible mistake: the -ensis form is correct with respect to the two other genus name (as both Amoeba and Pelomyxa are feminine), while the fact that Chaos is neuter is not obvious (you can't tell the gender unless you look it up in a dictionary). When there are different forms in circulation, shouldn't we just follow the taxonomic databases? – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Soo... where would that leave us? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The databases appear to all use the correct form in -ense (see e.g. the ""identifiers"" links in Chaos carolinense (Q78611696)), unless there are other databases not listed there? (I know absolutely nothing about microorganism taxonomy, so it's possible I'm missing stuff). The form in -ensis, though incorrect, appears to still be in wide use (it seems to get 3-4 times more hits on Google Scholar). – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Diambiguate chaos chaos per Uanfala above. Keep Chaos carolinense; my read of the above discussion is that this is neither impeding article creation through its existence (because it's not the title the new article should use), nor an implausible typo (because it seems to be in active use, even if incorrect). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Intergenerational ethics ==== Intergenerational ethics → Intergenerational equity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The rationale for deleting this that I gave last August seems to still apply: Intergenerational equity and intergenerational ethics are two quite distinct areas of study – the former is something studied mostly in economics and the latter mostly in moral philosophy – and the latter isn't discussed in the article on the former, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. As such, WP:RDEL #10 applies and we're better off deleting this to encourage creation of an article on this topic. As this redirect was previously ""soft deleted"", Superb Owl is entirely within their rights to recreate it, but I continue to think it's misleading and unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. I would argue that per WP:RGUIDE (""If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete"") this shouldn't have been soft deleted, though it doesn't make that much difference in the case of a redirect anyway. A7V2 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: The creator has contested the nomination at the RfD notification talk thread, and I have asked him to bring it here for it to be considered. Jay 💬 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. I did read the creator's explanation, and it didn't convince me, especially given that ""ethics"" is not mentioned in the body of the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. I agree that it would be better to have a redlink here than a redirect; the two are distinct concepts, and leaving a redlink would encourage someone to make an article about inter-generational ethics. The redirect creator's rationale on their talk page is frankly unconvincing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Pools (song) ==== Pools (song) → Pool (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There are no ""(song)"" subjects on the target disambiguation page which have the name ""Pools"". Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) It might work as a retarget to Zaba (album). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Zaba (album) unless there are other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Pool (sports) ==== Pool (sports) → Pool (cue sports) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pool (sport) → Pool (cue sports) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I'm thinking these should be retargeted to Pool as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since readers could be looking up these terms trying to locate sports associated with Swimming pool. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The latter, singular redirect should definitely be kept as is IMO but I see what you're saying. J947 † edits 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Both should be kept as MOS:ENGVAR variations and should go to the same target. Americans say sports, British use sport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as-is. This is too much of a stretch, and at most all that is needed is {{Redirect|Pool (sports)| |Pool (disambiguation)}}. It's also very undesirable for Pool (sport) and Pool (sports) to go to confusingly different targets.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 02:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. It's not really ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: The reason why I created this discussion is because the title of the target article is Pool (cue sports), not Pool (sports). All the ""keep""-ers here ... does that mean that ""(cue sports)"" is unnecessary disambiguation, and the article should be moved to Pool (sports) per WP:PRECISE??? Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: As the creator of these redirects, what are your thoughts on my ""unnecessary disambiguation"" thoughts? If you agree, I'll consider withdrawing this and filing a WP:RM. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I think you're thinking of WP:CONCISE, as ""(cue sports)"" is a more WP:PRECISE disambiguation than ""(sports)"". Anyway, the status quo has served us just fine for years and years. There is nothing broken, so no ""fix"" is needed. You can RM it if you want, but I'm skeptical consensus would be reached to move the article to Pool (sports) (and it should not move to Pool (sport) because it's a class of sports not a single sport). There is no rule that the shortest possible disambiguation string must be used; we use a balance of the WP:CRITERIA, weighing PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE and NATURAL and CONCISE together.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I find that claim fascinating since the disambiguator ""(cue sports)"" is present in only 2 article titles and 8 redirect titles on the English Wikipedia, meaning it's used only 10 times. I'm not sure if that is a really strong case to keep the status quo since that finding doesn't particular define it to be a status quo due to the low numbers. Anyways, some food for thought here; without a disambiguation policy, it's probably hard telling where the precedence is. Anywho, with all that being said, I'm thinking I'll leave this nomination open, and am unsure of my RM idea at the moment. Thanks for the response! Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Cunt discharge ==== Cunt discharge → Vaginal discharge (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Yes, it does exist as a term. But do we really need this on WP? Onel5969 TT me 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: highly unlikely search term, all I can find online is referring to a song by the same name, no actual usage of this term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete and salt. Yes, I know we're not censored, but I feel like we'll be right back here in a week. –Fredddie™ 06:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep being WP:NOTCENSORED, it seems like a valid search term. Comes up with porn results in search, so seems to be in use. Why would we delete this if it is in use, unless we are censoring things due to impropriety and the squeamishness of editors? And PERMPROT to prevent renomination for censorship-- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as a plausible search term and WP:NOTCENSORED. If it is being misused, vandalised, disruptively re-litigated, etc then it can be protected and/or the editor(s) misusing/vandalising/etc can be dealt with appropriately without hindering readers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Spectator Club ==== Spectator Club → Lynbrook High School (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is apparently an essay by Richard Steele and should redirect there. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Harvard Classics#Vol. 21–30. The actual mention is in a collapsed box. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Ephebo ==== Ephebo → Ephebophilia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I think this is better targeted at Ephebos. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep current target as Ephebos doesn't use ""ephebo"", as ""ephebos"" itself is the plural. However, Ephebophilia § Etymology and definitions refers to the Ancient Greek word ""ephebo"". ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== JMI ==== JMI → Java Metadata Interface (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The current target of the redirect had stayed here for a long time. However, the Indian University, Jamia Millia Islamia (abbv. as JMI) has taken over the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Java Metadata Interface shows a page view of only 89, whereas the university has a page view of 24,251 (last 30 days). I boldly changed the redirect target, however was advised to start a formal RfD, so here I am. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) OK, sorry I did not check the page views. I support this retargeting given that this is obviously primary topic in India. However there are also many other options at JMI (disambiguation) and a reasonable argument may be made that there is no primary topic on a worldwide basis, though I haven't checked thoroughly the others combined may still not approach the links to Jamia Millia Islamia. We wouldn't be here if you had removed the {{Redirect|JMI}} template from the top of the Java Metadata Interface article, and moved it to the Jamia Millia Islamia article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) lol yeah that is definitely the primary topic. SWinxy (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget as proposed; remnove hatnote at Java Metadata Interface; put hatnote at Jamia Millia Islamia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Municipalite of repe Orny ==== Municipalite of repe Orny → Orny (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I am unable to determine why this old redirect exists. I can't find a ""repe Orny"", and the article about the municipality Orny, Switzerland doesn't help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Move the redirect to Municipality of Orny without leaving a redirect. 176.88.80.110 (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Municipality of Orny without leaving a redirect- as far as I can tell, this redirect is nonsensical and only very occasionally used (only 52 times in the past eight years). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom (a Google search finds absolutely nothing for me either). Per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, we generally don't move redirects, and this redirect has no history to it so it's not worth an exception. (Mostly unrelated comment: ""municipalite"" is not English – I think it's French, but without the acute accent. I initially thought this would also qualify for WP:RLOTE, but two entries on Orny, namely Orny, Switzerland and Orny, France, are both French-speaking places.) Duckmather (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Sergey Malinka ==== Sergey Malinka → Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Subject not mentioned at target article, nor does he have any apparent connection to the Madeleine McCann case. This redirect was created in 2007 as a short-lived stub that was immediately redirected, possibly due to its lack of content and sourcing. Deletion would be best in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete The subject is indirectly mentioned (but not named) in the target article. He is not notable and should never have been in the target article. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. The redirect is a BLP violation while the subject is not mentioned and I agree that they should not be. The underlying stub is unsourced, but being both sourceable and neutrally written it doesn't qualify for either G10 or BLP summary deletion (although I vacillated on the latter and nearly deleted it three times). At best the subject is a BLP1E, but the only alternative to deletion would be redirecting back to the current target... Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === March 24 === ==== Humanities and Social Sciences ==== Humanities and Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanities & Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanit. Soc. Sci. → Science Publishing Group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanit Soc Sci → Science Publishing Group (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These are all redirects for a journal, one of several hundred, published by that company. There's no content about it in the target article, and, as the hatnote there informs us, there exists another, unrelated, journal with the same name (ISSN 1022-4483). As far as I'm concerned, that makes for a straightforward delete. But is there any chance there may be an article that covers the two actual concepts of humanities and social sciences? I can't find any, so that means deletion also per WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Strangely, these were created by a bot that got approval in 2018. There seem to be a large number of such redirects. They defy the common logic of ""no redirect unless target has relevant content"", but are there any considerations that counterbalance that? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Keep These redirects exist to warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher, and to get picked up by WP:CITEWATCH. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#World Open Chinese Studies Journalfor similar discussions, with the difference here that the publisher is actually notable enough to have an article. Deleting one out of the thousands is counterproductive and makes a special case of something that isn't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see those XfDs as relevant here as they all involve either categories or redirects to categories. A more directly relevant case (redirects from journals to a publisher article without mention) would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Bunch of academic journals. – Uanfala (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Delete (and most of the other 1600 redirects to that page). The current target does not help readers in any way, and even if it did it is not our job to ""warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher"". While WP:CITEWATCH has laudable aims, per WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW and WP:NOTDIR it should not be abusing the encyclopaedia, especially the mainspace of it, to achieve those aims. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Delete all per Thryduulf, and per my usual stance on these categories and redirects. (Seriously, I have nothing additional to add to this in addition to what Thryduulf said ... since the statement summed up my thoughts better than I ever could.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Keep because even if they aren't mentioned in the current version of the article (which is not a requirement, and never has been, even if this page has seen a lot of ""delete because the current version doesn't mention it"" nominations for the past few years). These redirects help people figure out something about the subject, and something is more than nothing. I wouldn't object to retargeting an individual redirect, if there were a more sensible page for it to point to (e.g., if someone ever wrote an article on a an academic division of Humanities and social sciences), but until there is a specific need to retarget, I see no value in just deleting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That's all fine in theory, but the current target doesn't tell anyone anything useful - if they know that this is a journal they might be able to figure out that this article about a journal publisher is relevant because they publish this journal, however if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it so it's unhelpful (it doesn't help them find more information but instead actively makes finding that harder). If they don't know that this is a journal, then this page will most likely just leave them confused, so it's unhelpful - it's even worse if someone is looking for information about the academic discipline. ""Something is better than nothing"" can be true, but is not always - the test for a redirect is always is it more useful than harmful, and in this case there is near zero utility and lots of (potential) harm so there is no justification for its existence. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) It tells me something useful, especially if I encounter the link in the middle of a citation, and since citations don't normally name the publisher, then it's not true that ""if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it"". See also WP:RFD#KEEP #5: ""Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."" Of course it would be better if the article itself was improved, but nothing we do about the redirect will affect the article's contents, and once editors declare (without evidence) that an academic journal isn't notable, then it can be difficult to get any information about the journal into an article. I spent hours trying to add independent sources to List of MDPI academic journals last year, and someone removed it because independently sourced information is – in his personal opinion – ""promotional"". I would not be entirely surprised if any attempt to list the journals for this publisher would also get such a reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) If there is consensus that we shouldn't have any information about this journal, which seems to be what you are describing (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY), then we should not have a redirect pointing to our lack of information about this journal because that actively misleads readers trying to find information. RFD#KEEP point 5 is not a trump card, some people saying they find it slightly useful if they see it in certain context that, with their prior experience, gives them enough hints to understand that when they arrive at a page that offers no information about their search term they can make a guess at why they are there and use that to guess something about the topic that might or might not be correct, relevant or helpful is hardly evidence that the counter arguments about harm, confusion and unhelpfulness are incorrect - especially when the required initial context is not the only way people will arrive here. Additionally, redirects should not be used as an end-run around consensus to exclude (or lack of consensus to include) information about non-notable topics. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) WP:RFD#KEEP #5 is not a trump card no, but WP:IAR is. Wikipedia is better off with these redirects than without them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) In what way is confusing and misleading readers better for the encyclopaedia than not confusing or misleading them? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) This is the most wide-spread ""WP:IAR"" claim I have ever seen on Wikipedia to a point where WP:IAR doesn't apply anymore. Either get a policy created for this crap, or stop claiming WP:IAR since it isn't WP:IAR due to all the discussions for such redirects. Yeah, I'm being pedantic, but whatever. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Indeed, WP:IARUNCOMMON is relevant here. There over 1600 redirects to this article alone, that's not something IAR could justify even if the rule you are ignoring was preventing you from improving the encyclopaedia (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC) It can easily justify them, because they all are beneficial to both the reader, by warning them these journals are associated with predatory publishers, and to Wikipedia by being needed for the WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (Sorry for my intentional WP:BLUDGEON here since I hate it when others do it, but anyways): Then WP:IARUNCOMMON applies here like a hawk. Get the relevant policies updated since WP:IAR should not apply to something of this scale/magnitude; your WP:IAR claim really isn't valid anymore due to how often you have done this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Steel1943 has it spot on here - if you can justify all these redirects then you should have no problem at all getting a consensus for amending the relevant policy so you don't need to ignore any rules and so IAR doesn't apply. If on the other hand you can't get such a consensus then what you are doing is clearly not improving the encyclopaedia so IAR doesn't apply. However, it's not just one rule you are attempting to ignore here - you're trying to ignore at least WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW, WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and (arguably) WP:NPOV as well as long-standing consensuses regarding redirects needing to be mentioned. Trying to shove all that into a single WP:IAR is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC) IARUNCOMMON is a two-sentence ""essay"" written by yourself. And nowhere does it say that IAR stands for ""Ignore A Rule"". Basically, your last remark argues for abandoning IAR completely. --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The point here is that WP:IAR has been used every time to validate the current situation ... well over a thousand times. WP:IAR is to be used for rare exceptions; no way 1000+ existent instances of something is considered rare. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I missed the 999 other discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC) ...You missed the statement above stating there are about 1600 similar redirects pointing towards this target? Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I saw that, so that's 1 case. Now point me to the other 999. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) IAR is being claimed as the justification for all of the redirects from journal names to this article, and (presumably) for similar redirects to other publishers. Given that the redirects require rules to be ignored in order to exist but the target articles don't (or at least I don't recall anyone claiming they do) it is the redirects that are being enumerated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC) It may have been written by myself (in response to someone else quoting my words) but nowhere I've used it, or where I've seen others use it, has anyone rebutted it (including you here). Length is not relevant - indeed it's longer than WP:IAR itself. Most importantly IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, you must have a good reason why the rules need to be ignored and the outcome of ignoring those rules must be an improvement to the encyclopaedia that was not possible without ignoring the rules. For a handful of instances it's no big deal if you don't get consensus for a small change that's unquestionably an improvement, however it is a very big deal if you're using it to justify tens of actions (in this case over one thousand six hundred actions) that are, at best, of dubious benefit (or as here actually a net disbenefit). It's worth noting that the community strongly desires advance consensus for mass actions that don't require any rules to be ignored, which is further evidence that ignoring rules on a mass scale is inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC) If I'm not missing something, the latter three redirects aren't tagged. J947 † edits 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I must have forgotten. Will tag them now. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Thryduulf. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I've added the list of journals, which should address the concerns of @Uanfala, Thryduulf, Steel1943, and Nikkimaria: now that HSS is mentioned at the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The addition of the list is definitely an improvement to the article, and I'm sure some editors would be happy with redirects to list entries. However, I don't see a redirect as useful if the only relevant information about its topic in the target article is the fact that it exists. Also, my main concerns were to do with the redirect's ambiguity. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Another indicator of this ambiguity comes from the incoming links: I've had a look, and I've had to change all five of them [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] as they intended other topics. – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) These links exists because of poor grammar, and People Who Believe Their Position and Field of Study is Very Important and Thus Must Be Capitalized. These aren't legitimate standalone topics, they're just your standard XY crossbreeds. Or flat out bad links (e.g. Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences should be Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Per Uanfala, and the earlier comments about long lists of publications tending not to stick in journal publisher articles (seemingly for good reason), my deletion recommendation stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Keep at least the latter two redirects as they fairly unambiguously refer to the journal. Unsure what to do with the others. J947 † edits 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Keep the latter two per J947. Disambiguate one of the former two, and retarget the other to it. Rename the existing ones as Humanities and Social Sciences (journal), Humanities & Social Sciences (journal) to remove ambiguity, and so they can continue to be linked in citations. Tag as {{R from journal}}. Or create the dab at Humanities and social sciences, with one of the entries to Humanities, arts, and social sciences (it is better than nothing per WhatamIdoing ). Also, there is one article section Humanities#Humanistic theories and practices that briefly provides a comparison of humanities and social sciences. Brief, but could be exactly what some readers are looking for. Jay 💬 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: To allow further discussion now that the journal is mentioned at the target article, which previously did not mention journal names.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Headbomb: the merits of keeping outweigh those of not, and the journal is actually mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) This is a tricky one. Were this not mentioned, I'd probably agree with Thryduulf et. al and support deletion, but now that it is, the bottom two should be kept, and refined to Science Publishing Group#List of journals. Independently of all of that, Disambiguate the top two, as there seems to be no dispute that they are ambiguous. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== I took the wok to poland ==== I took the wok to poland → Poland (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how this relates to the song. Perhaps it's a lyric? But if so, it's not mentioned in the article. Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep – Fine {{R from lyric}}. Per Genius' lyrics, the chorus consists of ""I took the Wock' to Poland"" being repeated 3 times, so it's very plausible that someone might search for the lyrics (misspelling ""Wock"" as ""Wok"" is plausible as well) without knowing the name of the song, such as if they overheard it somewhere such as on radio or in a club. Song lyrics are also not acceptable to paste into Wikipedia articles due to copyright concerns, so ""not mentioned in the article"" isn't something that can be fixed. Randi Moth (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Neutral – The wrong capitalisation of ""Poland"" makes it much less plausible as a search term, since I took the wok to Poland already exists. I'm not entirely certain whether it's implausible enough to delete, however. Randi Moth (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Draft:All of the Girls ==== Draft:All of the Girls → Lover (album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure why a draft is redirected to an unrelated article... This should be a quick delete imo. Ippantekina (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Per the edit histories of this page and All of the Girls, any content at the nominated redirect's title is and has always been a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Wikipedia:Digits ==== Wikipedia:Digits → Project Digits (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Implausible CNR from Wikipedia to article namespace. Strangely, the redirect page uses the DISPLAYTITLE magic word in order to display ""Project: Digits"". I don't know what purpose this redirect serves, but in the absence of a valid rationale it should either be deleted or retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Grouping of digits. I have a slight preference for the latter however, as the differently capitalised redirect Wikipedia:DIGITS also points to that section. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom in the absence of a valid rationale. Jay 💬 13:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Don't mind my Delete, if the majority preference is to retarget. Jay 💬 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: ""Project:"" in a page title is parsed as ""Wikipedia:"", so Project: Digits resolves to Wikipedia:Digits. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, you gave a reasoning for the redirect, which while I find unconvincing, would have been enough to make me withdraw the nomination. However, Jay has already commented ""Delete"" so I can no longer do it. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per Paul above and from the precedent from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Wikipedia:ALF which dealt with a similar Project: redirect issue. TartarTorte 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) That could be the case if ""Project Digits"" is also referred to as ""Project: Digits"" (with the colon). But is that the case? Project Mersh / Project Destiny have a hatnote saying The correct title of this article is Project: Mersh. The omission of the colon is due to technical restrictions. Not so at Digits. Jay 💬 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ...y'know that's a really good point I had completely blanked on. Gonna strike vote in favor of retarget. Got so distracted by the potential technical glitch that the lack of usage with a colon eluded me. TartarTorte 19:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per nom (preferred over deletion) to match the capitalized shortcut. I see no evidence that the subject of the article is known by the title with a colon: the article and all of the sources in it refer to it as ""Project Digits"" without a colon. Page views don't suggest it's being used that way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector, as I too cannot find any evidence of any of the various ""project digits"" that Google tells me exist(ed) are referred to with the colon. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector. As the creator of this redirect almost 3 years ago, I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Humor (funny) ==== Humor (funny) → Humour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] A {{R from move}} that has been the target page's title for 7 minutes. Implausible disambiguator, unlikely to be useful. Randi Moth (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I suppose it's a plausible disambiguator as the word humor can also mean ""mood"" (as in ""She was in an ill humor""). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mr. Granger, wikt:humour can also mean fumes and bodily fluids. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Puasa ==== Puasa → Ramadan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Puasa is not the alternative language for Ramadan. Ramadan is the month in the Islamic calendar, while Puasa is ""fasting"" in Malay. While Malayans and Indonesians sometimes refer to ""Ramadan"" as ""fasting month"" that didn't make Puasa an alternative language. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I created the redirect because on the Ramadan page it says it in the ""Also called"" part of the infobox. If that is incorrect, then I'd understand if it's deleted. greyzxq talk 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Comment. Very few of the results google is giving me are in English, which makes finding how the term is used in English tricky, and what I have found is not definitive one way or the other but [32] does back up the redirect's current target. Hari raya puasa redirects to Eid al-Fitr, and that seems correct. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. While it's mentioned in the article, I don't think that means there should be a redirect. WP:RLOTE indicates that a redirect from a foreign language should have special signifance for the area where that language is spoken. Ramadan has a global scope, not a regional one so I don't think that is the case here. Additionally, while Islam is the majority religion in Malaysia and Indonesia, I don't think that in itself is enough to establish special affinity. Catholicism is the majority religion in Poland, even more so than Islam in Malaysia or Indonesia (if ""religion in..."" articles on Wikipedia are to be believed), yet Wielki post does not redirect to Lent (despite being mentioned in the article) nor should it. In this case I think it's better to allow uninhibited searching. – Scyrme (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nominator, but not per WP:RLOTE. ""Puasa"" is part of Malaysian English [33], in particular as part of the phrase buka puasa (iftar) [34]. But the word ""puasa"" alone is kind of a WP:PTM: too vague to tell whether someone is trying to find ""bulan puasa"" i.e. Ramadan, or fasting in Islam. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Envrionment Green Party of Kenya ==== Envrionment Green Party of Kenya → Mazingira Green Party of Kenya (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Unlikely typo of Environment Green Party of Kenya, Envrionment does not exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Deltee [sic] per nom. Duckmather (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Bangkok 12th district ==== Bangkok 12th district → 2011 Thai general election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Bangkok 11th district → 2011 Thai general election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Electoral districts in Thailand have changed numbers with every recent election, so the 12th district in one election has no relation whatsoever to the 12th district in the next. The titles in question were created as articles about districts in the 2011 election, which have since been merged/redirected to the 2011 Thai general election article. I just moved the page histories to Bangkok 12th district (2011) and Bangkok 11th district (2011). The undisambiguated names are confusing redirects and should be deleted, as there are no existing articles to disambiguate to or create set indices for. Paul_012 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== ASDFGH ==== ASDFGH → QWERTY (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There is no value in creating redirects for every single combination of letters formed from the rows of a Qwerty keyboard. This isn't even a full row, so there's especially no reason to keep it. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Would a retarget to Keysmash be helpful or is that a stretch? – Scyrme (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC) A stretch, but given how often the WP community votes to keep redirects just because they might be useful (and of course WP:CHEAP), I would at least rather see this retargeted to the article you brought up than left alone. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) As far as I can ascertain this does not seem to be an alternative name of QWERTY as the creator asserts, but I am happy to be proved wrong on that front. Keysmash does mention similar terms, but from a look about it seems that this string is more notably associated with passwords. Therefore retarget to Password_strength#Examples_of_weak_passwords where this specific string is mentioned. I'm of the disposition that the reader searching this up is bored and does not know what to do, so leading them to a hopefully interesting article is what we should do here. So for this highly unconventional reason I'm slightly opposed to deletion in this particular instance. J947 † edits 04:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC) When I looked about (searching ""ASDFGH"" with quotes) I only found references to keysmashes. What did you search to get weak passwords instead? Did you only use Wikipedia's own search engine instead of an external search engine? – Scyrme (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Most articles in the News tab are about passwords. J947 † edits 18:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Just to note that there is also Asdfghjkl, Asdfghjkl; (redirects elsewhere), and ZXCVBNM, which are all similar in some form to the ASDFGH redirect. (Should these be looked into now or maybe later down the road?) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) No, those are the full row unlike this nomination which says This isn't even a full row. Jay 💬 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Delete: I doubt anyone typing in ASDFGH is actually looking for keysmash, but I don't think retargeting to Password strength#Examples of weak passwords will do much good either. Either delete or keep at current target. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Weak delete per Edward-Woodrow. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. If you tried to type QWERTY but were off by one row, you'd end up with ASDFGH. I don't see how it could refer to anything else, so it's not ambiguous or confusing. It seems to be used often enough for WP:RFD#K5 to apply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Why couldn't it refer to keysmash or to a weak password (both mentioned above)? Keysmashes are sometimes emphatically capitalised, and the 'examples of weak passwords' section linked by J947 lists this exact sequence (although not in this exact case, and admittedly it also lists ""qwerty""). – Scyrme (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) It could refer to keysmash, but you really could make that argument for literally any combination of letters. Here's mine: 'wat4bmhi1. Surprisingly, no rdirct thr. I also sm to hav brokn my E ky. Ivanvctor (Talk/dits) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keysmashes aren't always literally random smashes. Letters from the home row, even in their standard order (at least for the first few letters of the row), are especially common. This fact happens to be noted in the article. – Scyrme (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note that this, as well as the two mentioned by @Super Goku V, are also rows on the QWERTZ keyboard layout. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== SHABIR AHMED ==== SHABIR AHMED → List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Without justification as to why the subject of this redirect might have a special affinity toward ALL CAPS, this is ambiguous with the many other Shabir Ahmeds of the en.wp world. J947 † edits 05:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Weak disambiguate if possible. However, I can see this may be difficult and so I am also fine with deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) DELETE due to being in all-caps. There's already a disambiguation page at Shabbir Ahmed (in fact, I added a large number of people to that page today; there may be duplicates, but without further sourcing it's hard to say). I would also weakly support redirecting to Shabbir Ahmed, although the all caps is kind of unnatural. Duckmather (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#((Vakhidov)) Sobit (Abdumukit) Valikhonovich * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Right, that makes sense. Keep as nom. J947 † edits 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Rules of the Senate ==== Rules of the Senate → Standing Rules of the United States Senate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Just bringing this up here for discussion: does this term unambiguously refer to the rules of the U.S. Senate? J947 † edits 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - besides the target there are, at least, Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XIX, United States Senate Committee on Rules, and Philippine Senate Committee on Rules, found in a few pages of search results, as well as numerous articles which contain the phrase ""Rules of the Senate"" with that exact capitalization. There's also Parliamentary procedure (the target of Robert's Rules of Order), with a general overview of the concept but not discussing Senates specificaly. I think search results are better here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Oops, that's Rules of order, not Robert's Rules. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Since there are so many rules systems in various senates, and since I fail to see how the U.S.' is the primary topic, I would suggest disambiguation. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate. The fact that we have several articles on this, none of which are clearly WP:PTOPIC, means that a dab might be warranted for navigational purposes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === March 23 === ==== Europe route Ennn ==== ==== Rooftop swimming pool ==== Rooftop swimming pool → Swimming pool (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Roof top swimming pool → Swimming pool (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Rooftop pool → Swimming pool#Private pools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Roof top pool → Swimming pool (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It's a bit of a WP:SURPRISE that this topic is not identified or defined at the target. The only place in the article where it is mentioned is in a file caption for an image displayed in Swimming pool#Dimensions, and that is all. This subject seems notable enough where it should either have a section dedicated to it in the target article, or be a standalone article/subject in itself. In other words, delete these per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:REDLINK per nom. Sensible approach. The target has no information on rooftop pools, although it lists many other types of pool. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) To expand: a rooftop pool is not just a pool that is put on top of a roof. It's an engineering feat to hold that much water at elevation, and I'm sure there's enough information out there about their development and overcoming the structural challenges that at least a subsection could be written. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Beach entry ==== Beach entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pretty sure this concept isn't exclusive to pools. Maybe even ... the entry to an actual beach? Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep - I agree with nom's points, but in my experience living on an island surrounded by beaches the terms are typically ""beach access"", or just ""shore"", while ""beach entry"" is a specific type of pool according to the article. Hatnotes could work, though I'm not sure which direction is appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. 100% of the first six pages (at least) of google results for ""beach entry"" -wikipedia are for pools, changing the search term to ""beach entry"" -pool -wikipedia finds (on the first three pages) entry prices and or entry tickets for beaches (both specific beaches and the general concept of charging for entry to a beach), Blackpool Pleasure Beach and car parks named after beaches; ""life's a beach"" entry mats (doormat), a design of entry door named ""Laguna Beach"", and access points to various specific beaches. Almost all of these are not encyclopaedic and/or so ambiguous as to be useless search terms. The concept of private access to beaches is encyclopaedic, and is covered at Beach#Restrictions on access but at most this should be a hatnote from the article about the swimming pool type (the overwhelming primary topic) - and even then I'm not completely convinced of its utility (it's certainly not the search term I would use). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Start Publishing ==== Start Publishing → Simon & Schuster (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect was blanked by Shortride (talk · contribs) with the edit summary ""Start is a distribution client, not a subsidiary"". That does make sense. Moreover, Start Publishing is only mentioned very briefly, and any reader looking for information on Start Publishing will be disappointed if redirected to Simon & Schuster. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Errr. They'll be more disappointed if they are faced with a red link, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - the business arrangement doesn't matter. We have very little information on Start Publishing on Wikipedia, but what little there is is located at this target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. It's a reasonable place to point to, given that the coverage is at that page (even if it is relatively light in nature). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Zero-entry ==== Zero-entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Zero entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Per third party search engines, the concept of ""zero-entry"" is not exclusive to pools. Apparently, this refers to the lack of a set of stairs leading to/from a different flat elevation, which can also apply to certain doorways or showers/bathtubs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak disambig. The most common meaning seems to be the swimming pool type (an exact synonym for ""beach entry"", discussed above) but not to the extent of being clear primary topic. It is also used as a synonym for generic step-free access using shallow gradients, for things that have no entry cost (including loans) and zero entry mining (mechanised to the extent that humans do not need to enter the mine). However I'm not sure to what extent the latter two are just partial title matches, and we don't seem to have any content about the mining use anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Social Rockstar ==== Social Rockstar → Rock Star (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] An old redirect from a blanked extremely short-lived article in 2009. This redirect is no longer required or helpful, if it ever was. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Weak retarget to Internet celebrity: It seems that this is intending to refer to Internet celebrities, but also, there doesn't seem to be a ton of term usage and deletion would be fine as well. TartarTorte 12:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. Searches point mostly to Rockstar Games Social Club but it is not a term used there to refer to its members. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Aiplane ==== Aiplane → Airplane (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Unlikely misspelling. In addition, there is a possibility with the increasingly popularity of the subject of Artificial intelligence (AI), someone could be searching this spelling for planes controlled by AI. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Support HopsonRoad (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment typos by omission are a very common form of typo. However, for this typo, I agree delete since it engenders confusion with artificial intelligence -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Support The case for the redirect from misspelling aiplane is no greater than for redirects from airlane, airpane, airplne, airplae etc. Dolphin (t) 06:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Yungur language ==== Yungur language → Bena language (Adamawa) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Apparently this is also an alternative name of Voro language (Adamawa). 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Bena–Mboi languages: Yungur appears to be an alternate name for this language branch, of which both Bena and Yoro are a part, as well as a number of others which are also linked from there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Leave as is. It appears that this is an old name applied to Bena, with only Voro also occasionally called that, and we have a hat link. E.g. the ISO code is [yun], and Glottolog calls Bena and Voro together ""Yungur-Voro"", and according to Blench the derivatives Yangur and Yungirba are specifically Bena. Note also that ""Bena"" is also used for Voro. That is, the two languages are not always distinguished. It's not uncommon for a language name to spill over onto a closely related lect, esp. if it's sometimes considered a dialect of the same language or if the first language is regionally dominant and so taken as the default. So it would seem that [yun] is both ""Bena proper"" and ""Yungur proper"", with clarification needed if we mean Voro. In fact, it would seem that ""Bena"" is more ambiguous than ""Yungur"", as according to Blench it's also used for the next closest language, Lala.Yes, Yungur is also a label for the branch, which is why Yungur languages plural is a rd there. But that's a common situation on WP and for the sg I think the hat note is sufficient. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per kwami. – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== 2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga ==== 2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga → 2022–23 Oberliga Schleswig-Holstein (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete this redirect as anachronistic because the erstwhile Schleswig-Holstein-Liga is now the Oberliga Schleswig-Holstein since the 2017–18 season. Santiago Claudio (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep but fix the double redirect - the league was known as Schleswig-Holstein-Liga until 2017, it's plausible a reader may look for the article under the former name. However, page views provide little evidence for this actually happening. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== All of the Girls ==== All of the Girls → Lover (album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Technically this is supposed to redirect to ""All of the Girls You Loved Before"", which doesn't make sense because ""All of the Girls"" redirect is misleading as a title. I suggest deleting this redirect. Ippantekina (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I created ""All of the Girls"" initially because the song's title when it was first leaked, but after reading your arguments, I agree with the redirect's deletion. Gained (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Tards ==== Tards → wiktionary:Special:Search/tards (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] WP:SSRT: ""Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia."" A redirect for the plural of an informal version of an insult. No idea why this would belong on Wikipedia Fram (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Search results for ""tards"" give fine results (including result for the Wiktionary entry). Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. I read those pages listed above, and now I can conclude that search is efficient enough. AKK700 19:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:RFD#D1. This is perhaps the most egregious D1 I've seen - most are just strange results but this one literally blocks the search engine in favour of a sister project's search. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) It actually takes you direct to wikt:tards rather than Wiktionary's search. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) What an odd way for the URL to work. Thanks for pointing that out, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to List of disability-related terms with negative connotations#T, where Tard is listed (title redirects to Tard, Hungary, but there is a Wiktionary redirect for ""tard"" in that list), per WP:RNEUTRAL. As far as I can tell, searching for ""tards"" on English Wikipedia does not list intellectual disability in the results, so readers are not finding relevant information if this is deleted. It's not an ideal search term, but we should still handle it. Struck my earlier delete !vote as I don't want my clueless misunderstanding to be construed as a personal attack, which I did not intend. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) There's also retard (pejorative), but I think the list is better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector. A redirect to a sister project is not aligned with WP:SSRT, as this is not a commonly wikified word nor a page that has been repeatedly re-created. However, it makes sense to redirect from the plural to the singular in the appropriate list. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Redirects from stars in Libra ==== Eta Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Iota2 Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Nu Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Omicron Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Xi1 Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Xi2 Librae → Libra (constellation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Six Bayer stars that redirect to the main constellation page instead of List of stars in Libra (four more exist as redirects to the set index Zeta Librae). No attempt has been made to determine if any of these meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; if they do, the recommended solution is to delete per WP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget all to List of stars in Libra where they are all mentioned. Just a note that I am the creator of Eta Librae. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget as proposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per above. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Beaners ==== Beaners → Biggby Coffee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Suggest retargeting to Beaner, like most plurals. The former name of the coffee chain was Beaner's Coffee with the apostrophe on the possessive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per nom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Support per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Support or at least point to the DAB per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === March 22 === ==== YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 ==== YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 → CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Appears to be a joke redirect of a non-existent name; the actual name is an acronym so the ""YOU"" in this redirect title is pointless and made-up. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) The name is common in anti-spam circles and reflects the facts that CAN-SPAM does not actually outlaw spam CAN-SPAM nullifies state laws that actually did outlaw spam The law is the result of DMA lobbying and was carefully crafted to not do what the title promised. That, alas, is very common in US legislation. NB: I'm not claiming that other countries are better, just that I lack the data to do a comparison. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Not used in popular media to refer to this act. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Keep – The ""You-Can-Spam"" name is mentioned in the article. The fact that the ""YOU"" isn't an acronym is obviously irrelevant and not the point of the joke. A Google search will reveal that it is commonly used, perhaps not with ""of 2003"" afterwards, but the redirect isn't confusing, ambiguous or causing any problems. MClay1 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mclay1. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mclay1. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete because of the 2003 afterwards per MClay1. Using the joke along with the year attempts to pass this off as a genuine act name. We already have YOU-CAN-SPAM Act and You-Can-Spam Act to support the ""YOU"". Jay 💬 07:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more go…Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Move to ""You-Can-Spam"" or something like that per Jay. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mr. Metz and MClay1, and per WP:RNEUTRAL. It clearly is a name used to refer to the act, even if it's incorrect, and the article explains the use of the incorrect name as criticism. Moving redirects is generally pointless, and I'm not convinced that adding the year confers legitimacy, and even if it did, refer back to RNEUTRAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. I do see versions of this name in sources on Google Books. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom ==== Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom → Mary of Teck (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete. Misleading, wrong information. Obviously prone to confuse laypersons with Queen Mary of England, aka Mary I of England. An unqualified “Queen”, devoid of reference to her King, implies a Queen Regnant. Redirect was created only to make a point, not for any utility, and this is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retargeting to a dab page, or other pages, only makes matters worse. More hatnotes makes more clutter on in the prime real estate of articles. Anyone entering the exact text into the search box is perfectly well served by the internal search function. No one should be linking this string, because it is a poor way to refer to the article, and should not be encouraged as a recommended option, which is what I guess is the only reasonable motivation to create the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. Not an entry to Mary of Teck any normal person would ever use. Whether the redirect was created to make a point I leave to others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep There has been only one Queen Mary who has been Queen of the United Kingdom and that's Mary, wife of George V. Listing other redirects here is pointless. And a queen consort is a queen just as a queen regnant is a queen, or a queen dowager is a queen. There's no such rule that states queens consort or dowager are ""unqualified"" queens as the nominator is implying here. The only difference is in their rank. Regnant, consort, dowager, regent are noun adjuncts, defining a queen's rank. And ""Queen of the United Kingdom"", ""Queen of England"", ""Queen of France"", etc. do not imply that the given queen is necessarily queen regnant. We have Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary, Queen of Hungary, and Maria, Queen of Sicily who were queens regnant. On the other hand we have Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, Marie of Lusignan, Queen of Aragon, Marie of Luxembourg, Queen of France, Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Germany, Elisabeth of Carinthia, Queen of the Romans, Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of the Belgians, etc. all of whom were queens consort. And the accusation that the redirect was ""created only to make a point"" is baseless and untrue. This is a name that has been used in different forms by other sources, including the Royal Collection Trust that calls her Queen Mary of the United Kingdom. And there's no point that needs to be made anyway. It's like saying Sonja, Queen of Norway should not exist as a redirect because the creator was trying to make a point! Keivan.fTalk 05:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Just who is going to realistically type in the search box ""Mary Queen of the United Kingdom""? I don't think anyone, and we don't create redirects just to create one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That is an assumption though. Would someone type Sonja, Queen of Norway or Rania, Queen of Jordan, to search for those queens? Maybe yes, maybe not. Yet no one can say they are not useful. As long as the redirect is accurate and helpful there's no reason that it should not remain. And given the fact that a source like Encyclopædia Britannica has the words ""queen of Great Britain"" right under Mary's name there might be people who could search for May, Queen of Great Britain/the United Kingdom/the UK and that is what a redirect is for; to assist with finding a target. Keivan.fTalk 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) ""Name title <""of""> place"" is a grammatically correct and entirely normal way to refer to royalty/nobility, and this is reinforced by the many articles with titles in exactly that format which set a predictable pattern that readers are likely to follow when searching. Seems entirely plausible to me and I'm surprised you think otherwise. – Scyrme (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC) In response to one of the comments above, the string is fine and it is not a poor way to refer to the article because in no way it implies that she was a queen regnant which is what the core of the nominator's issue with this redirect is. Not to mention that the format has been used by outside sources. It has nothing to do with putting forth a single format as a ""recommended"" option either. People can choose what format to use based on the flow of the article. The whole argument that each queen consort should have the word ""consort"" attached to their title as an adjunct or ""qualifier"" does not hold up. We have no such rule and countless redirects and outside material prove that. Sonja Haraldsen is the queen consort of Norway. Based on that logic, she should not be referred to as Sonja, Queen of Norway, but I guess it is not okay to refer to her as Queen Sonja of Norway either due to the fact that the latter format just like the first one does not make it clear whether she is a queen consort or queen regnant. And frankly, it doesn't matter. She is simply The Queen of Norway just as Mary was simply The Queen of the United Kingdom. That's what their actual titles are. And an article title or redirect is always used in a text with the necessary context provided so the chances of anyone mistaking these women for queens regnant is slim. Keivan.fTalk 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per SmokeyJoe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Unlikely search term. If kept, redirect to Queen Mary as an incomplete disambiguation from other Queen Marys of England. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Queen Mary disambiguation page. MClay1 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Keivan.f. It's unambiguous (Mary I was never Queen of the United Kingdom) and redirects are cheap. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to the disambiguation page. This is cheap, but it is also ambiguous as to whether someone is searching for a queen consort not commonly known by this name or a much more widely known queen regnant but are mistaken about her domain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Mary of England (n.b.: not Queen Mary). I'd normally advocate for a straight keep in such an instance, but I'm concerned about reading navigability from Mary of Teck to Mary I or Mary II, which are similarly common I'd imagine. A hatnote on Mary of Teck would be rarely-used (like this redirect: rarely-used but still helpful enough). Therefore I'll weakly opt for the cowardly dab target over the correct target. J947 † edits 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Per Keivan.f and Presidentman. Minor errors and misconceptions like this should be corrected not humoured as equally valid targets. ""...of England"" is unambiguously wrong, and retargets misleading. An extra hatnote with {{distinguish}} (Not to be confused with...) pointing to the disambiguation page is sufficient to help someone misinformed and looking for someone else. – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Another option for a hatnote could {{redirect}} (""Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom"" redirects here. For ""Mary, Queen of England"", see Mary of England.). I'm not sure whether the wording given by ""distinguish"" or ""redirect"" would be more helpful. Perhaps the best option would be to use {{hatnote}} to write a custom one that combines the best of both. Something like: ""Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom"" redirects here. Not to be confused with Mary, Queen of England. – Scyrme (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete there was Mary II of England who was Queen of Scotland and England and Ireland -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)The United Kingdom did not exist during Mary II's reign. Keivan.fTalk 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Not a useful redirect. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Hopelessly misleading title.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC) How is an accurate description of Mary of Teck hopelessly misleading? – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I guess Mary, Queen of Scotland is misleading as well? In fact it would be even more misleading by that logic since there were other queens of Scotland named Mary, albeit they were queens by virtue of marriage. And what is even misleading here? Mary of Teck was Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of George V. Mary I and Mary II were not queens of the United Kingdom, and as an encyclopedia we should not spread incorrect information by retargeting this redirect IMO. It's like changing the target for Elizabeth, Queen of England, or Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, arguing that people might think Elizabeth II was Queen of England or that Elizabeth I was Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, they might, and it is an encyclopedia's job to correct them not to mislead them, and a hatnote would be sufficient for that purpose. And as Scyrme said, the format ""Name Title of Place"" is an entirely common and valid format on Wikipedia. Not to mention multiple sources that describe Mary of Teck as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ""mary of teck was queen of the united kingdom"" is only correct if George V is mentioned in the same sentence. Standing alone, it is incorrect because it implies Queen regnant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Searching around en.wp demonstrates rapidly that a Queen should not be automatically assumed to be queen regnant. The more I think about this the more surprised I am that you would think not that it is slightly misleading (which it is), but that it is incorrect – this might well be much more obvious to people living in a monarchy (assuming you are from the U.S.), who are the significant proportion of readers searching this phrase. J947 † edits 08:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC) “Should not” is irrelevant compared to “is”. I am thinking only of written references to last queens, not current usage anywhere. When referring to an historical queen, only queens regnant are introduced simply as queen. Queens consort are introduced with reference to their king. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Not necessarily. Here's the grave of Catherine of Aragon describing her as Katharine, Queen of England, devoid of any reference to Henry VIII. And Catherine of England even redirects to her page which is a format mostly used for monarchs (e.g. Elizabeth of Russia), but I doubt any reader would find it confusing after reading the first few words of the article. So no, in a real word setting no one would assume that ""Queen of [Place]"" is a queen regnant. Keivan.fTalk 13:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Catherine if Aragon is an unusual case. In her lifetime, her status as legal wife of Henry was in dispute, by herself, her followers, and during the rule of her daughter, Queen Mary, Catherine’s status as legal wife connected to recognition of Mary’s claim to inherit. At the time of her funeral, Henry was the long ruling and uncontested King. Contrary to the king’s instructions, Catherine styled herself as Queen, as did her supporters, and funeral and burial of her as Queen, not Dowager Princess of Wales, was a political statement, during the lifetime of the King. My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime, and shortly after, but when time passes, their are either noted as Queen consort, or introduced with mention of their King. The example dates from soon after her death and during the rule of Henry. The Catherine of Aragon example does not generalise to all queen consorts. Your redirect fails to note either “consort” or that her position derived from George V. Why did you create this redirect? It seems part of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style with “consort”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Catherine of Aragon was ""Queen of England"" during her marriage, and so were Henry VIII's other five wives. All six of them have been described as such. This has nothing to do with making a political statement. In fact, Catherine's grave was upgraded during George V's reign by his wife Queen Mary. And I think she as a princess and then as a queen had a better idea than either you or me of how a queen consort should be described. My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime. I'm afraid this is WP:OR. Never in my life I have seen a queen consort being described as an ""unqualified"" queen. This is something that you have entirely come up with. And your allegations of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style [sic] with “consort” are unfounded. This has nothing to do with Camilla and her situation, a divorcee who was initially going to be styled princess consort. She is the exception here, not Mary who like all the other queens consort was simply called ""The Queen"" (check this and all the other entries on previous queens on the Government's London Gazette). You're making connections left, right and center when none actually exist. Do sources describe Mary as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain? Yes, they do. Have there been any other queens of the United Kingdom (regnant or consort) named Mary? No. Are there any sources that suggest she and thousands of other queens consort were not really queens? No, none exists. The fact that they hold the title by virtue of marriage does not make their position unreal. It's like saying Catherine, Princess of Wales is an not really Princess of Wales since she holds the title by virtue of marriage, so she should be called ""Princess Consort of Wales"". And upon seeing the phrase ""Queen of [Place]"" no one assumes that the woman is a queen regnant. In fact, when thinking of a global audience, one could easily see that in many countries queens and empresses have been mostly wives of monarchs, and it's the queens regnant that are rare. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Keivan.f: You've misunderstood. ""Unqualified"" means without an adjective or additional description (a qualifier) like ""consort"" or ""regnant"". – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme: I see. Thanks for the clarification. My mind was preoccupied with his comment here where he stated Mary was never a real queen, only a Queen consort and my brain made a connection between that statement and this one. Thus, I thought by unqualified he meant unreal. In any case my response stands. Consort and regnant are simply noun adjuncts defining the word ""Queen"". It's not as if one rank is the real deal and the other one doesn't count. Keivan.fTalk 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Common English is lacking. Queen can mean two different things, Queen Regnant, and Queen Consort. The two are different, with the very clear hard line distinction, despite the usage of “Queen” for both. You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary? I ask again, why did you create this redirect? Who might it help? - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Distinction is not always required. Empress Suiko was empress regnant of Japan. Masako, Empress of Japan is the current empress consort of Japan. They can both be described as ""Empress of Japan"" even though their rank is different. You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary? I never said that. I said the correct target for the redirect would be Mary of Teck, because she has been the only queen (regnant or consort) to ever be Queen of the United Kingdom. Just as Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III because there have been no other kings of the United Kingdom named Charles. The issue of confusion with other queens regnant or consort can be addressed with a hatnote. I ask again, why did you create this redirect? Because she has been described as Queen of the United Kingdom in various different sources, and anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that [Name] [Title] of [Place] is a format we commonly use here. I listed dozens of articles and redirects with the exact same format. And unlike what you were trying to suggest it is not part of a current campaign to alter Camilla's title or anything like that. I really doubt a redirect on Wikipedia would influence the palace's decisions. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Most of the redirects you listed were correct longer forms, of the form Mary of Teck, Queen of the United Kingdom. The longer form are not likely to confuse. Mixed short form / long form, like Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom, are likely to confuse, are confusing, are are weird, and are more suitable for a trivia question than a redirect inviting other users to make use of. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Those examples you are referring to are of articles titles, which to some extent have to adhere to WP:CONSORTS. That pattern should not necessarily be followed for redirects and in fact it has not been followed. As an example, we have Sonja, Queen of Norway as a redirect not Sonja Haraldsen, Queen of Norway. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Mary was the only Queen of the United Kingdom by her name. Confusion with Mary I or II of England is highly unlikely. While the format ""Name, Queen of X"" may indicate a Queen regnant under WP:NCROY, (eg. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, apart from that it does not have to.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Why do you think confusion is ""highly unlikely"" given that there is widespread confusion between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom for present-day, e.g. there are many sources describing Charles III has ""King of Great Britain"", including the Foreign Ministry of Oman and Brussels Times. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC) And yet Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III, not to Charles II of England or Charles I of England. And I don't believe we need to change that because some website mistakenly describes him as king of Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC) That redirect exists because Charles III is unquestionably the primary topic for that search term and so it's irrelevant here. My point is that the assertion that nobody will confuse a queen of the United Kingdom with a queen of Great Britain is demonstrably false. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) If people may get confused between the UK and Great Britain, then based on that logic they can confuse the UK with England as well, which means that Charles can also be confused with his predecessors. In any case, it's not an issue that a hatnote cannot solve. And I'm not vehemently opposed to regathering if there's a consensus for that, but I'm certainly against deletion. Keivan.fTalk 23:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding the hatnote, which would you prefer of the ones I suggested above (right under my ""keep"" recommendation)? – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Honestly, I think both of them are fine. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) More hatnotes to paper of the the problems of not-helpful unwanted redirects, is a worse option to “delete”. Not every technically correct term should be created as a redirect. If there was no good reason to create it, delete it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This isn't just a hypothetical ""technically correct"" description, it's one that has been used outside Wikipedia, examples of which can be found by searching the phrase on Google Books. eg. Royalty Who Wait (2001) which lists her as ""Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom"" in its index. It's not implausible that someone would describe her in this way (objectively, they already have), and therefore not implausible that someone would find this redirect helpful. Of-course, I'm sure you'd rather people use the search bar instead; we should probably just agree to disagree about whether it is ""helpful"". – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I know that. The point is context. It is not normal to refer to a Queen consort as an unqualified queen unless it is already in the context of the king, unless the king is already introduced or will be in the same breath. An index isn’t much of a precedent. The problem with this redirect is that it invites standalone use, and it’s prone to confuse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC) It doesn't seem likely to me that someone would use this as a standalone link in an article where the context doesn't make clear which ""Mary"" is the ""Queen of the United Kingdom"" (such as by naming the relevant King or establishing the year/century). Even if it were used without any additional context, the link itself would make it clear which ""Mary"" is the relevant one (just click or hover). If the phrase ""Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom"" were linked in the wrong context, the link would make it easier to find/notice the mistake and fix it, since either Mary, Queen of England, should not be referred to as ""Queen of the United Kingdom"" in any article. It's more likely such a mistake would be missed if the text were not linked. If this is retargetted rather than kept, then any unintentional use of the link would be discouraged. The link would be likely to get replaced by a more specific one which would resolve any potential confusion. – Scyrme (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Context is important within an article, but it's not as if someone is going to see ""Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom"" and say, oh she must have been a queen regnant then. Based on that logic we should not use Queen Mathilde of Belgium anywhere in a prose alone, because there's nothing in that name that suggests to me that the woman is a queen consort. The whole ""Queen [Name] of [Place]"" is a format entirely made up by Wikipedia for consorts. Also, I doubt anyone would support throwing the word ""consort"" as a qualifier into Mathilde's name because she's simply Queen of the Belgians or ""The Queen"" just like Mary was simply ""The Queen"" with no adjuncts or qualifiers attached to her title. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The ""(title) name of place""/""name(, title) of place"" format isn't made up by Wikipedia, and isn't used exclusively for consorts. The name-title-place format is used for royalty and nobility in general. John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, follows ""name title place"". It's used on Wikipedia because it's used in English in general. – Scyrme (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC) “Based on that logic we should” One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The Earl of Shrewsbury's article has the format ""[Name] [Surname], [Title] of [Place]"". In that sense it would be similar to something like Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen of the United Kingdom. Not comparable in this instance. One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. In cases when an article title needs to be chosen, yes, that is a ""consideration"", but there are exceptions such as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother who has been dead for 21 years. Also, that is not ground for deleting redirects. For example, should we delete Masako, Empress of Japan once she's deceased? I don't think so. Keivan.fTalk 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) That the name of the Earl includes his surname is irrelevant to the point, and it doesn't help your case to insist that it matters. It does not help to argue that the format is exclusive to Wikipedia; the argument to keep the redirect is stronger if the format is used widely both on and off Wikipedia (a fact that happens to be true), as that makes it more plausible that someone would search for it. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, Charles can be confused with his predecessors - that's the point. However, as the current king is very clearly the primary topic for the ambiguous terms they should lead to his articles. None of the queens are primary, it is equally likely that someone will be looking for the queen regnant or the queen consort, neither of whom are commonly known by this name, so should lead to disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Redirects to disambiguation pages are usually minor spelling variants, plurals/singulars, or differences in case, not completely different titles that might share the same target. Wouldn't it likely surprise readers searching ""of the United Kingdom"" to get redirected to a page titled ""of England""? Even a reader mistaken about the domain of the Mary they're looking for is likely to know that ""United Kingdom"" and ""England"" are not synonymous. I think a hatnote is a more appropriate way to disambiguate here, since that would allow some clarification to provided to the reader (rather than dropping them onto a disambiguation page with an already bloated ""see also"" section). – Scyrme (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC) There are no shortage of examples where one disambiguation page disambiguates multiple terms, meaning that some people are redirected to a page that has a different title to their search term. The way this is handled is that the first sentence of the disambiguation page lists all the terms that are disambiguated, this means that the problem you allege is unavoidable with a redirect to a disambiguation page is neither a problem nor unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I didn't say anything about it being an ""unavoidable"" ""problem"". I asked a question. If you're confident that listing ""of the United Kingdom"" in the first sentence would be within the guidelines for disambiguation pages, then that's fine; I agree that explicitly adding it to the first sentence would mitigate any surprise. All the disambiguation page I've seen had a narrower range of variation, of the kind described at WP:DABCOMBINE. The combination you suggested isn't covered, but the guidelines aren't exhaustive; if you say there's a precedent, I believe you. My disagreement was based on retargetting to the disambiguation page in its current state, since neither you nor anyone else suggested modifying it. I can accept retargeting as a second preference, if this title is explicitly added to the first sentence and the link is raised out of ""see also"", assuming this does not contradict guidelines about disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Confusion is unlikely, perhaps not ""highly"" because, while you are correct in that Charles III is erroneously called ""King of Great Britain"" or ""King of England"", those are titles that were used by his predecessors. His predecessors were not called ""Kings of the United Kingdom"", because that title didn't exist. That may be worded a little poorly, so to get my point across, Elizabeth II of England redirects to Elizabeth II, but Mary I of the United Kingdom does not redirect to Mary I of England, because Mary I never would have been called Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom during her reign or has she been called by such a name since. Mary of Teck was the only Mary to be Queen of the United Kingdom. Estar8806 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Different disambiguation retarget targets have been suggested - Queen Mary and Mary of England, apart from the suggestion to add a hatnote at the current target.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)I've gone ahead an added the suggested hatnote to Mary of Teck, to make it clear what's being proposed. It can be replaced with a {{redirect}} or {{distinguish}} note if others would prefer something more concise. If this redirect gets retargeted, the hatnote can obviously be amended appropriately. (Or, of-course, removed if the redirect is deleted.) – Scyrme (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your hatnote is a worse outcome. Why would anyone land at Mary of Teck thinking they were getting Mary, Queen of England. Because of this new redirect that no one will ever use. A featured article with almost 4000 views per day has an unnecessary hatnote, due to the existence of this redirect that helps who? SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) A lot of editors who have responded to this evidently think confusion is plausible, in which case the hatnote provides helpful clarification. Unless you persuade them otherwise, the hatnote should remain so long as the redirect exists. To be clear, I'm fine with removing the hatnote if there is agreement that the redirect by itself would not cause confusion. As for whether anyone would use the redirect, that's a separate matter. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Confusion is likely if they arrive at the page via a redirect, especially via it having been offered to them from the so called search box. Without the redirect, readers using the so called search box won’t be offered this title, and if the actually manually enter it in full they will get detailed search results. Using hatnotes to rescue confused readers helps them, but muddies that page header for the vast majority of readers of the page. The best solution is to not have redirects like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - Mary of Teck is the only Mary to have been Queen of the United Kingdom. Nobody else in the entire history of the earth has ever been both named Mary and also Queen of the United Kingdom. She was formally and officially The Queen from George V's ascension until his death, and then formally and officially Queen Mary until her own death. Queen consort/dowager/mother are not formal titles, they're titles of courtesy or respect, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who was formally titled Queen Mother to distinguish her from her daughter, Elizabeth II. The title of King is exclusively given to and reserved for the Sovereign (Albert and Philip were both princes) but the same is not true of Queen, there are many Queens who were not the Sovereign. There is no such thing as an ""inferior"" Queen, there are just Queens. A few are also Sovereign, but the fact that Mary of Teck was not is irrelevant to her royal title. There's no confusion here that can't be handled with hatnotes, but we will certainly introduce confusion by redirecting this to a disambiguation page for Queens of a predecessor realm. I don't understand the accusation that the redirect was created in bad faith and it also doesn't matter at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Adding: there have been ten Queens of the United Kingdom (counting Caroline of Ansbach who was Queen of Great Britain & Ireland, and excluding Camilla who hasn't yet been given the title). Three of those were also the Sovereign. Only one was named Mary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I agree the redirect is technically unambiguous, if you assume all readers are fluent with the technicalities of the changing names of England, Britain, UK, etc. That’s not a good assumption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) It seems that this title had been used on Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge for many years before the redirect was created (as a piped link). No doubt Mary of Teck's title as Queen of the United Kingdom was used to distinguish her from her mother; using Mary of Teck directly would've been confusing. A similar title is used for her category on Commons (Category:Queen Mary of the United Kingdom). This similar variation has existed as a redirect on Wikipedia since 2006. (Queen Mary of the United Kingdom) I don't see any reason why moving the position of the word ""Queen"" would make this any less plausible. Contrary to the claims that no-one would ever use such a redirect, the stats for that redirect indicate that has been used fairly regularly. If people use Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, why not Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom?Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen Mary of the United Kingdom should point to the same target, so I'm against retargeting one but not the other. – Scyrme (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Thryduulf: You recommended retargeting, but didn't specify a target. Retarget to Queen Mary or Mary of England? What about Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, which has been a redirect to Mary of Teck since 2006 without problems? Shouldn't they point to the same place? – Scyrme (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Celia Homeford and Mclay1: You both said you would prefer retargeting to Queen Mary if this is retargeted, but this was before J947 suggested Mary of England. Do you still prefer Queen Mary? – Scyrme (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) The mere fact that it was used on her mother's article without any objection shows that it is not a useless redirect. Thanks for bringing that up. And I also agree that both this redirect and ""Queen Mary of the United Kingdom"" should point to the same page and, if people are afraid of potential confusion, a hatnote can be added. That's how Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and Elizabeth of England have been handled. Keivan.fTalk 23:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme I think Queen Mary is a better target. Redirecting to Mary of England would be misleading – the Queen Mary in question was not Queen of England, despite how some people refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom. Redirecting to the broadest target removes all arguments over that sort of thing, and all the Queen Marys from British history can be listed. MClay1 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Anagenic ==== Anagenic → Anagenesis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Might also be referring to the Anagen phase (see wikt:anagenic). 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Anagen (or rather to Hair follicle as an {{avoided double redirect}}) and add a hatnote ({{redirect}}) pointing to anagenesis. Searching on Google scholar, it appears that Anagen is the primary topic, however, this adjective can refer to both. – Scyrme (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Should both Anagen and Anagenic specifically target the section Hair follicle § Anagen phase (which is where Anagen phase goes)? That section would probably be a better place for the hatnote I suggested rather than at the top of the article. – Scyrme (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate create a 2DAB as a no-primary situation for this adjective -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Why do you think there's no primary topic? My results on Google Scholar indicate that Anagen is the primary topic. Are you getting different results? – Scyrme (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) See Thryduulf 's response below -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig. My search results are an almost 50:50 split down to the middle of page 2 when a company and a band start getting a few results, but of the two topics we have articles for the split remains pretty much even at least until the end of page 4. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Is that on normal search results? If so, shouldn't we favour usage in more reliable academic sources particularly given that these are both scientific topics? – Scyrme (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC) That is on normal search results. Given that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia aimed at lay people rather than subject experts, it is reasonable to presume that those without specific (relevant) scientific knowledge will form the most sizeable proportion of searchers. People searching for a topic on Google Scholar aren't looking for the same results as people searching the same topic on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? No disambiguation has been drafted yet.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. Casting the net a bit wider, but still aiming to look at usage in reliable sources, I tried searching on Google books, and it does seem that ""anagenic"" is roughly about as likely to be used alongside ""anagen phase"" as it as ""anagenesis"". I now agree that there isn't a conclusive primary topic. – Scyrme (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Dabify per Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Al-Ġazawāt ==== Al-Ġazawāt → Early Muslim conquests (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I think that Al-Ġazawāt is a romanization of �االغزوات, which roughly translates to ""invasions"" ([35]) This history Fandom page seems to support that, but it cites off-web sources so I can't verify the claim (and its reliability is highly dubious, in any case, per WP:FANDOM) This paper also makes reference to the phrase, in connection to ""to the stories of the memorable battles led by the prophet [translated]"", as does this book, in connection to ""conquering and marauding campaigns"". I hope this makes the existence of the redirect somewhat clearer. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Edit: See also [36] for further clarification. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Strict rules ==== Strict rules → Rules of golf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not an exclusively golf-related phrase, deletion seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. Based on an off-wiki conversation I was just having, Covid lockdown regulations were my first thought. Google search results are a complete mixed bag, featuring YouTube videos about strict rules for royal children, cast members on various TV and movies, public drunkenness in San Marino, food additives in Sweden, what not to put in a dishwasher, a random woman's family trip to Disneyland, Starbucks employees and gambling adverts in Australia - and that's before we even get to page 3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC) This is a partial match for Strict rules, hard efforts and Strict rules of evidence. Could disambiguation be a viable option? While this could refer to many things, Wikipedia only needs to aid navigation to content that already exists rather than content that could hypothetically exist but doesn't. A comparable example would be Strict (disambiguation), which links to particular mathematics-related topics. There's also Stricture and Restriction, which cover a range of topics including some more common senses. To be clear, the question isn't rhetoical; I've not really decided yet. – Scyrme (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - Since I was only able to find partial matches, I don't think disambiguation is viable (per WP:PARTIAL). – Scyrme (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Not a golf-related phrase at all, any more than any other sport or activity. Seems to me more a dictionary term than anything we need a redirect for. Nigej (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, this redirect is unnecessary and the link form Golf could easily be replaced with a direct link. I actually tried to get it nominated on AFD because I did not know RFD existed, and ips can't nominate on AFD. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Edit: Delete 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - the word ""strict"" does not appear in the target page at all. Perhaps this could target pedant, but probably best to just let the search engine work. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Pedant doesn't mention the word ""strict"" either, and ""strict rules"" doesn't necessarily imply pedantry. – Scyrme (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) As fine a bit of pedantry as ever there was. Just delete, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I didn't mean to be pedantic; I only meant that readers searching might be looking for something else. (So I was agreeing with you that the search engine would be more helpful.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete ""strictly"" only appears once in the article anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Strictly ambiguous to the negative infinity. (Somewhat of a golf pun ... did I make a hole in one?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== U-Stor-It ==== U-Stor-It → Snow Crash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target, not sure of what the connection is. Onel5969 TT me 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete or expand into its own article about the storage company. Note that the redirect was created with the message the term U-Stor-It featured prominently in the novel Snow Crash, alternatively, there's an actual company as well ustorit.com if someone wants to create an article for that which is insufficient as, for example, tables are featured prominently in novels.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Stuck in a Rut ==== ==== Maynilad ==== Maynilad → Manila (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Maynilad Water Services. Maynilad more commonly refers to the water concessionaire in most contexts now, and very rare for anyone to think of Maynilad as the old spelling of ""Maynila"" (the Tagalog name of Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget as per rationale mentioned above. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget with a hatnote pointing to Manila --Lenticel (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== House of Bourbon–Anjou ==== House of Bourbon–Anjou → Spanish royal family (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in the target article. DrKay (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC) DrKay: Actually, it was the very topic of the target article until April 2022 [37] when it was split without discussion. And the split was executed so badly that neither article mentioned the other. May I suggest that this discussion be continued at Talk:Spanish royal family and addresses whether to split the article or not? No such user (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: For further participation. Post the last comment, No such user merged back content on the House of Bourbon–Anjou, and the nom removed it as unsourced and unverified.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to House of Bourbon#Bourbon branches where it is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Presidentman, which seems to be a much better alternative to deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === March 21 === ==== Template:Prose timeline ==== Template:Prose timeline → Template:Prose (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] and related Template:Proseline and possibly others. I don't know why this was merged instead of deleted after the 3rd nom in 2009[permalink], but its existence is still causing problems. Money quote from that Tfd is in the nom: Template masquerades as a policy/guideline-based cleanup tag, but is not. It is simply one editor's neologistic opinion about ""proseline"". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] 22:49, 28 August 2009That's still true, and now we have a minor kerfuffle at Tucker Carlson because of it, after my removal of Template:Proseline from Tucker Carlson#Media career in this edit, followed by active discussion at Talk:Tucker Carlson. Inviting User:Thebiguglyalien from that discussion. (Pinging User:SMcCandlish, as I'm uncertain if use inside a {{talk quote}} will mask the notif or not.) There are 11 redirects to Template:Prose, of which five have the problematic proseline term in the name. There are 21 transclusions of 'Template:Proseline', so maybe we can just hard-delete it and fix up the existing uses; or maybe convert it to a soft redirect instead, with an added ""Notes"" section with additional comment right on the redirect page, explaining why maybe you don't want to follow it? Or, do we just carry on as is, and put up with the occasional confusion? Possibly related (or maybe just confusing detail?): an earlier life of 'Template:Proseline' was moved to Template:ProseTimeline per Tfd in 2007. How do we get out of this mess? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Or maybe an additional, ""When to use"" section at Template:Prose/doc might help, or in particular, ""When not to use"", which exist on some templates, and which I find very helpful, sometimes. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: I'm not entirely sure what can be done to fix this, but WP:XFDCloser seems to think this is eligible to be closed because of the 2009 timestamp in the quote from TfD. Not an issue per se, just a note. TartarTorte 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) TartarTorte, thanks; I've masked the original 3rd nom link, and replaced it with a permalink; hopefully Xfdcloser won't see it now (unless it peers inside the comment). Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Oh, I see; you mean the one inside the talk quote, which you SMcC already hid; thanks for that. Restored it, entity-encoded; hopefully will work. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Looks all good to me now. Thanks! TartarTorte 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Comment Still hoping to get feedback on this. Imho, best option is to adjust the 21 transclusions, and delete the redirect Template:Proseline as misleading, confusing, and unrelated to any P&G. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think there's an issue that requires them to be deleted (though I don't care about them being kept). I think the spirit of {{Prose}} and WP:PROSELINE are compatible. I think the issue with the Tucker Carlson example is that the editor just misused the template – the way the section is written doesn't seem to match the issue described in WP:PROSELINE. All redirects of {{Prose}} are listed in WP:AWB/TR so could be easily replaced with AWB if need be. MClay1 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Pulau Laut ==== Pulau Laut → Natuna Regency (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It should be deleted to make way for an article on that specific sub-district. I will most likely create that article soon but do not have time now. Also for a template I am making with the sub-districts of Indonesia. Also no pages link there PalauanReich (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC) The target article has a few sentences about the island, which can reasonably be seen as its subtopic. So the redirect is perfectly OK so far: if you'd like to write an article, then just do that over the redirect: that's how things are normally done. However, the real complication here is the existence of another island wit the same name in a different part of the country: Laut Island. Judging by the information in that article, it may well be the primary topic for the term. – Uanfala (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Strong keep. The Laut Island off the coast of South Kalimantan is the primary topic as it is more notable with bigger population and more significance historically and economically, connected to Kotabaru Regency. Using search in Indonesian language about Pulau Laut also revals that it is mostly used to refer to the one in Kotabaru Regency. Nyanardsan (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Not necessary to delete the redirect in order to turn it into an article. Furius (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Relisting and pinging Nyanardsan to ask them to clarify their position: their !vote is phrased as ""keep"" but the actual argument seems to suggest retargeting to Laut Island. Other editors are also welcome to continue discussion.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Centiday ==== Centiday → Traditional Chinese timekeeping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Word is not currently mentioned at target. Used in context of Chinese timekeeping at Metric time, and more generally at Decimal time (whither I just redirected the newly-created Deciday). 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC) When you have a concern about an article not mentioning a redirect, have you ever considered actually editing the target article to add a mention of it? ""Not mentioned in the current version of the article"" is not an accepted reason for deleting redirects. Also, this redirect was created in 2006. That's 17 (seventeen) years ago. WP:RFD#HARMFUL says:The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are: a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history; if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in ""What links here""). Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. Deleting this would not be consistent with RFD's injunction to ""consider the deletion only...of recent ones"" (emphasis added). Editors might disagree over whether a redirect that is two years old counts as ""recent"", but nobody thinks a redirect that actually predates the birth of some of our editors is ""recent"". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: Metric time mentions centidays. See also wiktionary:centiday and {{wiktionary redirect}}. EpicPupper (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to decimal time. This is not a concept exclusive to Chinese timekeeping, and I have doubts that the term centiday is even used in this context; the article metric time claims that the Chinese unit kè is called centiday in a sentence that has had a {{citation needed}} tag for years. In any case, decimal time has a section about China with a link to the current target, and a section about France where centidays are actually discussed. V27t (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Piao Jinhui ==== Piao Jinhui → Park Geun-hye (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) @Patar knight No, it's the transliteration with the Chinese pronunciation and has never been used in Korea. Script doesn't equal pronunciation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The test for RLOTE is not use within the redirect target's home country, but a broader requirement for some kind of genuine cultural connection. Since Hanja characters are almost exclusively identical to their Chinese counterparts, I think that is sufficient for RLOTE. Generally, if you see something written in a foreign language, you should be able to find the relevant Wikipedia article by searching for a romanized version. As long as there's no errors, having such redirects is probably marginally useful at worst. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC) However, people finding things written in foreign languages search using that foreign language's transliteration. Assuming that some Korean articles still use Hanja, readers of it will understand that it's Korean and search for its Korean romanization. Readers of Chinese articles should search up Chinese in their own Wikipedias. By this logic we should keep redirects of Tangnade Telangpu to Donald Trump and romaji redirects of Hanja. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Obviously there are people familiar with both English and Chinese, and telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful. It's also likely that these users would not be as familiar with Korean and would not known the Korean romanization, or encounter the characters in a setting that is ambiguous as to the language or without sufficient context to otherwise identify the subject. Your examples can be distinguished from this case, and don't rebut my point that if there is a foreign term properly rendered in its native language, a valid romanization is an argument to keep per RLOTE. I believe RFD has in the past similarly kept Cyrillic romanizations of terms from other Slavic countries. Donald Trump is an American, and American English does not use Chinese characters, so this would fail RLOTE, though perhaps if it is covered, it might be redirected to an article on Donald Trump's foreign policy, Chinese use of transliteration in foreign policy, etc. The romaji case is more compelling, though perhaps too remote for RLOTE. It is both less direct, since Hanja => Chinese romanization is one step, but Hanja => Japanese kana => Japanese romaji is two steps (with an additional step if you want to factor in the linguistic history of kanji and hanja both being derived from Chinese), and would also be much less useful because of the much lower number of speakers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful, and so isn't deleting other redirects that fail RLOTE. To find the articles Chinese speakers can just type out the Hanja, they don't need to romanize it first. I get your point on English not using Chinese. However, Hanja to Romaji uses the same steps as Hanja to Pinyin. Pinyin is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Chinese characters mainland variant->Pinyin and Romaji is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Kanji (Chinese characters Japan variant)->Romaji. I do not see why you think Hanja needs to be converted to Japanese kana, which counts as an alternative ""romanization"" system with Chinese roots just like Bopomofo though it's more mainstream and covers more words, first. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) There are scenarios where it is might be easier to type in a romanization than typing hanja (e.g. lack of familiarity with/access to a hanja/traditional Chinese input system, encountering the hanja in a non-digital format). I guess if we account for simplified Chinese characters vs. the traditional ones used in hanja, it would be an additional step there, but many Chinese users would have passing familiarity with traditional characters or might be from somewhere where it is still used (e.g. Taiwan), which reduces that friction. My understanding of romaji, though I may be mistaken, is that although the pronunciation in all systems is the same, it is technically derived from the pronunciation of the hiragana/katakana versions of the kanji, so there is an additional layer of remoteness for RLOTE purposes. I'm not at all familiar with if the hanja used in South Korean names would be among the most commonly taught kanji characters, so perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, though the utility argument would still apply. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Also, while researching more in depth for the above conversation, I found this article from Korea JoongAng Daily, with a brief mention of how Chinese tourists referred to the then South Korean president by the pinyin of her name in Hanja as opposed to a transliteration of how her name would be pronounced in Korean. They take pictures with their phones, and you can hear many of them talking with excitement about Piao Jinhui, the Chinese pronunciation of the name of President Park Geun-hye. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Lǐ Chéngwǎn ==== Lǐ Chéngwǎn → Syngman Rhee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Li Chengwan → Syngman Rhee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Po Zhengxi → Park Chung-hee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration. 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's s a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. Also, the target is from an era when Hanja was in more widespread use than today. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Li Mingbo ==== Li Mingbo → Lee Myung-bak (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's s a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Break down of demonic structures ==== Break down of demonic structures → Classification of demons (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how helpful such a redirect is. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. Implausible typo. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) If the typo is the issue, move without redirect to Breakdown of demonic structures. Jay 💬 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Delete as not useful. --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Jesus as Christ and Messiah ==== Jesus as Christ and Messiah → Jesus in Christianity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Jesus as Christ → Jesus in Christianity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The idea that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah is also present in Islam and in Druze faith. Therefore, I propose to redirect all to Religious perspectives on Jesus. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. There is a difference between seeing Jesus as some sort of messianic figure and seeing Jesus as the Christ. ""Christ"" is a distinctly Christian term—it is not used to refer to Jesus by Muslims nor the Druze. And, in any case, the WP:PTOPIC for this phrase is going to have to be the Christian view of Jesus (i.e. Jesus as Christ) rather than the Muslim and Druze concepts. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Refining both, per the below, would also make plenty of sense to me and would have my full support. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)""Christ"" is a distinctly Christian term for purely linguistic reasons. Christ is from Greek χριστός, meaning ""anointed""; it is an exact translation of Hebrew משיח (English: ""messiah""). Muslims and Druze use Messiah instead of Christ because their adherents primarily speak Semitic languages and so use the Semitic word instead of the Indo-European one. Conceptually, there is no difference. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Perhaps, but I think that we should care about English-language connotation when doing this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Refine both to Jesus in Christianity#Christ, Logos and Son of God, which is specifically about Jesus as Christ. Duckmather (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)I don't really have an opinion here, but is the proposed subsection a better target than Christology or Christ (title)? I suppose it depends on what the reader is actually looking for, and as is the case with many of our articles on religion, there is a lot of overlap in topic coverage. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Pendar ==== Pendar → Zoroastrianism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC) This existed as an article between 2006 and 2013. Its main content was: Pendar (Persian: پندار pendâr) is a Persian word meaning ""thought"" or ""imagination"". It is used by Zoroastrians: Pendar-e-Neek (""Good/Honorable Thoughts"") is one of the three main pillars of Zoroastrianism, Iran's ancient religion. We have articles about the specific Zoroastrian concepts (like Vohu Manah for 'good though'), but I'm not sure the Farsi names are used for those, and pendar by itself seems like just a component of these terms, not a distinct encyclopedic concept of its own. So I think the redirect can be safely deleted, and this will have the benefit of revealing in the search results some unrelated minor topics with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Delete per above. — The Anome (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) An article with this title was earlier moved to Kenneth Pendar, and later Pendar became a dab with the Kenneth article as an entry, which then became a See also entry, and then was removed by an IP with no explanation. Jay 💬 09:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate to Kenneth Pendar, Seyed Pendar Toufighi, and Mohsen Pezeshkpour, all as personal names or nicknames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I think the middle name entry is a bit stretched, but if Pendar was the nickname of Mohsen Pezeshkpour, then it makes sense to have a DAB with two entries. Jay 💬 07:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: I also support the DAByfication, but as a second choice after deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03 as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03. Makes more sense as a disambiguation. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page would help...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) @Steel1943: Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== F-zerogplegend.com ==== F-zerogplegend.com → F-Zero: GP Legend (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete - URL in the redirect is dead, so it's not a believable target for searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Keep Still a valid search term. I don’t see why we should delete it, as some people may still search for the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicoleJR (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC) As I said, the URL is dead, so it is highly unlikely anyone would search for the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom as an implausible and outdated search term. CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Delete or Expand the article – I disagree with the point in it not being a believable target: notability does not degrade over time. If the URL was alive at any point, it could be cited in sources from the time, and so it's possible for someone to find the URL in one of the sources and try to search for more information about the site. However, the article does not provide any information about the site in its current state. If the site is covered by secondary sources, then the article can be expanded to talk about it. Otherwise, delete as unhelpful. I did not find any reliable coverage on the site from a quick search personally. Randi Moth (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The problem is that the archived versions of the site require Flash Player since the site was only designed to use it, so there isn't value to mentioning it as in other cases and as far as I can tell, none of the Flash alternatives are able to work with the site. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Website names past or present are valid search terms. If this was their official website, keep, otherwise delete. Jay 💬 17:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Here is the Internet Archive's first saved copy, though as noted it doesn't work right due to the lack of Flash. It does have links to the Nintendo website at the bottom, though if that is not enough proof then there is a problem as the Nintendo website archive for the time only properly works with Flash. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC) True. Before I made the vote, I visited the web archive of ALL the years and months of the website to see if any one version is good to be added as an external link in the Infobox or External links. I do not know if this was their official website. A reader may search for a website to know about the subject the website represents. In case of a defunct website, he may or may not be interested to see how the site looked before it was pulled down. In this case, it only gives an idea of the background colour, and the footer. Jay 💬 06:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC) It is a bummer that Ruffle is currently unable to load the website as it would likely make this discussion easier. The Internet Archive did save more files that just the front page, but most of them don't really help: Sweepstakes, Wallpaper A, B, and C. That is pretty much everything that was saved at the time. If we could get to the GBA page on Nintendo.com, then we could easily confirm the connection, like with this link connecting Dr. Mario / Puzzle League to www.puzzleleague.com, but it likely is just a wild goose chase. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Official website per Skynxnex. Jay 💬 06:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep Given the state of the internet in 2004, it seems more likely than not that the website in question was the official website of the video game. Maybe if someone has a copy of the game or even a Nintendo Power issue from then it could be verified? But anyways, I'm weak on this because even then I think it's pretty implausible someone would type in the URL of the website without already knowing the name of the video game today. Legoktm (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Keep It was at least one of their official websites (see back of box at like https://www.gamingrelics.com/Game_Boy_Advance/GBA_FZero_GP_Legend), it's not harmful to keep that I can sell, and could be useful. Skynxnex (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Regional Center ==== Regional Center → General Toll Switching Plan#Regional Center (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Regional centre → Regional centre (Singapore) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Are these terms really that specific? Should this be a DAB page? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Yes. It is a term of art in telecommunication, a proper name of a class of toll switching centers, that's why it is capitalized. You can create some disambig page, but not for the proper name. kbrose (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Weak Disambiguate - these are extremely genetic terms. There is sort of a dab page in the history of Regional centre ([38]). If you search using either the -re or -er spelling on Wikipedia there are many, many partial matches, but I wonder if any of these are ever referred to without the other parts of the name. And of course there is the usage to refer to a place of significance to a region, very common in Australia at least (eg see [39] and indeed Regional Australia, which at least could be listed on the DAB page). I do have a very hard time believing that either of the current targets are the primary topics, in any case. A7V2 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: These terms are very ambiguous and I don't think a DAB is the way to go. If we did choose to disambiguate the page I think we'd have trouble defending what meets the threshold for a ""regional center"". Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm starting to lean more towards deletion. I'm definitely questioning whether Regional centre (Singapore) is really notable anyway, it just seems like a generic term used in planning in many countries. I have PRODed it. A7V2 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Note: I have merged Regional centre (Singapore) into Regions of Singapore wholesale. Adjustments to the content is underway. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Regional Center as a redirect, delete Regional centre. Now that there is no other page called ""Regional centre"", DAB is not needed. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Regional centre as too generic per Lights and freedom and A7V2. Move Regional Center without redirect to Regional Center (telecommunications) just as the Singapore entry has a disambiguator to provide context to a generic term. Jay 💬 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more try...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Comment if the -er form(s) exist the -re forms should exist as redirects to the article/the same target as extremely plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Blocklauncher ==== Blocklauncher → Minecraft modding (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Previous RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Minecraft foobar. During the time between the previous RFD and this RFD, the mention of this term was removed from the target in this revision. As such, this term is no longer mentioned in the target nor in any other Wikipedia article. Nearly all of the sources that I have found on Google are unreliable. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== “Toni Fowler” ==== ==== Douglass Mackey ==== Douglass Mackey → Paul Nehlen#Social media bans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I'm uncomfortable with redirecting the name of a (currently) non-notable person to the biography of the man who ""outed"" his online identity. This redirect's creator also created the Stephen French (troll) redirect which was deleted per ""If he's not notable on his own I don't see good reason to have any sort of redirect at all."" Wikipedia briefly had an article about him in April 2018 which was deleted by Bbb23 per (G10: Biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced) despite its citations to HuffPost, New York Daily News, Southern Poverty Law Center and Daily Dot. Arguably he has become notable since January 2021 when he was charged with disseminating misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote. This was not mentioned in the previously deleted version of his bio, but has been covered by reliable sources: New York Times WPTV– wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Template:England Tours ==== ==== Richest american guy ever ==== Richest american guy ever → List of wealthiest historical figures (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Seems to be a joke redirect that originally redirected to a joke article that has since been deleted. This is not a serious or encyclopedic search term, and it is also not specifically addressed in the current target. As such, I propose deletion. TNstingray (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Delete – I wouldn't necessarily call it a joke, but it's certainly very casual and an unlikely search term. If it is kept, it should be redirected to List of richest Americans in history, which is where its original target now redirects. MClay1 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC) May also want to consider: Wealthiest american guy ever, Richest american guy in history, Wealthiest american guy in history and Richest american guy. MClay1 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unlikely Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Monph ==== ==== Grilled beef ==== ==== Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur ==== Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur → Bishnupriya Manipuri people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It needs to be deleted because it's an inappropriate title and no one will search any information in this title. Besides, the article is not about the two ethnicities' comparison but only about one ethnic group. That title sounds like the name of a book or a particular literary work. Haoreima (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Notified of this RfD at the target talk and creator's talk pages. The page was at this title for 4 years before being moved. Per nom, it is not clear what the old title represented. The initial target was Ethnic groups of Manipur which is now a redirect that targets Manipur#Demographics. I don't think the creator has had any RfD notifications in the last ten years at least, other than the ones involving his nickname! Jay 💬 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Let's Keep it as a unique Jimmy Wales edit (history of Wikipedia related, unless, of course, it is one edit too many for the servers and freezes Wikipedia in situ). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""Unique""? There are 14k+ of them to date. Is it desirable to preserve all of them for posterity? DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Bishnupuriya Utsab ==== Bishnupuriya Utsab → Bishnupur, Bankura (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Bishnupuriya Ustav → Bishnupur, Bankura (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It needs to be deleted because the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Haoreima (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Peter James (Pseudohistorian) ==== ==== Una (prefix) ==== Una (prefix) → Unit prefix#Unofficial prefixes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There is nothing about ""una"" in the article and this redirect is therefore confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC) When the redirect was put in place in 2004-2005, the article did mention the (bogus) Una- prefix. See e.g. here. We should document it and add it to the article. At which point the redirect will become legitimate again. Urhixidur (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Delete unless added to the target with reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target yet.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Michigan Business School ==== Michigan Business School → Ross School of Business (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Michigan School of Business → Ross School of Business (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Ambiguous search terms which could refer to any of the pages in Category:Business schools in Michigan or at the Michigan section of List of business schools in the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Hm. Weak delete for Michigan Business School and weak keep for Michigan School of Business. Given that Ross is the only school in that category with ""school"" in its name and the latter is closer to its name than the former. Skynxnex (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Based on your comment I found Mike Ilitch School of Business at Wayne State University. I've now created a redirect and added it to that category. Additionally, I found List of business schools in the United States, which mentions Oakland University School of Business Administration. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Interesting. I think I am still a weak keep for that but now much weaker. It still seems by far the most likely target for someone just typing that. Skynxnex (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep Michigan School of Business as the school's former name was ""University of Michigan School of Business Administration,"" which is reasonably similar. Weak delete Michigan Business School as ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Given that the category now has school entries other than Ross.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to List of business schools in the United States#Michigan (I've just added anchors to that table), where all the possible targets should be listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC) === March 20 === ==== Specific redirects to Multivitamin ==== Amdexyn → Multivitamin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Oralovite → Multivitamin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Vitaped → Multivitamin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These are names of multivitamine supplements that seem to be not notable on their own and are not mentioned at the target. While Vitaped is mentioned in List of drugs: Vf–Vz, it is in a list with no description on what it does. Oralovite and Amdexyn have no mentions at all on wikipedia. It seems these would be best deleted. TartarTorte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. The Multivitamin article does not need to be a directory of every multivitamin formulation and trade name, but on the other hand, it serves a purpose to be able to look up individual trade names to see that they are multivitamins. Each redirect takes minimal space, and reduces the risk that anyone will start them as new separate articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Redirects without mentions are only rarely useful as they don't provide any additional information to those who know what they are and are likely to confuse those who don't. If these aren't notable enough to even be included in a list that gives information about what they are then we do not have any information about them and should mislead people (including users of third-party search engines) into thinking we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per the above. We don't need redirects on every medicine in the world, only the ones where the readers can find some information. Jay 💬 06:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Fighter (2023 film) ==== ==== The El (disambiguation) ==== The El (disambiguation) → El train (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not a valid term for or on the target page. There is no indication that the phrase ""The El"" specifically refers to trains. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Weak retarget to El, although the use of the definite article makes it seem somewhat implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC) 'Retarget per Presidentman -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Doubled ""The"" redirects ==== ==== Alu Kurumba language (redirect) ==== ==== President of Canada ==== President of Canada → Prime Minister of Canada (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] President of canada → Governor General of Canada (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Canada does not have, and has never had, a president, nor an equivalent position in the executive. A set index masquerading as a disambiguation page listing only entries that don't fit the description was deleted at AFD a few months ago and the title was left to redirect to the current target, which is incorrect. It has also been a redirect to Governor General of Canada (also wrong), Monarchy of Canada (very wrong), and Republicanism in Canada (less wrong) in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Republicanism in Canada, the only article out of the series which discusses the concept of a Canadian presidency. Coincidentally it also lists the only two people who have actually held the title of President in a functioning legislative body in what is now Canada, John Bruce and Louis Riel, both presidents of the provisional Red River Colony government (the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia) which joined Confederation as the province of Manitoba about six months after forming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note - added the lowercase redirect. They should at least target the same thing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - The only position it can be equated to (i.e. Head of state), is the Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Delete — No equivalent office. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Canada (contra the nom here, the consensus was to redirect not delete). This is an extremely plausible search term - Sahaib commented in the AfD that it was getting 84 views a day in September, and even as a less-visible redirect it's still getting an average of 1 use per day. Yes it's wrong, but the people using this almost certainly don't know that, those arriving at the article about the PM will be educated (Wikipedia's primary goal), a redlink doesn't help anybody and search results are unpredictable, sometimes multiple clicks/taps away and even if they do find something relevant there is no guarantee that the searcher will read them and learn anything. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget the second to Prime Minister of Canada. The consensus at the AfD was to target the first in this manner, and I see no reason why a different logic would apply to the second. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada much like Prime Minister of the United States redirects to President of the United States. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Delete I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a redirect to a non-existent office. Wikipedia is about getting it right. We shouldn't be referring to offices that have never existed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) No, Wikipedia is not about ""getting it right"", Wikipedia is about providing knowledge so that readers are educated about whatever it is they are looking up. In instances like this we do that best by taking readers the article that best explains what they searched isn't right but rather something similar is, which in this instance is Prime Minister of Canada. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Stubbify up an article on the misconception of the office of President of Canada, who has espoused such, and the proposals to create such an office, republicanism in Canada; also cover the potential equivalents of such an office (GG, monarch of Canada, PM) that exist -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm against deletion for the record; as for whether to target a specific office or a general concept article, I prefer Republicanism in Canada (the general concept with history of the proposed position) with a hatnote directing to the various offices that could be considered equivalent to a president: the monarch, the GG, and the PM. Also, many Westminster republics have a president and a prime minister, as many former Commonwealth realms simply swapped out the monarch/viceregal for a president, so it's a reasonable guess that someone searching for this is trying to find out who the actual President of Canada is, rather than just mistaken about the head of state or head of government's title. Overall, we can debate over which incorrect office to redirect to (though to be fair the PM is the most likely choice), but choosing any specific office is going to be wrong, and also does not provide the reader with as relevant information as could be provided in the republicanism article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Also, fwiw, William Lyon Mackenzie was briefly President of Canada, in the short-lived Republic of Canada that attempted to break away from British rule during the Upper Canada rebellions. I don't think he makes a good redirect target, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)I wonder, if it would be possible to (if not delete or redirect) expand 'President of Canada' into an article. I think we do have other such pages on offices that didn't have full recognition, like President of the Confederate States. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) The way this discussion is going, it seems that explanation is going to end up being a long and awkward hatnote at the Prime Minister of Canada article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada for reasons stated above. Many people from other countries may just be looking for the leader of the country and search president. No need to worry about theoretical cases of republicanism when that common search would be coming up every day. Dan Carkner (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget both to Prime Minister of Canada. It is much more likely that the head of government is what is wanted. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete both as nonexistent concept, or (second choice) redirect to Republicanism in Canada. Do not redirect to either the head of state (a very plausible target) or the head of government (another plausible target) without a big fat stupid hatnote. Third choice: stub/pseudo-disambiguation page on the misconception that there is a president of Canada. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'm personally in favour of deletion, as it's a nonexistent position (unless we're just opening the gates to all conceptual opposing terms) (post: after some time, I'm actually can see the reason for a redirect to PM). That said, might people consider retargeting this article to the Republic of Canada, seeing as how that is the only place where such a position actually existed. Leventio (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Timeline of of children's television on the BBC ==== ==== Supreme Council of of Georgia ==== ==== Murder of of Daunte Wright ==== ==== Cheese and Onion ==== ==== Serbia and Montenegro-NATO relations ==== ==== Righteous People's Faith ==== Righteous People's Faith → Hero shrine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure what the connection is of this term with the target article, it's not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Comment The redirect originated as a link to Chinese hero cult, which is now BLAR'd. Appears to originate from a direct translation of the Chinese name for ""heroes"" (義民) listed there, that being ""righteous people"", if Wiktionary is correct and character-by-character translation is accurate. Randi Moth (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @Randi Moth that is correct. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)@Onel5969 @Randi Moth considering that it’s not used at all could be deleted, but it remaining will make certain past revision of pages and such easier Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Not mentioned in any media under this translated name. The cross-language wiki can handle the characters. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Normative principle ==== ==== Global Series ==== Global Series → FIFAe World Cup#Online qualification (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] ""Global Series"" is too generic to redirect to FIFA. The NHL and Apex Legends Global Series are much more popular. I propose to either delete this redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page. TimSmit (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate as with World Tour. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate there is also the Global-series of business jets Bombardier Global -- 5000/6000/7000/7500 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig per the above. There are also mentions of Global Series at List of Magic: The Gathering sets#Introductory sets, Massey Ferguson#Overview of tractor models (although this might be better as a redlink) and Evans Data Corporation#Syndicated surveys. The CCGS disambig includes ""Crown Championship: Global Series, a worldwide Clash Royale tournament"", and this possibly should too, along with see alsos to World Series (disambiguation) and International Series. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold ==== Amar Bail ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Amar Bail ==== KWBD ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#KWBD ==== Tuyet ==== ==== Dissenting catholic ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Dissenting catholic ==== Arthur Feck ==== ==== SolidGoldMagikarp ==== SolidGoldMagikarp → ChatGPT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in the target article. Apparently, entering this term into ChatGPT will break the AI. Addition of this term into the article could be trivial and could possibly violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - Not commenting on whether or not it should be deleted, but about WP:NOTGUIDE, I would say that its addition into the article would not be a violation. Sure, we shouldn't list every term found to have this effect, but adding a few examples and discussing briefly why it happens would be a fine addition to the article, most likely to the limitations section. – Popo Dameron talk 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)I should note that multiple statements like this have been removed from the article in the past.[40][41] Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)I'm the one who removed that first one, so I can tell you that's a very different case :) The instances you linked are anecdotal examples of 'tricking' the model into disobeying its instructions. This, on the other hand, is an actual bug in the code (that is backed by reliable sources) and not just an example of a ""jailbreak"". – Popo Dameron talk 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Technically, a jailbreak is also an actual bug in the code. See Privilege escalation where it explicitly mentions that it is a bug. Also you haven’t actually provided any reliable sources that suggests that this should be included in the target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and expand the target page. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Keep for now - this term is an example of ""weird"" prompts that lie near the centroid of the vectorized word space of certain language models (such as earlier versions of ChatGPT) and which therefore produce unusual behaviour in the AI. These kinds of tokens are a legitimate vector of academic inquiry that are likely to show up in formal literature if they have not already (there has been extensive discussion in AI technical/research blogspaces). As such I'd leave this pointing here as the most relevant target until we can source a more robust section... definitely not a case of ""not a guide"" as this refers to a specific phenomenon rather than a ""thing to avoid"". 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Do you actually have any reliables sources for this term to be added into the article? Also, blogs are not reliable sources. What you have said above says nothing on why we should keep this redirect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I believe we should cover the topic of glitch tokens in some way, but I believe that a section at the ChatGPT article is a bad idea. The behaviour is identical with Bing Chat and all other GPT-3-based products, and moreover, milder glitches can be observed with GPT-2 as well (but nobody observed them before they were discovered on GPT-3). I would prefer a section at Generative pre-trained transformer or a separate article. Ain92 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target, nor has an alternate target topic added to Generative pre-trained transformer.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. The term is mentioned in passing in The Washington Post and there's a bit more in Vice (marginally reliable publication in trivial cases). I'm not sure there's enough material to add to any target. Doesn't this seem too trivial and would the content pass WP:10YT? The name is so obscure that this redirect would only be helpful if the term is mentioned in the target (and there's some kind of consensus to add), but in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first. Politrukki (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Delete – not mentioned at the target, and as User:Politrukki says, ""in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first"". It's not a particularly useful redirect anyway – this phrase is always or almost always found in sources about ChatGPT, so a reader searching for the term is likely trying to figure out whether ""SolidGoldMagikarp"" means anything in any other context, not to find information about ChatGPT in general. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Keep, maybe arguably SolidGoldMagikarp should even be its own page, or something similar to this should be. Mathmo Talk 10:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC) As said above, most reliable sources only mention this term in passing. The only reason this term is known is because of a software bug. There is no way that this term meets WP:GNG. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more go...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Comment is this some kind of glitch or easter egg? It really should be mentioned in the article as a section. Otherwise it could redirect to Magikarp. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @AngusWOOF: there's a hypothesis that this is a glitch that was caused by feeding the model data from Reddit conversations. Nothing certain. SolidGoldMagikarp is a Reddit username that means nothing without proper context. The glitch is apparently in multiple versions of GPT (I have no information about GPT-4, which was released to the public after this nomination), and is not ChatGPT-specific which suggests ChatGPT would be a poor target. I would love to support something like what Ain92 said, but I don't think the sourcing is there yet. It's very much possible that in the future someone publishes a paper in scholarly sources about this or similar topics, in which case a redirect could be justifiable. Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I just checked on GPT-4, and yes, it absolutely does glitch with them at temperature 0. In fact, even if you just ask to repeat "" SolidGoldMagikarp"" in quotes, it starts writing poetry about rate limiting for LLM users (I could share an excerpt if it is relevant). I might have hit a rate limit not realising it. Anyway, at least one glitch token was definitely detected in GPT-4. The working theory is that these tokens were included because a counting subreddit (literally counting from 1 to infinity, nothing else), certain pieces of programming/HTML code and a game wiki were included in the tokenizing, but then removed from the training data as garbage, so the model has these tokens it has never seen in its life (imagine a third eye looking inside your head, which is never reached by light: you would be very surprised if in a scientific experiment that eye activated) and therefore can't normally predict them. The tokens were initialized in embedding spaces in different places depending on the model version, and that's likely why different models exhibit different glitch behavior. There is research ongoing on the topic, but most of it is self-published or sometimes even tweeted out. Ain92 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) PS Here's https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzyva/ai-chatgpt-tokens-words-break-reddit [a VICE article from February] BTW. ==== Chem. Eur. ==== ==== EC Warriner (E.C. Warriner) ==== === March 18 === ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#List of Blu-ray Disc devices ==== List of released blu-ray discs ==== ==== A Grade ==== ==== Rap and hiphop ==== ==== Spectator Club ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25#Spectator Club ==== Draft:Las Vegas Strip Street Circuit ==== ==== 2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States ==== ==== Big'uns ==== Big'uns → Al Bundy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This has a minor mention as the (parody) magazine at the target which is of a fictional character. An external search associates the magazine more with multiple characters of the sitcom Married... with Children, than with a single character. The sitcom article also has a mention, but as the BigUns magazine. The magazine name in the sitcom is shown as BIG 'UNS [42] At a recently closed RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Bigun, while I had initially suggested a disambiguation with the Dayna Danger work Big 'Uns, I thought the Al Bundy reference is too minor to be kept as a redirect. I would prefer deletion, but am open to other suggestions as well. Jay 💬 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. This is ambiguous with Big 'Uns which leads to substantive information at Dayna Danger. I suggest a hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Shhhnotsoloud: Why would the current target, which is one character of the sitcom, be better than Married... with Children? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. If the redirect cannot be kept, it should be retargeted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Jax 0677: Retargeted to where? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Three-Body - TV series ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Three-Body - TV series ==== Iconic Bassist Extrodinair...The New Era of Live Music ==== ==== ICC members ==== === March 17 === ==== Evil-speaking ==== ==== Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature ==== Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature → Beelzebub#Judaism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The capital letters make this redirect unhelpful. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) If the concern is capital letters, move without redirect to Baal-zebub in Rabbinical literature. Jay 💬 16:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Corrected to Baal-zebub in rabbinical literature per Eureka. Jay 💬 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Move as proposed by Jay. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I don't understand Jay's proposal. Why would we want to move this from an incorrectly-capitalized title to a different incorrectly-capitalized title? - Eureka Lott 14:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry I thought Rabbinical would be capitalized. Jay 💬 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and per WP:MOVEREDIRECT since this redirect is not a {{R with history}}; if Baal-zebub in Rabbinical literature Baal-zebub in rabbinical literature needs to be created, it can be created individually without moving this redirect to it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Updated per Jay's updated comment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ==== More ""upcoming"" no longer upcoming ==== ==== Turkish invasion ==== Turkish invasion → 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Ambiguous with Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which anyway is a WP:PTM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I think there are two options here. The first option is to create a disambiguation page which lists all pages which could come under this title. The second option is to delete as there is no WP:PTOPIC. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I would agree with InterstellarGamer12321 and note that there are several Turkish invasions that come up in the quick search. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Create list, which would be a list of Turkish invasions, and then point this page to that list. There are a number of invasions carried out by Turkey (or its predecessor state) that could be pointed to by this. No such individual invasion is the WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment – can this not also refer to invasions of Turkey? J947 † edits 06:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment there is already a whole can of worms of these. UPDATE: added all per User:Champion/invasion: British invasion is a redirect to a proper noun with a hatnote to a dab Chinese invasion - redirect to Military history of China Christmas Island invasion - redirect to Battle of Christmas Island French invasion - disambiguation page with link to 2 categories. German invasion - redirect to Operation Barbarossa Iraqi invasion - redirect to 2003 invasion of Iraq Israeli invasion - redirect to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which is a disambiguation page Mongolian invasion - redirect to Mongol military tactics and organization Russian invasion - disambiguation page Spanish invasion - disambiguation page Swedish invasion - disambiguation page Ukrainian invasion - redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of UkraineIn addition, American invasion, Dutch invasion, Indian invasion and Italian invasion, among others, do not exist but there are pages beginning with those titles.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as the singular title assumes there is one primary invasion. This is not Turkish invasions, List of Turkish invasions, List of invasions by Turkey or List of invasions of Turkey, which would have been more plausible redirect titles than the one being discussed. We have a List of invasions where Turkey can be found, but this is a list classified by date. If this was a discussion of Turkish invasions I could have supported a redirect to Category:Invasions by Turkey. Jay 💬 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Create and retarget to Turkish invasions, probably a set index is going to be better than a dab page, but this is an ambiguous but likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Template:Station-stub ==== Template:Station-stub → Template:Railstation-stub (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is an ambiguous template term. I think this template redirect should be disambiguated. From Bassie f (his talk page) 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguated how? It points to Template:Railstation-stub which is less ambiguous. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) See Template:Radio-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Also see Template:Tv-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I know that those exist, as do several others with ""station-stub"" in the name. What I mean is, exactly what is to be done in order to ""disambiguate"" this redirect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate There are only two transclusions, but most of the links refer to TV or radio stations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate using the draft I provided. From Bassie f (his talk page) 03:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Bassie f: Presumably you mean these edits. I don't know of other pages in template space where that method is used; please could you point to some examples? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) An example is Template:Infobox broadcast @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 19:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That is not a redirect, nor is it a stub template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I have done further research and it turns out no stub templates are disambiguation pages. @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment Previously discussed on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion in June 2005, see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#{{station-stub}} → {{broadcasting-stub}} / Category:Station stubs. Bassie f (his talk page) 03:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Bassie f: Since it was previously deleted at an XfD, and recreated without any WP:DRV that I can find, it may qualify for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Since 2005 is now so long ago I'd caution against G4. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Put a CSD G4 template on this redirect just now. From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The previous target was Template:Broadcasting-stub while the current target is Template:Railstation-stub and I though generally with G4 and RFD the target has to be the same or at least similar, a completely different target generally precludes G4. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale, because of your reasons, I will remove the CSD tag soon. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Removed the CSD tag just now. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I'd also add a 3rd reason in addition to different target and time passed in that you drafted a DAB after that was suggested. Going back to the redirect I'd point out that there are lots of different types of stations including broadcasting stations, police stations, bait stations etc but the only one that is commonly called just ""station(s)"" are train stations. If someone says ""I'm going to the station"" unless the context is otherwise established its almost always understood to mean train stations even if you could be going to any other type of station. If you were going to the police or bus station you would say ""I'm going to the police/bus station"" not ""I'm going to the station"". If someone transcludes this title its highly likely they are wanting to mark a stub as a train station stub and even more unlikely they are wanting broadcasting stations. I'd be fine with having this title as a DAB like Station is but the present target is far more suitable than the previous one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: nominator makes a great point that this isn't specific enough to point to just one template, but I've never seen a disambiguation page in template space and as far as I'm aware that's totally nonstandard. If, however, it turns out that's a wrong assumption and a dab page is fine, then consider me in support for that. QuietHere (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Template dab pages are uncommon but they exist. MClay1 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Weak keep unless we generally don't have stub redirects it seems likely per my comment above that this is by far the most likely target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate into Template:Railstation-stub, Template:Radio-station-stub and Template:Tv-station-stub. greyzxq talk 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Ketchup chips ==== ==== WaveLight ==== ==== South Ukraine counteroffensive ==== South Ukraine counteroffensive → 2022 Kherson counteroffensive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] A representative of Ukraine's military has declared Ukraine intends to do a counteroffensive against Russia on spring to cut Russia's corridor connecting Crimea with the mainland [43]. This corridor is located in Ukraine's south. But the current target article is also about a counteroffensive in the south. This redirect is ambiguous and will turn problematic in the future. Besides, the most appropriate title for such a new counteroffensive will most likely be something like ""2023 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive"". A disambiguation page is not necessary. So I believe it is best to delete the redirect. It does not have any link and received one single view in the last 30 days anyways. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) If ambiguous, it can be made a disambiguation page. Why will it turn problematic? If there is no article with mention of the Crimea counteroffensive yet, it means the current target is still a relevant ""current"" target. Jay 💬 17:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as there are several counteroffensives per Tavix, and redirecting to either a specific counteroffensive, or a generic page is not helpful to a reader who is specifically looking for counteroffensives. Jay 💬 15:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Southern Ukraine campaign? -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ..which is the target of Southern Ukraine offensive. I think the term counteroffensive is key in this discussion. Jay 💬 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) There's plenty of discussion about counteroffensives, including Southern Ukraine campaign#Fall of Mariupol, Ukrainian counter-attacks, and stalemate and Southern Ukraine campaign#Kherson-Mykolaiv counter-offensive. -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Pithius ==== Pithius → Classification of demons#CITEREFAgrippa1510 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target anymore. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Comment: This would normally be a delete since there is no opposition, and I wouldn't oppose it either. My only observations are that this is a 2003-created page which was a stub that got BLARd. It has been getting 10+ daily page views the last 8 years. It could be because it is linked at List of theological demons or users may be looking for something else, probably a misspelling of Pittheus, Pytheas, or one of Pythius (disambiguation), or Pythias (disambiguation). Jay 💬 16:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)According to both the initial stub article and the now removed section in the target [44], ""Pithius"" is one of the demons in the classification in Francis Barrett's The Magus. The version of this text this text that I've had a look at doesn't seem to mention this name, although it does mention Pythius. It could be an alternative name from a different edition of this text, but either way the topic doesn't seem worth providing navigation for. I'm tempted by the idea of creating a slightly non-standard dab page from Jay's list above: these items are all difficult to spell, and ""Pithius"" is a plausible misspelling for all of them. I wouldn't leave that to the search engine, as it doesn't seem capable of handling it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario ==== Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario → Market of Goa (Van Doetecum) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is a procedural nomination, given that it has been nominated multiple times for CSD and it has been declined over and over again. In an effort to break that cycle, I am asking the wider community to have its say. The article was at its former title from February 2022 to February 2023. Arguments for its deletion can be seen at Talk:Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario, Special:Permalink/1140019916, and Special:Permalink/1139589271. Additionally, see User talk:LlywelynII § Criteria for speedy deletion (permalink). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Keep - seems a reasonable enough way to search for this, and quite unambiguously takes someone searching it to exactly what they are looking for. Certainly nothing bad enough to warrant deleting a redirect that was this article's title for a year (WP:RFD#K4). A7V2 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Delete, obviously. It's a nonsense string of out-of-order words put there by a college student doing an assignment (poorly) and simply wasn't noticed before. It's completely useless even for SEO searching (all those terms are in the article already) so just let the thing die already. xD No idea why this became a cause celebre for some of the admins. We aren't going to create Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, portraits of women, or Dan Jurgens, page 37, Death of Superman, or Avengers, that scene where he's really fat, Liam Hemsworth's brother and we shouldn't keep this silliness. Already fixed the incoming links and, w/r/t RFD#K4 concerns, no there isn't enough traffic for it to be an actual concern. — LlywelynII 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Delete per LlywelynII, mainly because of the out of order terms. The redirect title should not be a list of search terms in random order. Also, I don't know why the target has a disambiguated title. Move the target to Market of Goa. Jay 💬 10:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Keep because this was the title of the article for a year. I agree this is a very, very unlikely search term, but given K4 it is likely there will be outdated links from other sites which pointed to this article and therefore now instead point to this redirect. J947 † edits 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)LlywelynII, it's orthogonal to this discussion but the article's title should be (Van Linschoten), right? Or am I being dumb... J947 † edits 03:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) But why have the disambiguator at all? Jay 💬 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Dennis Rogers ==== Dennis Rogers → Denis Rogers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Incorrect spelling left over from old move ★Trekker (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. Completely plausible spelling, considering Dennis is written more commonly with a double n. No harm in keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Keep per CycloneYoris. This redirect is potentially helpful to people who're searching for his name like that. Disambiguate per J947 and all ""disambiguate"" !voters below, and add a ""See also"" section including Denis Rogers' article. @BD2412: Thanks for finding all these other entries! Regards, SONIC678 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC), edited 01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Delete or disambiguate. I was just about to say what these two said, but this is an ambiguous title. Search is more helpful than a straight target in this instance IMO, despite a plethora of unhelpful partial title matches. I suggest disambiguation would be the most helpful, but equally all the Dennises Rogers mentioned on the site carry little information beyond the mention. J947 † edits 01:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC) To add, a search outside of Wikipedia also results in a lot of hits for several other people and fictional charaters named ""Dennis Rogers"", it might be misleading to direct all people to Denis Rogers.★Trekker (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Reaffirming that I strongly disagree with keeping as is. Correct titles should be prioritised over incorrect titles. The dab page sort of stretches it at the moment, but I'm fine with that. J947 † edits 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. Search still works. Denis Rogers is not in search results so would not be found. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry what do you mean?★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC) It's still possible to search for something if it's the same as an article title. Search for ""Dennis Rogers"" and the Denis Rogers article is not in the results, so without a redirect would not be found. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC) What? That makes no sense, if you search ""Dennis Rogers"" you get redirected to Denis Rogers, and if you search ""Denis Rogers"" you also get that article.★Trekker (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. I find the following additional instances in a search for ""Dennis Rogers"":Mike Rogers (Alabama politician), full name Michael Dennis Rogers Dennis Rogers, Vancouver Canadians minor league baseball team manager in 2003, 2004, and 2006 Dennis Rogers, columnist for The Raleigh News & Observer in Barbecue in North Carolina and Lexington Barbecue Festival Dennis Rogers (strongman & arm wrestler), in Grip strength Jay ""Saint"" Smith (""an outreach pastor named Dennis Rogers took Smith under his wing"") Dennis Rogers, volunteer and recipient in the 2019 New Year Honours Dennis Rogers, United States Marine Corps Brigadier General, in Kemper Military School The Dennis Rogers Show (2007), Roger Rohatgi, lead actor Dennis Rogers, fictional British Intelligence agent sent to rendezvous with a Swiss Banker in James Bond 007: Light of My DeathOf that group, I would guess that the general is likely notable, and at least some of the rest are noteworthy, so there is enough to disambiguate from what is currently a misspelling. BD2412 T 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate. That's the way to go; enough there to make that worthwhile. Schwede66 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate ambiguous name. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Weak keep. Certainly no reason to delete this plausible misspelling, but DABing when only two potential targets have WP articles and one only has ""Dennis"" as a middle name seems unnecessary. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. This is a reasonable search term and the only plausible article whose subject this would refer to is the misspelling. Should any of the people named Dennis Rogers actually have a page, then this can be easily rectified, but absent such a page existing it makes sense to keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate'. There seem to be enough entries to justify a page. In any case, the New Zealand politician, whose name is not spelled this way, is not particularly well-known and would be prominently featured on the DAB anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Delete per J947, and rely on search results because there are several mentions of the name on enwiki. Agree with An anonymous username that the DAB is unnecessary. I went through the drafted dab and all entries it led to, and I don't see that a DAB page more helpful for the minor mentions in articles, than what a search would provide. Some entries are really stretched, such as the The Dennis Rogers Show linked from a page of its co-host. Disagree with Peter James, that searching for ""Dennis Rogers"" will not show up Denis Rogers. It does now, and will work even after Dennis Rogers is deleted. Jay 💬 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate or delete - I think that entries for the Vancouver Canadians manager and brigadier general, plus the current target, are just enough to justify a disambiguation page. I don't disagree with the deletion arguments but at this point in the discussion I think it's going to be very difficult to sway a consensus for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and disambiguate - the Dennis/Denis error is common enough that it makes sense to list entries for both names on one page, and there aren't so many entries that a single disambiguation page would be too long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. This is a very plausible misspelling and the current target is by the most likely of those who currently have an article. No prejudice against a dab page, but it should not be primary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC) missing word ""not"" added Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - I agree that Denis/Dennis is a very likely search term. Denis Rogers does seem like the primary target, and should remain so, but a dab page can be created as a secondary page. Fieari (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as misspelling only A dab of random one-time mentions buried in other pages is a solution looking for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Digvijay Chautala ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Digvijay Chautala ==== Isabella Losa ==== ==== Ramanagar ==== Ramanagar → Ramanagara (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect leads to an article about a city with a different spelling, Ramanagara (with an 'a' on the end). That article contains no uses of the redirect's spelling. There is also a disambiguation page at Ramanagar (disambiguation) that lists other places that do use the redirect's spelling. Moreover, that disambiguation page also lists places with a third spelling, ""Ramnagar"" (without an 'a' between the 'm' and the 'n'). For that third spelling, there is also another disambiguation page at Ramnagar. That different disambiguation page also has a mixture of spellings, some of which use the first ""Ramanagar"" spelling! See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Ram Nagar, about a fourth spelling. There are only three articles that link to the Ramanagar redirect. My inclination would be to merge the two disambiguation pages and redirect Ramanagar there. However, I don't really know whether the spellings should be considered distinct and whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Move Ramanagar (disambiguation) to Ramanagar. If the merged disambig page is not at this title, then redirect Ramanagar to that page. Jay 💬 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Urdu culture ==== ==== 33-0 ==== ==== Journocaust ==== ==== List of Chinese films of 2021/List of Chinese films of 2022 ==== ==== Grade (education) ==== ==== Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet ==== ==== Phulrraa ==== ==== Pepper sauce ==== Pepper sauce → Sauce poivrade (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pepper sauce could refer to either this, or hot sauce, or any sauce made with peppers. In fact the redirect when it was first made originally redirected to Hot sauce until it was nominated for speedy deletion in 2010, then was redirected to a more specific pepper sauce for many years, then changed to the current target just over a year ago. Retarget back to hot sauce or find another target? Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Setindexify -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Setindexify at List of pepper sauces. This is a highly likely search term, but it is also ambiguous. We have articles on many types of pepper-based sauce, including the current target, Bajan pepper sauce, Peppercorn sauce, Shito, Harissa and Chili sauce. There are likely others too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Color Lines (Loop) ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Color Lines (Loop) ==== Alan Umstead (musician) ==== ==== The Catholic Answer ==== ==== .test (international domain name) ==== ==== Chicken fart ==== ==== Life Before Earth ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Life Before Earth ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk ""Isdatelstwo Nauka"" ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 28#Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk ""Isdatelstwo Nauka"" === March 16 === ==== Mark and Avoid ==== ==== 2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukraine ==== ==== Scapular ptosis ==== ==== God of Carpentry ==== ==== SCREAM (cipher) ==== ==== Orthodox Christianity ==== ==== Start Publishing ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Start Publishing ==== Microbear ==== ==== Star Life ==== Star Life → Disney Star (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Star Life can be also refer to Latin American TV channel John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I started the discussion because I can decide if I can either keep the redirection or disambiguate it. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Keep. It is mentioned in the target and has a clear hatnote referring the reader to the other reference. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Softlavender. Hatnote already solves this ambiguity. CycloneYoris talk! 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @John123521: What is your expectation? Jay 💬 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I was considering disambiguate the article but I can’t decide. Will close this discussion because I had done hat notes myself. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC) If you were considering disambiguation, then your nomination had to imply that Disney Star is not a WP:PTOPIC. Jay 💬 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) had add some additional information now. Thanks! John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC) If you are referring to this edit where you replaced the link of Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific with a link to Star China Media, how is it relevant to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate between Disney Star, Star Life (Latin American TV channel), and Star (Disney+) in lack of evidence of a primary topic. All three topics are international distribution channels owned by Disney and either defunct or officially under a different name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate between Life cycle of a star (a star's life) and the two entertainment properties; add a see also for Star of Life, Lifestar, Star for Life -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig per 65.92.244.151, the life cycle of a star was my first thought but entertainment uses are equally prominent in search results so there is on primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Star Life (Africa) (consistent with Star Life (Latin America)) or Star Life (African TV channel) (consistent with Star Life (Latin American TV channel)), to separate out the history, since the page has been about the African channel from its very first edit in 2019. A new disambig page can be made at Star Life or Star life per IP65. Jay 💬 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ==== Social Rockstar ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Social Rockstar ==== Queen’s Slipper ==== Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Queen’s Slipper ==== MK Pictures ==== ==== Student achievement ==== ==== Torah-submission ==== ==== Rogue Squadron (upcoming film) ====" 411 415 915 WP:ALLCAPS Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters 411 "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below. Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis. If wording alone cannot provide the required emphasis, italics, or, preferably, the ... HTML element (or its {{em}} template wrapper), should be used: Use: It is not only a little learning that is dangerous. Avoid: It is not only a LITTLE learning that is dangerous. It is not only a Little learning that is dangerous. It is not only a little learning that is dangerous.This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. Introduction of a term of art may be wikilinked and, optionally, given in non-emphasis italics on first occurrence. Example: use The community of researchers in a field may produce a scientific consensus, not ... may produce a Scientific Consensus. On Wikipedia, most acronyms are written in all capital letters (such as NATO, BBC, and JPEG). Wikipedia does not follow the practice of distinguishing between acronyms and initialisms. Do not write acronyms that are pronounced as if they were words with an initial capital letter only, e.g., do not write UNESCO as Unesco, or NASA as Nasa. Some acronyms (mostly trademarks like Yahoo! and Taser) conventionally or officially use a mixture of capitals and lower-case letters, even non-letters; for any given example, use the spelling found in the majority of reliable, independent sources (e.g., LaTeX, M&Ms, 3M, and InBev). Do not mimic trademark stylization otherwise. (See WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks.) Non-trademarked acronyms that have become assimilated into English as everyday words may be written as common nouns when it is conventional to do so (e.g., scuba and laser, whereas ZIP Code and bank PIN are unassimilated acronyms and are capitalized as such).Use only source-attested acronyms and initialisms; do not make up new ones (for example, the World Pool-Billiard Association is the WPA, and it is not referred to as the ""WPBA""). ""Also known as"", when abbreviated on second or later occurrences, or in a table, should be given as a.k.a. or AKA (whichever reads more easily in the context). Do not use aka, A/K/A, or other unusual renderings. === Expanded forms of abbreviations === Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common-noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation. Similarly, when showing the source of an acronym or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable. In cases such as table headings and infoboxes with limited space, the abbreviation template may be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip to expand the term. In article text, do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for terms that would ordinarily be capitalized in running prose, such as proper names, demonyms and brand names: Graeco-Roman and Mediterranean-style, but not Gandhi-Like. Letters used as designations are treated as names for this purpose: a size-A drill bit. (For cases involving titles of people, see WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Hyphenation and compounds; for titles of works, see WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Hyphenation.) Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate. Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article. For example, replace the headline or title ""WAR BEGINS TODAY"" with ""War Begins Today"" or, if necessary, ""War begins today"". Reduce track titles on albums where all or most tracks are listed in all capitals. For which words should be capitalized, see WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Capital letters. Reduce court decisions from all caps. Write Roe v. Wade, even though the decision as issued read ROE v. WADE. Reduce proclamations, such as those for the Medal of Honor, from all capitals. Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks – see WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Reduce Latin quotations and terms from all capitals, and put them in italics as non-English. As this is a form of transliteration, the Latin V should be normalized to v or u, as appropriate, per modern conventions for rendering Latin. (See below for a linguistics exception. See also WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Foreign terms.) Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Do not write with all capitals for emphasis; italics are preferred (see § Do not use for emphasis, above). In quoted material, all caps or small caps for emphasis should be replaced with italic emphasis or, in an already italic passage, boldface (with HTML or {{strong}}).Certain material may be written with all capitals or small capitals: Acronyms and initialisms (see § Acronyms, above); these are given in all caps, not small caps.There are some exceptions on Wikipedia. Acronyms that have been fully assimilated into English as words are given in lowercase (laser, scuba), as are various Latinisms like pm; see WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations for details. Some uses of small caps that are common in the house styles of particular publishers are not used on Wikipedia; the most common are for Roman numerals (use XIV, not XIV) and for acronyms for eras (use BCE, AD, etc., not BCE, AD). In religion, renderings of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – but not of Adonai – can be formatted with the templates {{LORD}} and {{GOD}}, when the distinction is important. These employ a mixture of all caps and small caps common in many Bible editions: LORD. Do not style these or similar words in colored text. Certain citation styles (e.g. those of the Linguistic Society of America and Bluebook) require that certain parts of a citation, such as author names in alphabetical reference sections, be written in small caps. If an article has been consistently using such a citation style, it should be respected, absent a consensus to change the style. For readability, this should be done with the template {{sc1}}, which distinguishes the case of the input, giving uppercase full-size and lowercase in a readable small-caps size; this makes the output both more accessible and accurate to copy-paste: {{sc1|DeVoto}} visually produces DeVoto, which copy-pastes as DeVoto. However, if such a citation style is not already established at an article, it is better avoided, as it is difficult to read and complicates the markup. The names of Unicode code points are conventionally given in small caps using the template {{unichar}} or similar. Example: the character U+2053 ⁓ SWUNG DASH). This is only done when presenting tables of Unicode data, and when discussing code point names as such. Otherwise prefer unstyled, plain-English character names (whether they coincide with code point names or not): the hyphen and the en dash, not the HYPHEN-MINUS and the EN DASH. Textual excerpts, inscriptions, example words, and letterforms in classical Latin, Greek, and other unicase scripts may be given in all caps or preferably small caps (the template {{sc2}} is intended for this purpose) to reflect the letterforms of that era. This should only be done when it is contextually useful, as in linguistic material and descriptions of artifacts. Examples: letterforms at Gaulish language § Orthography, and excerpts at Duenos inscription. This usage should preserve the original orthography to the extent possible in Unicode (e.g., use of V in Latin for both v and u). When rendered this way, such material need not be italicized as non-English. When it is not possible to render such material as text, a photograph may prove useful, if a free one is available. In linguistics and philology, glossing of text or speech uses small caps for the standardized abbreviations of functional morpheme types (e.g. PL, AUX; this is done with the linguistics template {{gcl}}, or by feeding a lowercase value to the generic template {{sc}}. On first occurrence, use a piped link around the template: [[Plural|{{sc|pl}}]]. This style is not used for lexical glosses of content morphemes; these go in single quotes in a linear (inline) gloss (e.g., the English word dog in Spanish perro, 'dog'), but no markup at all in an interlinear gloss. Most words with prefixes such as Anglo-, Franco-, etc., are capitalized. For example, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-French and Anglo-Norman are all capitalized. However, there is some variation concerning a small number of words of French origin. In French, these words are not capitalized, and this sometimes carries over to English. There are variations, and since editors often refer to only one dictionary, they may unwittingly contravene Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Varieties of English by changing a usage to that which is more common in their own national dialect. The main (but not mandatory) exceptions to the capitalization rule are the following. anglicism, gallicism, etc.: These words are often, but not always, capitalized. Anglicism is less likely to be capitalized in Canada. anglicize (anglicise), gallicize (gallicise), etc.: Anglicize is often capitalized in the US, and sometimes in other countries. Gallicize is often capitalized in the US, and usually capitalized in other countries. anglophile, francophile, etc.: Words in this category are usually capitalized both as nouns and adjectives, except in Canada, where they sometimes are. anglophone, francophone, etc.: These words are often capitalized in the US as adjectives, and usually as nouns. They are usually not capitalized in other countries, whether as nouns or adjectives. anglophobe, francophobe, etc.: Words in this category are usually capitalized in all countries except Canada, where they sometimes are. The same applies to anglophobic.Romanize, Latinize, and related words are often lowercased in a linguistic context in particular, but otherwise usually capitalized; italic[s], in the typography sense, is always lowercase. === Scientific names === Scientific names including genus and species (sometimes also subspecies, or other infraspecific names) have an initial capital letter for the genus, but not for the [sub]species (and are always italicized): the tulip tree is Liriodendron tulipifera; all modern humans are Homo sapiens. More specifically: The names of genera are always capitalized (and italicized), even when not paired with a species name: Allosaurus, Falco, Anas. The second part of a binomial species name is never capitalized, even when derived from a proper name (but is always italicized), and is always preceded by either the genus name, or a capitalized abbreviation of it if the full version has occurred previously in the same text: Thomson's gazelle is Eudorcas thomsonii or E. thomsonii. In zoology, the same applies to the third part of a trinomial name: the arctic wolf is Canis lupus arctos or C. l. arctos. In botany, the third part of a trinomial is preceded by an indication of rank which is not italicized: Poa secunda subsp. juncifolia, Acanthocalycium klimpelianum var. macranthum.Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized. Cultivar names appear within single quotes: Malus domestica 'Red Delicious'. Cultivar groups do not use quotation marks, but do include and capitalize the word ""Group"" in the name: Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group. While the ICNCP has recently preferred the term ""Group"" (used by itself and capitalized) to refer to the cultivar group concept, please use the lower-case phrase ""cultivar group"" (aside from ""Group"" within an actual scientific name), as it is both less ambiguous and less typographically confusing to the average reader. Orders, families and other taxonomic ranks above genus level have an initial capital letter (and are not italicized): bats belong to the order Chiroptera; rats and mice are members of the family Muridae and the order Rodentia. However, the English form derived from the Latin name should not be capitalized or italicized: members of the order Chiroptera are chiropterans; members of the family Muridae are murids and members of the order Rodentia are rodents. === Common names === Lower-case initial letters are used for each part of the English (common, vernacular) names of species, genera, families and all other taxonomic levels (bacteria, zebra, bottlenose dolphin, mountain maple, bald eagle), except where they contain a proper name (Przewalski's horse, Amur tiger, Roosevelt elk), or when such a name starts a sentence (Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries). If interpretation could be ambiguous, use links or rewording to make it clearer. As of 2017, wikiprojects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of some insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles). === Names of groups or types === The common name of a group of species or type of organism is always written in lower case (except where a proper name occurs): New World monkeys, slime molds, rove beetles, great apes, mountain dogs, Van catsThis also applies to an individual creature of indeterminate species. Capitalize the names of months, days, and holidays: June, Monday, Fourth of July, Michaelmas, the Ides of March. Seasons are uncapitalized (a hot summer) except when personified: soon Spring will show her colors; Old Man Winter. The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used to refer to a specific celestial body in an astronomical context (The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; the Moon orbits Earth). They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context, such as when referring to sunshine (It was a clear day and the sun felt warm), or when used in a general sense (Io is a moon of Jupiter). However, they are capitalized in personifications, as in Sol Invictus ('Unconquered Sun') was the ancient Roman sun god. Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations, and galaxies are proper names and begin with a capital letter (The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux). The first letter of every word in such a name is capitalized (Alpha Centauri and not Alpha centauri; Milky Way, not Milky way). In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), the generic is retained at the end of the name and capitalized as part of it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy). However, Milky Way galaxy is a descriptive phrase, without capitalized ""galaxy"", and should usually be reduced to the actual name, Milky Way, because that name is not ambiguous. If it is unclear what the Milky Way is in the context, consider using something clearer, like our galaxy, the Milky Way. Do not capitalize descriptive terms that precede the name of an astronomical object: comet Bradfield 1, galaxy HCM-6A. Points of the compass (north, north-east, southeast, etc.), and their derived forms (northern, southeasterly, etc.) are not generally capitalized: nine miles south of Oxford, a northern road. They are capitalized only when they form part of a proper name, such as Great North Road. Doubts frequently arise when referring to regions, such as eastern Spain and Southern California. If one is consistently capitalized in reliable sources (as with North Korea, Southern California or Western Europe), then the direction word in it is capitalized. Otherwise it is not, as with eastern Spain or southwest Poland. If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-name status, assume it has not. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the Southern United States is a Southerner. Compound compass points are usually fully compounded in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west. This also affects names of regions such as Southeastern United States and South East England. Finer compass points take a hyphen after the first word, regardless, and never use a space: south-southeast or south-south-east, but not south-south east, south southeast, etc. The names of formally defined geological periods and the rock layers corresponding to them are capitalized. Thus the Devonian Period or the Late Cretaceous Epoch are internationally defined periods of time, whereas the late Cretaceous is an unspecified time towards the end of the Cretaceous. Do not capitalize outside a complete formal name: thus the Devonian is a period rather than the Devonian is a Period. Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text. Use: Economic and demographic shifts after World War II Avoid: Economic and Demographic Shifts After World War II Use: 1891–1940: early history Avoid: 1891–1940: Early historyThe same applies to the titles of articles, table headers and captions, the headers of infoboxes and navigation templates, and image captions and alt text. (For list items, see next section.) Linking is easier if titles are in sentence case. It is easier for articles to be merged or split if headings resemble titles. The initial letter in a sentence is capitalized. This does not apply if it begins with a letter which is always left uncapitalized (as in ""eBay""; see § Items that require initial lower case, below), although it is usually preferable to recast the sentence. When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not. For guidance after colons, see WP:Manual of Style § Colons. In a list, if each item of the list is a complete sentence, then it should be capitalized like any other sentence. If the list items are sentence fragments, then capitalization should be consistent – sentence case should be applied to either all or none of the items. See WP:Manual of Style § Bulleted and numbered lists. === Items that require initial lower case === In contexts where the case of symbols is significant, like those related to programming languages, mathematical notation (for example, the mathematical constant e is not equivalent to E), or the names of units of physical quantities or their symbols, the correct case should always be retained, even in situations where normal rules would require capitalization, such as at the beginning of a sentence. Try to avoid putting such lowercase symbols (or any non-alphabetic ones) at the start of a sentence within running text. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics.) Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference. For proprietary names such as Adidas (written as 'adidas' by the company itself) and eBay, see § Trademarks, below. If an article title begins with such a letter that needs to be in lower case (as in the above examples), use the {{lowercase}} template or equivalent code. Note that it is not currently possible to make categories display with an initial lowercase letter in an article's category box. Hence the link to Category:eBay at the foot of the article eBay must display as ""EBay"". Similarly the article title eBay will be displayed as ""EBay"" in the category listing. Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. (United States Department of State) are proper names and require capitals. Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context). Avoid ambiguous use of terms like ""city""/""City"" and ""state""/""State"" to indicate a governing body. Write clearly to indicate ""the city council"", the ""state legislature"", or ""the state government"". The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). If you are not sure whether the English translation of a foreign name is exact or not, assume it is rough and use lower case (e.g., the French parliament). Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals:Political or geographical units such as cities, towns, and countries follow the same rules: As proper names they require capitals; but as generic words and rough descriptions (sometimes best omitted for simplicity) they do not:These principles also apply to terms for the output of institutions, companies, and other organizations (act, bill, law, regulation, product, service, report, guideline, etc.). The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general. Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army. Unofficial but well-known names should also be capitalized (the Green Berets, the Guard). Correct: the Fifth Company; the Young Guard; the company rallied. Incorrect: The Company took heavy losses. The 3rd battalion retreated. Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion). The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone (France went to war; The battle began; The raid succeeded). Words such as campaign, offensive, siege, action, pocket, etc., are typically not frequently capitalized in sources, so are lowercase in Wikipedia (Bougainville campaign, American logistics in the Normandy campaign). Proper names of specific military awards and decorations are capitalized (Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross). Terms such as soldier, sailor, marine, and coast guardsman are not capitalized when describing an individual or a group, but are when used as a rank (see above). Correct: The soldiers landed on the beach. Incorrect: John Doe is a Marine Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name such as the name of a place. For example: Incorrect: The Rouge Admins are a Goa Trance band. Incorrect: The Rouge Admins are a goa trance band. Correct: The Rouge Admins are a Goa trance band.Incorrect: The French Boys are a Psychedelic Rock band. Correct: The French Boys are a psychedelic rock band.Incorrect: Asimov is widely considered a master of Science Fiction. Correct: Asimov is widely considered a master of science fiction.Radio formats such as adult contemporary or classic rock are also not capitalized. Nor are dance types, genres, styles, moves, or social activities (ballets de cour, ballroom dancing, traditional square dance, rock step, line dancing). Proper names, as always, are excepted: St. Louis shag. Dance genres and styles are treated the same; see § Sports, games, and other activities. In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, ""claim"" someone or something as their own. (Avoid edit warring or pushing a particular viewpoint.) Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names often are also given, for greater clarity and fuller information. For information on the use of proper names as article titles, see Wikipedia:Article titles. See also Wikipedia:Use English.For use of diacritics (accent marks), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Spelling and romanization. === Peoples and their languages === Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, and the like are capitalized, including in adjectival forms (Japanese cuisine, Cumbrian dialect). Cultural terms may lose their capitalization when their connection to the original culture has been lost (or there never really was one). Some fairly conventionalized examples are french fries, typographical romanization, english (cue-ball spin) in pool playing, scotch-doubles tournament, bone china, gum arabic, byzantine ('overly complex'). Some are more transitional and can be written either way: latinization of names, dutch date, lynching, and russian roulette. Always capitalized: French cuisine, cultural Romanization, English billiards, Scotch whisky, Arabic coffee, liturgical Latinization, the Byzantine Empire, Dutch oven. Avoid over-capitalizing adjectival forms of such terms in other languages, most of which do not capitalize as much as English does. E.g., the book title Diccionario biográfico español ('Spanish Biographical Dictionary') does not capitalize the e of español. If in doubt, check how multiple high-quality reliable sources in English treat the name or phrase. Combining forms are also generally capitalized where the proper name occurs: (pan-Celticism, Austro-Hungarian, un-American). Some may be fully fused and decapitalized if the name is mid-word; e.g., unamerican, panamerican, transatlantic, and antisemitism are well-attested. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for or against either form. However, prefer anti-Semitism in close proximity to other such terms (Tatarophobia, etc.), else the lower-casing of Semitic may appear pointed and insulting. Similarly, for consistency within the article, prefer un-American and pan-American in an article that also uses anti-American, pan-African, and similar compounds. (See also WP:Manual of Style § US and U.S., for consistency between country abbreviations.) Where a common name in English encompasses both a people and their language, that term is preferred, as in Swahili people and Swahili language rather than Waswahili and Kiswahili. Ethno-racial ""color labels"" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous, and White demographic categories). Brown should not be used in Wikipedia's own voice, as it is ambiguous, and in the currently popular sense is informal, an Americanism, and a neologistic usage which conflicts with prior more specific senses. The old epithets Red and Yellow, plus Colored (in the American sense) and Negro, are generally taken to be offensive, and should only be used in quotations. When used in the context of direct quotations, titles of works, and organization names (""... Dr. Fu Manchu, the yellow peril incarnate in one man""; E. R. Baierlein's In the Wilderness with the Red Indians; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; United Negro College Fund), follow the original's spelling. The term Coloured in reference to a specific ethnic group of Southern Africa is not a slur, and is capitalized; person/people of colo[u]r is not offensive, and not capitalized. For eponyms more broadly, see WP:Manual of Style § Eponyms. === Personal names === Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications. === Place names === Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, Mount Everest, Gulf of Tonkin. Terms for types of places and features do not take capitals: the town hall; the capital city; an ocean; the savannah; karst topography. Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Christianity, Catholic, Pentecostal, and Calvinist are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not. Proper names and conventional titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god, comparison of supreme beings in four indigenous religions. In biblical and related contexts, God is capitalized only when it is a title for the deity of the Abrahamic religions, and prophet is generally not capitalized. Heaven and Hell are capitalized when referring to a specific place (Christians believe Jesus ascended to Heaven) but lowercase in other circumstances (the heavens opened up with rain; the ice cream was heavenly; reading this book was hell for him). Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional); use an inquest seeking justice for the victims, not Justice. Nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, are not capitalized: an avatar of Shiva, an ikon of Saint Arethas, Gabriel, a messenger of God, the crow as a manifestation of the Irish goddess Morrígan (not Avatar, Ikon, Messenger, Crow, or Manifestation). Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures: Jesus addressed his followers, not Jesus addressed His followers (except in a direct quotation). The names of major works of scripture, such as the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, and the Vedas, should be capitalized (but are often not italicized). The adjective biblical should not be capitalized. Quranic is normally capitalized, but usage varies for talmudic, vedic, etc. Be consistent within an article. Do not capitalize terms denoting types of religious or mythical beings, such as angel, fairy, or deva. The personal names of individual beings are capitalized as normal (the archangel Gabriel). An exception to the general rule is made when such terms are used to denote races and the like in speculative fiction, in which case they are capitalized if the work capitalizes them (the Elves of Tolkien's Middle-earth). Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but ancient Egyptian myths about the Nile's annual flooding, and an exodus of refugees from Soviet religious persecution). Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or ""schools"" of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name. E.g., lowercase republican refers to a general system of political thought (republican sentiment in Ireland); uppercase Republican is used in reference to specific political parties with this word in their names (each being a proper-noun phrase) in various countries (a Democratic versus Republican Party stalemate in the US Senate). Nevertheless, watch for idiom, especially a usage that has become disconnected from the original doctrinal/systemic referent and is often lower-cased in sources (in which case, do not capitalize): Platonic idealism but a platonic relationship; the Draconian laws of Athens but complained of draconian policies at her workplace. Doctrinal topics, canonical religious ideas, and procedural systems that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith or field are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as a virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation, and method acting. In the names of scientific and mathematical concepts, only proper names (or words derived from them) should be capitalized: Hermitian matrix or Lorentz transformation. However, some established exceptions exist, such as abelian group and Big Bang theory. In some specialized fields, a character other than the first is considered the ""first letter"" for sentence- and title-case capitalization purposes. For more guideline material relating to mathematics and sciences, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, and Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science). Trademarked sports and games are capitalized like any other trademarks. Those that are published works (board games, roleplaying games, video games) are italicized like titles of other major works: Scrabble, Dungeons & Dragons, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Non-stand-alone add-on publications, such as RPG modules and DLCs are minor works and take quotation marks. Sport and game rule books and rule sets are also capitalized, italicized works; named chapters within them take quotation marks, and may be given in sentence case or title case as appropriate for the context, as with chapters of other works. (For more information on titles of works, see WP:Manual of Style/Titles.) Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to trademarked sports, games, and activities are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in the context of this activity: ability scores in Dungeons & Dragons, card names in Magic: The Gathering, etc. However, generic terms such as hit point, victory point, or player character are not capitalized. Sports, games, and other activities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized (except where one contains a proper name or acronym, or begins a sentence). This includes groups of sports or games (winter sports, carom billiards, trick-taking card games), traditional sports including modern ones (field hockey, triathlon, BASE jumping), traditional games (Texas hold 'em poker, chess, spin-the-bottle), folk and social dances and dance styles (kołomyjka, Viennese waltz, line dancing), and other such group and solo activities (flash mob, hackathon, birthday party, workout, biology class, political rally, binge-watch, speed dating, tweeting). Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower case and without special stylization such as italics (with the standard exceptions, e.g. capitalize proper names, italicize non-English words): football pitch, pool cue, queen of diamonds, infield fly rule, triple Lutz, semi-massé, spear tackle). There are occasional, conventionalized variances, e.g.: The names of standard chess openings are capitalized (Queen's Gambit, Neo-Grünfeld Defence). The name of the game Go is capitalized. The McTwist, an aerial skateboarding move, is named for its inventor, Mike McGill, and would be confusing as ""mctwist"". Olympic[s] and Paralympic[s] are capitalized, including when used as adjectives.Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments. None take italics or other special markup. The above rules of thumb should also be applied to glossary entries; they are collectively an exception to the general practice of starting all list items with a capital letter, since upper-casing them all confuses readers as to which are proper names. (For our most-developed example of a glossary article, see Glossary of cue sports terms.) There are also three related naming-conventions guidelines: Various games- and sports-related wikiprojects also provide advice essays that often include topical style, naming, and layout tips. (However, many aren't well-maintained, and may conflict with some current guideline and policy wording; remember that they are essays.) Do not ordinarily capitalize the definite article after the first word of a sentence; however, some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic and academic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage. There are special considerations for: band names · institution names · nicknames · titles of works · trademarks. In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference). Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama). Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices. For fuller details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Titles of people. In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions. The first and last words within a title (and within a subtitle) are capitalized regardless of their grammatical role. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language. This is not applied to Wikipedia's own articles, which are given in sentence case: capitalize the first letter, and proper names (e.g., List of selection theorems, Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration). For trademarks, editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and, among those, use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources. When sources are mixed, follow the standard formatting and capitalization used for proper names (in this case, as in most, Adidas). The mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo. Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter, followed by a capitalized second letter, such as iPod and eBay, are written in that form if this has become normal English usage for that name. For considerations relating to such items, see § Items that require initial lower case above and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter." 412 416 916 WP:article creep WP:article creep 412 "Article creep occurs when a series of reasonable step-by-step edits are made, but the end product is undesirable. An editor should look at a page globally, not just in a step-by-step manner. Article creep is a natural process. When editing from a group of sources with one viewpoint, an article will gradually swing toward that POV. Then it will swing back as more edits are made. So an editor should not go in and delete material claiming undue weight is being given to one POV. Instead they should recognize that WP:Wikipedia is not finished, and either have patience, or add in more information from the POV they think is lacking. Creep is analogous to the idea of a local maximum vs. a global maximum. When climbing to get a good view, one may go straight uphill with each step, then get to the top and notice a nearby peak has a much better view. It might have been better to not take the straight uphill steps, but to maybe take some steps so as to go around or even sometimes down. Sometimes ""article creep"" can also refer to an unintended proliferation of articles at Wikipedia, not just proliferation inside articles, such as in a discussion about creating a separate article for each contestant in a reality television show. Creep can lead to a loss of perspective. It may be hard to notice creep when a group of editors have been closely monitoring each step. An editor who has made substantial contributions to a page may come back to an article after a leave of absence and see a huge change in tone, point of view, style, and readability. This editor may have a perspective that enables them to see unwanted creep from a global perspective that is no longer easily seen by the editors who examined the edits in a step-by-step manner. That editor is like a newcomer to a hot tub, where those in it may have gradually acclimated to the temperature as it gradually warmed, but it may be too hot for a newcomer to get in. === Creep to POV === Editors may try to balance content when there are two perspectives, in order to achieve a neutral point of view (NPOV). A series of very good edits may all be from one perspective, and result in undue emphasis on one perspective. Editors may want to rebalance to achieve NPOV by adding more content from other perspectives, or by trimming some of the new edits solely on the basis of creep to POV, even though they would otherwise be very good edits. In the latter case, the trimming should first be discussed at the talk page to achieve consensus, in order to maintain a good community. === Creep to excessive length === Article creep is not necessarily bad, since Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. When an article section creeps up to being excessively large, subsections can be created, or an entire daughter article. The most simple way to form a daughter article and reduce the length in the parent article is to create a daughter article by copying the entire section to the daughter article, and retaining only the section lead in the parent article. The most simple way is not necessarily the best way. If a parent/daughter relationship is created, place a hat at the top of the article section and new article in the appropriate manner. === Creep to a disorganized pile === A line by line process for additions from different editors may creep into stylistic problems. The result may appear to be a disorganized and incoherent pile, perhaps not even about a single unifying subject matter, when it actually is. The article may appear to be a committee product, rather than an eloquent exposition. Organization into more sections may help. Rewording by a single editor or smaller group of editors may help. === Creep to sources no longer applying === Sentences clearly based on a reliable source can be slightly adjusted again and again, until ultimately they are no longer supported by the source. === Deletion creep === An editor might make a series of deletions, each well reasoned in the edit summaries. If this is done too quickly on an article that has been relatively stable for a long time, other editors might have time to only look at the total effect of all the edits, not check each step by step edit summary, and revert all the edits a single stroke. It may even appear to be WP:vandalism. Different editors edit at different speeds, and groups of editors for different subjects form topic sub-communities that may have different standards of editing speed from one another. There is no objective standard for editing speed that applies to all such sub-communities. One should not always expect another editor to spend the large amount of time to go through each step and examine each edit summary. Conversely, the reverting editor should not accuse vandalism, bad faith, POV, or use expressions like “butchery” or “gutting an article”, but should participate in talk page discussions with patience, and never argue ad hominem with examples of the reverted editor's edits elsewhere. The reverted editor may have made each edit in good faith and with good edit summaries, no matter what their history elsewhere, and which may or may not have resulted in creep. === Talk page creep === Talk page creep to unnecessary length can be avoided by linking using transclusion; instead of copying talk page discussions or blocks from another document, use links to them with a summary. If a revert for resulting from deletion creep occurs, instead of undoing the revert, which might lead to an edit war, an editor should create a separate section for each edit that has a different rationale in the edit summary. This may then create talk page creep. An editor should not expect quick responses to all of the new talk page sections, and should have patience as each is addressed. === List creep === ==== Unencyclopedic list creep ==== A reasonable list in an article may creep up to make the article look like a yellow pages. Reasonable notables on a list can, by a slippery slope, degenerate into a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia. Lists may make an article look like it does not belong in an encyclopedia through list creep. When an article subject has a large fan base, lists can be added so as to make the article not be encyclopedic in form, as in early versions of the Wikipedia peer review of the X-Files. Images in an article may appear like a list at the right of an article. Good images that are very illustrative may be added one-by-one until they create a list of images at the right, which may be an unencyclopedic in appearance. ==== Example list creep ==== When good illustrative examples of a general concept are added step by step, the end product may defeat the purpose of examples. The list may be so long that a reader does not want to read it. It may be so long that the general concept being illustrated may be lost in the specificity or sheer volume. Conversely, a list of examples intended to be exhaustive is not creep. A meta-example of creep is the following list, which may grow so long, step by step, that no one bothers to read it, or the clarification provided by examples is lost in their sheer volume. Since this essay is in user space, editors may think of examples that are better than those below, add their idea, and not want to delete another editor's edit. So the list below should be periodically assessed so that only the most illustrative examples are kept, so it does not become too long. As the following list gets added to by other editors, it may creep up to being very long. ===== Examples of the ""creep"" concept from outside of Wikipedia ===== Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goal. A military operation may experience mission creep and find itself bogged down in a quagmire. Christmas creep is the commercial phenomenon in which merchants and retailers exploit the commercialized status of Christmas by moving up the start of the holiday shopping season. In medicine, a number of small lifestyle decisions may over time add up to a major health problem, such as diabetes or heart disease, which is best dealt with using preventive medicine, but if not dealt early may require major surgery followed by palliative care, and the same is true at Wikipedia. Invasive species may be imported and go wild, and the numbers creep up until they harm the ecosystem, as with kudzu. Collecting may start off as a good hobby, but lead to an obsessive compulsive disorder known as hoarding. In aesthetics creep may lead to something good such as a baroque style, or not, when something becomes gaudy. A group of people may turn on a hot tub and get in once it is warm enough, after which it continues to heat up. A new person may come along, see the group relaxing, stick their toe in the water, and recoil as if burned. In philosophy, a slippery slope argument is when relatively small steps lead to a chain culminating in some significant effect. In calculus, a step by step analysis known as differentiation may lead to finding a local maximum instead of a global maximum. In the philosophy of science, a large series of ad hoc additions may be made to retain a theory, such as excessively complex epicycles to retain the Ptolemaic system instead of changing to a heliocentric system, in order to account for planetary motions against the background of stars. One should not claim article creep as the only reason to delete a new edit by another editor. This might unnecessarily discourage them from participating in the article, and some of their coming edits may make this edit better than others already in the article when viewed cumulatively. New information is constantly arising, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. An article should be reevaluated for creep after a significant number of edits, and then be trimmed back after creep has led to a problem. The situation is analogous to a heater's thermostat that allows the temperature to get warmer than where it was set before shutting the heater off, then allows the temperature to get cooler than where it is set before turning the heater back on. Article creep is not necessarily bad as an intermediate step an article goes through. Sometimes it is good to put in too much information, in order to help see everything at once to make a better informed decision as to overall layout and structure, or to compare what to keep and what to trim. Once creep has occurred, determining what to trim should be discussed on the talk pages to get consensus as to how best to trim materials that may be good, but cause creep. It may be a good idea to discuss at the talk page before deletions are made. Otherwise an editor my feel like they are in the Myth of Sisyphus when a hard work producing a large number of edits is deleted in an adjustment for article creep, and they feel like they are being made to start all over again. A paradox arises in application of this essay. The above list of examples from outside of Wikipedia is illustrative of the creep concept. Each addition of a different type of example illustrates the general creep concept in a different way. But by creeping up to being too long, it should be trimmed per this essay. In that case it will no longer serve as an illustrative example of list creep. Neither the essay WP:CREEP nor the article guideline on being concise applies to resolve this paradox as it is applied to this essay, even with distinguishing examples from meta-examples." 413 417 917 WP:SUBST Wikipedia:Substitution 413 "Substitution is a different way of handling templates than normally done on Wikipedia. Usually, templates are transcluded, which means that if the template changes, every page that uses it will update to comply with the change-in-question. This is the procedure used for most templates. However, some templates are instead substituted. This means that if the template changes, the page that uses it will not, and will continue to show the old version of the template. Some templates should always be substituted, while most should always be transcluded. To substitute, add subst: after the opening braces, as in {{subst:page name}}. For example: substitution {{subst:Medicine}} in contrast to transclusion {{Medicine}}. The contents of Template:Medicine will be expanded (for any templates) and stored at each point where ""{{subst:Medicine}}"" is placed in a page. Note that ref tags refuse to run ""subst:"" unless temporarily renamed as """" or similar (see the bug report at T4700). This page also lists templates that should either always or never be substituted except in the Wikipedia namespace. Automated tools (a.k.a. bots) that do such replacements will never be used on the original template. If you are going to use a bot to substitute templates, please read through the talk page first, as many are under dispute or change status over time, and substitution is permanent. === Definition === The subst: keyword (short for ""substitution"") is used inside template code, placed as a prefix before the name of the template but within the curly braces ({{}}). It changes the way the MediaWiki software expands the template. Ordinarily, a template will be expanded ""on the fly""; that is, the template code on a page calls a separate page every time it is rendered. Although most page views are served from the cache, pages need to be rendered for previews and rendered again when the page changes. When someone is editing a page with a normal template call, they see the template call. Placing ""subst:"" inside the curly braces tells the software to permanently replace the template with the text of the template (i.e., the text that is on the template's article page when the template is added to the page). Therefore, {{template}} becomes {{subst:template}}, until you save the page. The next editor sees not the template call, but instead the text of the template when you saved; it does not change even if the original template is edited. === Usage === You can substitute a template tag by adding ""subst:"" to it. For example, use {{subst:test5}} instead of {{test5}}. When this is a major component of an edit, it is strongly suggested that the template be mentioned in the edit summary (for instance, put ""{{subst:test}}"", ""subst:test"" or ""test1 applied"" in your edit summary) so other editors can easily see what you have done. Additionally, when creating or editing templates that are commonly substituted, adding a hidden comment to the template page helps article editors to see how templates are being used (e.g. ). === Benefits === If there is a template you would like to modify for a single occasion, but you do not want to modify the template for all the pages that use it, and you do not want to make a new template, you can substitute the template and then with a second edit, make the modifications. For example, a template might be used with all the states of the United States and with the District of Columbia. The template might be worded correctly for the states, but not for DC. To fix the wording, you can substitute the template and then fix the wording. Substituting frequently used, but unprotected templates, limits the damage that can be caused by people vandalizing the template. See high-risk templates. Transcluding certain templates hides wikitext from newcomers, whereas substituting makes the wikitext visible and gives them the opportunity to learn its use (of course, there is a ""how to edit"" link at the bottom of each edit page). Substitution allows for recursive evaluation through macro templates. === Neutral === Substituting en masse may ultimately speed up the site, but this is not a reason to prefer substitution over transclusion. Don't worry about performance of Wikipedia's servers. Templates are often modified or deleted. If a template is boilerplate text, consider whether you want it to vary as the template is modified. If your answer is ""no"", substitution is warranted. An example of this is the {{subst:welcome}} template. The archives of a user's talk page should show the actual welcome message they received, not the current welcome message. === Drawbacks === Once a template is substituted, the result is no longer linked to the template, making it hard to find all pages displaying that text (though categories can sometimes relieve this). The problem can easily be worked around by including a link to the template in the template's code. A substituted template will not be updated when errors in the master template are corrected. If the template is used to standardize the appearance of something, you probably do not want to do a substitution. An example of this is a table of contents or navigation box. Substituting en masse—editing thousands of articles with bots—temporarily slows down the site and wastes server resources unnecessarily. Substitution increases the size of articles in the database and database dumps. A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically inclined. Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation. If the template is just being used temporarily, it is usually better not to substitute. Substituted templates are much harder to remove or modify. When a vandalised template is substituted, it is more difficult to repair than regular vandalism because of the lack of links between the template and its incarnations and the lack of updatability. Some meta-templates, such as {{!}} and {{((}}, do not work if they are substituted. This is a list of templates that should always be substituted, organized by namespace. Each list is ordered alphabetically with grouped series. This is not a comprehensive list; other less-used templates may also need to be substituted, see the template's documentation for details. === Article namespace === {{No more links}}, substituting this inserts a commentary only visible in edit mode, with a short explanation to discourage spamming links. === Article talk === {{tmfrom}}, {{tmto}} === User talk namespace === All of the templates listed in Category:User warning templates and Category:Welcome templates should be substituted. This does not apply to templates on the user page. === File namespace === === Misc. templates === User signature templates, if transcluded, cause undue server strain as changes to a minor user template must then be widely propagated. If used, user signature templates should be substituted. (It should be noted, however, that user signature templates are discouraged.) === Uncategorized suggestions === These templates have a purpose and/or syntax that require them to be substituted. {{afd}}, or else the link to ""this article's entry"" does not work. {{cfd}}, {{cfr}}, {{cfm}}, which insert comments which serve as queues for Cydebot, which is used to rename or merge categories. {{copyvio}}, for articles to be listed at copyright problems, will result in an error message if transcluded. {{nld}}, for images with no info on copyright status, adds {{no license}} with today's date automatically filled in. {{nrd}}, for images with no fair use rationale, adds {{no rationale}} with today's date automatically filled in. {{nsd}}, for images with no source info, adds {{di-no source}} with today's date automatically filled in. {{orfud}}, for ""generic"" orphaned fair use images, adds {{di-orphaned fair use}} with today's date automatically filled in. {{or-fu-re}}, for fair use images that have been orphaned in favour of another image, adds {{di-orphaned fair use}} with today's date automatically filled in (takes the name of the replacement image as parameter). {{proposed deletion}}, for proposed deletion, adds {{proposed deletion/dated}} with today's date automatically filled in. {{requested move}}, for requesting page moves {{rfd}}, redirects for discussion {{rfu}}, for fair use images that it should be possible to replace with a free licensed image, adds {{replaceable fair use}}, with today's date automatically filled in. {{refu-c}}, used in captions of images flagged as replaceable fair use, adds {{rfu-c}} with the ""due date"" (today + 7 days) automatically calculated and filled in. {{OnProd}}, which inserts today's-date-dependent name of the category page to which the article was added when nominated for deletion. Technically, templates should not be substituted that: contain calls to ParserFunctions (#if, #switch, etc.), unless, where possible, these are substituted too (see mw:Manual:Substitution#Multilevel substitution) leave some parameters to their defaults by not specifying them, unless the alternative default mechanism is usedcontain external links as the formatting of the URL to perform queries or look-ups may change This is because these constructs are not replaced in the generated wiki-code (single level substituting of case (A) leaves the #if or #switch constructs verbatim at the subst location and (B) leaves constructs like {{{1|default value}}}). If specific consensus is to eliminate a particular call of such a template, Special:ExpandTemplates can be used to expand that call to plain wiki-syntax. === List === This is a list of templates that should not be substituted. This is because they contain formatting standard code, complex code, or code that breaks if substituted. {{Citation needed}}, contains complex code. Various citation/reference templates which contain very complex conditional code (see: WP:CITET). {{cleanup}}, {{merge}}, {{trivia}} and other cleanup templates. Bots rely on them, substitution makes a mess of the article text and breaks the cleanup by month date categorization. {{Curlie}}, URL queries external web directories (former DMOZ). Infobox templates, various ones for the sake of bot-identification and consistency. {{Javadoc:EE}}, {{Javadoc:SE}}, {{Javadoc:SE-guide}}, conditional templates whose purpose is to update the links when the master template is updated. {{ISP}}, {{Openproxy}}, {{repeat vandal}}, {{SharedIP}}, {{SharedIPEDU}}, {{s/wnote}}, not messages to the users (so it is no problem if they change from their original form), so no reason to subst, but the standard reasons not to subst apply. {{ln}}, {{lnt}}, complex code {{Main}}, maintains formatting standard. {{switch}}, also conditional templates; substituting breaks usage {{See also}}, standard formatting for see also list {{selfref}}, does not work when substed, as it is meant to contain different code in mirrors. {{Signpost-subscription}}, must be updated weekly. {{stub}} templates, various ones for simplified usage and removal {{talkarchive}}, {{archive}} {{tl}}, {{tlp}}, {{ttl}}, {{ti}}, {{tic}}, {{tls}}, {{cl}}, {{ccl}}, many very widely used, {{tl}} with over 4,300,000 transclusions at last count. Quicker to type than their substitutions, and non-substing them allows new Wikipedians to learn about them and be able to use them. {{sockpuppet}} and similar templates intended to be placed on the top level page in user space. (Note: warnings and notices in the user talk space should be substituted.)Note also that some things may appear to be templates but are actually magic words, such as {{!}} and {{noexternallanglinks}}. Substituting them either will output nothing, or will substitute a template that shadows them (like the deprecated Template:!). === Wrong title templates === These templates, used in the main-space, add a comment about why an article is misnamed. They may be removed as the MediaWiki titling facilities improve, and the wording/layout may change. {{correct title}} {{lowercase}} === Deletion-related === Most templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted (it just makes more work to delete them). {{catfd}} {{ifd}} {{ifd2}} {{idw}} {{idw-uo}} {{idw-cp}} {{cfdnotice}} {{sfd-t}} {{sfd-r}} {{sfr-t}} {{prod-2}} and all in Category:Speedy deletion templates {{editprotected}} not deletion related, but also temporaryExceptions The following templates must be substituted in order to work correctly: {{afd}} {{afd2}} {{afd3}} {{cfd}} {{cfm}} {{cfr}} {{cfr-speedy}} {{nld}} {{nsd}} {{prod}} {{rfd}} {{tfd2}} {{tfdnotice}}In addition, those templates which document a finished deletion process ({{afd top}}, etc.) should be substituted. {{col-begin}} {{col-2}} {{col-3}} {{col-4}} {{col-end}}, alleged by some to simplify usage. {{Clear}}, {{Clearleft}} {{Clearright}} {{ed}} {{ed2}} {{ed right}} {{edit}}, simplify addition of edit link to templates. {{archive top}} {{archive bottom}}, {{discussion top}} {{discussion bottom}} Help:Substitution meta:Help:Substitution, a longer and more technical help page at Meta Special:ExpandTemplates (put the template with the brackets {{ }} in the ""input text"" box). Category:Wikipedia substituted templates {{Subst only}} (placed on the {{documentation subpage}}, not the template pages, of templates that need to be substituted rather than transcluded) AnomieBOT, a bot approved to substitute certain templates." 414 418 918 WP:LRC Wikipedia:Language recognition chart 414 "This language recognition chart presents a variety of clues one can use to help determine the language in which a text is written. The language of a foreign text can often be identified by looking up characters specific to that language. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (Latin alphabet) and no other – English, Indonesian, Latin, Malay, Swahili, Zulu àäèéëïijöü – Dutch (Except for the ligature ij, these letters are very rare in Dutch. Even fairly long Dutch texts often have no diacritics.) áêéèëïíîôóúû Afrikaans êôúû – West Frisian ÆØÅæøå – Danish, Norwegian single diacritics, mostly umlauts ÄÖäö – Finnish (BCDFGQWXZÅbcfgqwxzå are found only in names and loanwords, occasionally also ŠšŽž) ÅÄÖåäö – Swedish (occasionally é) ÄÖÕÜäöõü – Estonian (BCDFGQWXYZcfqwxyz are found only in names and loanwords, occasionally also ŠšŽž) ÄÖÜẞäöüß – German Circumflexes ÇÊÎŞÛçêîşû – Kurdish ĂÂÎȘȚăâîșț – Romanian ÂÊÎÔÛŴŶÁÉÍÏâêîôûŵŷáéíï – Welsh; (ÓÚẂÝÀÈÌÒÙẀỲÄËÖÜẄŸóúẃýàèìòùẁỳäëöüẅÿ used also but much less commonly) ĈĜĤĴŜŬĉĝĥĵŝŭ – Esperanto Three or more types of diacritics ÇĞİÖŞÜçğıöşü – Turkish ÁÐÉÍÓÚÝÞÆÖáðéíóúýþæö – Icelandic ÁÐÍÓÚÝÆØáðíóúýæø – Faroese ÁÉÍÓÖŐÚÜŰáéíóöőúüű – Hungarian ÀÇÉÈÍÓÒÚÜÏàçéèíóòúüï· – Catalan ÀÂÆÇÉÈÊËÎÏÔŒÙÛÜŸàâæçéèêëîïôœùûüÿ – French; (Ÿ and ÿ are found only in certain proper names) ÁÀÇÉÈÍÓÒÚËÜÏáàçéèíóòúëüï (· only in Gascon dialect) – Occitan ÁÉÍÓÚÂÊÔÀãõçáéíóúâêôà (ü Brazilian and k, w and y not in native words) – Portuguese ÁÉÍÑÓÚÜáéíñóúü ¡¿ – Spanish ÀÉÈÌÒÙàéèìòù – Italian ÁÉÍÓÚÝÃẼĨÕŨỸÑG̃áéíóúýãẽĩõũỹñg̃ - Guarani (the only language to use g̃) ÁĄĄ́ÉĘĘ́ÍĮĮ́ŁŃ áąą́éęę́íįį́łń (FQRVfqrv not in native words) – Southern Athabaskan languages ’ÓǪǪ́ āą̄ēę̄īį̄óōǫǫ́ǭúū – Western Apache 'ÓǪǪ́ óǫǫ́ – Navajo ’ÚŲŲ́ úųų́ – Chiricahua/Mescalero ąłńóż Lechitic languages ćęłńóśźż Polish ćśůź Silesian ãéëòôù Kashubian A, Ą, Ã, B, C, D, E, É, Ë, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, Ł, M, N, Ń, O, Ò, Ó, Ô, P, R, S, T, U, Ù, W, Y, Z, Ż – Kashubian ČŠŽ and no other – Slovene ĆĐ – Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian Latin ÁĎÉĚÍŇÓŘŤÚŮÝáďéěíňóřťúůý – Czech ÁÄĎÉÍĽĹŇÓÔŔŤÚÝáäďéíľĺňóôŕťúý – Slovak ĀĒĢĪĶĻŅŌŖŪāēģīķļņōŗū – Latvian; (ŌŖ and ōŗ no longer used in most modern day Latvian) ĄĘĖĮŲŪąęėįųū – Lithuanian ĐÀẢÃÁẠĂẰẲẴẮẶÂẦẨẪẤẬÈẺẼÉẸÊỀỂỄẾỆÌỈĨÍỊÒỎÕÓỌÔỒỔỖỐỘƠỜỞỠỚỢÙỦŨÚỤƯỪỬỮỨỰỲỶỸÝỴ đàảãáạăằẳẵắặâầẩẫấậèẻẽéẹêềểễếệìỉĩíịòỏõóọồổỗốơờởỡớợùủũúụưừửữứựỳỷỹýỵ – Vietnamese ꞗĕŏŭo᷄ơ᷄u᷄ – Middle Vietnamese ā ē ī ō ū – May be seen in some Japanese texts in Rōmaji or transcriptions (see below) or Hawaiian and Māori texts. é – Sundanese ñ - Basque ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي Arabic script Arabic, Malay (Jawi), Kurdish (Soranî), Panjabi / Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Urdu, others. پ چ ژ گ – Persian (Farsi) Brahmic family of scripts Bengali script অ আ কা কি কী উ কু ঊ কূ ঋ কৃ এ কে ঐ কৈ ও কো ঔ কৌ ক্ কত্‍ কং কঃ কঁ ক খ গ ঘ ঙ চ ছ জ ঝ ঞ ট ঠ ড ঢ ণ ত থ দ ধ ন প ফ ব ভ ম য র ৰ ল ৱ শ ষ স হ য় ড় ঢ় ০ ১ ২ ৩ ৪ ৫ ৬ ৭ ৮ ৯ used to write Bengali and Assamese. Devanāgarī अ आ इ ई उ ऊ ऋ ॠ ऌ ॡ ऍ ऎ ए ऐ ऑ ऒ ओ ओ क ख ग घ ङ च छ ज झ ञ ट ठ ड ढ ण त थ द ध न प फ ब भ म य र ल ळ व श ष स ह ० १ २ ३ ४ ५ ६ ७ ८ ९ प् पँ पं पः प़ पऽ used to write, either along with other scripts or exclusively, several Indian languages including Sanskrit, Hindi, Maithili, Magahi Marathi, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Bhili, Konkani, Bhojpuri and Nepali from Nepal. Gurmukhi ਅਆਇਈਉਊਏਐਓਔਕਖਗਘਙਚਛਜਝਞਟਠਡਢਣਤਥਦਧਨਪਫਬਭਮਯਰਲਲ਼ਵਸ਼ਸਹ primarily used to write Punjabi as well as Braj Bhasha, Khariboli (and other Hindustani dialects), Sanskrit and Sindhi. Gujarati script અ આ ઇ ઈ ઉ ઊ ઋ ઌ ઍ એ ઐ ઑ ઓ ઔ ક ખ ગ ઘ ઙ ચ છ જ ઝ ઞ ટ ઠ ડ ઢ ણ ત થ દ ધ ન પ ફ બ ભ મ ય ર લ ળ વ શ ષ સ હ ૠ ૡૢૣ used to write Gujarati and Kachchi Tibetan script ཀ ཁ ག ང ཅ ཆ ཇ ཉ ཏ ཐ ད ན པ ཕ བ མ ཙ ཚ ཛ ཝ ཞ ཟ འ ཡ ར ལ ཤ ས ཧ ཨ used to write Standard Tibetan, Dzongkha (Bhutanese), and Sikkimese АБВГДЕЖЗИКЛМНОПРСТУФХЦЧШ (Cyrillic alphabet) ЙЩЬЮЯ Ъ – Bulgarian ЁЫЭ Ў, no Щ, І instead of И (Ґ in some variants) – Belarusian rarely Ъ – Russian ҐЄІЇ – Ukrainian ЉЊЏ, Ј instead of Й (Vuk Karadžić's reform) ЃЌЅ – Macedonian ЋЂ – Serbian ЄꙂꙀЗІЇꙈОуꙊѠЩЪꙐЬѢЮꙖѤѦѨѪѬѮѰѲѴҀ – Old Church Slavonic, Church Slavonic Ӂ – Romanian in Transnistria (elsewhere in Latin) ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ αβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρσςτυφχψω (Greek Alphabet) – Greek אבגדהוזחטיכלמנסעפצקרשת (Hebrew alphabet) and maybe some odd dots and lines above, below, or inside characters – Hebrew פֿ; dots/lines below letters appearing only with א,י, and ו – Yiddish no dots or lines around the letters, and more than a few words end with א (i.e., they have it at the leftmost position) – Aramaic Ladino 漢字文化圈 – Some East Asian Languages and no other – Chinese with あいうえおの Hiragana and/or アイウエオノ Katakana – Japanese 위키백과에 (note commonplace ellipses and circles) Korean ㄅㄆㄇㄈㄉㄊㄋㄌㄍㄎㄏ etc. -- ㄓㄨˋㄧㄣㄈㄨˊㄏㄠˋ (Bopomofo) ㄪㄫㄬ -- not Mandarin កខគឃងចឆជឈញដឋឌឍណតថទធនបផពភមសហយរលឡអវអ្កអ្ខអ្គអ្ឃអ្ងអ្ចអ្ឆអ្ឈអ្ញអ្ឌអ្ឋអ្ឌអ្ឃអ្ណអ្តអ្ថអ្ទអ្ធអ្នអ្បអ្ផអ្ពអ្ភអ្មអ្សអ្ហអ្យអ្រអ្យអ្លអ្អអ្វ អក្សរខ្មែរ (Khmer alphabet) - Khmer Ա Բ Գ Դ Ե Զ Է Ը Թ Ժ Ի Լ Խ Ծ Կ Հ Ձ Ղ Ճ Մ Յ Ն Շ Ո Չ Պ Ջ Ռ Ս Վ Տ Ր Ց Ւ Փ Ք Օ Ֆ (Armenian alphabet) – Armenian ა ბ გდ ევ ზ ჱ თ ი კ ლ მ ნ ჲ ო პ ჟ რ ს ტ ჳ უ ფ ქ ღ ყ შ ჩ ც ძ წ ჭ ხ ჴ ჯ ჰ ჵ ჶ ჷ ჸ (Georgian alphabet) – Georgian กขฃคฅฆงจฉชซฌญฎฏฐฑฒณดตถทธนบปผฝพฟภมยรฤลฦวศษสหฬอฮฯะา฿เแโใไๅๆ๏๐๑๒๓๔๕๖๗๘๙๚๛ (Thai script) - Thai AEIOUHKLMNPW' Hawaiian alphabet - Hawaiian ⴰⴱⴲⴳⴴⴵⴶⴷⴸⴹⴺⴻⴼⴽⴾⴿⵀⵁⵂⵃⵄⵅⵆⵇⵈⵉⵊⵋⵌⵍⵎⵐⵑⵒⵓⵔⵕⵖⵗⵘⵙⵚⵛⵜⵝⵞⵠⵡⵢⵣⵤⵥⵦⵧ Tifinagh, a script used for Tamazight (Berber) === Romance languages === Lots of Latin roots. ==== French (Français) ==== Accented letters: â ç è é ê î ô û, rarely ë ï ; ù only in the word où, à only at the ends of a few words (including à). Never á í ì ó ò ú. Angle quotation marks: « » (though ""curly-Q"" quotation marks are also used); dialogue traditionally indicated by means of dashes. Common short words: la, le, les, un, une, des, de, du, à, au, et, ou, où, sur, il, elle, ils, se, je, vous, que, qui, y, en, si, ne, est, sont, a, ont. Many apostrophised contractions for common pronouns and particles, i.e. words l' or d', less often c', j', m', n', s', t', or rarely z' — only before a word starting by a vowel or, in some cases, an h. Common digraphs and trigraphs: Vowels digraphs: au, ai, ei, ou. Word-final -ez. Vowels digraphs (nasals): an, en, in, on, rarely un. For all of these, the n become m before b, p or m (e.g. embouchure, never *enbouchure). Vowel trigraphs: eau, ein, ain, oin. Consonant digraphs: ch, gu-. Rarely sh. Semi-consonant -ill-. Letters w and k, are rare and used only in loanwords, most often from Germanic languages (e.g whisky). Ligatures œ and æ are conventional but are rarely used (a few words are well known, e.g. œil, œuf(s), bœuf(s), most other are scientific/technical and borrowed from Latin). Words ending in -aux, -eux, or -oux. ==== Spanish (Español) ==== Characters: ¿ ¡ (inverted question and exclamation marks), ñ All vowels (á, é, í, ó, ú) may take an acute accent The letter u can take a diaeresis (ü), but only after the letter g Some words frequently used: de, el, del, los, la(s), uno(s), una(s), y No apostrophised contractions No use of grave accent Letters k and w are rare and only used in loanwords (e.g. walkman) Word beginnings: ll- (check not Welsh or Catalan) double L (ll) Word endings: -o, -a, -ción, -miento, -dad Angle quotation marks: « » (though ""curly-Q"" quotation marks are also used); dialogue often indicated by means of dashes ==== Italian (Italiano) ==== Almost every native word ends in a vowel. Example exceptions include non, il, per, con, del. Common one-letter word: è. Common word: perché. Letter sequences: gli, gn, sci. Letters j, k, w, x and y are rare and used only in loanwords (e.g. whisky). Word endings: -o, -a, -zione, -mento, -tà, -aggio. Grave accent (e.g., on à) almost always occurs in the last letter of words. Double consonants (tt, zz, cc, ss, bb, pp, ll, etc.) are frequent. ==== Catalan (Català) ==== Characters: à, è, é, í, ï, ò, ó, ú, ü, ç, · Character combination tz (also common in Basque, however) and l·l Syllables and words ending in -aig, -eig, -oig, -uig, -aix, -eix, -oix, -uix Letter sequences: tx (also common in Basque, however) and tg Letter y is only used in the combination ny and loanwords Letters k and w are rare and only used in loanwords (e.g. walkman) Word endings: -o, -a, -es, -ció, -tat, -ment Word beginning: ll- (also common in Spanish and Welsh, however) Common words: això, amb, mateix, tots, que ==== Romanian (Română) ==== Characters: ă â î ș ț Common words: și, de, la, a, ai, ale, alor, cu Word endings: -a, -ă, -u, -ul, -ului, -ție (or -țiune), -ment, -tate; names ending in -escu Double and triple i: copii, copiii Note that Romanian is sometimes written online with no diacritics, making it harder to identify. A cedilla is sometimes used on S (ş) and on T (ţ) instead of the correct diacritic, the comma (above). ==== Portuguese (Português) ==== Characters: ã, õ, â, ê, ô, á, é, í, ó, ú, à, ç Common one-letter words: a, à, e, é, o Common two-letter words: ao, as, às, da, de, do, em, os, ou, um Common three-letter words: aos, com, das, dos, ele, ela, mas, não, por, que, são, uma Common endings: -ção, -dade, -ismo, -mente Common digraphs: ch, nh, lh; examples: chave, galinha, baralho. The letters k, w and y are rare. They are found mostly in loanwords, e.g.: keynesianismo, walkie-talkie, nylon. Most singular words end in a vowel, l, m, r, or z. Plural words end in -s. ==== Walloon (Walon) ==== Characters: å, é, è, ê, î, ô, û Common digraphs and trigraphs: ai, ae, én, -jh-, tch, oe, -nn-, -nnm-, xh, ou Common one-letter words: a, å, e, i, t', l', s', k' Common two-letter words: al, ås, li, el, vs, ki, si, pô, pa, po, ni, èn, dj' Common three-letter words: dji, nén, rén, bén, pol, mel Common endings: -aedje, -mint, -xhmint, -ès, -ou, -owe, -yî, -åcion Apostrophes are followed by a space (preferably non breaking one), eg: l' ome instead of l'ome. ==== Galician (Galego) ==== Similar to Portuguese; the indefinite article ""unha"" (fem. plural), the suffix -ción and a heavier usage of the letter ""x"" usually sign Galician. Definite articles o (masc. sing.), os (masc. plural), a (fem. sing.), as (fem. plural) Common diagraphs: nh (ningunha) The letters j, k, w and y are not in the alphabet, and appear only in loanwords === Germanic languages === ==== English ==== words: a, an, and, in, of, on, the, that, to, is, what, I (I is always capital when talking about oneself) letter sequences: th, ch, sh, ough, augh, qu word endings: -ing, -tion, -ed, -age, -s, -’s, -’ve, -n’t, -’d diacritics or accents only in loanwords (piñata) ==== Dutch (Nederlands) ==== letter sequences ij (capitalized as IJ, and also found as a ligature, IJ or ij), ei, doubled vowels (but not ii), kw, sch, oei, ooi, and uw (especially eeuw, ieuw, auw, and ouw). words: het, op, en, een, voor (and compounds of voor). word endings: -tje, -sje, -ing, -en, -lijk, at the start of words: z-, v-, ge- t/m occasionally occurs between two points in time or between numbers (e.g. house numbers). ==== West Frisian (Frysk) ==== letter sequences: ij, ei, oa words: yn ==== Afrikaans (Afrikaans) ==== Words: 'n, as, vir, nie. Similar to Dutch, but: the common Dutch letters c and z are rare and used only in loanwords (e.g. chalet); the common Dutch vowel ij is not used; instead, i and y are used (e.g. -lik, sy); the common Dutch word ending -en is rare, being replaced by -e. ==== German (Deutsch) ==== umlauts (ä, ö, ü), ess-zett (ß) letter sequences: ch, sch, tsch, tz, ss, common words: der, die, das, den, dem, des, er, sie, es, ist, ich, du, aber common endings: -en, -er, -ern, -st, -ung, -chen, -tät rare letters: x, y (except in loanwords) letter c rarely used except in the sequences listed above and in loanwords long compound words a period (.) after ordinal numbers, e.g. 3. Oktober many capitalised words in the middle of sentences since German capitalizes all nouns. ==== Swedish (Svenska) ==== letters å, ä, ö, rarely é common words: och, i, att, det, en, som, är, av, den, på long compound words letter sequences: stj, sj, skj, tj, ck, än, and occasionally surnames ending in -qvist no use of characters w, z except for foreign proper nouns and some loanwords but x is used, unlike Danish and Norwegian, which replace it with ks doubling of consonants common, but doubling of vowels very rare ==== Danish (Dansk) ==== letters æ, ø, å common words: af, og, til, er, på, med, det, den; common endings: -tion, -ing, -else, -hed; long compound words; no use of character q, w, x and z except for foreign proper nouns and some loanwords; to distinguish from Norwegian: uses letter combination øj; frequent use of æ; spellings of borrowed foreign words are retained (in particular use of c), such as centralstation. doubling of consonants common, but doubling of vowels very rare ==== Norwegian (Norsk) ==== letters æ, ø, å common words: av, ble, er, og, en, et, men, i, å, for, eller; common endings: -sjon, -ing, -else, -het; long compound words; no use of character c, w, z and x except for foreign proper nouns and some loanwords; two versions of the language: Bokmål (much closer to Danish) and Nynorsk – for example ikke, lørdag, Norge (Bokmål) vs. ikkje, laurdag, Noreg (Nynorsk); Nynorsk uses the word òg; printed materials almost always published in Bokmål only; to distinguish from Danish: uses letter combination øy; less frequent use of æ; spellings of borrowed foreign words are ‘Norsified’ (in particular removing use of c), such as sentralstasjon. doubling of consonants common, but doubling of vowels very rare ==== Icelandic (Íslenska) ==== letters á, ð, é, í, ó, ú, ý, þ, æ, ö common beginnings: fj-, gj-, hj-, hl-, hr-, hv-, kj-, and sj-, common endings: -ar (especially -nar), -ir (especially -nir), -ur, -nn (especially -inn) no use of character c, q, w, or z except for foreign proper nouns, some loanwords, and, in the case of z, older texts. doubling of consonants common, but doubling of vowels very rare ==== Faroese (Føroyskt) ==== letters á, ð, í, ó, ú, ý, æ, ø letter combinations: ggj, oy, skt to distinguish from Icelandic: does not use é or þ, uses ø instead of ö (occasionally rendered as ö on road signs, or even ő). doubling of consonants common, but doubling of vowels very rare === Baltic languages === ==== Latvian (Latviešu) ==== uses diacritics: ā, č, ē, ģ, ī, ķ, ļ, ņ, ō, ŗ, š, ū, ž does not have letters: q, w, x, y no longer uses ō or ŗ in modern language extremely rare doubling of vowels rare doubling of consonants a period (.) after ordinal numbers, e.g. 2005. gads common words: ir, bija, tika, es, viņš ==== Lithuanian (Lietuvių) ==== visual abundance of letters ą, č, ę, ė, į, š, ų, ū, ų does not have letters q, w, x extremely rare doubling of vowels and consonants many varying forms (usually endings) of the same word, e.g. namas, namo, namus, namams, etc. generally long words (absence of articles and fewer prepositions in comparison to Germanic languages) common words: ir, yra, kad, bet. === Slavic languages === ==== Polish (Polski) ==== consonant clusters rz, sz, cz, prz, trz includes: ą, ę, ć, ś, ł, ń, ó, ż, ź words w, z, we, i, na (several one-letter words) words jest, się words beginning with był, będzie, jest (forms of copula być, ""to be""). ==== Czech (Čeština) ==== visual abundance of letters ž š ů ě ř words je, v to distinguish from Slovak: does not use ä, ľ, ĺ, ŕ or ô; ú only appears at the beginning of words. ==== Slovak (Slovenčina) ==== visual abundance of letters ž š č; uses: ä, ľ, and ô and (very rarely) ĺ and ŕ; typical suffixes: -cia, -ť; to distinguish from Czech: does not use ě, ř or ů. ==== Croatian (Hrvatski) ==== similar to Serbian letters-digraphs dž, lj, nj does not have q, w, x, y typical suffixes: -ti, -ći special letters: č, ć, š, ž, đ common words: a, i, u, je to distinguish from Serbian: infixes -ije- and -je- are common, verbs ending in -irati, -iran ==== Serbian (Srpski/Српски) ==== ===== Serbian Latin ===== similar to Croatian letters-digraphs dž, lj, nj (lj and nj are somewhat more common than dž, although not by much) no q, w, x, y typical verb suffixes -ti, -ći (infinitive is much less used than in Croatian) foreign words might end in -tija, -ovan, -ovati, -uje special letters: đ (rare), č, š (common), ć, ž (less common) common words: a, i, u, je, jeste future tense suffix -iće, -ićeš, -ićemo, -ićete (not found in Croatian) infixes -ije- and -je- are very often in Serbian that is spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Croatia (ijekavica), but it does not appear in Serbia because each of those infixes are substituted with -e- (ekavica). ===== Serbian Cyrillic ===== uses Џ, Ј, Љ, Њ, Ђ, Ћ does not use Щ, Ъ, Ы, Ь, Э, Ю, Я, Ё, Є, Ґ, Ї, І, Ў to distinguish from Macedonian: does not use Ѕ, Ѓ, Ќ === Celtic languages === ==== Welsh (Cymraeg) ==== letters Ŵ, ŵ used in Welsh words y, yr, yn, a, ac, i, o letter sequences wy, ch, dd, ff, ll, mh, ngh, nh, ph, rh, th, si letters not used: k, q, v, x, z letter only used rarely, in loanwords: j commonly accented letters: â, ê, î, ô, û, ŵ, ŷ, although acute (´), grave (`), and dieresis (¨) accents can hypothetically occur on all vowels word endings: -ion, -au, -wr, -wyr y is the most common letter in the language w between consonants (w in fact represents a vowel in the Welsh language) circumflex accent (^) is by far the commonest diacritical mark, although diacritics are often omitted altogether ==== Irish (Gaeilge) ==== vowels with acute accents: á é í ó ú words beginning with letter sequences bp dt gc bhf letter sequences sc cht no use of the letter J, K, Q, V, W. frequent bh, ch, dh, fh, gh, mh, th, sh to distinguish from (Scottish) Gaelic: there may be words or names with the second (or even third) letter capitalized instead of the first: hÉireann. ==== Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig) ==== vowels with grave accents: à è ì ò ù (é and ó still occasionally seen but usage is now discouraged) letter sequences sg chd frequent bh, ch, dh, fh, gh, mh, th, sh to distinguish from Irish: prefixes are hyphenated, so capitals in the middle of words generally do not occur: an t-Oban. === Albanian (Shqip) === unique letters: ë, ç. ë is the most common letter in the language. the letter w is not used except in loanwords. dh, gj, ll, nj, rr, sh, th, xh, and zh are considered one letter instead of two. common words: po, jo, dhe, i, të, me === Maltese (Malti) === unique letters: ċ, ġ, ħ, għ, ħ, ż semitic origin, fairly intelligible with Arabic uses il-xxx for the definite article === Iranian languages === ==== Kurdish (Kurdî / كوردی) ==== uses circumflex ( ^ ): ê, î, û and cedilla ( ¸ ): ç, ş the word xwe (oneself, myself, yourself etc.) appears frequently and is highly specific (xw combination) ( I, i ) is the most common letter in the language uses eight vowels (a, e, ê, i, î, o, u, û) impossible to find a word without any vowel has lots of compound words === Finno-Ugric languages === ==== Finnish (Suomi) ==== distinct letters å, ä and ö; but never õ or ü (y takes the place of ü) b, f, z, š and ž appear in loanwords and proper names only; the last two are substituted with sh or zh in some texts c, q, w, x, å appear in (typically foreign) proper names only outside of loanwords, d appears only between vowels or in hd outside of loanwords, g only appears in ng outside of loanwords, words do not begin with two consonants; this is reflected in the general syllable structure, where consonant clusters only occur across syllable boundaries, except in some loanwords common words: sinä, on common endings: -nen, -ka/-kä, -in, -t (plural suffix) common vowel combinations: ai, uo, ei, ie, oi, yö, äi unusually high degree of letter duplication, both vowels and consonants will be geminated, for example aa, ee, ii, kk, ll, ss, yy, ää frequent long words ==== Estonian (Eesti) ==== distinct letters: õ, ä, ö and ü; but never ß or å similar to Finnish, except: letter y is not used, except in loanwords (ü is the corresponding vowel) letters b and g (without preceding n) are found outside of loanwords occasional use of š and ž, mainly in loanwords (plus combination tš) loanwords more common generally than in Finnish, mainly loaned from German words end in consonants more frequently than in Finnish, word-final b, d, v being particularly typical letter d is much more common in Estonian than in Finnish, and in Estonian it is often the last letter of the word (plural suffix), which it never is in Finnish double öö more common than in Finnish; other doubles can include õõ, üü, rarely hh (for German ch) and even šš common words: ja, on, ei, ta, see, või. ==== Hungarian (Magyar) ==== letters ő and ű (double acute accent) unique to Hungarian accented letters á and é frequent letter combinations: cs, gy, ly, ny, sz, ty, zs (all classed as separate letters), leg‐, ‐obb (note: sz also common in Polish) common words: a, az, ez, egy, és, van, hogy letter k very frequent (plural suffix) === Eskimo–Aleut languages === === Greenlandic === long polysynthetic words (a single word can number 30+ letters) relatively abundant n, q (not necessarily followed by u), u ubiquitous double consonants and vowels (aa, ii, qq, uu, more rarely ee, oo) vowels a, i, u conspicuously more frequent than e, o (which are only found before q and r) no diphthongs except occasional word-final ai, only consonant combinations besides double consonants and (n)ng consist of r + consonant old spellings (now abolished in spelling reform) sometimes included acute accent, circumflex and/or tilde: Qânâq vs. Qaanaaq. === Southern Athabaskan languages === vowels with acute accent, ogonek (nasal hook), or both: á, ą, ą́ doubled vowels: aa, áá, ąą, ą́ą́ slashed l: ł (check not Polish!) n with acute accent: ń quotation mark: ' or ’ sequences: dl, tł, tł’, dz, ts’, ií, áa, aá may have rather long words ==== Navajo (Diné bizaad) ==== In addition to the above, does not use u, ú, or ų ==== (Mescalero / Chiricahua) (Mashgaléń / Chidikáágo) ==== In addition to the above, uses: u, ú, ų does not use o, ó, or ǫ === Guaraní === lots of tildes over vowels (including y) and n tilde over g: g̃—it's the only language in the world to use it. Example words: hagũa and g̃uahẽ. b, d, and g usually do not occur without m or n before (mb, nd, ng) unless they're Spanish loan words. f, l, q, w, x, z extremely rare outside loan words does not use c without h: ch === Japanese in Romaji (Nihongo/日本語) === words: desu, aru, suru, esp. at end of sentences; word endings: -masu, -masen, -shita; letters: Japanese almost always alternates between a consonant and a vowel. Exceptions are digraphs shi and chi, fricative tsu, gemination (two of the same consonant in a row) and palatalization (a consonant followed by the letter y). a macron or circumflex may be used to indicate doubled vowels, eg. Tōkyō common words: no, o, wa, de, ni(Note: Romaji is not often used in Japanese script. It is most often used for foreigners learning the pronunciation of the Japanese language.) === Hmong (Hmoob) written in Romanized Popular Alphabet === Almost all written words are quite short (one syllable). Syllables (unless they are pronounced with mid tone) end in a tone letter: one of b s j v m g d, leading to apparent ""consonant clusters"" such as -wj w can be the main vowel of a syllable (e.g. tswv) Syllables can begin with sequences such as hm-, ntxh-, nq-. Syllables ending in double vowels (especially -oo, -ee) possibly followed by a tone letters (as in Hmoob ""Hmong""). === Vietnamese (tiếng Việt) === Roman characters with more than one diacritical mark on the same vowel. See above. Almost all written words are quite short (one syllable, mostly less than six characters long). Words beginning with ng or ngh Words ending with nh common words: cái, không, có, ở, của, và, tại, với, để, đã, sẽ, đang, tôi, bạn, chúng, là ==== Vietnamese Quoted-Readable (VIQR) ==== The following characters (often in combination) after vowels: ^ ( + ' ` ? ~ . DD, Dd, or dd The following character before punctuation: \ ==== Vietnamese VNI encoding ==== The digits 1-8 after vowels The digit 9 after a D or d The following character before numbers: \ ==== Vietnamese Telex ==== The following characters after vowels: s f r x j The following vowels, doubled up: a e o The letter w after the following characters: a o u DD, Dd, or dd === Chinese, Romanized === ==== Standard Mandarin (現代標準漢語) ==== In general, Mandarin syllables end only in vowels or n, ng, r; never in p, t, k, m ===== Pinyin ===== Words beginning with x, q, zh Tone marks on vowels, such as ā, á, ǎ, à For convenience while using a computer, these are sometimes substituted with numbers, e.g. a1, a2, a3, a4 ===== Wade–Giles ===== Words do not begin with b, d, g, z, q, x, r Words beginning with hs Many hyphenated words Apostrophes after initial letters or digraphs, e.g. t'a, ch'i ===== Gwoyeu Romatzyh ===== Many unusual vowel combinations such as ae, eei, ii, iee, oou, yy, etc. Insertion of r, e.g. arn, erng, etc. Words ending in nn, nq ==== Southern Min / Min-Nan (Bân-lâm-gí/Bân-lâm-gú) in Pe̍h-ōe-jī ==== Many hyphenated words. Words can end in p, t, k, m, n, ng, h; never r Roman characters with many diacritical marks on vowels. Unlike Vietnamese, each character has at most one such mark. Unusual combining characters, namely · (middle dot, always after o) and | (vertical bar). ¯ (macron) is also common. === Austronesian languages === ==== Malay (bahasa Melayu) and Indonesian (bahasa Indonesia) ==== May contain the following: Prefixes: me-, mem-, memper-, pe-, per-, di-, ke- Suffixes: -kan, -an, -i Others (these almost always written in lowercase): yang, dan, di, ke, oleh, ituMalay and Indonesian are mutually intelligible to proficient speakers, although translators and interpreters will generally be specialists in one or other language. See Comparison of Standard Malay and Indonesian. Frequent use of the letter 'a' (comparable to the frequency of the English 'e'). === Turkic languages === Note that some Turkic languages like Azeri and Turkmen use a similar Latin alphabet (often Jaŋalif) and similar words, and might be confused with Turkish. Azeri has the letters Əə, Xx and Qq not present in the Turkish alphabet, and Türkmen has Ää, Žž, Ňň, Ýý and Ww. Latin Characters uniquely (or nearly uniquely) used for Turkic languages: Əə, Ŋŋ, Ɵɵ, Ьь, Ƣƣ, Ğğ, İ, and ı. All Turkic languages can form long words by adding multiple suffixes. ==== Turkish (Türkçe/Türkiye_Türkçesi) ==== ===== Turkish Alphabet ===== Lowercase: a b c ç d e f g ğ h ı i j k l m n o ö p r s ş t u ü v y z Uppercase: A B C Ç D E F G Ğ H I İ J K L M N O Ö P R S Ş T U Ü V Y Z ===== Common words ===== bir — one, a bu — this ancak — but oldu — was (happened) şu — that ===== Misc. ===== The letter ""j"" is only used in loanwords. Words never begin with ""ğ"" Look for common word endings. Tense changes in Turkish verbs are created by adding suffixes to the end of the verb. Pluralizations occur by adding -lar and -ler. Common Tense Changes: -yor -mış -muş -sun Possessivity/person: -im -un -ın -in -iz -dur -tır Example: Yaptı , ""[He] did it""; Yap is the verb stem meaning ""to do"", -mış indicates the perfect tense, -tır indicates the third person (he/she/it). Example: Adalar, ""Islands""; Ada is a noun meaning ""island"", -lar makes it plural.) Example: Evimiz, ""Our house""; Ev is a noun meaning ""house"", -im indicates the first-person possessor, which -iz then makes plural.) ==== Azeri (Azərbaycanca) ==== Azeri can be easily recognized by the frequent use of ə. This letter is not used in any other officially recognized modern Latin alphabet. In addition, it uses the letters x and q, which are not used in Turkish. Common words: və, ki, ilə, bu, o, isə, görə, da, də Frequent use of diacritics: ç, ğ, ı, İ, ö, ş, ü Words ending in -lar, -lər, -ın, -in, -da, -də, -dan, -dən Words never beginning with ğ or ı Words rarely beginning with two or more consonants Transliteration of foreign words and names, e.g. Audrey Hepburn = Odri Hepbern No spaces, except between punctuation marks and (sometimes) foreign words. Arabic numerals (0-9) sometimes used Punctuation: Period 。(not .) Serial comma 、(distinguished from the regular comma ，) Ellipse …… (six dots) No hiragana, katakana, or hangul May be written vertically === Simplified Chinese (简体) vs Traditional Chinese (繁體) === Note: Many characters were not simplified. As a result, it is common for a short word or phrase to be identical between Simplified and Traditional, but it is rare for an entire sentence to be identical as well. Common radicals different between Traditional and Simplified: Simplified: 讠钅饣纟门(e.g. 语 银 饭 纪 问) Traditional: 訁釒飠糹門(e.g. 語 銀 飯 紀 問)Common characters different between Traditional and Simplified: Simplified: 国 会 这 来 对 开 关 门 时 个 书 长 万 边 东 车 爱 儿 Traditional: 國 會 這 來 對 開 關 門 時 個 書 長 萬 邊 東 車 愛 兒 === Standard written Chinese (based on Mandarin) vs written Vernacular Cantonese === Note: Apart from Hong Kong, there are also Cantonese-speakers in southern Mainland China, Malaysia and Singapore, so written Cantonese can be written in either Simplified or Traditional characters. Common characters in Vernacular Cantonese that do not occur or seldom occur in Mandarin: 嘅 咗 咁 嚟 啲 唔 佢 乜 嘢 嗰 冇 睇Some of the above characters are not supported in all character encodings, so sometimes the 口 radical on the left is substituted with a 0 or o, e.g. o既 0既Sometimes, different Chinese characters are used to express the same meaning in Cantonese and Mandarin. If you use the one commonly used in Cantonese to express the same meaning when you are speaking or writing Mandarin, a native speaker may be confused or even find it difficult to understand, and vice versa. Some examples are: (Cantonese vs Mandarin) 食vs吃(eat) 飲vs喝(drink) 企vs站(stand) 凍vs冷(cold) 落vs下(down) 著vs穿(wear) 讀vs唸(read) 鬧vs罵(scold) 計vs算(calculate) 咪vs別(do not) 行vs走(walk/go) 先vs才(then)There are Chinese words used to construct vocabularies used in Cantonese that are not or seldomly implemented in modern Mandarin. Some examples are: (Cantonese vs Mandarin) 成日vs整天(always) 傾計vs聊天(talk) 返工vs上班(go to work) 溫書vs溫習(study) 影片vs視頻(video) 隔離vs旁邊(nearby) 起屋vs蓋樓(build a house) 聽日vs明天(tomorrow) 巴閉vs囂張(arrogant) 搞掂vs完成(finished) 定係vs還是(or) 靚仔vs帥哥(handsome male) 鍾意vs喜歡(like) 犀利vs厲害(powerful) 同埋vs和/及(and) 黐綫vs瘋的(crazy) 雪櫃vs冰箱(fridge)Cantonese vocabularies constructed by Cantonese words are used in daily life in southern China and are not used in modern Mandarin. Some examples are: 咪咁(don't be like this) 好冇(ok?) 玩嘢(to play tricks) 做嘢(to work) 睇戲(to watch a film/movie) 唔知(don't know) 埋嚟(come) 嗰個(that) 咁嘅嘢(such thing) 佢哋(they) 咩事/乜事(what?) 冇嘢(nothing) 嗰陣(at that moment) 越嚟越多(more and more) 我嘅(mine) 梗係(of course) 𥄫(to peek) 冧佢(love him/her) 拎畀我(take it to me) 嘥曬(everything is wasted) 你啱(you are right) 𢫏住(to cover something) 冚唪唥(all) 撳實(to press something tightly) 瞓覺(to sleep) 掟石仔(to throw a tiny stone) 唓[a modal word to express comtemption] 噃[a modal word for reminding or warning someone] 詏交(to argue) 好嬲(very angry) 心悒(feeling depressed in heart) 𧨾女仔(to please a girl) 得咁多咋(only this much) 做好咗(done something well)Finally, when terms are introduced from other countries(especially the US and the UK) to China, Cantonese and Mandarin often get different translations, where Cantonese often translates according to pronunciation of the terms in English and Mandarin often translates according to the meaning of the terms. Some examples are: (Cantonese vs Mandarin) 的士(dik1 si2, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation.) vs 出租車(chū zū chē, meaning cars for renting.), translated from Taxi. 巴士(baa1 si2, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation.) vs 公車(gōng chē, meaning public cars.), translated from Bus. 多士(do1 si2, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation.) vs 土司(tǔ sī, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation.), translated from Toast. 騷(sou1, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation.) vs 秀(xìu, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation), translated from Show. 士多(si2 do1, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation) vs 小店(xiǎo diàn, meaning small shop), translated from Store. 𨋢(lip1, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation) vs 升降機(shēng jiàng jī, meaning machine that elevates and lowers itself), translated from Lift/Elevator. 掰拜(baai1 baai3, has no direct meaning, translated according to the English pronunciation) vs 再見(zài jiàn, meaning see you again), translated from Byebye/Goodbye. Katakana (カタカナ) and hiragana (ひらがな) characters mixed with kanji (漢字) No spaces Number system = Arabic Numerals (1,2,3 etc.) Punctuation: Period 。 Comma 、(，also used in double byte) Quotation marks 「」 Occasional small characters beside large ones, eg. しゃ　りゅ　しょ　って　シャ　リュ　ショ　 ッテ Double tick marks (known as daku-on) appearing at upper right of characters, eg. で　が　ず　デ　ガ　ズ Empty circles (known as handaku-on) appearing at upper right of characters, eg. ぱ　ぴ　パ　ぴ Frequent characters: の　を　は　が Originally written vertically(books, school, etc.) but mostly appears horizontal online. Western-style punctuation marks Western-style spacing Hangul letters(phonetic) ex: ㅂ(b in book) ㅈ(j in jump) ㅅ(s in sock)ㅊ(ch in champion) ㅍ(p in pox) Hangul letters used to form syllable blocks; e.g. ㅅ s + ㅓ o + ㅇ ng = 성 song Circles and ellipses are commonplace in Hangul; are exceedingly rare in Chinese. General appearance has relatively-uniform complexity, as contrasted with Chinese or Japanese. Khmer is written using the distinctive Khmer alphabet. rarely uses spaces Letters have a distinctively ""taller"" shape than other Brahmic scripts. Uses Khmer numerals in writing ១ ២ ៣ ៤ ៥ ៦ ៧ ៨ ៩. Has smaller version of consonants placed below main consonants that may appear clustered Has 24 diacritics denoting syllable rhymes - ា ិ ី ឹ ឺ ុ ូ ួ ើ ឿ ៀ េ ែ ៃ េា ៅ ុំ ំ ាំ ះ ុះ េះ ោះ Uses this as a full stop: ។ Modern Greek is written with Greek alphabet in monotonic, polytonic or atonic, either according to Demotic (Mr. Triantafilidis) grammar or Katharevousa grammar. Some people write in Greeklish (Greek with Latin script) which is either Visual-based, orthographic or phonetic or just messed-up (mixed). The only official orthographic forms of Greek language are Monotonic and Polytonic. === Normal Modern Greek (Greek Monotonic) === words και, είναι; Each multi-syllable word has one accent/tone mark (oxia): ά έ ή ί ό ύ ώ The only other diacritic ever used is the tréma: ϊ/ΐ, ϋ/ΰ, etc. === Pre-1980s Greek (Greek Polytonic) === Katharevousa, Dimotiki (Triantafylidis' grammar) Diacritics: ά, ᾶ, ἀ, ἁ, and combinations, also with other vowels. Some texts, especially in Katharevousa, also have ὰ, ᾳ, in combination with other diacritics. === Ancient Greek === Diacritics: ά, ὰ, ᾶ, ἀ, ἁ, ᾳ, and combinations, also with other vowels; ῥ; tilde (ᾶ) often appears more like a rounded circumflex some texts feature lunate sigma (looks like c) instead of σ/ς === Greek Atonic === Was common in some Greek media (television); You will see Greek characters without accents/tones; words: και, ειναι, αυτο. === Greek in Greeklish === Automated conversion software for Greeklish->Greek conversion exists. If you notice a Greeklish text it may be useful for the Greek el.wikipedia (after conversion). Keep in mind: in Greeklish more than one character may be used for one letter. (example: th for Θ (theta)). ==== Orthographic Greeklish ==== words kai, einai. ==== Phonetic Greeklish ==== words ke, ine; omega appears as o; ei, oi appear as i; ai appears as e. ==== Visual-based Greeklish ==== omega (Ω or ω) may appear as W or w; epsilon (E) may appear as 3; alpha (A) may appear as 4; theta (Θ) may appear as 8; upsilon (Y) may appear as \|/; gamma (γ) may appear as y More than one character may be used for one letter. ==== Messed-up (Mixed) Greeklish ==== words kai, eine; combines principles of phonetic, visual-based and orthographic Greeklish according to writer's idiosyncrasy; The most commonly used form of Greeklish. Armenian can be recognized by its unique 39-letter alphabet: Ա Բ Գ Դ Ե Զ Է Ը Թ Ժ Ի Լ Խ Ծ Կ Հ Ձ Ղ Ճ Մ Յ Ն Շ Ո Չ Պ Ջ Ռ Ս Վ Տ Ր Ց Ւ Փ Ք ԵՎ(և) Օ Ֆ Georgian can be recognised by its unique alphabet (note some characters have fallen out of use). ა ბ გ დ ე ვ ზ ჱ თ ი კ ლ მ ნ ჲ ო პ ჟ რ ს ტ ჳ უ ფ ქ ღ ყ შ ჩ ც ძ წ ჭ ხ ჴ ჯ ჰ ჵ ჶ ჷ ჸ Bolding denotes letters unique to the language === Slavic languages === ==== Belarusian (беларуская) ==== uses: ё, і, й, ў, ы, э, ’ features: шч used instead of щ the only Cyrillic language not to feature и. ==== Bulgarian (български) ==== uses: ъ, щ, я, ю, й words: със, в features: many words end in definite article –ът, –ят, –та, –то, –те ==== Macedonian (македонски) ==== uses: ј, љ, њ, џ, ѓ, ќ, ѕ words: во, со features: р is usually found between consonants, for example првин ==== Russian (русский) ==== uses: ё, й, ъ (rarely), ы, э, щ ==== Serbian (српски) ==== uses: ј, љ, њ, џ, ђ, ћ does not use: ъ, щ, я, ю, й words: је, у features: large consonant clusters, for example српски ==== Ukrainian (українська) ==== uses: є, и, і, ї, й, ґ, є щ, ’ does not use: ъ, ё, ы, э === Mongolian === uses: ө, ү does not use: ё, й, к, щ, ъ, ы, ь, ю, я used only in names or borrowed words: в, е, з, ф, ц === Montenegrin === uses: З́, С́ === Ossetian === uses: ӕ All languages using the Arabic alphabet are written right-to-left. A number of other languages have been written in the Arabic alphabet in the past, but now are more commonly written in Latin characters; examples include Turkish, Somali and Swahili. === Arabic (العربية) === short vowels are not written so many words are written with no vowel at all common prefix: -ال common suffix: ة- words: إلى, من, على === Persian (فارسی) === Except in very rare case, verbs are at the end of a phrase. common verbs: کرد, بود, شد, است, می‌شود uses: پ, چ, ژ, گ words: که, به === Urdu (اردو) === uses: ‮ٹ‎, ڈ‎, ڑ‎, ں, ے many words ending in ے words: اور, ہے to distinguish from Arabic: in many texts, Urdu is written stylistically with words ‘slanting’ downwards from top-right to bottom-left (unlike the ‘linear’ style of Arabic, Persian etc). === Syriac (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ) === short vowels are not usually written so many words are written with no vowel at all three styles of writing (estrangela, serto, mahdnaya) and two different ways of representing vowels basic alphabet in Estrangela style is: ܐ ܒ ܓ ܕ ܗ ܘ ܙ ܚ ܛ ܝ ܟ ܠ ܡ ܢ ܣ ܥ ܦ ܨ ܩ ܪ ܣ ܬ basic alphabet in Serto style is: ܬ‎, ܫ‎, ܪ‎, ܩ‎, ܨ‎, ܦ‎, ܥ‎, ܣ‎, ܢ‎, ܡ‎, ܠ‎, ܟ‎, ܝ‎, ܛ‎, ܚ‎, ܙ‎, ܘ‎, ܗ‎, ܕ‎, ܓ‎, ܒ‎, ܐ‎ basic alphabet in Madnhaya style is: ܬ‎,ܫ‎,ܪ‎,ܩ‎,ܨ‎,ܦ‎,ܥ‎,ܣ‎,ܢ‎,ܡ‎,ܠ‎,ܟ‎,ܝ‎,ܛ‎,ܚ‎,ܙ‎,ܘ‎,ܗ‎, ܕ‎,ܓ‎,ܒ‎,ܐ‎ All Dravidian languages are written from left to right. All Dravidian languages have different scripts. But similarity can be found in their orthography. === Kannada === Kannada has a 49 letter alphabet. === Tamil === common word endings :ள்ளது, கிறது, கின்றன, ம் common words: தமிழ், அவர், உள்ள, சில Tamil has a unique 30-letter alphabet. With the help of diacritics, as many as 247 letters can be written.அ ஆ இ ஈ உ ஊ எ ஏ ஐ ஒ ஓ ஔ க ங ச ஞ ட ண த ந ப ம ய ர ல வ ழ ள ற ன === Telugu === Telugu has 56 characters (Aksharamulu) including vowels (Achchulu) and consonants (Hallulu). Telugu uses eighteen vowels, each of which has both an independent form and a diacritic form used with consonants to create syllables. The language makes a distinction between short and long vowels. అ ఆ ఇ ఈ ఉ ఊ ఋ ౠ ఌ ౡ ఎ ఏ ఐ ఒ ఓ ఔ అం అః క ఖ గ ఘ ఙ చ ఛ జ ఝ ఞ ట ఠ డ ఢ ణ త థ ద ధ న ప ఫ బ భ మ య ర ఱ ల ళ వ శ ష స హ ౦ ౧ ౨ ౩ ౪ ౫ ౬ ౭ ౮ ౯ The Bengali alphabet or Bangla alphabet (Bengali: বাংলা বর্ণমালা, bangla bôrnômala) or Bengali script (Bengali: বাংলা লিপি, bangla lipi) is the writing system, originating in the Indian subcontinent, for the Bengali language and is the fifth most widely used writing system in the world. The script is used for other languages like Assamese, Maithili, Meithei and Bishnupriya Manipuri, and has historically been used to write Sanskrit within Bengal. === Bengali === Bengali has unique 50 letter Alphabet. The Bengali script has a total of 9 vowel graphemes, each of which is called a স্বরবর্ণ swôrôbôrnô ""vowel letter"". The swôrôbôrnôs represent six of the seven main vowel sounds of Bengali, along with two vowel diphthongs. All of them are used in both Bengali and Assamese languages.অ আ ই ঈ উ ঊ ঋ এ ঐ ও ঔ The Bengali script has a total of 39 Consonants. Consonant letters are called ব্যঞ্জনবর্ণ bænjônbôrnô ""consonant letter"" in Bengali. The names of the letters are typically just the consonant sound plus the inherent vowel অ ô. Since the inherent vowel is assumed and not written, most letters' names look identical to the letter itself (the name of the letter ঘ is itself ghô, not gh).ক খ গ ঘ ঙ চ ছ জ ঝ ঞ ট ঠ ড ঢ ণ ত থ দ ধ ন প ফ ব ভ ম য র ল শ ষ স হ ড় ঢ় য় ৎ ঃ ং ঁ has 10 diacritics denoting syllable rhymes -া ি ী ু ূ ৃ ে ৈ ো ৌ === Assamese === The Assamese script has a total of 9 vowel graphemes, each of which is called a স্বরবর্ণ swôrôbôrnô ""vowel letter"" too.অ আ ই ঈ উ ঊ ঋ এ ঐ ও ঔ has a total of 39 Consonants. Consonant letters are called ব্যঞ্জনবর্ণ bænjônbôrnô ""consonant letter"" in Bengali.ক খ গ ঘ ঙ চ ছ জ ঝ ঞ ট ঠ ড ঢ ণ ত থ দ ধ ন প ফ ব ভ ম য ৰ ল শ ষ স হ ড় ঢ় য় ৎ ঃ ং ঁ has 10 diacritics denoting syllable rhymes -া ি ী ু ূ ৃ ে ৈ ো ৌ In modern writing, Canadian Aboriginal syllabics are indicative of Cree languages, Inuktitut, or Ojibwe, though the latter two are also written in alternative scripts. The basic glyph set is ᐁ ᐱ ᑌ ᑫ ᒉ ᒣ ᓀ ᓭ ᔦ, each of which may appear in any of four orientations, boldfaced, superscripted, and with diacritics including ᑊ ᐟ ᐠ ᐨ ᒼ ᐣ ᐢ ᐧ ᐤ ᐦ ᕽ ᓫ ᕑ. This abugida has also been used for Blackfoot. === Cherokee === Cherokee writing features a unique syllabary consisting of the following characters: ᎡᎢᎣᎤᎥᎦᎧᎨᎩᎪᎫᎬᎭᎮᎯᎰᎱᎲᎳᎴᎵᎶᎷᎸᎹᎺᎻᎼᎽᎾᎿᏀᏁᏂᏃᏄᏅᏆᏇᏈᏉᏊᏋᏌᏍᏎᏏᏐᏑᏒᏓᏔᏕᏖᏗᏘᏙᏚᏛᏜᏝᏞᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥᏦᏧᏨᏩᏪᏫᏬᏭᏮᏯᏰᏱᏲᏳᏴ. === Esperanto (Esperanto) === words: de, la, al, kaj Six accented letters: ĉ Ĉ ĝ Ĝ ĥ Ĥ ĵ Ĵ ŝ Ŝ ŭ Ŭ, their corresponding H-system representation ch Ch gh Gh hh Hh jh Jh sh Sh u U or their corresponding X-system representation cx Cx gx Gx hx Hx jx Jx sx Sx ux Ux words ending in o, a, oj, aj, on, an, ojn, ajn, as, os, is, us, u, i, aŭ === Klingon (tlhIngan Hol) === When written in the Latin alphabet Klingon has the unusual property of a distinction in case; q and Q are different letters, and other letters are either always (e.g. D, I, S) or never (e.g. ch, tlh, v) written in upper case. This causes a large number of words that look quite strange to people who aren't used to it, for example: yIDoghQo', tlhIngan Hol (with mixed case). The apostrophe is fairly frequent, especially at the end of a word or syllable. Common suffixes: -be', -'a' Common words: 'oH, Qapla' May use one or more apostrophes in the middle of a word: SuvwI″a' === Lojban (lojban.) === (almost) all lowercase; common words lo, mi, cu, la, nu, do, na, se; paragraphs delimited with ni'o and sentences delimited with .i (or i); many five-letter words in consonant-vowel shape CCVCV or CVCCV; many short words with apostophes between vowels, like ko'a pi'o etc.; usually no punctuation except for dots; may use commas in the middle of words (typically proper nouns). === Toki Pona (toki pona) === alphabet is all lowercase and limited no diacritics only uses unvoiced consonants in writing, e.g. p, t, kFull alphabet: p, t, k, s, m, n, l, j, w, a, e, i, o, u common words li, mi, e, sina, ona, jan often sounds like a simplified and phonetic form of English or Swedish many two-syllable words very long sentences with many adjectives Language Identification Web Service, language detection API, 100+ languages supported Google Translate, Google's translation service. Xerox, an online language identifier, 47 languages supported Language Guesser, a statistical language identifier, 74 languages recognized NTextCat - free Language Identification API for .NET (C#): 280+ languages available out of the box. Recognizes language and encoding (UTF-8, Windows-1252, Big5, etc.) of text. Mono compatible." 415 419 919 WP:article titles WP:article titles 415 "A Wikipedia article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content, and the basis for the article's page name and URL. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or, if the article topic has no name, it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles. This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page does not detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move. For information on page move procedures, see Wikipedia:Moving a page, and Wikipedia:Requested moves. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.) Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (For more details, see § Use commonly recognizable names, below.) When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation. In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's ""official"" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) Bono (not: Paul Hewson) Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius)Places Germany (not: Deutschland) Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster)Scientific and technical topics Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) Polio (not: poliomyelitis) Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic)Product names and fictional characters Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) King K. Rool (not: King ""Krusha"" K. Rool) Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino)Other topics Cello (not: Violoncello) FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word ""Wikipedia"". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. === Name changes === Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources (""reliable sources"") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in ""Use commonly recognizable names"". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles. Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. === Non-neutral but common names === When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use. Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obviousArticle titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing ""Octomom"" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point 2, above. Typing ""Antennagate"" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points 1 and 2, above. Typing ""Great Leap Forward"" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle, as is typing ""9-11 hijackers"", which redirects to the more aptly named Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. === Non-judgmental descriptive titles === In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim ""made with little or no proof"" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as ""allegations"".) However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because ""Boston Massacre"" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title ""Political impact of the Boston Massacre"" would also be acceptable.) Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. === Precision === Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. For instance: Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities. Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over ""Energy (physics)"", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the concision and recognizability criteria). Leeds North West is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) specify the addition of the qualifier in Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) with a redirect from Leeds North West. M-185 is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) specify adding the qualifier M-185 (Michigan highway) with a redirect from M-185. === Disambiguation === It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article ""Queen (rock band)"", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term ""Queen"". This may lead to some acceptable inconsistency; for instance, the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey. As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia: If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies. If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in: ==== Natural disambiguation ==== Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names. Example: The word ""French"" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, French language and French people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, hand fan is preferable to fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we chose Elevator as the title of the article on the lifting device. ==== Comma-separated disambiguation ==== With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire (see Geographic names). Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales uses a substantive title as part of the usual Names of royals and nobles conventions, not as a disambiguating term). However, titles such as Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over alternatives such as ""Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton"" and ""Waterloo, Battle of"", in which a comma is used to change the natural ordering of the words. ==== Parenthetical disambiguation ==== Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Example: The word ""mercury"" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names, so instead we use parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), and Mercury (mythology). ==== Descriptive title ==== Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. Examples: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife (see WP:NCP#Descriptive titles) ==== Combinations of the above ==== These are exceptional, in most cases to be avoided as per WP:CONCISE. Example: ""comma-separated"" + ""parenthetical"": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) (see Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves)Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages. === When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic === Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. Iron maiden vs. Iron Maiden, or Friendly fire vs. the meanings of Friendly Fire listed at Friendly Fire. The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered: Renaming ""Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem"" to ""Passio (Pärt)"" for the ambiguity of the first expression with Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem.Plural forms may in certain instances also be used to naturally distinguish articles; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) § Primary topic for details. === Concision === The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. For example: The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, was formerly State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island was the most concise title to fully identify the subject. The full name of Fiona Apple's 1999 album is 90 words and 444 characters long, but it is abbreviated in sources (and in its Wikipedia title) to When the Pawn... (see also WP:SUBTITLES).Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). === Consistent titling === We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City. Spelling that differs between different varieties of English. Orange (colour) and Lime (color) peaceably coexist, as do motorcycle tyre and snow tire.The English Wikipedia is also under no obligation to use consistent titles with other language versions of Wikipedia. On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état or coup d'état). The English-language names of some topics may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English, Australian English, etc.). === Foreign names and anglicization === The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively). If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see ""Multiple local names"" and ""Use modern names"" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow. Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be romanized. Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of romanization conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization. Wikipedia generally uses the character æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature æsc. For Latin- or Greek-derived words (e.g. Paean, Amoeba, Estrogen), use e, ae, or oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article. In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. === National varieties of English === If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense). Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and used in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names. By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the ""u"", Orange (colour)'s title does not. All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization). Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity. The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles: === Use sentence case === Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. When this is done, the title is simple to link to in other articles: Northwestern University offers more graduate work than a typical liberal arts college. Note that the capitalization of the initial letter is ignored in links. For initial lowercase letters, as in eBay, see the technical restrictions page. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Proper names. === Use singular form === Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (plurals). === Avoid ambiguous abbreviations === Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser). It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title. Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation (e.g. Conservative Party (UK), Georgia (U.S. state)). For more details, see WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles. === Avoid definite and indefinite articles === Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). === Use nouns === Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or ""Try to Remember"". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming. === Do not enclose titles in quotes === Article titles that are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks (e.g. To be, or not to be is the article title, whereas ""To be, or not to be"" is a redirect to that article). An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the TV episode Marge Simpson in: ""Screaming Yellow Honkers""  or the album ""Heroes"" (David Bowie album)). === Do not create subsidiary articles === Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like ""Azerbaijan/Transport"" or ""Azerbaijan (transport)"", use Transport in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-article namespaces; see WP:Subpages.) === Follow reliable sources for names of persons === When deciding whether to use middle names, or initials, follow the guidelines at WP:Middle names, which means using the form most commonly used by reliable sources (e.g. John F. Kennedy, J. P. Morgan, F. Scott Fitzgerald), with few if any exceptions. See also the Concision section above. === Special characters === There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles, due to how MediaWiki stores and matches the titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _ There are restrictions on titles containing colons, periods, and some other characters, which may be addressed through Template:Correct title. Technically, all other Unicode characters can be used in page titles. However, some characters should still be avoided or require special treatment: Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omits diacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.) However, avoid combining diacritical marks, which are difficult to type and interfere with adjacent characters. Quotation marks (avoid them): Double (""..."") and single quotation marks ('...'), as well as variations such as typographic (curly) quotation marks (“...”), ""low-high"" quotation marks („...“), guillemets («...»), and angled quotation marks or backticks (`...´) should be avoided in titles. Exceptions can be made when they are part of the proper title (e.g. ""A"" Is for Alibi) or required by orthography (e.g. ""Weird Al"" Yankovic, Fargesia 'Rufa').Similarly, various apostrophe(-like) variants (’ ʻ ʾ ʿ ᾿ ῾ ‘ ’ c), should generally not be used in page titles. A common exception is the simple apostrophe character (', same glyph as the single quotation mark) itself (e.g. Anthony d'Offay), which should, however, be used sparingly (e.g. Quran instead of Qur'an and Bismarck (apple) instead of Malus domestica 'Bismarck'). If, exceptionally, other variants are used, a redirect with the apostrophe variant should be created (e.g. 'Elisiva Fusipala Tauki'onetuku redirects to ʻElisiva Fusipala Taukiʻonetuku). See also WP:Manual of Style (punctuation) and MOS:APOSTROPHE.Symbols (avoid them): Symbols such as ""♥"", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles. This includes non-Latin punctuation such as the characters in Unicode's CJK Symbols and Punctuation block. Characters not supported on all browsers (avoid them): If there is a reasonable alternative, avoid characters that are so uncommon as Unicode characters that not all browser and operating system combinations will render them. For example, the article Fleur-de-lis carries that title rather than the symbol ⚜ itself, which many readers would see as just a rectangular box. Fractions: See MOS:FRAC. Templates and LaTeX-style markup cannot be used in article titles. === Italics and other formatting === Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, storylines, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Many of these titles should also be in title case. Italic formatting cannot be part of the actual (stored) title of a page; adding single quotes to a page title will cause those quotes to become part of the URL, rather than affecting its appearance. A title or part of it is made to appear in italics with the use of the DISPLAYTITLE magic word or the {{Italic title}} template. In addition, certain templates, including Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox film, and Template:Infobox album, by default italicize the titles of the pages they appear on; see those template pages for documentation. See WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Italics and formatting on the technical restrictions page for further details. Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics). Quotation marks (such as around song titles) would not require special techniques for display, but are nevertheless avoided in titles; see § Article title format above. === Standard English and trademarks === Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay. For these, see WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Lowercase first letter. Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts ""big-endian"" and ""little-endian"". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using ""and"", as in Promotion and relegation, Hellmann's and Best Foods, Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal and Pioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9. (The individual terms – such as Pioneer 6 – should redirect to the combined page, or be linked there via a disambiguation page or hatnote if they have other meanings.) It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects. Titles containing ""and"" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of ""and"" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not ""Islam and terrorism""; however, ""Media coupling of Islam and terrorism"" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of ""and"" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources. Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made.Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is ""right"" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad. Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names. Proposals for new naming conventions and guidelines should be advertised on this page's talk page, at requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages. If a strong consensus has formed, the proposal is adopted and is added to the naming conventions category. New naming conventions for specific categories of articles often arise from WikiProjects. For a manually updated list of current and former proposals, see Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Article titles Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Format of the first sentence Wikipedia:Category names, a list of guidelines concerning naming conventions for categories Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription MediaWiki:TitleBlacklist extension, a tool to block the creation of pages with disallowed titles (and their derivatives/variants) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), software limitations on the names of Wikipedia pages (articles, categories, templates, etc.) Wikipedia:In versus of, proper use of in and of (or some alternatives, as from and on) Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Headlines, on the unreliability of news headlines for sourcing Google Book Ngram Viewer, a graphic plotter of case-sensitive frequency of multi-term usage in books over time, through 2019" 416 420 921 WP:BOOKPROD Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books) 416 "Proposed deletion (books) is an extension of the proposed deletion process to cover Wikipedia Books. Its purpose is to reduce the load on the miscellany for deletion process, for cases where books are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If no editor objects after 7 days, the book is deleted, but may be restored upon request. There are three steps: A book is nominated when an editor carefully reviews it and substitutes the {{book-prod}} tag ({{subst:book-prod}}). If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{book-prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. However, the book can be sent to miscellany for deletion for further discussion. The book is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination. However, it may be undeleted upon request.This process applies for both user books (usually located at User:USERNAME/Books/Booktitle) and community books (those found in the Book namespace). If you are here then it may be that a book you created or were involved with has been proposed for deletion, possibly by a bot, or already has been deleted as a result of this process. If you do not know why you were directed here, the most likely reason is that someone thought that a book you created or contributed to was a test, and that it was abandoned. In a nutshell, ""proposed deletion"" means that books nominated will be deleted one week after the proposal, if no one objects (including you). If you believe a book should not be deleted, all you have to do is simply remove the proposed deletion notice and (optionally, but strongly encouraged) explain in the edit summary why you think the book should not be deleted. Likewise, if the book has been deleted while you were not around to object, simply contact the administrator who deleted the book, and politely ask him or her to undelete it. === The book does not contain any articles === On Wikipedia, books are collections of articles meant to be read in print. Most often, books without articles are the results of people trying to figure out how books work. Books which contain no articles are often created by users who are attempting to write a book from scratch. When these books are prepared for printing, however, they will appear empty, or with chapter headings only, as the software ignores all text which is not either a chapter heading or a reference to an article to be included in the book. (See Saving Books for what is recognized.) Since empty books don't have anything to be read in print, they should be deleted. === The book contains only one article === Books with only one article are most often the result of tests by new users. It is routine procedure to propose them for deletion if the user doesn't seem to be interested in expanding the book to include at least two or three articles, as a single article can be printed directly without first placing it into a book. === The book is an attempt to write a book from scratch === On Wikipedia, books are collections of articles, not new content. If you want to write a book from scratch, you may be interested in joining Wikibooks, another Wikimedia project whose goal is to write free instructional texts. Note, however, that the goal of Wikibooks is limited to writing instructional texts, not all books: if you are interested in writing other types of books (in particular: fiction and autobiographies), you will need to look elsewhere. === The book looks like a test book === There are many more reasons why books can come across as tests, but since the exact reason can vary from book to book, it is pointless to describe every possible scenario. Creating test books is perfectly fine, so don't worry about having done something wrong. However, as they accumulate, test books begin to clutter various categories, making it difficult to locate books with useful content. As such, it is routine procedure to propose them for deletion once it appears that the author is no longer using them. If you are curious as to why the book you are here about gave that impression, simply politely ask the person who proposed its deletion. === The book does not comply with existing policies === All Wikipedia policies apply to books just as they do to articles. Books should be neutral, about notable topics, and should not be created to attack people, make political statements, or promote original research and original synthesis. Any book which violates these policies (or any other) can and probably will be deleted. See also Wikipedia is not a web host and more generally, What Wikipedia is not. The proposed deletion process is based on ""if no one objects, then it will be deleted"". It is a very low-drama process, as anyone may object for any reason. However, when someone disagrees with the reason for objection they may seek wider input, and the book is sent to miscellany for deletion. Do not panic! It does not mean that the book will be deleted, it simply means that someone thinks that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. It could simply be that the book could have a better name, or that it significantly overlaps with another existing book and could be merged or redirected to it. === I tried everything, but the book still was deleted! === Well, that happens too. The deletion discussion should tell you why that happened, and you can ask its participants for general advice on how to write books that won't get deleted in the future. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort governed by consensus, and that people generally mean well. So, if a book you were involved with was deleted despite your efforts, do not despair! Instead, try to learn from the experience, and write an even better book next time! Simply contact the deleting admin and ask them to undelete the book. To find out who the deleting admin was, simply go on the book's page and there should be a red box near the top, with the date of deletion, reason for deletion, and who deleted the book. Alternatively, you can search for the book in the deletion log, placing the full name of the page (e.g. ""Book:Example"" or ""User:Username/Books/Title"") in the box marked ""title"", and you will have the same information. The deleting admin should undelete the book promptly, especially if you explain why you think the book should not have been deleted. If you do not get a response after a day or two (the admin may be busy in real life, or could simply be un-cooperative) you may alternately request undeletion. If you need help with books, please check out Help:Books, and Help:Books/for experts: Covers the basics of books and how to edit them. Help:Books/Feedback: To report bugs, and give feedback about books Help:Books/Frequently Asked Questions, covers frequently asked questions about the book tool. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books: A collaborative effort by people interesting in writing and maintaining books on Wikipedia. There, you can ask for tips, advice, clarifications, and so on, as well as participate in book-related discussions." 417 421 922 WP:WPND Wikipedia:WikiProject North Dakota 417 "Articles for deletion 15 Mar 2023 – Fred Vehmeier (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Walt Yoder (t · c); see discussion (15 participants; relisted)Articles to be split 23 Jan 2023 – Dakota War of 1862 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mr. Guye (t · c); see discussion 13 Nov 2020 – Aakers Business College (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Cilidus (t · c); see discussion 15 Apr 2020 – Louis L'Amour (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Steveprutz (t · c); see discussion Welcome to WikiProject North Dakota! We are a WikiProject dedicated to developing and expanding Wikipedia content related to the U.S. state of North Dakota. If you would like to bring something to the attention of the project, please leave a comment at the project's talk page. If you would like to join the project, simply add your name below. Feel free to review the project's ""to-do list"" and check out the project templates we use. For a directory of North Dakota-related content on Wikipedia, visit the ""List of North Dakota pages"". Since WPND is a collaborative effort, feel free to make edits to any of the project's pages. The purpose of WikiProject North Dakota is to enhance and expand North Dakota-related content on Wikipedia. This includes improving both the quality and quantity of such content. Quality is improved by making appropriate additions to and revisions of existing articles. Quantity is improved by the sensible creation of new articles for worthy subjects. A list of pages currently monitored by WikiProject North Dakota can be found here. === Criteria === The following is a rough outline of the criteria that is currently being used to rate the importance of articles. This outline is merely a suggested set of criteria and changes can be made. Top importance North Dakota ""X of North Dakota"" (where X = things like music, politics, geography, etc.) Cities with pop. 30,000 or greater Missouri River and Red River (major rivers that played a key role in ND's development) UND and NDSU Highly notable areas (Badlands, Teddy Roosevelt National Park, RRV, etc.)High importance Cities with pop. 10,000 to 30,000 Larger counties Air Force bases Prominent elected government offices Lists of prominent politicians Other public colleges and universities Highly notable buildings/places (State Capitol, Peace Garden, etc.) Less notable areas (Prairie Pothole Region, etc.)Mid importance Cities with pop. 1,000 to 10,000 Smaller counties ""X of [City]"" (i.e. ""History of Grand Forks"") Prominent elected politicians (Governors, US Senators, US Representatives) State government departments, agencies, etc. All other elected and appointed government offices Lists of less prominent politicians Non-politicians highly associated with the state (Lawrence Welk, etc.) Notable buildings and structures (Engelstad Arena, airports, TV masts, etc.) Major media outlets Private colleges and universitiesLow importance Townships Cities with pop. less than 1,000 All CDPs, unincorporated communities, and defunct cities Most politicians and government officials Most non-politicians associated with the state Minor media outlets Elections Military units Most buildings Most organizations Most sports teams WikiProject North Dakota now publishes a monthly newsletter. Read the current WPND newsletter. Please add {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|ND=yes|ND-importance=Low}} to the talk pages of North Dakota-related articles, categories, templates, etc. This produces... === Userboxes === === Stub templates === Please use the following stub templates on appropriate North Dakota-related articles: {{NorthDakota-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-struct-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-geo-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-politician-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-radio-station-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-road-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-school-stub}} produces... {{NorthDakota-sports-venue-stub}} produces... === Active participants === To join WikiProject North Dakota, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of participants. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. Alexwcovington (talk · contribs) (August 29, 2005) - I think I'll put my name here just so everyone's on the level. Just one or two more people and we should have enough to get going. Weatherman90 (talk · contribs) (February 2, 2006) - I am from Bismarck myself, so I will focus on improving that article. I could also help with any other cities in eastern North Dakota if needed. I once had a person ask me if we have elecricity here...hopefully I can do something to educate those people! I will also take charge of pages for the past governors of ND. - update Trishymouse (talk · contribs) (February 7, 2006) - I will volunteer, silly person that I am. I grew up in St. Vincent, MN but live in Fargo now. St. Vincent in right across the Red River from Pembina, ND. While everyone else seems interested in the larger and more famous aspects of North Dakota, I rather like the more obscure and rural, and dare I say it, historical... Misternuvistor (talk · contribs) (February 8, 2006) - I'll definitely lend a hand, I'd be quite honored to assist. I could definitely add info regarding the music scene amongst the younger folk in the state (I noticed The AMP, regarding to such, is mentioned in the Music of North Dakota article), as well as other ND-related subjects, such as the State Capitol & the ND Heritage Center, and adding stub tags (if needed) to ND politician articles... jolomo (talk · contribs) (May 14, 2006) - My people are all from central NoDak and I have some historical references but only make it to the state once or twice a year (i.e. few photos) Rickabbo (talk · contribs) (August 1, 2006) - I've live in Grand Forks all my life, and I edit mostly Television station pages and media stuff. I'm a newbie, so bare with me. Milk the cows (talk · contribs) (October 10, 2006) - I'm from North Dakota, and my old username was Grejlen, so I'm not a newbie. R9tgokunks (talk · contribs) (January 4, 2007) - North Dakota native (Burlington/Minot/Bismarck areas; much time spent in Fargo, Grand Forks) with extensive geographical knowledge of the state. Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) (February 11, 2007) -- I am from North Dakota and currently live in Minot. I'll add what I can. Tazzaler (talk · contribs) (February 20, 2007) -- I am from North Dakota, I lived in Bismarck, now currently in Germany. Also Planning to move back in a couple of years to attend college at NDSU. I hope I can contribute a great deal to all North Dakota subject, and particularly ones that pertain to Bismarck, Lincoln and Lisbon. Amwyll Rwden (talk · contribs) (March 05, 2007) -- I have lived in Germany for the past 15 years or so now, but I grew up in Kulm. I look forward to helping the great state of N.D. be better represented on Wikipedia. Ndstate (talk · contribs) (March 23, 2007) -- I have been a consistent user of wikipedia for years so I thought I would start to contribute. I am mostly familiar with the eastern part of the state so I will work on these articles. Clariosophic (talk · contribs) (July 2, 2008) -- I'm interested in ND places on the National Register of Historic Places. Dcmacnut (talk · contribs) (July 19, 2008) -- Actually been with the project for a while. Live in Bismarck, and am working on maps of counties, township articles, and unincorporated communities. Myrtle T Turtle (talk · contribs) (August 17, 2010) -- Unable to do much since I'm new, but I'll make sure to do what I can to help out with this WikiProject. Able to edit some simple SVG's, update simple templates, and update articles regarding Sargent County. LinkTiger (talk · contribs) (September 27, 2011) -- Originally from Hillsboro; went to school at Jamestown College; and currently live and work in Mandan. I am very interested in improving information about those places I am familiar with as well as articles about the politics and elections of North Dakota. Jimmyjohnson90 (talk · contribs) (January 13, 2013) -- I am from North Dakota, and contribute to pages related to the state when I can. MrMeAndMrMe (talk · contribs) (December 10, 2021) -- I grew up in ND and I've contributed to a few of these and apparently it's been seven years since the last joining so it looks like we need it Kaleb David (talk · contribs) 06:03:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC) -- I moved to North Dakota when I was around 8, and I've always liked it here, so I would like to contribute to make better quality articles about this great state! === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. MatthewUND (talk · contribs) (June 17, 2005) - I would be very interested in helping out with any aspect of the project you would like me to. I am not overly familiar with the western part of the state, but I would be willing to work on Fargo articles or whatever. I have done almost all that I can think of doing with Grand Forks and UND, but I suppose there is always something else to do. Poppyhaitian~enwiki (talk · contribs) (August 29, 2005) - I am pretty familiar with the western part of the state. So, I will let our differences slide and I will join you on your crusade to educate the world of the greatness of our state of North Dakota. No longer will we have to quietly by as the ignorant people ask us if Mount Rushmore is in North Dakota. No! We shall let them know of our true monuments like Salem Sue and the Jamestown buffalo! Opes (talk · contribs) (February 2, 2006) - I actually made ND along with God. God proposed the idea to me, and I was like, "" Yeah, ok."" Tell me something you want done, and I will do it. UPDATE: I will work on History of North Dakota Granted I'm not a history major, but I do know quite a bit about the subject. Mitchberg (talk · contribs) (March 23, 2006) - I'd love to help; I live in the Twin Cities, but am a Rugby native who grew up (through college) in Jamestown. My dad got the eastern half of the state in the divorce, and mom got the west. I can do some history, music (in the seventies and early eighties), media (I grew up in NoDak radio) and of course the greater Jamestown area. Leopold Samsonite (talk · contribs) (March 24, 2006) - I grew up on the western part of the state near Watford City, ND, so I can give as much information as I can. Driken (talk · contribs) (April 2, 2006) DavidA (talk · contribs) (February 12, 2006) - Please forgive me for taking so long to get back to you. I certainly would be happy to help, though I'm really the newcomer here. My wife's a Minot native, so I'll see if I can get any leads from her too. Doubleplusungood (talk · contribs) (March 28, 2006) - I look forward to assisting in any way I can with this project. JWGreen (talk · contribs) (July 27, 2006) - I have lived in Grand Forks for most of my life, and my family is from the Cavilier/Bathgate/Neche area. I also work for the Summer Performing Arts Company in Grand Forks. I am looking forward to contributing! NDCompuGeek (talk · contribs) (December 29, 2006) - I live in the thriving metropolis of Des Lacs (population ~200), roughly 15 miles NW of Minot. I'll try and add what I can, where I can, and be as useful as I can.... Distortionmaster20 (talk · contribs) (January 4, 2007) - I was born in Miami, Florida and have lived most of my life in Everett, Washington. Twice a year I go out to North Dakota to visit my Grandparents. Personally I love the state and I hope to make good contributions to the page whenever I can. Bschott (talk · contribs) (January 4, 2007) - I have lived in North Dakota most of my life from Flasher, to Bismarck, to Whapeton, to Minot, to Fargo. I'm very willing to add what I can where I can. chrisbg99 (talk · contribs) (April 21, 2007) -- I'm from Hannaford and this seems like something interesting to be a part of. TRBUFF (talk · contribs) (August 5, 2007) -- I am a native North Dakotan from Sheyenne, North Dakota. I'd love to work on a project like this to embolden North Dakota Articles; whether they be about large cities or small towns. Deiussum (talk · contribs) (January 22, 2008) -- I lived in Fargo, North Dakota for the first 31 years of my life. I'm currently living in San Jose, CA but plan on moving back to Fargo this spring/summer. I'm hoping to research local histories and maybe come up with some Wikipedia worthy stuff. Currently I'm most interested in the history of various forts and hope to help expand on that. Bowie60 (talk · contribs) (June 11, 2008) -- I'm from Pennsylvania, and I primarily research and write biographies. Since many of my planned subjects do have North Dakota connections, it seemed reasonable to join up. Gatetwelve (talk · contribs) (June 22, 2009) -- I am from Minot, and would love to be able to contribute to the state's historical information. I am present here (talk · contribs) (February 27, 2013) -- I'm interested in North Dakota and specific subjects, and I would like to help out with anything regarding North Dakota. Ndlibraryadvocate (talk · contribs) (July 20, 2013) -- Promoting Libraries in North Dakota one Wikipedia article at a time. Fimatic (talk · contribs) (November 28, 2014) -- Although I don't live in ND, I've found myself making numerous articles and improving the coverage of some articles relating to North Dakota. BlueHenState28 (talk · contribs) (April 4, 2015) -- I'm not from North Dakota, but lately, I've been reading many books and Internet articles about the state. I'm also drafting an article about North Dakota that could be published on Wikipedia. === Participant identification === WikiProject North Dakota participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject North Dakota participants. For other North Dakota user templates see Category:North Dakota user templates. WikiProject North Dakota is one of the United States WikiProjects. Some U.S. State portals may not yet be active at this time.... Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles." 418 422 923 WP:NHS Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) 418 "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability. Some editors feel that there is almost always some suitable reliable sources available to base a good article on, and that it is more sensible to consistently retain these articles rather than argue about each one to try to eliminate the very occasional school for which coverage is hard to find. However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically. Unreferenced material can and should be challenged up to and including removal from the article. Efforts are much better put into locating reliable sources about the school and improving the article based on those sources. Different countries use different terms for schools which provide secondary education. The age range of children taught at such schools can also vary considerably. The terms used include: high schools, secondary schools, middle schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools, academies, gymnasiums, and lycées. Sometimes there are multiple types in one country. The term 'college' is often used as a synonym for a post-18 tertiary education establishment such as a university (although constituent schools within universities may also be called 'colleges'). Note, however, that in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and many other places with an English-speaking background, the term college often refers to further education establishments that award the same post-16 qualifications as a secondary school with a sixth form. The word college is also included in the name of many secondary schools in these countries (for example, Brighton College and Fettes College). In France a collège is a school which provides the first level of secondary education after primary school. A high school/secondary school is defined as a school that provides the earliest recognized certification of educational attainment, whether referred to as a school-leaving certificate, high school diploma, High School Leaving Certificate, General Certificate of Secondary Education, or IB Diploma Programme. To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body. Independent sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG can almost always be found for any government-run school, and for all but the smallest private schools. High schools/secondary schools are generally significant in their local communities, and thus feature in the local media (particularly in smaller towns). As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were commonly unable to independently verify much more than the school's existence, and sometimes not even that much. The school's own website, information the school submits to other websites or organizations, and the school district or governing authority's publications are not considered independent sources, even though they may be reliable sources. In major developed countries, many independent, reliable sources about schools can be found on the Internet, beyond the scope of the trivial. However, outside those countries, and particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. This may involve researching local media, for example at a neighbouring library. There is no time limit for such research to be carried out. Unreliable and non-independent sources that merely repeat information provided by the school's administration should be avoided. For schools in countries where English is not the first language there might be a lack of English-language sources, even though multiple reliable sources will exist in the local language. Although English-language sources are preferred where available they are not an essential requirement (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources). The interlanguage links should be checked to see if articles have been written on the school in other languages. If necessary translation help can be requested at Wikipedia:Translators available. Merely claiming to enroll teenagers or containing the words ""high school"" in its name is not enough for a school to be given a separate, stand-alone article. There are thousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published. These schools are often very small, very new, or not considered true schools (for example, being homeschools or being businesses that offer sports, arts, or tutoring classes). However, being non-notable does not mean that Wikipedia may not include any information about the school. Deletion discussions about such schools commonly end with a recommendation to merge the verifiable material into another article. Please don't use the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process if the best outcome is a merge! Articles can be boldly merged together by any editor, or you can use the process at Wikipedia:Proposed merges to discuss a merge. You can merge unwanted articles about schools into pages such as these: Lists like List of high schools in Alaska, Articles about the school's administrative authority, like Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, Education sections in articles about the local community, like North Pole, Alaska#Education, or Articles about other related organizations, like Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks#Education.This is also what commonly happens with schools serving young children. School article guidelines Wikipedia:Schools Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable Wikipedia:Places of local interest" 419 423 925 WP:LIGHTBULB Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? 419 "One to notice it went out, and slap a {{Lightbulb is burned out}} tag on it. Two to research about how to replace a lightbulb. One to patrol Category:Lightbulbs that are burned out, and remove them all with an automated script. One to notice the removed lightbulb, and slap a {{Lightbulb is removed}} tag on it. One to patrol Category:Lightbulbs that have been removed, and re-install the burned out lightbulb with an automated script. One to notice that the previous editor used an automated script to install a burned out lightbulb, and report them to ANI. Fifteen to comment at ANI on whether this is a cause for blocking. One to close the ANI thread as ""more heat than light"". One to propose on the talk page that the lightbulb be replaced. One to place a notice with an arrow saying that ""there's another light over there"" and another to remove the redirect because it's too dark to read it. One to finally replace the lightbulb manually. One to revert the replacement, with the message ""Please gain consensus before removing any lightbulbs"". One to edit war the replacement lightbulb back in. One to edit war the original lightbulb back in (saying ""please don't edit war""). Six to continue the edit war, including one to remind them of the 3 revert rule and two others called in to avoid violating 3RR. One to request for protection. One administrator to protect the page (with the burnt out lightbulb in). One to alert the admin that the page was protected with the light bulb still burned out. One to claim ""admin abuse"" of lightbulb protection privileges. One to post the issue to Jimbo Wales' talk page. Two talk page stalkers to provide their opinions instead of Jimbo. One to demand an RFC on the subject. Twelve to participate in the 30-day RFC. Four to nominate and ponder the close of the RfC at Discussions for discussion. One to close the RFC as ""no consensus"". One to put in the replacement bulb anyway, with an edit summary ""this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen"". One to file another report at ANI for ""Breach of WP:CIVILity and egregious Personal Attacks"". Seven to comment at ANI whether this was uncivil or not. Seven more to debate whether one of the comments should be placed above or below a line. One to file a request for closure of the ANI thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. One to close the ANI thread with ""user warned"" several days after everyone else lost interest. One to mark the request for closure as done, because the actual closer forgot to do so. One to open a Sockpuppet Investigation on the user who changed the lightbulb. One CheckUser to block the user in question as a sock of a site banned user and revert all the user's contributions, including the lightbulb. One extended-confirmed user to request to be an admin so they can change the light bulb despite the full protection on it. 300 users to demand that the user be made an admin. One bureaucrat to make the hapless user an admin. (why doesn’t he just change the lightbulb himself) One vandal to vandalize the lightbulb after the new admin accidentally un-protected the lightbulb. One vandalism-reverting bot to revert the vandalism. Ten sockpuppets belonging to the vandal to vandalize the lightbulb after the vandal got blocked by the new admin. One admin to block the sockpuppets and forget to restore the lightbulb. One admin to protect the light bulb. One person to comment that the light bulb still isn't fixed. One admin standing in good faith to change the light bulb. One person to notice that the lightbulb is a 75 Watt bulb rather than a 110 Watt bulb and request that it be moved to 110 Watts. Fifty-three users to support the move, another fifty-three to oppose, one to suggest a candle as an alternative, and one to suggest an LED light bulb. One to ask why it’s necessary to move when the lightbulb is fine. One to whack them with a wet trout, and another to sizzle the trout. One to delete this page, never to be seen again. The old EC user to hack up this page, tired of this mess. And a partridge in a pear tree. One to replace the partridge with a light bulb because it ain’t Christmas. One to notice the lack of a source inside it, and add one. Six, one to write the cover, one to write the story, and the other four to screw the bulb in. Fifty-two to just play a game of Solitaire. One for each card that is played.So, by my count, 573. One. Zero === Reason === You just need a human who isn’t a Wikipedian to contact a professional to change the lightbulb, or a professional to notice the lightbulb to go out. Lightbulb joke List of jokes about Wikipedia Parkinson's law Underpants Gnome User:Eumat114/How many Wikipedians does it take to finally change a lightbulb?, stating that it's less than 515 users." 420 424 928 WP:APARTHEID Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid 420 "For discussion around the Allegations of apartheid articles. First, I'll refer to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid#Article_titles_and_NPOV. Second, when looking at history, one sees many compromises such as Debate about the controversial allegations of soi-disant ""apartheid"" in Israel, Judea, Samaria, the Occupied Territories in the West Bank & Gaza, and the Palestinian National Authority. Most of those monsters were stillborn and non survived an early age. Third, I believe there should not be any article called ""allegations of X apartheid"". Both ""allegations"" and ""apartheid"" are sly and slippery words, so an article title then beccomes quadruply inflammatory, or something.That leaves two logical options: ""Segregation in Israel"", and ""Israeeli apartheid"". We know what happened with the latter. Regarding the former, G-Dett summed up the objections thusly: ""a) it's a different topic; and b) the word ""segregation"" is itself highly charged (in the U.S. context)"" b) is most easily countered by WP:GLOBALISE. Just as Israelis'll have to learn that most people think about the security wall and not about the apartheid debate when they hear ""apartheid wall"", Americans'll have to learn that ""segregation"" is not an highly charged word in the rest of the world. a) I think it's actually an argument for having that title. Not only that, but also one of the strongest. By necessity, one has to provide context when writing an encyclopedic article about a highly controversial debate. There might be a time and a place for such an article, but not until there is an article that describes the segregation or lack thereof in Israel. First after the topic has been treated within such an article, can it be expanded into its own article (which should be the exception rather than the rule, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess)So here's Segregation in Israel. Most of the content could be gathered from articles in the ""See Also"" section; all of those articles are of high quality, and there is no reason why this one shouldn't be either. --Victor falk 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) It's written in Latin. greg park avenue 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I knew there was something odd about it.--G-Dett 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) First of all, the dummy article with the Latin ought to be moved immediately either to user-space or perhaps it could be a sub-page to this page. But if it stays where it is, I suspect it is going to get tagged for speedy deletion, speedily. Second of all, if the issue at hand is the title of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I have read all the various discussions of using the word ""segregation"" and I don't think it is really accurate. ""Discrimination"" would be more accurate. Or perhaps we don't have to call it anything in the title. Several people have opined that the most important thing in this article (or the only secondary source in the article) is the description of Adam and Moodley's work. Having now read it, I think it belongs in an article on the ""Israeli-Palestinian conflict"" (which already exists). Maybe there could be a sub-article, something like ""Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"", or ""Accusations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"", ""Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"". I think I like the last one best of all. It is neutral and accurate. But any of them would be better than what we have now. 6SJ7 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Victor, this is what I meant when I wrote, ""by substituting 'segregation' for 'apartheid,' we'd just be steering our impasse from one room into another."" Between the ""segregation"" title and 6SJ7's ""Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"" however, I'd have to say the latter is closer to the topic. It would be a very, very broad article, however, as a number of existing articles would be merged into it: New antisemitism, Pallywood, and so on.--G-Dett 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ""very, very broad""? That's a tiny, tiny, bit understated (^_^) ...--Victor falk 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, I have to admire your cleverness and tenacity, but as we used to say in the old neighborhood, for crying out loud! I am trying to see if we can resolve a dispute here, not create a bunch of new disputes! 6SJ7 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, you have hit the nail on the head here. That is the fundamental difference. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)There is of course both discrimination and segregation occurring in Israel, as in all other countries. An article called ""Discrimination in Israel"" would cover things like lower wages and racism against Arab citizens, Thai immigrants, etc. Segregation has a geographical connotation and a secondary meaning of separation that ""discrimination"" is lacking. And it is those special types of geographical separation, such as the separation barrier, the unilateral disengagement plan, and Hafrada that create the allegations of apartheid.--Victor falk 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)I'd have to agree with this analysis. See for comparison Segregation in Northern Ireland and Religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, two articles which I've been working up in the past few days. -- ChrisO 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)How about we use an acronym? It would soften the term's epithetic blow, and we could simultaneously create a speech code and circumvent it. I suggest Israeli Diaper Hat Debate.--G-Dett 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)The articles that are actually relevant to Allegations of Israeli apartheid are Human rights in Israel and West Bank. Most of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article isn't about ""Segregation in Israel"" at all, unless you're willing to concede at this point that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Discrimination: Definitions [1]. Etymology [2]. Synonyms [3].Segregation: Definitions [4]. Etymology [5]. Synonyms [6].--Victor falk 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)I would support Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict if it also includes New antisemitism. If such an obvious rhetorical device is allowed to exist as a title, I do not see why Allegations of apartheid. Thanks! --Cerejota 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Agree with Cerejota; best suggestion yet on this page.--G-Dett 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Compare also Islamofascism and Homosexual agenda. Not Allegations of Islamofascism, or Allegations of a homosexual agenda, I note. I would be interested to know why such bald yet controversial titles are acceptable but Israeli apartheid isn't. Is it really just a question of whose ox is being gored? -- ChrisO 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC) The difference being that a) antisemitism describes a real phenomenon, b) what actually constitutes antisemitism has always been debated, and c) those to whom the label applies inevitably deny it. On the other hand, everybody agrees that Israel isn't practicing actual apartheid, since only South Africa practiced that. In other words, the term is recognized by all as an analogy, metaphor, comparison, what have you. Contrariwise, ""New Antisemitism"" is seen by its proponents as real antisemitism, not a metaphor for antisemitism. The other differences between the articles would be the fact that there are literally a dozen highly recognized scholars who have discussed ""New antisemitism"", and the reflects that. Not so for ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"". Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I see, Adam and Moodley and Benny Morris are not notable scholars... not mention that Haaretz has had a series of appearances of highly noted academics who speak of apartheid... However, I think you are drawing a fine line here: There is indeed Antisemitism and this is not debated. In fact from time to time we are infused in these article with such a phenomena. However, ""New Antisemitism"" is not only a rhetorical device, it is a rhetorical device used in particular by the right-wing of the political spectrum to attack the left-wing of the political spectrum. The notable academics you mention do not use the term as serious academic discourse, but as rhetorical devices in political debates. There isn't even the equivalent of Adam and Moodley (a jewel of a study even -or specially- where I disagree with it) for New Antisemitism: sage-like pronunciations and propaganda pamphlets, while all valid content for wikipedia, cannot constitute a claim of superiority in terms of title.In the final analysis, New antisemitism is the mirror image of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the allegations being used mostly by the left-wing to attack the right-wing. This is why it is attractive to me...NPOV requires that in the battle of ideas, the battleground should be defined equally: by creating Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a merge of both, we can create such an equal battleground. Let the games begin!--Cerejota 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Adam and Moodley are indeed scholars, as is Benny Morris. How much of the article reflects their views, though, vs. talking head soundbites from partisans? As for your analysis of New antisemism, it is not, in fact, ""the right wing attacking the left wing"". And mixing these different concepts is a classic example of original research. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)I have to take issue with the assertion that ""allegations of Israeli apartheid"" aren't covered by recognised scholars. This is trivially disprovable - search Google Books for ""Israel apartheid"" and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of books discussing the topic. There are several entire books specifically about it (see the works of Uri Davis, for example). You can argue that the comparison isn't legitimate but you certainly don't have any grounds for arguing that it's not been documented by scholars. -- ChrisO 07:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Does the existing article reflect that? Davis is an academic, it's true, but is also a noted extremist, insisting he is a ""Palestinian Jew"" and, perhaps uniquely, insisting on living in a Palestinian community. One would hardly expect a particularly nuanced argument from him, and in any event, the article doesn't seem to use much of his material. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) So does the fact the Davis defies the segregation endemic in Israeli society (i.e. that Jews must only live in Jewish communities) make him an extremist in your eyes? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)I think the fundamental question remains, ""Would this topic be better covered as part of another article, or is it better covered as a topic of its own."" With the debate in Israel, I'm convinced it's become a topic of its own, much like New Antisemitism, Pallywood, or any number of similar articles. If it hadn't, I'm not sure Wikipedia would need to cover it at all. While articles on discrimination or segregation could certainly also be created, my nagging feeling is that those would really be less appropriate, by changing the natural terms of each of those discussions. In fact, that material is already treated in articles like Human_rights_in_Israel#Israel.27s_record:_human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories, or West_Bank_Closures, probably either of which are more natural ways of describing these controversies in Israeli society. In terms of names, this is admittedly difficult; Israel Apartheid Debate still shows the most potential to me, in capturing a point I think could be better discussed in that article: the extent this term represents a full-on controversy in Israel both in what it alleges and as to those who have used the term. If this wasn't true when AoIa was initially created, it most certainly is now, as seen in the nearly endless commentary on Carter's book, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and on and on. The one other idea I have is to invert this, making Apartheid Debate (Israel), which would seem to clarify this point one further step, that the article discusses not just an allegation but an ongoing and extremely contentious multi-faceted debate with regard to Israel. I know this is outside what many are asking, but it seems about as far as you can go without simply deciding to write an article on something else, while the case for that related to other existing articles doesn't seem conclusive. Mackan79 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I would prefer anything that suggests ""comparisons"" rather than ""allegations"". The latter is a bit of a straw man, and allows people to say ""it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa"", which misses the point that Carter et alii are making. —Ashley Y 09:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It is the term ""apartheid"" that seems to upset objectors to all of these articles, so the suggestion doesn't seem engendered to solve the problem. In the case of the Israeli article, no doubt the entire debate could be easily and sensibly captured in a Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip article. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It might be not a bad idea, though I'm not sure. I'd like to see some input from other editors.--Victor falk 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I believe Tiamat's is a response below. My problem also remains, that this is still a different topic, which would effectively bury a very prominent debate. In discussing this earlier, one idea was to go ahead and create that article as somewhat of a parallel to AoIa, for a neutral discussion of the various ""facts on the ground."" This makes sense for a number of reasons, and would be a way of reducing some of that material in the AoIa article. It also became apparent articles like here already discuss that material, while also clarifying where the issues differ. I think either article could be part of a solution here, if some greater effort were made to reduce a lot of the quotes in the Israel article, while directing readers to those for neutral discussions of the factual issues. That would more appropriately limit the article to the discussion of the rhetorical debate, which I think many of us feel is what justifies the article. Mackan79 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Would it make sense then to start moving the ""facts on the ground"" material to the more relevant article, pruning down the AoIa article, and see what is left after this process is complete? Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It's something to try. I thought it was something Cerejota was working on, though I'm not sure how far he's come; I noticed on looking through it earlier today that much of the factual material appears to have already been removed. There do remain a lot of extraneous quotes and repetition. I can look at it, not necessarily a great deal right now. Of course the other articles remain an issue; if someone with concerns with the Israel article actually made an effort to improve it, though, I'd be more comfortable that we're making progress on all the rest of this. Mackan79 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I agree that it's something to try. Meanwhile regarding the other articles, in light of my exchange with Benjamin (below), I think Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of apartheid has played a fundamental role in creating conditions for the mess we find ourselves in. WP's working definition of apartheid essentially has a) carved away a core part of the standard dictionary definition (its applicability to non-SA contexts), and then b) treated all of the many instances of the word's use that fell under the excised part of the definition as deviant and therefore intrinsically notable. Hence all the quote-farm articles, with no objective indications of notability. --G-Dett 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Ashley is right that the ""it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa"" line misses the point, just as it would miss the point to say that ""ethnic cleansing (etničko čišćenje) is by definition specific to the former Yugoslavia."" At any rate the claim is objectively false. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ""apartheid"" as follows: Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib. The misconception that ""apartheid"" only properly refers to South Africa, and that any other use is a metaphorical extension that must be documented and explained by Wikipedia, is perhaps the core misconception spawning this whole disastrous series. That some sources use a term in its dictionary sense is decidedly not notable, unless some other sources note it and begin to discuss or debate the usage itself.--G-Dett 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Ah ! I have to admit I thought it was only for South Africa. My bad, sorry. Note that our Apartheid article doesn't help much: ""Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994."" (I see there's also a legal definition at Crime of apartheid but ... what to do with that one ?). Benjamin.pineau 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It's not your bad, Benjamin, the apartheid-related articles on Wikipedia constitute something of an ecosystem unto itself, its groundwater contaminated by this core sophistry. It may also be interesting to look at the history of the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article you've quoted from, beginning with edits like these: [7] [8] Note that the article used to be called simply Apartheid (now a redirect), and that it began thusly:Apartheid is an Afrikaans word, meaning ""separation"" or literally ""apartness"". In English, it has come to mean any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation, such as existed in The Republic of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. The first recorded use of the word is in 1917, during a speech by Jan Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa. Until folks you've recently made the acquaintance of arrived there. What you see now on all apartheid-related pages is an intricately designed, hermetic, self-referential semantic wiki-world in which ""apartheid"" refers only to South Africa – pace the OED, pace common usage – and all other instances of its usage, the many thousands of them, are ""attempts to extend the meaning"" (an unsourced notion of course) which in their very deviance are intrinsically notable, therefore meriting articles organized by country which collect such instances and build narratives around them.--G-Dett 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) You can't quote Wikipedia's own definition from one moment in time. Here's the Encyclopaedia Britannica's:Apartheid. (Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. The implementation of apartheid, often called “separate development” since the 1960s, was made possible through the Population Registration Act of 1950, which classified all South Africans as either Bantu (all black Africans), Coloured (those of mixed race), or white. A fourth category—Asian (Indian and Pakistani)—was later added. No mention of ""any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation."" SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hi Slim, I wasn't quoting the previous WP definition as authoritative (!); I was quoting it to show that the article Benjamin was quoting from has been seriously shaped by the dispute we're working through on this page, and that the very definition of apartheid has always been central to that dispute. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, is about as authoritative a source on linguistic usage as you can get.--G-Dett 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) If citing the OED is too anglophilic for some tastes, here's Merriam-Webster:Function: nounEtymology: Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION It may be worth stressing that as use of the word as a general term has become standard, the word is less and less to be found in italics or within inverted commas, which are standard for foreign terms. In other words, the term's 'naturalization' into standard English has proceeded apace with its becoming a general as opposed to proper noun.--G-Dett 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC) From the World Book Encyclopedia, volume ""A"", last copyrighted in 1974, found in basement of my house, must undust it before copying:APARTHEID, ah PAHRT hayt, is the South Afican government's policy of rigid racial segregation. Its official goal is the separate development of the nation's several racial groups. Laws isolate these groups in most activities, but especially in education, employment, housing, politics, and recreation. The word apartheid means apartness in Afrikaans, one of the official languages of South Africa. Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group. To enforce segregated housing, the government has moved thousands of families. A nonwhite must have a pass to even enter a white neighborhood. Schools are completely segregated. Nonwhites cannot serve in Parliament or hold certain jobs that are reserved for whites. Apartheid became an official policy of South Africa after the Nationalist Party gained control of the government in 1948. This party is dominated by Afrikaners, the descendants of the early Dutch settlers of South Africa. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations in 1961 after other member nations criticized its racial policies. Thomas F. Pettigrew Now, the keyword is the government's policy. I hope it helps. greg park avenue 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) === arbitrary break === The term Pallywood is objectionable to me, but I don't think that renaming it Allegations of the Palestinian manipulation of the broadcasting of current events would solve my problem with the article. As it is, I concede that there are some sick people out there who like to ascribe all kinds of wrongdoing to Palestinians using whatever feeble evidence they can muster. Now, I can either pretend that they don't exist and try to delete or rename the article, or I can accept that they do exist and try to make the article as faithful a representation of their views and those who reject them, as possible. Similarly, I don't think it's the word ""apartheid"" which is objectionable to editors who oppose the creation of an Israeli apartheid article, it's the subject itself. But the fact is that the subject exists, there is a discussion around it, and therefore it has to be faithfully represented by us, using terminology that discusses the subject in question and not euphemisms that cloud which subject it is exactly that is under discussion. Mackan's suggestion for Israeli apartheid debate or Israeli apartheid analogy or Apartheid debate (Israel) all some like great ways of including ""apartheid"" (the analogy being discussed) without taking sides in the debate. Tiamat 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Israeli apartheid analogy is the best, most neutral choice I've seen. It avoids the straw man of allegations, and it doesn't even imply that there be such a thing as apartheid outside SA. —Ashley Y 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Regarding the article name, the words ""allegations"" was used to neutralize the epithet ""apartheid""; attempts to remove one without the other are an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) A false deduction. Yes, ""allegations"" neutralizes ""apartheid"", but so does ""analogy"". As the article says, ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy..."" —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) On this matter it would probably be better to canvas the opinions of those who are bothered by the term ""apartheid"", rather than simply stating the views of one who approves of it. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Hold on, everyone here ""approves"" of the term apartheid in WP articles, with the exception of Victor. On the one side, there are those who support a copiously sourced and notable article involving the term apartheid. On the other side there are those who support seven quote-farm articles using the term apartheid, each of which lacks secondary sources. One side has stringent demands regarding notability; the other has very loose and relaxed standards regarding notability. That is the core of the debate.--G-Dett 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) In the same fashion those who find Pallywood and New antisemitism are canvassed for their opinion? Come on!This would mess would be resolved in a second if people realized the ""apartheid"" in the title comes from Adam and Moodley - as secondary source - and it is actually OR to eliminate it. Adam and Moodley didn't set out to study ""Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza strip"" they set out to study allegations of Israeli apartheid. Period.Like Nigger, you cannot simply rename the article something other than what it is about simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or find it offensive. I mean, I am very sure that any black person in the world finds the use of the word ""nigger"" as an insult at least as offensive as a Zionist finds Israeli apartheid (which is why I originally supported Israeli apartheid as a title: even if it is an epithet, it deserves to be represented as is, not weasel-worded. Now the article has changed, so it is a moot point). If we were to correctly respond to not being offensive, we would rename it to The N word, rather than it being a redirect. NPOV - Article naming clearly states title changes should not be used to settle POV disputes. I think the fundamental problem is that we are all trying to push POV instead of letting the sources speak. In fact, if we were to do a true NPOV title, it would be Views on Israeli apartheid as per WP:NPOV itself. Of course, I have said I can live with Allegations, in so far as the content is clear. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) We're talking about this article, not any other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF is much more relevant. And I'm not trying to rename the article; rather, others are suggesting it be renamed, and it just so happens that those people are also those who approve of the article in the first place. Solutions that satisfy only people on one side of this issue aren't really solutions. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) so you want it deleted pure and simple? am I understanding correctly?--Victor falk 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Please review the false dilemma. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Ah. Quite nice. If I ask for a ""yes"" or ""no"", I'm guilty of false dilemma, and if I ask for elaboration, it's the fallacy of many questions[9].--Victor falk 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) If you stop trying to put words in my mouth you won't have to keep reading articles on logical fallacies. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I've heard of ""false dilemma"" and ""logical fallacy"" before, but I believe it's good etiquette to check the sources one is referred to.--Victor falk 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The first thing in the article is to define ""allegations"" as an analogy. The whole lead then discusses the analogy. Adam and Moodley also use the word ""analogy"". In fact, the article in general refers to ""the analogy"" and ""comparisons"" much more than to actual allegations that the situation in Israel or Palestine is apartheid. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, some sources describe it as an ""analogy"". How does that ""neutralize"" the term ""apartheid""? Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC) A better question is, should ""apartheid"" be used as an epithet that needs to be ""neutralized""? ""Israeli apartheid analogy"" means as analogy between Israeli policy and the original apartheid in South Africa: the word ""apartheid"" is not being used as an epithet. —Ashley Y 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Obviously some people feel the term does indeed need to be neutralized in some way, as they have expressed quite eloquently on many different AfDs. That is also why the articles have the word ""Allegations"" the title. Rather than trying to ignore that reality, you should accept it and search for compromises that will be acceptable to all sides, not just your own. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing with them, ""allegations"" might be necessary if ""apartheid"" is going to be used as an epithet. Instead I propose using it to refer to the original. And I have no interest in ""compromise"" between ""sides"": I am looking for consensus based on appeal to policy. —Ashley Y 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The various sides have very different views of what policy demands here, and consensus will require compromise between the sides, so you should probably be interested in that. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) If I can step in, ""Analogy"" neutralizes the title in a few ways. Primarily it clarifies that the article is about an analogy that some have drawn, not a phenomenon of ""Israeli Apartheid."" I think that is the primary problem with ""Israeli Apartheid,"" that it is unclear where this is a phrase or an agreed-upon reality. It also suggests, like the current title, that these are primarily direct allegations, as opposed to the more abstract comparisons it often is in practice. That may be less vital, but I think the first point is important. Mackan79 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Well put. Since it is specific to that article, I have summarised the arguments on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) This is the place to solve the systemic problem, not specific article pages. That's what it's for. As I pointed out there, if you insist on ""analogy"" in the title, then Apartheid analogy (Israel) makes more sense. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not addressing the systemic problem here, nor am I here making any particular recommendations about renaming other articles. —Ashley Y 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Piecemeal attempts to resolve these issues in the past have inevitably failed, and this is the page for addressing the systemic issues. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) would you accept to delete/redirect all the other articles if a satisfactory name is found for the israel article?--Victor falk 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) My personal view is that systemic solutions should be proposed. I haven't pre-judged what those solutions should be. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Fair enough.--Victor falk 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)One of the unfortunate aspects of the creation of all the other ""allegations"" articles is the damage it does to the rest of the encyclopaedia. People have created articles about allegations of apartheid without (I assume) any particular interest or knowledge in these other countries, and regardless of the existing set of articles about their social issues. I'm glad to see that at least the Northern Ireland article was moved to a more sensible name, perhaps others might follow suit with input from editors familiar with these countries. —Ashley Y 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) There has been no ""damage"" to the encyclopedia, and these continuing bad faith appeals to motive and proofs by assertion are disruptive; please desist. Regarding AFDs or RFPMs, there are proper venues for that. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)WP:AGF. Thanks. —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Exactly. WP:AGF. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Exactly. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) There have been, well, allegations of damage to wikipedia, that's why we're having this very debate...--Victor falk 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) User:Jayjg has made an interesting suggestion at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. During the course of a discussion on a proposed rename to ""Israeli Apartheid Analogy"", he suggested that ""Apartheid analogy (Israel)"" would be a more sensible choice. (It is not clear if Jayjg actually supports this proposal himself.) I think this suggestion is worth considering, as seems to resolve two of the three problems associated with this troubled page: (i) it removes the dubious phrase ""Allegations of"" from the article title, and replaces it with something neutral, and (ii) it would (presumably) bring to a close the ongoing efforts to delete the page, if Jayjg and his allies are willing to accept the rename. The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa. That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects. What do other editors think? CJCurrie 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Your description of the problem is spot on. I do not oppose an article on the israeli apartheid debate with ""apartheid"" in the title. I have proposed titles without it to satisfy those that find ""israel"" and ""apartheid"" in the same title provocative. Jayg's proposal of integrating with ""Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza"" is acceptable to me. Personally, I don't mind it having it since, well, it's what it's about. I find Israel apartheid analogy, which has been floated upthread and supported by several editors, viable. Regarding ""apartheid analogy (Israel)"", my worry is that it invites to having Apartheid analogy (X) articles, and that we would then be back to square one.--Victor falk 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)CJ, You're starting another war of names, what I think all this mess concerning Israel is about. If Israelis back in 1948 wouldn't named that land Israel when seceding from Great Britain, but somehow more neutral like ""The Sovereign State of Palestine"", then Jihad would probably never happened. The name ""Israel"" offended Arabs, while ""Palestine"" was completely neutral meaning the territory, the name of land, not religion. Now change the ""Israeli Apartheid Analogy"" of yours into ""Palestine Apartheid Analogy"" and see how stupid it will look. ""Palestine"" and ""Analogy"" are the neutral words, while the word ""apartheid"" is not - in this context it will state that there is an apartheid in Palestine. Let try this, replace the name ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" by ""Allegations of Palestinian apartheid"" and see how it looks now, it even doesn't make any sense. And you know why? Because ""allegations"" and ""Israeli"" or ""allegations"" and ""apartheid"" are two loaded words, but these neutralize each other when used in combination, just like ""-"" and ""-"" give ""+"" meaning exactly this: there may not be necessarily an apartheid in Israel as defined in the World Book Encyclopedia (see above) but there are many allegations that there is. greg park avenue 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)(edit conflict) I share your (Victor Falk) concern with the Apartheid analogy (X) model. I think Israeli apartheid analogy is a very fine compromise that avoids the ""allegations"" weasal word and avoids being a formula that encourages (fill-in-the-blank) article creation. I would point out that ""Israeli apartheid"" as a term between quotes garners 174,000 hits, whereas ""French apartheid"" get about 225 hits. I believe the hits for other similarly named apartheid articles would be around the same. The term ""Israeli apartheid"" in other words, is notable in itself and should be part of the title of the article, with analogy tagged onto the end to put to rest the fears of those who feel that it standing alone is too much of an assertion of fact. Tiamat 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)It's certainly a possible way forward, but I suspect it will not be accepted. As far as I can see, the editors involved in this discussion hold a number of mutually incompatible views towards the AoIa article:1. The subject is notable and deserves an article, and the current article title is OK. 2. The subject is notable and deserves an article, but the current article title needs to be changed. 3. The subject is notable but should be treated as a subsection of an existing article so that Israel doesn't get greater attention than all the other cases. 4. The subject is illegitimate and should not be discussed at all in any article.The third argument is based on a basic misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE and doesn't have any reliable basis in Wikipedia's policies. The fourth argument is, of course, based entirely on personal political sentiment and has no policy basis at all, but it seems to be a major factor in the arguments here. I note that many of the people involved in the AfDs on AoIa - including Jayjg - have voted to delete the article in its entirety, rather than merging it somewhere else; this suggests that they incline towards argument 4, disregarding all evidence of notability. I expect that these people are likely to object to any solution that doesn't result in the article being purged from Wikipedia. I hope I'm wrong in saying that, but past experience suggests otherwise. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)I like the term ""standing alone"". It fits here. That's because Jews proclaiming independence back in 1948 went it all alone, killing the stereotype once and forever that they're the wisest folks on Earth. I only hope I didn't allienate anybody by this comment. Sorry if someone feels this way, it wasn't meant to. greg park avenue 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, I hope I'm not being overly rude in saying that I find many of your comments completely incomprehensible and (as in this one above) bordering on trollish. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, please don't clutter up the discussion. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ChrisO, I would agree with you about Greg's comments, but I have to say that I don't think your comments in this section are helping to achieve a solution either. Both Jayjg and I, and others, have discussed possible new names for the ""Israel"" article either on this page, the article's talk page, or related AfD pages. Has anyone said that only a deletion would be acceptable? 6SJ7 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Sorry for being ""completely incomprehensible"", Chris (and 6SJ7), but Jimbo likes it bold, not overcautious (see this), but the word ""trolling"" according to Wikipedia is a synonym of Sock puppetry which I think hardly applies here. greg park avenue 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I would second Tiamat in at least hoping that we don't need to put parentheses/quotes into the title. Ultimately I'd probably prefer either to the present, though punctuation would make me slightly more ambivalent. Also, I don't know about canvassing, but a straw poll on AoIa might be one option, which is probably how a name change would need to happen anyway. I believe the question here remains whether either of these options would allow for individualized treatment of the rest of the articles; this may indeed be a reason to avoid the parenthetical title, or there might be other options. Mackan79 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Why you guys never say I second Tiamat but always I would second or I wouldn't? Like those weathermen in England saying that the weather not necessarily would be fair, meaning anything from blizzard to sea calm. And I think you missed the point. She didn't mention any parentheses or quotes, just the fact that the idiom in question about Israel has got more hits (ratio about 1000:1) on internet than about France, and as a matter of fact, is more notable this way, which sounds pretty logical to me. Now I even guess why. However, I must credit you for what you have tried to do, at least to address the challenge, not the person who wrote it. greg park avenue 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)I second tiamat. And mackan too.--Victor falk 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)There you talk like a man. Now we can go places in London if you show me around and maybe steal horses? greg park avenue 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Moving the information in all of the 'allegation' articles to more encyclopaedic locations is an option - but deleting them, while keeping one after a slight name change, is not. Labeling ""Israeli apartheid"" as analogy and not as mere allegation is even less NPOV. Essentially, making encyclopaedic topics of things popular in google, like say, fuck Bush, is not the way to go. Than again, may be I shouldn't have suggested that. btw: fuck Bush: 544,000 hits Israeli apartheid: 175,000I'm somewhat relieved. Anyway, there's some serious trouble for some shitty little country. I wonder why - will the Protocols tell? I didn't bother so far, except for some summaries who, um, allege forgery. How about Systemic bias against Israel for a new topic? --tickle me 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The problem here is a painfully obvious double standard on the part of a number of editors who believe that ""consensus"" means ""majority rule"", and who, simultaneously, believe WP:ILIKEIT is synonymous with WP:NPOV. There is, and always has been, room for an article on Israeli apartheid: specifically, it should discuss the usage of the term as a false analogy, a politicized appeal to emotion, and so on. Instead, the article is used as a soapbox for a group of editors who happen to think this false analogy is a matter of fact...thereby twisting Wikipedia into yet another tool to forward the vile rhetoric that Israel is a ""shitty little country"" which is ""the source of all the problems in the Middle East"" (if not the entire world). Wikipedia policy, neutrality, and respectability continue to be held hostage by this pedantry. There is no encyclopedic value whatsoever to a collection of articles about ""allegèd this"" or ""allegèd that"". The move of Israeli apartheid, however, to Allegations of Israeli apartheid was supposèdly done precisely to make the title ""more encyclopedic"". It has not; all it's accomplished is to make obvious that the article contains nothing of encyclopedic value whatsoëver. It is, in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst. In any case, the timing of this discussion is interesting. Like so many other similar discussions, I can't help but notice that it's begun on the eve of the Sabbath. This trend is beginning to look less and less like mere coïncidence... Tomertalk 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I think you didn't get the drift of a bit of sarcasm used by Tickle and got too serious on the subject of the ""shitty little country"" which happens to be home for more than one nation, and now play Columbo on that assumption. Better back off until there's still time before you get too deep in mud. Uncle the Good Advise greg park avenue 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)And there are only 928 hits on bloody Bush, that's amazing how those polite British lads love us or US (US + UK = League of Nations or what?). At least they don't smell fish behind every bush. So who is behind that awful rest (~500,000)? greg park avenue 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)OT: Tomer, while I concur with the soapbox issue, you're going over the top with that Sabbath conspiration theory. Pro Israel Wikipedians are rather suspected to be Zionists than Haredim by their foes. --tickle me 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Tomer: since according to you I and other editors who defend the encyclopedic need and notability of the Israeli apartheid article are either tabloid falsifiers, or nazis, I think we don't have much to talk. Please read WP:NPA. And of course, Godwin's Law (and no, your analogy is not valid). And of course, books like Adam and Moodley's ""Seeking Mandela"" (both of which according to your criteria surely are either tabloid mythologists or nazis) establish without a doubt the notability and encyclopedic value of the analogy between South Africa's apartheid and the current situation in Israel. Nevermind they prove that the analogy is problematic, misguided, and unempathetic with the plight of the European and Mediterranean Jews that founded Israel: By even looking at the allegations in a serious fashion, they are ""in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst"". And then you dwelve in the worse of the worse of the conspiranoia: there is a surge of debate near the sabbath. Well, I have a rather different take: There has been a surge because in the last two months about 4 articles have been added to the series (including one that was deleted). So it neither began on the eve of the Sabbath, nor is it new. However, I do have an explanation for the seeming weekly coincidence: in all English speaking countries, the Sabbath coincides with Saturday, normally considered the first of two rest days after a five day work week. Some of us do have irregular hours or sacrifice sleep, but the bulk of us either study or work on other days, and hence have less time to edit wikipedia. Of course, as the rests days approach, there is more time. Nothing sinister, its just that the eve Sabbath and the eve of the first rest day of us tabloid journo/nazi goyim are exactlly the same!... We are all smart people here, regardless of POV, and hence I think that the only thing that really gets to me is how casually we insult each other's intelligence by using sophism, conspiranoia, and strawmen to prop our own POVs. I try to avoid it at all costs, and I suggests others do the same. Not because it is policy, but because it is the right thing to do. Thanks! --Cerejota 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) A Google search for ""Apartheid analogy"" Israel reports 510 hits and lists 225 real hits. Most are references to Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, and there are a few hits related to Israeli Apartheid Week. ""Israel Apartheid"" searched as a quoted phrase reports 173,000 hits and returns 75 pages of hits, a Google limit. Those hits cover a much broader range of topics related to the subject. A search for ""Israeli apartheid"" allegations reports 19,500 hits (the first one is Wikipedia) and maxes out at 75 pages. So ""Israel Apartheid"" is the phrase in wide use, adding ""allegations"" still gets a substantial number of hits, but ""Apartheid analogy"" is a niche phrase. --John Nagle 07:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)I think you hit the jackpot, John, with that Jimmy Carter's book. Now we can switch to Tiamut's version of ""apartheid analogy"" concerning Israel, which wasn't contested much anyway, but not before adding this book to the article as the principal reference with proper citations, and then we can proceed to the closing. This title is now notable, though for the Israeli article only. greg park avenue 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Two articles with Carter's book as principal reference?? While Palestine Peace Not Apartheid might be a fat cow in regards to factual errors, double encyclopaedic milking should deem a proper exercise to jackpot seekers only. --tickle me 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Actually, Carter's book is simply a notable that in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article serves two puposes:Decry the use of the analogy for referring to Israel proper. Make some allegations regarding the separation wall as a form of aparheid.It is not a secondary source, and it is not by far the principal reference in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In any case, Adam and Moodley are the principal source. Please read things before talking about them. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Cerejota is exactly right that Carter is a primary source not a secondary one; I am pleased to see the distinction finding a stable place in this discussion. It should be pointed out, however, that the notability of Carter's book is established by the flood of secondary-source commentary on his use of the analogy. --G-Dett 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)This page really needs to be a page for new and innovative solutions, not a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means. For a long time now supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" epithet have been trying to a) get the word ""Allegations"" out of the title of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, and more recently b) to get the other ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles deleted. They have generally failed at both, except in the case of poorly written ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles. This is not the place to re-hash the same arguments they made in trying to achieve those aims, or re-propose actions intended to achieve those same results. Instead, please propose systemic solutions that are not attempts to win already lost battles via other means. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC) So, Jay, do you actually support your own suggestion to move Allegations of Israeli Apartheid to Apartheid Analogy (Israel)? (Please note that I'm not ignoring your stated concerns regarding individualized vs systemic solutions. I suspect, however, that a viable resolution for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid will make our task much simpler elsewhere.) CJCurrie 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC), amended 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I did not suggest the article should be moved there, I pointed out that ""Apartheid analogy (Israel)"" would be a better name if one insisted on have the term ""analogy"" in the title. I've also commented elsewhere that ""analogy"" was inaccurate, as not all sources use the term as an ""analogy"". The only suggestion I've made is that solutions be systemic. My personal view is that renaming eight or so articles to some new convention isn't really much of a ""solution"". Do others think that moving the articles to ""Apartheid analogy (Brazil)"", ""Apartheid analogy (China)"", ""Apartheid analogy (Cuba)"", ""Apartheid analogy (France)"", ""Apartheid analogy (Israel)"" etc. will prove to be a long-term solution? Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I wrote above, ""The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa."" So, no, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution to that particular concern. I also wrote, ""That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects."" CJCurrie 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) CJCurrie, in my view the least ""encyclopedic"" of the current crop of ""articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa"" is the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article. As you have seen from the comments above, others feel the same way. By contrast, the Brazilian, Cuban, and French apartheid articles in particular are quite tidy little articles that bring interesting and important views to light in an encyclopedic and well-written way. The others could use a little work, but they aren't bad - certainly not as bad as the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article. That said, it's not really helpful to re-hash arguments that failed to win over editors in AfDs. You have your opinion, others have theirs. Let's leave it at that and move on to solutions. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, Jayjg, I'm quite aware that you and your allies have never accepted the validity of the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article in any form. It's precisely for that reason that we're in our current predicament. CJCurrie 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) CJCurrie, I request that you try to adopt a more civil tone here; statements about ""you and your allies"" are not conducive to harmonious dialog. I also request that you avoid this kind of blaming; one could as easily state that it was the creation and nurturing of that non-encyclopedic proganda-fest of an article that is the reason we are in our current predicament - indeed, that would be, in my view, the accurate view. Regardless, please try to focus on solutions, not re-hashing old events and views, and pointing fingers. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jay, will you clarify two things? 1) Can you elaborate on your suggestion that ""solutions be systemic""? I think everyone here wants a systemic solution, which is why they're participating in a centralized discussion, but there seems to be disagreement over what ""systemic"" should mean. My idea of a good systemic solution is one which rearticulates and reaffirms, in maximally explicit terms, how core policies and guidelines (especially those regarding sourcing and notability) would apply to any existing or proposed article about ""allegations of apartheid."" My idea of a bad systemic solution is one in which the legitimacy of one article is pegged to that of another solely on the basis of superficialities of structure and phraseology. 2) When you say this page should not be ""a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means,"" does this mean you won't be asking for the Israel article to be deleted or merged, and think such a request should be off the table?--G-Dett 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1) A good systemic solution would be applied to all articles at the same time, and would be a compromise, rather than an attempt to achieve previously stated goals via other means (see comment below). 2) In my view, and that of many others, the only real solution for the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" POV-monstrosity is outright deletion, salt the earth, etc. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a political propaganda-fest that a good encyclopedia (like Britannica) would never put up with. However, in the interests of trying to find a compromise here, I am willing to explore other options for that useless material that damages Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I think a systemic solution would be to merge all of the useful information in each of the articles to Human rights in X articles. If this were a vote, that's how I'd cast my ballot. IronDuke 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I think merging to ""Human rights in X"" is the only encyclopedic and NPOV option. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for expressing your views, Iron Duke and Briangotts. The thing that concerns me about the current trend in the discussion is that supporters of the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article have, before this discussion, been openly trying to achieve two goals; a) get the word ""Allegations"" out of the title of the article, and b) get all the other ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles deleted. For some reason they seem to think that this is the place where they can achieve the exact same ends they were unable to achieve via other means and processes. In my view this is not really taking this venue seriously. Systemic solutions will be required here, and they will have to be compromises acceptable to all parties. Insisting on a solution that is exactly what you have tried to achieve (and failed at) before is not a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jayjg's capacity for irony never ceases to amaze me. Those coming to this discussion late should note that he and his allies have tried to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted several times, without success. The Human Rights in (x) suggestion strikes me as nothing more than the latest in a series of efforts toward that end; I imagine that it will meet with the same fate as previous efforts. (Btw, should I assume that Jayjg is opposed to any solution under which ""Allegations of"" will be removed from the article title?) CJCurrie 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Moving material to a different article/articles is hardly deleting it, though the latter would clearly be a much better outcome for Wikipedia in the case of the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" material. Please try to work towards compromises. Also, it would be best not to assume; for example, I certainly haven't ruled out the solution proposed by Iron Duke and seconded by Briangotts, which would, of course, also remove ""Allegations of"" from the titles of all of these articles. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jay, if I can contest your impression, the only reason I've suggested alternative names for the Israel article is in the hope that we can improve it to some point where its current critics will be comfortable letting the articles on each country be treated independently. I have no interest in changing the name against anyone's will. As G-Dett explained, I think pretty much the only thing many of us are hoping for here is to find an idea that will allow some grudging return to the status quo, where articles are dealt with based on their own merits. ""Israel apartheid debate,"" ""Israel apartheid analogy,"" ""Apartheid debate (Israel)"" and the rest were all intended as suggestions in this direction. Of course, I do think those articles would be improvements, in that they would be more encyclopedic than the ""allegations"" title, and in my view are less pointed than the current title. If others don't, however, then the question simply remains what we can do to unravel the current situation.As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate. Again, we're then back to asking whether all articles on accusatory debates or theories should be merged into other articles. Even then, ""Human Rights"" clearly isn't the right article for every country, while nobody here even has a hope of knowing the specific details for every country. These and other reasons are why I've suggested we need to be able to address the Israel article in some independent way to alleviate some of its issues so that the same approach can then be applied elsewhere. Mackan79 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate.Indeed. The Israeli Apartheid Analogy is a distinct subject which has been addressed by several academics and politicians -- most recently by Joseph Paritzky, a former cabinet minister in Ariel Sharon's government who believes the term is entirely appropriate for describing Israel's land laws. Hiding the analogy away on Human rights in Israel is not a viable option. CJCurrie 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I see no reason why the subject matter, where relevant, can't be folded into Human Rights articles, and for all the apartheid articles. I suppose you could argue, ""Yes, Israel has an apartheid system; no, that does not impinge on the rights of Palestinians in any way,"" but you'd need to do a good deal of convincing. At the moment, the attempt to prove the material in question doesn't belong under Human Rights has been merely a matter of assertion. I look forward to counter-arguments, if there are any. IronDuke 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Actually, I'm arguing that the ""Israeli Apartheid"" analogy is a sufficiently notable subject in its own right, and is worthy of being addressed on a separate page. I would also draw attention to the fact that several individuals (including yourself and Jayjg) have tried a variety of methods to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page removed in the last year; this latest suggestion, as such, seems like another ""back door"" attempt at deletion. CJCurrie 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) CjCurrie, as has been explained, moving material to a different article is not deleting it, though in truth deletion would be a much better outcome for Wikipedia. It seems clear that by ""compromise"" you so far mean ""I will get my way on the title of the article, and I will get my way on deleting the other articles"". That is not ""compromise"", that is insisting on getting your way on all items. Please try to work with other editors to achieve a middle ground. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) There have been a few explanations in more detail. See the second comment on the thread here, which gets the main points. Basically, the issues here are substantial enough where trying to put this in another article doesn't seem justified. If you ctrl f for ""Carter's book"" I discussed another angle, which is the extensive response to these allegations as well as the surrounding debate. Tiamat also explained the ""not censored"" aspect here. I think those cover the main problems. Mackan79 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC) In Wikipedia debates such as this, the word ""censored"" is usually just an epithet thrown around to scare people out of making sensible editorial decisions. The proper response is Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Regarding your other point, there's no reason even issues you consider to be ""substantial"" could not be included in more encyclopedic articles; considering the fact that a large number of people think the material has no encyclopedic value at all, it seems a middle ground. Keep in mind, Britannica does not have an article on ""Israeli apartheid"", and never, ever will. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Nor does Britannica have articles on Pallywood, New antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, or any of the other exotic varietals you nurture in your editorial greenhouse.--G-Dett 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) First off, let me say I agree that the IA is quite possibly the worst of a bad lot of articles. I would almost vote to keep it as an example of a dog’s breakfast of poorly-written, quote-farming POV OR, but that might violate WP:Point. Other articles in the genre are actually substantially better, on all fronts, than I’d guess about 80% of the articles we have.Mackan: thanks for those links, as to the first, I will go on record as saying I don’t give a foetid pair of dingo’s kidneys whether the Adam and Moodley material is included somewhere on Wikipedia. We don’t have an encyclopedia article about every book ever published (though there seem to be some who wish we did), and if we must, that info could included there. This argument goes on to recapitulate the debate, which says “Lots of people are using this analogy,” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article. Myself, I’m hard-pressed to think of any “analogy” that merits an article. Even if there were, an oft-repeated slur surely would not merit such. Tiamut’s argument seems to be “Look, I have to put up with shit I hate, so you all can put up with shit 'you' hate.” Understandable, but not ultimately compelling. We’ve been over all this before, in any case.CJ: is there a way to ask you to stop poisoning the well that you will listen to? I understand that your attempts to assume bad faith about me aren’t meant to make me angry, but rather to influence others who may engage in this debate. I do, however, respectfully request that you keep your insinuations to yourself. I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported [10] an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing. I urge you to do likewise. IronDuke 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Readers should note I accepted a barnstar from User:Kiyosaki (who was later revealed to be the ""Disruptive Apartheid Editor"") before his identity was discovered, and at a time when he was keeping his prejudices hidden. I was skeptical about the star at the time (hence the terseness of my response), but didn't have any reason to decline it. My ""thanks"" notice was an act of politeness, nothing more. If you're going to mention this matter, you should also be so good as to inform readers that I removed the star after Kiyosaki revealed himself to be an anti-Semite, and that I added a note explaining my decision on my user page. Your interpretation of my actions as ""supporting an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer"" is at best reckless, at worst a smear. That you've chosen to make this point while lecturing me on ""assuming good faith"" suggests that you share User:Jayjg's sublime sense of irony. CJCurrie 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, it might be worth noting that User:Kiyosaki wasn't banned until after I posted these notices on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid: [11], [12]. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can probably claim an assist in revealing his identity. CJCurrie 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. “Readers should note I…” No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them. I’m not sure how to take your assertion that you deserve an assist for noting the antisemitic troll’s post on Jimbo’s own talk page. I think the credit here would pretty clearly go to Jay (and maybe SlimVirgin as well) for keeping such close tabs on this guy through his many annoying, hateful, and sub-literate iterations.I should say, in contradiction to your insinuation, that while I respect Jay’s contributions, he possesses nothing like the sublimity of my own rich sense of irony, (though I might add your having confined your entire last post to a self-justification of your own actions and an attack on mine, while ignoring the substance of what I wrote, is certainly giving me a run for my money in the irony department). IronDuke 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC) IronDuke, welcome to the ""centralized discussion,"" the smoke-filled backroom where the horsetrading goes down with only the thinnest veneer of decorousness and deference to policy. With respect, your posts thus far have done little to refine or advance the discussion. While strawman arguments are pretty common fare around here, your misrepresentation of the logic for retaining the I/P article as “'Lots of people are using this analogy',” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article"" deserves special delectation. That is not only not the argument we've been making; it is exactly the empty argument that the other side has been making for their metastasizing series of hoax articles. It's their only argument, and one we've been patiently dismantling, thank you very much, only to find it endlessly re-erected in all its insulting flimsiness. The script goes more or less like this: Apartheid prankster:See, five people said the word ""apartheid"" about these five different things having to do with France; therefore, we need an ""allegations of French apartheid"" article. G-Dett (with customary sweetness of tone): And what, dear heart, is the evidence that these five uses of the term apartheid are, ahem, notable? Apartheid prankster: Wikipedia has decided that all references to apartheid outside of South Africa are intrinsically notable. We don't like that decision, but until it's changed, this article is by definition notable. Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we might be persuaded to take a more reasonable approach to pol– G-Dett: My, my. I didn't think WP had decided that the use of the word ""apartheid"" was intrinsically notable. Can you point me to that decision? I thought it had decided that a prominent international controversy involving notable scholars, statesmen, and Nobel laureates hotly debating the Israel-South Africa comparison was notable. After all, the notability of something like the Lewinsky scandal derives from the political reverberations it set forth, not from the intrinsic notability of every act of fellatio in the White House. Don't you need secondary sources establishing the notability of the allegations themselves? Apartheid prankster: Secondary sources, bah! You just want to single out Israel. Exploding whale has no secondary sources, so we don't need 'em either. Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we could be persuaded to...Etc. etc. etc. Ironduke, you've taken your place on this maddening merry-go-round of inanity, and you're welcome to it. You are not welcome, however, to any more stupid smears about CJ or anyone else.--G-Dett 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, to take your most vituperative comment first, I don’t believe I have “smeared” anyone. CJ was supportive of an antisemitic troll. Yes, his most hateful speech was after CJ had accepted a barnstar from him, and yet, the group of editors opposing the Kiyosaki sockpuppet (whom CJ continues to mutter darkly about) twigged to the fact that this editor was disruptive and unhelpful, and was indeed masking horrifying bigotry with pseudo-arguments a bit before CJ did, (eg almost right away—here is one of Kiyosaki’s earlier bon mots “I thought the interview with Jimmy Carter, in his own words, is a better source than the Forward which is a Jewish newspaper.” A comment like that is a big red flag for people who are used to encountering antisemites on WP. Not picking up on this doesn’t make CJ a bad person, or someone not worth listening to—indeed, this has been my entire point all along: content, not contributor.Finally, although I understand you meant your having “customary sweetness of tone” to be ironic, your actual tone, and CJ’s as well, are often poisonous, and do little to further the debate.Whew. Now that we’ve got all that out of the way, any chance of our returning to the discussion already in progress? IronDuke 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)In fact, I'd never seen that particular comment before now. This may come as a surprise to some people, but I didn't read everything ""Kiyosaki"" wrote during his time on Wikipedia (especially given that most of his interventions came off as amateurish, sub-literate, and, as you say, unhelpful). I did repeatedly ask SlimVirgin to provide me with a page diff demonstrating his ""earlier bon mots"", but she never responded. In any event, I was sufficiently skeptical of Kiyosaki's editing skills to keep him at a distance, but wasn't aware of his bigotry until after the barnstar situation. I didn't ""help"" him except insofar as I sent off a perfunctionary thank-you notice for his unsolicited gift of a barnstar. For you to interpret this as evidence that I was ""supportive of an antisemitic troll"" is a smear, notwithstanding your denials. CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)See above. Calling someone ""supportive of an antisemitic troll"" can't help but poison the tone of the debate, however much honey is mixed in. CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)CJ, I’ve placed your comments all together. If you want to quote me, and respond within your own comment, that would be great. I hope that’s okay with you, but I don’t like comments cut apart with insertions (I used to, but I’ve come to believe that it makes things harder to follow).My recollection of your previous comments was that you maintained you could not have known that Kiyosaki was a creep. I believe that you could, but didn’t, and it’s no big deal in the final analysis, just maybe be a little more careful next time. It doesn’t help your cause… but I guess you know that. (See below for more on this.) IronDuke 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Indeed, perhaps I could have ""known that Kiyosaki was a creep"" ... had I decided to read every single one of his editorial interventions prior to accepting his unsolicited barnstar. In any event, we went through all of this several months ago, and I can't imagine any reason for you to bring it up now except to conduct a smear campaign. CJCurrie 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)To be more precise, you tried to smear CJ in the time-honored fashion – that is, while protecting yourself with the latex glove of plausible deniability: ""I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing."" Cute, Ironduke. Cute like I don't hold it against my opponent that his wife had a terrible drinking problem, that kind of cute. Even cuter was when you then admonished CJ for trying to provide a neutral antidote to your cheap well-poisoning: ""Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. 'Readers should note I…' No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them."" Verrrry cute, Ironduke. Slime your opponent with an insinuating ad hominem, then when he defends himself castigate him for focusing on a personal and hence irrelevant issue.With that late unpleasantness behind us, where we go from here is up to you. We can talk about the policy issues only. This would be ideal; nothing could make me happier. Or you can toy around with discredited sophistries and strawman arguments, in which case expect a little thrust and parry, but no hard feelings. Or you can continue with the smearing-followed-by-patronizing-'who me?'-denials, in which case the feelings will be very hard indeed, and the responses eviscerating.--G-Dett 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Well, G-Dett, first I’ll say that while I cannot agree with your approach, I appreciate discussing this issue with someone who is clearly smart and literate. (Even though you are, um, you know, being nasty. “Eviscerating?” Erm, not the gerund I would use.) I think we’re getting bogged down now in the CJCurrie/Kiyosaki thing. My only point in bringing it up was that precisely that it was an ad hominem attack, just like those that CJ was making, so could we leave it, please. (I don’t, by the way, see you screeching about CJ’s attacking other contributors). I still think that’s a reasonable request, though I’m not quite sure how we can get off this merry-go–round of--IronDuke: Can we please just focus on issues? G-Dett: Sure. As long as we leave it clear to everyone that you suck.--other than for me to say, okay, fine, you’re fully entitled to your opinions about me. Now, back to the issues:No one is going to get this issue resolved all their own way. I think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge this. To the best of my memory, a majority of Wikipedians do not think IA should exist as such, though opinions differ as to how to make it go away. I still don’t see how allegations of apartheid are not directly and inseparably entwined with allegations of human rights abuses against Israel, and that all relevant information should go there. Yes, notable people use the analogy, but notable people compare Israelis to Nazis, and we don’t have a separate article on that, for good reason. IronDuke 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) An article on comparisons between Israelis and Nazis, no matter how prominent the accusers, would not meet my bar of notability, per the understanding of WP:N and WP:NOR I've advanced in detail here, because it would lack sufficient secondary-source material describing the allegations themselves and attesting to their prominence and notability. It would, however, meet the bar of notability set by Jay, Urthogie, and others here who have insisted that articles about ""allegations"" need only cite primary sources where the allegations are made, not secondary sources where they are discussed. I agree that such an article would be a ghastly mistake; you might want to take your question to those whose spin on basic policy would make such a monstrosity entirely permissible and ultimately quite likely.Either your memory is failing you or mine me, but what I remember is that a majority of Wikipedians want the Israel article to stay, as evidenced by its passing six AfDs and an Arbcom decision. My take on it is that it should lean much more on its secondary sources than its primary ones, with its quote-farm tendencies radically curtailed and the content organized according to the various discourses in which the comparison has become a live and contentious issue. Namely: the ethical discourse, the strategic discourse, the historical discourse, and the discourse of international peacemaking, peace and reconciliation commissions, etc. The debates about the Israel-South Africa comparison are quite distinct within each of these, and the secondary-source materials available rich and vigorous in each case.I don't screech about garden-variety personal jabs, which bother me a lot less than sophistries, but I do screech about guilt-by-association, because I've seen it used in a very cynical fashion on WP to intimidate people. Eviscerating was an adjective (a participial one), not a gerund. Thank you for your playlet, which made me laugh out loud.--G-Dett 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Dammit! I was almost going to write ""adjectival"" and changed it to ""gerund."" I blame my liberal arts education. As to the !vote count, on the last one that wasn't speedied due to people being sick of hearing about it, I count about 28 keeps (leaving out one single-edit anon) versus 35 deletes. Not that it's majority rule around here (except when it is), but I feel that should end people saying, “Oh please respect the wishes of the majority of Wikipedians that IA should remain more or less as it is.”As to more substantive issues, I don't see why secondary sources should command here, but in any case, many exist for Israel as a Nazi state. I found [13], [14], [15] (see Google blurb), [16] after doing a very cursory Google Scholar search. It isn't hard to find people libeling each other, nor to find scholars discussing it. That doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. IronDuke 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Rather astonishingly, G-Dett seems dead set against the ""Allegations of French apartheid"" etc. articles because, supposedly, they quote ""primary sources"", but when those exact same sources are used in articles like ""Urban apartheid"" and ""Social apartheid"" they suddenly become palatable. Perhaps you can explain that inconsistency, it's beyond me. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[OUTDENT] Please see the new section below the one below this one with a new proposal. I put it there because it builds on what comes before it and we need a new break line anyway. Tiamat 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It's the exact same ""compromise"" that supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" analogy and article always make; delete the word ""Allegations"" from the title of ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"", and delete the other ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles. A ""compromise"" that merely re-states your maximal demands is not a ""compromise"". Please take this page more seriously, and work towards an actual compromise, not merely ""I get everything I want, and you get nothing"". Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Beside that they mean the same thing in Afrikaans and Hebrew, the article already adresses comparisons with apartheid; just a matter of shoring it up a bit--Victor falk 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not ready to assent to this suggestion yet, but I'd agree it's worth considering. Should I assume that references to ""Israeli Apartheid"" will be permitted on the revamped page in situations wherein the original source material does not specifically use the word ""Hafrada""? CJCurrie 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I suppose so, it's about the phenomenon, not the word.--Victor falk 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I'm a tad concerned that some hypothetical editor could delete references to the Israeli Apartheid Analogy from our revamped Hafrada page, using such justifications as ""it's not about `Hafrada'"", ""the source doesn't mention 'Hafrada'"", etc. If we can receive assurances (by which I mean real assurances) that this won't be the case, your proposed redirect might be the best option for moving the discussion forward. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I have modified my proposal below to include these ideas. Take a look and let me know what you think. Tiamat 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)We now have Hafrada (Separation) as the main article, with Separation program (Israel) as a redirect to it. That's probably OK, although there's an argument that the English term should be the main article, per WP:ENGLISH. --John Nagle 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I would object to renaming Hafrada (Separation) to just Separation policy (Israel) since the sources used throughout the article use the term Hafrada. I think both terms side by side are fine. Hafrada has a certain currency in English as evidenced by the sources in that article (the vast majority use the term itself). That article has a long and contentious history itself so we should tread carefully with any renaming there as well. Tiamat 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Why does Hafrada redirect to Hafrada (Separation)?--Victor falk 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)No way. The words may have similar literal meanings, but they do not have the same connotation. Or perhaps I should say, the question of whether they have the same connotation is part of this whole stupid debate. Wikipedia does not need any more of this garbage. 6SJ7 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Looking over all of the discussion at different articles in the ""apartheid series"", it struck me that most of the information could be integrated into articles like Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Sex segregation. In fact, they could be properly dealth with in these categories. The only exception seems to be Israeli apartheid. Now interestingly, social apartheid get a little over 20,000 g-hits and 317 google scholar hits, urban apartheid gets 11,000+ g-hits and 357 scholar hits while Israeli apartheid gets about 190,000 g-hits and about 89 google scholar hits. ""Saudi apartheid"" or ""Saudi Arabian apartheid"" gets less than 500 hits on google and none on google scholar. ""Chinese apartheid"" gets about 200 g-hits and one hit on google scholar. Etc., etc., for most of the series. So, my proposal is two-fold: First, I propose we merge material in all of the articles related to Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Gender apartheid into those respective articles. Then, we can see what we are left with and make the appropriate evaluations. I believe we will be left with the original which spawned this ""series"". This we can rename Israeli apartheid (describing the term and its use - with a section entitled ""Controversy"" to discuss the controversy) or alternatively we can merge the material into the article Hafrada, under a section entitled ""Israeli apartheid controversy"". What does everyone think? Tiamat 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I'd add Theocracy to that list, which covers many of the Islamic states, but other than that, it's a reasonable taxonomy. --John Nagle 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Tiamat, please specify exactly what articles you are proposing to merge into what articles. As for Israeli apartheid, that's where we were more than a year ago. There was a consensus to move it from that, and there is not going to be a consensus to move it back. As for Hafrada, I don't really understand this supposed connection between ""Hafrada"" and apartheid. It seems like total fiction to me. Drawing conclusions from alleged comparisons between words in Hebrew and Afrikaans, and writing about it in English... it's just madness. 6SJ7 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Wow, Tiamat, what an astonishing suggestion for a ""compromise""; delete the existing ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles, except for ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"", which should be renamed ""Israeli apartheid"". Hmm, lesse, that's exactly what the supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article have been trying unsuccessfully to do for a year now. Here's a suggestion for an even better compromise; delete the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article, delete ""social apartheid"", ""urban apartheid"" etc., and keep the other ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles. How does that sound? Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Sarcasm has its place Jayjg, but this was a genuine proposal.Read the articles in the series. You will find that most of them lack secondary sources which is why as one editor put it, there is no way to present opposing views (i.e. there is no material discussing apartheid as a phenomenon in these countries, as has been pointed out by editors at the French article).If we merge information from all of the articles (including the Israeli apartheid one) into articles entitled Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, Gender apartheid (and as John Nagle suggested Theocracy), we can then look at what remains and determine one by one which articles can stand on their own.It is my estimation that this process would eliminate most of the articles in the series, (including the main article Allegations of apartheid). This estimation and suggestion are not the result of my dislike of these articles or hope that they ""disappear"". It stems from the fact that these are non-notable apartheid analogies (see the google hit breakdown above).If the Israeli apartheid article is still standing alone at the end of it (which it likely will since much of the material there falls outside the purview of the articles outlined), I have proposed that we call it by its actual name, because as the google hits show ""Israeli apartheid"" enjoys some notability/notoreity in both popular and scholarly circles. Per our naming policies, we should call the subject by its actual name and not some strange euphemism that enjoys no notability.Alternatively, if people simply cannot accept the name ""Israeli apartheid"" or an article ont he subject alone, we could merge the material into the article Hafrada - which means separation, and where there are sources that explicitly make the link between Hafrada and apartheid - under a section entitled ""Israeli apartheid debate"". Tiamat 11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I hope you will reconsider. Tiamat 11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Please explain how material that ""lacks secondary sources"" suddenly miraculously becomes full of ""secondary sources"" when transferred intact from an article called ""Allegations of Brazilian apartheid"" to ""Social apartheid"" or from ""Allegations of French apartheid"" to ""urban apartheid"". And please explain how deleting the existing articles, and renaming ""Allegations of Israeli aparthied"" to ""Israeli apartheid"", is in any way different from the exact demands that supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article have been making for months now. Re-packaging the exact same demands under a different name is not a ""breaking the deadlock and being real"", it's the same old, same old. Please come up with new ideas that involve compromises on both sides. Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) How does a primary source become a secondary source when the topic changes – was this a serious question, Jay? You explained the matter as crisply as anyone just three months ago: [W]hether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis. If someone were to take a number of academic papers, and use them to draw a novel conclusion, then they would be using the papers as primary sources. The topic of these ""allegations"" articles is in each case a certain class of verbal statement – to be precise, statements in which the word ""apartheid"" appears, in something other than its historical South African context. Let's call this class of statement Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus, in honor of the original researchers who first discovered, defined, and classified it, and published their findings on Wikipedia. The texts containing those statements are primary sources. Texts discussing individual Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus specimens, on the other hand, or describing the origins and significance of the class as a whole, would be secondary sources. I say ""would be"" because for the most part these sources don't exist; the Wikipedia articles are in almost every case the only secondary source. Which has created some big fat notability and original research problems for all these pet articles, problems you seem keen to avoid by affecting suddenly not to understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources.If you change the topic of a given article from a class of verbal statement to a concept, then voilá, primary sources do become secondary. To use your example, if an article about the Walt/Mearsheimer paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is changed to an article about the Israel lobby itself, then the Walt/Mearsheimer paper ""suddenly miraculously"" goes from being a primary source to a secondary one. You understand this all so well on May 1; what's happened?--G-Dett 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, well, thank you for this. I was very confusing after my work on the French article. I thought, reading the en WP:rules that they were barely the same as the French ones. There were so many things down here that would not happen on the Fr wiki, and yet, Jay would use one or another rule to justify his claims. Thank you again. I was lost. NicDumZ ~ 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I not advocating that material be transferred ""intact"" and your question is a red herring anyway. The lack of secondary sources makes it inappropriate for an article to be built around those primary sources. Moving those primary sources into articles that have secondary sources is not against WP policy in any way. Your second question (also a red herring) glosses over important differences between my proposal and previous ones. There is a choice being offered here to opponents of the title Israeli apartheid, which is to merge the information into Hafrada under a section entitled Israeli apartheid debate. As I have said, if you review the sources in Hafrada you will see why this is feasible. As to what material should be merged, I have begun noting such suggestions at the talk pages for individual apartheid articles. I think it should be acknowledged that there are little to no scholarly sources supporting the creation of apartheid articles in the allegations series with the exception of the original article on Israel. We all know these other articles were created for WP:POINT after editors failed to get the Israel article deleted. Social apartheid, Urban apartheid and Sex segregation are all small articles that require expansion anyway. The topics are scholarly, legitimate and easy to source with primary and secondary sources. Israeli apartheid or Hafrada are similarly worthy of coverage due to the scholarly debate. If it turns out that there is significant material that does not fit into these articles from the existing apartheid series, that will be clear by our engagement of the process and we can choose to keep singular articles that meet notability requirements per policy and decide how they should be named on a case-by-case basis. Tiamat 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)From what I've seen the suggestions have all been about transferring the material intact, including suggestions you yourself have made. The merge to Hafrada seems quite OR-ish, as does the Hafrada article itself. The Hafrada article is a mish-mash of different things all joined by the Hebrew word hafrada, and actually consisting almost entirely of ""primary sources"" - and these are real primary sources, not the fake ones bandied about in relation to the ""Apartheid"" articles. It seems astonishing to me that you would be arguing for even more of the same. I'm certainly open to exploring this idea further, and in particular understanding what the structure and content of such an article would look like, but I have to admit I'm initially quite dubious. Insisting that people ""acknowledge"" that your views are correct doesn't seem a fruitful pursuit. Nor does claiming that ""We all know these other articles were created for WP:POINT""; as far as I can tell, the only ""apartheid"" articles created for WP:POINT are the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the ""Tourist apartheid"", ""Social apartheid"" and ""Urban apartheid"" articles. It would be best if you just acknowledged that there is a vast gulf between the way ""Israeli apartheid"" supporters and opposers view this situation, rather than constantly insisting that the actions of all the ""Israeli apartheid"" supporters are in good faith, and those of the opposers are in bad faith. These kinds of mindless, circular, bad faith, and ultimately unprovable accusations get us nowhere, except to build even more bad blood. There are two editors in particular who have engaged in them, despite repeated requests that they stop, and it just wastes time and energy; please don't become a third. Please keep in mind that any suggestion that involves removing the word ""Allegations"" from the title of ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"", while simultaneously deleting the other ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles (either outright, or by breaking up and moving the material to other articles), is exactly what the supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article have been agitating for for months now. As such, these are not ""compromises"", but ""Same Old, Same Old"". From now on I'll probably just tag any such suggestions as an ""SOSO suggestion"" and leave it at that. The opposers of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article want the godawful, unencyclopedic, Wikipedia damaging, propaganda material contained therein to be deleted, plain and simple. However, they have at least been open to other, systemic suggestions, even those that don't involve deleting that material outright. Please ensure that suggestions in the future do not involve SOSO suggestions of any type - solutions must involve compromise on both sides, not just acquiescence on one side. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jay, I don't think you have valid argument here, you just speculate about alleged motivation of the other people. Besides, arguing that removing the word ""allegation"" from the Israeli apartheid article cannot happen, because someone wants to do it, means to me, that someone wants to do it, simple as that, and that you will stall any effort to get out from this hopeless gridlock just for that reason. Tiamat, your new proposal has some merit but is poorly documented. That ""analogy"" version had already primary and secondary references and I even had the feeling that we were close to consensus, now we must start all over again. I think it's an overkill. greg park avenue 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, I haven't talked about motivations at all, I've talked about the clearly expressed desires of various groups of people interested in the outcome of the discussions here. While not everyone here falls neatly into two camps, the divisions in general are pretty clear; one side simply wants the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word ""Allegations"" from the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article and get rid of all the other ""Allegations of country X apartheid"" articles. Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates, nor in proposing something that will satisfy only one side. I'm not trying to ""stall"" anything, I'm appealing to the supporters of the ""Israeli apartheid"" article to actually proposed compromises, not just repeat their arguments and stand fast in their position; it is that which is ""stalling"" progress. Finally, I can't imagine what ""consensus"" you think we were ""close"" to; can you explain that? Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I can't, I just had a feeling and now I see I was wrong. Anyway, I don't see a reason to stay on this page much longer if you're right about this stalemate. I already gave my opinion and there is a note, not to do it twice. Now I only addressed Tiamat's new proposal, and I'm definitely not going into that ""Kiyoso affair"" thing. greg park avenue 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I'm not going to address Jayjg's post since it is his SOSO and internally contradictory. Greg, if my proposal derailed an emerging consensus elsewhere, I'm sorry. That's not how it was intended. By all means let's return to discussion of Israeli apartheid analogy or Apartheid analogy X, if that is where consensus can be found. Tiamat 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Tiamut, if you don't engage with the people on the ""other side"" of this debate, how do you imagine you will come up with a compromise that is palatable to them? Also, please be specific, what do you mean by ""internally contradictory""? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Good idea, and don't be sorry. There wasn't much consensus there. Only Cerejota and one creep. All Israeli Palestinian society was here. greg park avenue 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I agree that Jay's proposal doesn't merit much discussion but it does raise an important issue, however inadvertently. We need to think rigorously about what compromise will mean here. Jay has said that in his view, ""and that of many others, the only real solution for the 'Allegations of Israeli apartheid' POV-monstrosity is outright deletion, salt the earth, etc. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a political propaganda-fest,"" etc. And in the above post he summarizes the situation as follows: ""one side simply wants the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word ""Allegations"" from the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article and get rid of all the other ""Allegations of country X apartheid"" articles. Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates, nor in proposing something that will satisfy only one side."" What concerns me here is framing compromise as a bartering/negotiation process beginning with statements of maximalist demands. This debased conception of compromise will a) produce a result that has nothing to do with WP policy and everything to do with strategic politicking and negotiating savvy; and b) encourage both sides to harden and exaggerate their opening positions, in the hopes of thereby influencing the eventual ""compromise"" position; hence the wild rhetoric of ""salt the earth,"" ""propaganda-fest"", and so on. We are not horsetrading or haggling over prices here; we're deciding how policy will apply to articles of this kind. The only proposals that should be given any consideration whatsoever are those explicitly rooted in policy; poker-faced leveraged demands are irrelevant.--G-Dett 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) And I agree that SOSO proposals don't merit much discussion, but your statement about ""Jay's proposal"" is puzzling, since I don't recall making any specific proposal. Regarding ""deciding how policy will apply to articles of this kind"", both sides have wildly divergent views of exactly what policy demands here; pretending that your claims are ""explicitly rooted in policy"", while those of ""the other side"" are not, is not going to lead anywhere. Ultimately, in Wikipedia, decisions about what policy is, and what it demands, are decided by consensus. That's what will have to happen here too. You can denigrate this as ""horse trading"", but in reality every single article on Wikipedia is built via this ""horse trading"" - it's what others call ""collaborative editing"" and ""consensus building"". Also, if you're concerned about rhetoric, I would encourage you to ratchet it down; phrases like ""debased conception of compromise"" etc. aren't helpful. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC) What you've proposed is that we negotiate based on demands rather than policy (""Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates""). Meanwhile you've ratcheted up your demands as high as they'll go, for all the world like a merchant setting an exorbitant initial price in the hopes that subsequent haggling will draw to a close at a sum still advantageous to him. I disagree with you that consensus is horse-trading of this crass kind. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I am not going into this with the hopes of eliminating all ""allegations"" articles except the Israel one, and I'm not the slightest bit interested in a negotiating process built around such absurd goals or their equivalents on the opposing side. I am not here to negotiate ""results"" of this kind at all. The only thing I'm interested in negotiating is a working principle or set of working principles regarding ""allegations""-type articles (whatever comes of this should apply, for example, to the ""allegations of state terrorism"" series as well). If you're going to write an article about ""allegations,"" what should the naming conventions be? An ""allegation"" is a certain class of verbal act; is it self-evident that any use of a given word with negative connotations is an ""allegation,"" or is this original research? Do sources have to have actually talked about the allegations for it to be a notable subject, or is it enough that they make them? How high should the bar of notability be? Is it OK to have a template linking these articles, if the link itself isn't supported by reliable sources and is hotly contested by many editors? With regards to my penultimate question, I have suggested that we follow WP:N and WP:NOR, which except in ""rare"" cases require secondary sources to establish notability. No one has offered a different interpretation, except to claim, mistakenly, that Exploding whale has no secondary sources. Meaningful negotiation will happen when someone offers a different take on these policies, and explains in detail – as I have explained in detail – how their interpretation will determine the fate of not only current ""allegations"" articles but potential future ones (""Allegations that Israelis are Nazis,"" ""Allegations that Bush is an idiot,"" etc.). This is what compromise, consensus, and a ""comprehensive solution"" mean to me. Not some sort of middle point between arbitrary and maximalist demands that have no plausible basis in policy.--G-Dett 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No, G-Dett, I'm proposing that we negotiate based on our own understanding of what policy demands, while recognizing that others have different views, and attempting to achieve a compromise. Perhaps it would help if you stopped telling me what you think I am doing, and instead focussed on proposed solutions. There are currently seven ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles, six country specific, and one general. What should be done with them? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) You want me to go through them one by one and say what I think should be done with them? I don't have an opinion about every last one. In fact, with a couple of them I am as ignorant of their topics as you are. With the exception of the Israel article, they do appear to have certain obvious problems in common, namely to do with sourcing, notability, and original research. But I can't say decisively that they should all be deleted, because perhaps a couple of them could be seriously improved if they were helped along by editors not so insouciantly ignorant of the relevant subject matter, who'd actually read some of the material instead of data-mining it. For example, the Brazil article does have one source, added by you when you created that article, that's actually a secondary source (!). It says: ""The rift between the two worlds of rich and poor is as deep as the one found in South Africa before it started dismantling the apartheid system. For this reason, the phrase ""social apartheid"" was coined."" Bravo, Jay, bravo! Too bad it's an online tourist guidebook: ""Since 1971, travelers have relied on Insight Guides, world leaders in visual travel guides and maps. With more than 500 titles to nearly 300 U.S. and international travel destinations, there is a full-color Insight Guide for every type of traveler and budget."" Boooo, Jay, booooo. BUT: if an editor with zero knowledge or interest in Brazil, armed only with search engines and a driving purpose to prove his point, can find a casual reference to the nominal topic of the article – on a travelers' website, of all things – then perhaps, just perhaps, some secondary sources do exist and are waiting to be found by an editor who knows what the hell he's talking about and actually wants to improve the encyclopedia. Encore, encore!Do you get the point? Why would I or any other serious editor presume to decide once and for all which article or articles with the word ""apartheid"" in them should be allowed to exist? It makes no sense. Let's say we decide to keep Brazil and Israel as notable, and then next year a group of Cuban exiles organizes an academic conference about ""tourist apartheid,"" and the phrase is picked up and hotly debated by media figures, Congressman, and so on, becoming a fulcrum of controversy in itself, and gets bound up with Florida politics in an election year. And then what – Wikipedians can't write an article about it? Because of the decision we made here? We are not omniscient about what reliable sources exist now, nor which ones will arise in the future. Let's just discuss, in a direct and candid fashion, how existing WP policies should apply to articles about ""allegations."" In the meantime, we can continue working with the wider community to decide, through the appropriate channels and on a case by case basis, whether individual articles in the ""series"" seriously violate policy should therefore be deleted forthwith.--G-Dett 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) G-Dett, would it be possible for you to re-word your comments so that they only discuss article content, and avoid derogatory statements about me? That way I'll be able to read them through and respond. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Jay, if you're looking for something to respond to that's entirely free of derision, there are and have been many such opportunities. Why not start with this ?--G-Dett 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what makes you imagine that a comment referring more than once to Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus isn't both derogatory and personal. I'm don't know how I can be more clear, though, other than to repeat what I have said before; please comment on article content and policy, and not on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I thought it was funny, and forgot that I said it twice.--G-Dett 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Jay, apologies - we seem to have had an editing conflict there. -- ChrisO 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No problem, that happens sometimes. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)WP:N seems to be the key issue here. Jayjg argues above that AoIa is ""godawful, unencyclopedic, Wikipedia damaging, propaganda material"" - does that mean that he believes that the topic itself doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N, namely that ""it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject""? If so, why? -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, once again i disagree with you Jay :one side simply wants the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word ""Allegations"" from the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" article and get rid of all the other ""Allegations of country X apartheid"" articles. I'm not in one of these camps. I do think that trying to regroup all the Allegations of X articles (by giving them close names, and a common template) was a bitter mistake. And that it is still an error to try to find a common answer for ALL the allegations of X articles. Every article has its specificities, you all recognized it, and can not really be linked. I'm working to try to find an independent consensus about what to do here : Talk:Allegations of French apartheid. Independent, since referring to the Israeli article as an argument to decide for what to do on the French article is, you'll agree... nonsensical. (Apparently, we will go for a renaming leading to an expand overthere.) And sorry, but that's the only issue I'm interested in. For the others, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and a bit of WP:IDONTCARE. However : I do suggest that all articles should suffer a case to case specific treatment. They are different, don't put all the eggs in one basket. Do you realize that this Centralized discussion/Apartheid is mostly only about what to do with the Israeli article ? Trying to have a wider discussion, including the debates on the other Allegation of X articles, is, to me, only a try to find some new arguments in a conflict that is going around in circles... Do you agree ? I mean, I don't have any interests in the Israeli article, and from the outside, it seems obvious. :sNicDumZ ~ 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Let me respectfully disagree. The allegations are very similar and I don't see how sources in AoFA are any worse than in AoIA. The question is, does any of this namecalling belong in an encyclopedia? I think not. Try to imagine it in Britannica. Oh, and your post somehow reminded me that poem, First they came.... ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you for the personal attack with First they came... Please, read again my comment. Did i ever say that sources in AoIA were worse than sources on AoFA ? NO ! So why are you again answer with that old debate ? Are you trying to add constructive comment, or are you just trying to block the discussion ? NicDumZ ~ 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)The sources in AoFA are worse than those for AoIA because they consist almost entirely of primary sources where someone uses the word apartheid. There is no discussion of the allegation itself as a topic, except for the thing about the mayor, and there are no secondary sources giving any background about the allegation (who makes it, who rejects it, what its political significance is, what its history is), or supporting the article's synthesizing narrative, or even establishing the notability of the topic in the first place. AoIA is chock-a-block with such secondary sources. Hope that helps – but then, I've said it about a hundred times, and you're still asking.--G-Dett 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Allegations of Israeli apartheid is mainly primary sources. Most of the long articles either make the case for the allegation or against it, but only a few actually discuss the allegations themselves as the main subject. The allegations of Israeli apartheid article would be deleted by AFD it were based solely on those few sources.--Urthogie 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)It needs to be reiterated that while the Israel article, whatever its condition, is the work of many people over many years, while the rest are almost all the work of a handful of people, and in obvious response to the Israel article. We need to deal with them seperately.--Cúchullain t/c 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)On the contrary, the Israeli article is essentially the work of 5 or 6 editors, not that it makes any difference to the discussion here. And again, discuss suggested systemic solutions for the articles please, not your theories about other peoples motivations. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)No. No systemic solutions. I can stop trying to theorize about your motivations, if you want. But please seriously consider my suggestion to deal with the articles separately. The more articles we have, the more difficult it is, since the more conflicts between editors are. Did you ever answered my suggestion ? 'd like you to. NicDumZ ~ 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree that ""systemic solutions"", in the way that Jayjg wants, are impossible when you consider the simple fact that there is no ""system"" of articles. There is one Israel article with its own problems, and then a series of articles that are mostly the work of Urthogie and Jayjg, created in obvious response to the Israel article. They need to be dealt with seperately. Perhaps the Israel article should be deleted (I certainly think so), but it's an entirely seperate issue from the string of articles created in response to it.--Cúchullain t/c 07:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)> a series of articles that are mostly the work of Urthogie and Jayjg, > created in obvious response to the Israel article Which means we're assuming some faith. Whether good or bad: that's no way on talk pages, much less basis for an article's assessment. --tickle me 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I wasn't assessing any articles, or even assuming faith, only suggesting they be dealt with as two units, the Israel article, and then the string of articles written by Urthogie and Jayjg. --Cúchullain t/c 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 99% of the Israeli apartheid allegations article deals with the West Bank. If we moved or split it to Allegations of West Bank apartheid, perhaps we could follow this logic on Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, by merging that article to something like social apartheid. Same with the France article. We could consider deleting the template after that. Basically, what I'm saying, is that we could perhaps eliminate all of these disputes by practicing specificity. Instead of calling all of these countries South Africa, we could highlight individual allegations by having more specific titles, e.g Social apartheid in Brazil or in the caser of Israel Allegations of West Bank apartheid. We could compromise on whether or not to delete the old israel article or to keep it, but split out the west bank stuff into a seperate article. I think I'm inclined to support a compromise in this realm. Just an idea... any thoughts?--Urthogie 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, yes! Specificity!--G-Dett 01:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Was just trying to help reach a compromise. Do you oppose this idea?--Urthogie 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) No, no!--G-Dett 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I can't tell if you're being extremely enthusiastic or extremely sarcastic. Be sincere, as there is no way of reading emotion from text.--Urthogie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Well you got the ""extremely"" part right, and that was the important thing. Nice to know that adverbial states, if nothing else, are communicable in text. I was both sincere and ironic, in a giddy, sleep-deprived – ""is that a light at the end of the tunnel? Hooray! Whoopeee! Who cares!"" – sort of way. Most of all I was extremely. I think specificity is a great idea. Exactly the right idea. The a priori assumption that all of these articles address commensurable phenomena has always seemed to me the core sophistry, sophistry #1. Sophistry #2, if you're interested, is the assumption that all instances of the word apartheid used in its generic political sense are ""allegations,"" and the corollary assumption that all such instances are intrinsically notable.--G-Dett 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I have and issue here, which is that Allegations of West Bank apartheid ignores both Gaza and Israel proper. Adam and Moodley talk of all three, and other primary sources specifically speak of Israel proper. In other words, it would be a POV fork. Lastly, the legal status of the PA is precisely part of some of the allegations, where an analogy is made with Bantustans and the formerly-occupied territories. I do not think we can throw away what sources say to fit POV. We use partisan sources like the Hudson Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, so what is wrong to use Carter's book?Lastly, JayJG mentioned some objectionable propaganda, but since the only relevant example I see in the article is the short David Duke quote (which he and I both defended), I do ask that he and other editors concerned with specifics sources and wording, specify what sources and wording they consider propaganda and propose edits for discussion rather than blanket, non-specific criticism. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Gaza is no longer occupied. We could keep the Israel stuff in the article, I'm not suggesting it needs to dissapear. Compromise. Adam and Moodley could be mentioned in both the Israel article and the West Bank article. It would not be a POV fork, because the allegations regarding the west bank are a seperate subject from those made against israel. I don't think it's wrong to use a notable source like Carter. I'm suggesting he be used in a more specific article.--Urthogie 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Gaza is effectively still occupied, in that Israel (or proxies) control all its borders and block almost any form of economic activity. Heard on the radio this morning, there are 8,000 Palestinians (including some 1,400 children) dying in the sun at Rafah, where they've been blocked since 8th June(?). Do you need references and want me to edit them into the article? PalestineRemembered 10:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Do you have RS that state that Gaza is still effectively occupied? Your rationale is persuasive, but we wouldn't want a taint of OR, and, of course, a ""blockade"" and an ""occupation"" are not the same thing, as any bored besieging medieval army would agree! --Dweller 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I believe I've seen such RS ..... oh, look, the Jewish News Weekly[17] ""Palestinian Cabinet Minister Mohammed Dahlan sharply disagreed. “Israel is deluding itself if it believes that its occupation over the Gaza Strip has now ended,” he said."" I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, but a statement was made about the situation in Gaza, which should have been labelled ""my opinion"" and not presented as fact. PalestineRemembered 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I actually liked your argument in the French article, but I interpreted it a bit differently than here. I admit I need further convincing (although Carter as a source makes a compelling argument) on separating by geography, as sources rarely are that clean cut and clear - you have people who describe harsh discirmination but no apartheid, along with Carter, etc etc etc.I am more keen on the Adam & Moodley model, as I have suggested before in the Talk page. This model has one obvious, immediate advantage: since it is from a source considered secondary, reliable, verifiable, and to a certain extent NPOV by pretty much everyone, it allows us to bulletproof against claims of original research by doing geographic forking.Their model is simple:The propagandist/polemical views and criticism. The absolutist anti-zionist views and criticism. The ""seeking-a-south-african"" solution views and criticism.I would add, because other sources do make the difference, a general section on differentiating Israel from Gaza and West Bank.I would also add a History section for allegations that are not relevant to the present: 1967 was forty years ago (duh!).As to Gaza not being occupied, as I mentioned part of the allegations include the description of Gaza and West Banks as Bantustans (Carter is mild in his presentation, but this is really the heart of his argument): a continued example of an apartheid policy. This might have merit or not have it, but cannot be ignored.That said, I think this moves forward the discussion and I was impressed by your comment on the French apartheid talk page. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I think this ""primary"" vs. ""secondary"" source thing is a false distinction, but in any event is it the case that the only work those promoting the ""secondary"" source notion consider to actually be ""secondary"" is Adam & Moodley? Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)First the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources has its origin in academic research and is a content policy in wikipedia: WP:OR -which you list in you talk page as the most important-. If you think it is a false distinction, this is definitely not the place to raise your objections, WT:NOR perhaps is, or some more centralized discussion.I think there are other secondary sources (in fact, the claim of uniqueness is never made by me: even Carter is at times a secondary source), but they are not as verifiable, or as all encompassing, or as directly relevant as Adam and Moodley. For example there are press reports etc, but they are episodic and to a certain extent, anecdotal. Adam and Moodley are a unique source in that they actually talk in depth about analogies between South Africa/apartheid and Israel using a wide variety of primary sources, and with a clear narrative structure, which is why I think we should use them. If its there, why not?And please do not group me with others, as should be obvious by now, I do not hold the view that only secondary sources make something not OR. It simply raises quality, in wikiproject parlance, it goes from B to GA. The difference is clear... Thanks!--Cerejota 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I recognize that there is a difference between primary and secondary sources, I just think it is being misapplied in this case. And I haven't grouped you ""with others"", I'm not sure why you would mention that. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree with User:Urthogie's suggestion that Allegations of Brazilian apartheid be renamed as Social apartheid in Brazil. From what I've seen, the ""social apartheid"" analogy in Brazil is entirely relevant and encyclopedic; I'd have no objection to moving the page, accordingly. CJCurrie 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I think Urthogie's call for specificity is an excellent proposal for moving forward. These are very different articles about very different concepts and a one size fits all solution won't work. Each article should be considered on its own merits. I think a few of them like French apartheid and Brazilian apartheid have potential and just need to be renamed to something more specific so I echo Urthogie's call for ""Social apartheid in Brazil"", for instance. The idea of creating separate articles for Israeli apartheid within Israel and what has been described as an apartheid system in the Occupied Territories should be explored. Let's move forward where we can get agreement and that may be renaming the Brazilian article ""Social apartheid in Brazil"". Lothar of the Hill People 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) There is an article Race in Brazil that existed long before this sad ""we-must-have-apartheid-in-as-many-article-titles-as-possible"" mess appeared. This is the proper place to treat the subject--Victor falk 11:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree with Urthogie, most of the debate is about policies in the occupied territories. Though ""west bank"" can't work, as the claim that they make Gaza a Bantustan is at the very heart of the allegations. I'd also like to avoid ""allegations"", per WP:WTA. But first, is everbody OK with ... in the Palestinian Territories?--Victor falk 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I think Social apartheid in Brazil is a fine name for that article. If other editors believe there is sufficient information warranting an article on social apartheid in Brazil that is separate from the Social apartheid article in general, I will not stand in anyone's way. It's not my area of expertise. Similarly, I think Israeli apartheid is a fine name for the the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I don't agree in confining the discussion to the West Bank and Gaza. Many of the sources cite examples of apartheid-like policies and practices inside Israel itself. I'm glad to see that people are opening up to the idea of calling a spade a spade. Let's see how consistent the application of this new trend can be. Tiamat 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The ""social apartheid"" (which is just a more emotional, and thus less encyclopedic, way of saying ""segregation"") is a secondary subject to the primary one of racial relations in Brazil.--Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Urthogie, I am unclear on what you are proposing. Can you list the complete set of articles that would remain, and what they would be called? 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (By 6SJ7, apparently I was a tilde short the first time.) In case any here are unaware, both the China article and the Saudi Arabia article are currently up for deletion.--G-Dett 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) And what a sorry mess has been made out of this whole subject by all these separate nominations, the diverse results that I suspect nobody is completely happy with, not to mention the corrupt way in which one of the nominations was closed. The whole point of re-starting this page was to try to achieve consistent standards all in one discussison. If you (meaning the nominators collectively) really wanted to resolve this, the idea of article deletions should have been proposed here first. You have defeated the purpose of this page, and it is clear from the discussion that there will be no resolution, just endless controversy. I hope you're proud of yourself. 6SJ7 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The point of the centralized discussion is to collectively articulate how core policies and guidelines will apply to ""allegations"" articles, both those currently existing and any future ones. As we reach consensus on basic criteria regarding notability, primary vs. secondary sources, synthesis/original research etc., that will help to guide and inform discussion on talk pages, deletion debates, and so on regarding the individual articles. The centralized discussion also provides a forum for creative solutions to the larger impasse we find ourselves in; Tiamut and Urthogie have both shown initiative in that regard. I don't share your grim forecast for endless controversy. I think we're making progress, and if we continue on the path we're on – bringing in more voices from the community, discussing innovative approaches here, dealing with the disruption head-on, and listing problem articles for deletion on a case-by-case basis with respect to their violations of policy – we'll get somewhere.--G-Dett 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) All of these stupid Allegations of apartheid articles share the same two problems.Not every violation of human rights is apartheid. Only a system of racial separations is apatheid. It´s not enceclopedic to use wrong terms and definitions. Any violation of human rights is a terrible thing. Does everything have to be apartheid? Perhaps they are not apartheid, because they are even worse. If you have sources about any violations of human rights, or if you want apartheid or the sexuality of elephants, write an artice about it, but if there are no sources, then we all should leave it. In middle age, when the pest arrived in Europe, they said, the Jews are poisenign the wells. Nobody had a proof, because, as we know today, nobody poisened the wells, the people simply had to much garbidge and dirt in their houses and towns. Nobody had any proof for the poisening, but everyone could prove, that someone had said so. In the end, they had murered thhousands of innocent people. Don´t we learn anything of history. As I said, if you can prove violations of apartheid, write as many articles as you want, but do not use the chicken´s way out to wirte an article about the proved allegations of the unproven existence of apartheid. --Thw1309 11:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)1) is not true as per the dictionary definition of ""apartheid"". 2) is an irrelevant rant: all of these articles are reliably, verifiably sourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) If you are searching for definitions, there is an excellent webpage called wikipedia. There you can find an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era There you can find a definition of apartheid: Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994. The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification. These articles show reliably, verifiably sourced allegations about not verified facts.--Thw1309 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Man, El_C closed before I could argue for keep on the Saudi article, corretcly and per obvious consensus. Unlike ChrisO's blatantly illegal deletion of the USA article. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Various editors made comments regarding that Allegations of Israeli apartheid was the ""worse of the bunch"", ""full of propaganda"" etc etc etc. I take issue with this views. The israeli article is actually the higher quality of the bunch, including an exposition of sourced material pro- con- and in between, with a very strong secondary source, some additional secondary source, and a narrative that is far from original research.Almost every other word is sourced, and its source list is one of the longest in wikipedia. It can be cleaned up, it has quotefarm issues, but it is a workable encyclopedic article. The other articles for the most part lack this, and still have quality issues themselves. However, lets hear the specifics of the criticism, I prefer in the talk page of the article but it can be here. This general denouciation is not helpful at all, and I have proposed specific changes to the content which have not met any direct answer. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid Added myself as interested party. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (The Arbcom case will run its course, and my prediction is that it'll be dismissed. Accusations against individual editors (or alleged groups of editors) have a very weak basis, and I think the Arbcom will - correctly - conclude this is a content dispute and not a conduct problem). A few points: I think that G-Dett is correct in her initial assessment that these are articles about allegations, i.e., about speech rather than ""facts on the ground."" As such, these are articles are about interpretations of real events and the rhetoric used to express those interpretations. The real events are not within the scope of the articles, except to illustrate and contextualize the allegations, nor is it within the editors' right to determine whether the allegations have any merit The number of citations can not be a meaningful yardstick for notability in this regard - the Arab-Israeli conflict attracts more press coverage than virtually any other conflict and way out of proportion to the number of people directly affected. If we were to use this measure to determine notability, we could throw out articles on discrimination against any number of groups. Instead, we should look at the reliability of sources. And we have guidelines for this. I categorically :-) reject the premise that precedence is irrelevant at Wikipedia. Editors can not apply one set of principles for one article and another for other articles and not be held accountable for their double standard. The issue, as I see it, is whether specific instances of political rhetoric are notable topics for Wikipedia. I don't think they should, for two reasons: It is impossible to even conceive of any meaningful taxonomy in which to organize this content. Someone might start an article on Allegations of Israeli bantustans and make a case that this is a distinct topic from the apartheid article. It distracts from the real and important topics that underly the allegations. There should be articles on Humanitarian conditions for Palestinian refugees and Political rights for Palestinian refugees that all honest editors could collaborate on; but instead we're stuck in this argument.--Leifern 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I think this is a fair summary, though I disagree on points for a few reasons. First, I agree that precedent is worth considering on Wikipedia. The problem here is that the arguments in support of the Israel article are being ignored and misconstrued as blanket support for any article on any propagandistic statement. This ignores the fundamental issue with the Israel article, that this isn't just a statement, but a very substantial debate, involving commentary at the highest level of multiple governments, newspapers, academia, etc. I was actually interested to look back at the early discussions on Israeli Apartheid today, and see an exchange between the creator and another editor still working on the page.[18] The creator noted the WP article on Evil Empire, to which the other rebutted that, well, that had been used several times by a president, thus clearly placing it into the realm of notability. Of course, this was all before Jimmy Carter's book, the extremely extensive response, and much more. Still, this doesn't amount to any notable issue? I've tried to reconcile this idea many times, but it simply doesn't work when we already have articles like Pallywood, Arabs and antisemitism, etc. There are many articles on Wikipedia documenting totally disputed ideas that many people think shouldn't exist. In terms of never writing about political rhetoric, then, I can't agree. Clearly we do, unless we're purging a whole lot of material. I think Tiamat's comment above was of particular relevance: perhaps people just need to get used to the idea that Wikipedia is going to write articles about shitty ideas, if enough people talk about them. It's Wikipedia; we write about almost everything This brings me back to where we agree, then, that the articles need to be evaluated on their own merits. What that means, however, is articles like Pallywood, Evil Empire, American Empire, New Antisemitism, and Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, not Chinawood, Finnish Empire, New Islamophobia or Allegations of French apartheid. The precedent for these latter types simply doesn't exist, and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. While some may disagree with the former group, they're clearly of a different type. A recent other example I came across was Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Whether the article is good or not, can we agree that it should not be turned into a series? I would hope. These are problems with Wikipedia, and they're real problems, but ones that need to be dealt with sensibly. That said, I think it's worth asking at this point if anybody sees a great way to resolve this. As I've said before, I can see modest attempts to refocus the Israel article on the analogy or debate or something slightly different. I don't see consensus moving much further than that. On the other hand, the problem with the other articles seems only to be escalating, without shedding any light on the original. I don't want to say we're getting further from a solution, because really the same solutions are here that have been here all along, so we can take one now as much as we could before. I simply don't think it will involve the complete merger or deletion of the Israel article. The question then is if anything presents itself, or if the next step is elsewhere. Pardon the length; any thoughts appreciated. Mackan79 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I think we have to draw very careful distinctions to resolve these problems. The problem with ""apartheid"" is that it's a very specific: a) crime and b) historical phenomenon, much like the Spanish Inquisition. By contrast, Pallywood is a new term for a specific (alleged) phenomenon, as is New Antisemitism. And there are further distinctions: New Antisemitism doesn't, by virtue of the phrase, accuse someone specifically of antisemitism (whereas something like Allegations of antisemitism among European socialists would be problematic. There are and should be plenty of articles related to Israeli, Chinese, French, Saudi, etc., policies and practices, but ""apartheid"" implies a very specific interpretation of what those policies amount to. It's further complicated by the fact that the term apartheid, much like fascism, is often invoked for purposes of making a point by overstating it. In my mind, the only way out of this is for reasonable editors who have honest political differences to agree on certain principles that should apply to all articles. If it's okay with an article about alleged Israeli apartheid, then why wouldn't it be okay for an article about alleged French, or Norwegian apartheid? This is the question that must be answered. I'm completely unconvinced by the article that one comparison is made more often than the other, but I think the quality of the sources should matter. I also think that articles focusing on allegations should never seek to resolve whether the allegations are fair or accurate, as per NPOV. --Leifern 19:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure why you're unconvinced the phrase is used more often in Israel. Of course I can't measure usage; what has been pointed out is the enormous number of secondary sources discussing the apartheid analogy with Israel, compared to virtually none anywhere else. In France there was an off-the-cuff comment from the mayor of Montpellier; in China, one article says ""Some people call it China's apartheid."" My point is that neither of these create issues that could not be discussed in the context of those actual topics, Hukou and Social situation in the French suburbs. The debate in Israel, on the other hand, clearly goes well beyond any one issue, be it human rights or Israeli policy in the territories. It also has extremely notable refs, including Carter, Tutu and the rest. In any case: if you're saying we should evaluate this individually based on notability, I think we agree on approach even if we disagree on results. Many here have taken issue with this entire approach, however, which is the problem that I think most needs to be resolved. Mackan79 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I'm certainly convinced that the allegation is made more often about Israel than any other country. In fact, I'd expect that an analysis would show that through history the allegation has been made more often about Israel than about the Republic of South Africa. What I'm saying is that I'm unconvinced by the argument that comparing the sheer volume makes allegations of one country notable and about another non-notable. Virtually every country involved in any conflict is subject to accusations, some fair, some not, mostly to advance a partisan agenda. --Leifern 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) The accusations against Israel may or may not be baseless, but the proper way to address it is not cobbling together over a dozen articles of baseless accusations against other countries. This is what I find profoundly offensive about this whole sorry mess. Twelve wrongs do not make a right--Victor falk 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) No, it's like this: If there is a consensus on Wikipedia (which there appears to be) that ""allegations of apartheid against xx"" is not disqualified as a notable topic on its face, then there is absolutely no reason why articles can be limited to only one country. If you accept this premise, then the next question is what criteria should be applied to differentiate between notable allegations and non-notable allegations. I'm sure if I looked long enough, I'd find somebody somewhere who said that Norway does something reminiscent of apartheid. The issue, remember, isn't whether the accusations or allegations have any merit. The issue is whether there are reliable sources that make them. G-Dett seems to think that the distinction is so straightforward that any reasonable person should see that such allegations only are notable if applied to Israel. Others have found plenty of sources that make such allegations about other countries. One thing that is clear in Wikipedia is that just as each editor can not delete articles that they find non-notable, the corollary must be that an editor can not be held accountable for the consensus opinion. Let me put it this way: if an editor thinks that WP should follow SPOV rather than NPOV (the established policy), this editor is of course free to follow NPOV rather than SPOV. Same goes here: I may find the whole ""allegations of apartheid"" principle a bad basis to write articles, but given that there's a consensus to allow them, of course I can apply that basis myself. And as it turns out, some pretty interesting articles have resulted (to my surprise). --Leifern 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Leifern, you seem to be in a frame of mind to be looking for solutions, and I applaud that. I don't want to fight you, but I really wish you hadn't written, ""G-Dett seems to think that the distinction is so straightforward that any reasonable person should see that such allegations only are notable if applied to Israel."" I have on multiple occasions – most recently here, in response to a question from you – clarified that I think any article on any topic that meets notability standards is fine. There are several others in the ""apartheid"" series that may have the potential to be notable, and I've never weighed in on them for that reason. Your statement was true in one respect: I do think Wikipedia policies and guidelines make these questions a no-brainer.I do not understand your position that volume of sources has nothing to do with notability. Simply put, it does.I am also puzzled by the complicated set of distinctions you invoke while weighing the legitimacy of Pallywood, New antisemitism, New antisemitism, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, etc. I have never understood the path of your logic with regards to questions of that kind, yet somehow I always know the conclusion it will lead you to.This is, frankly, a source of frustration for me. I think Pallywood, Arabs and antisemitism, and Allegations of Israeli apartheid are legitimate, though each is an extremely controversial concept; and I think Jew York Times, Jews and Islamophobia, and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid are illegitimate. And it's very easy for me to say why: all of those in the former category have occasioned substantial secondary-source commentary, while those in the latter category – though they've been invoked by plenty of primary sources – have not occasioned much or any secondary-source commentary.I have strong views that Wikipedia should conform to consistent policies, and I have strong views about the world, but these aren't the same. If someone compared Lebanon's treatment of its Palestinian refugees to ""apartheid"" (they are barred from all but menial jobs, they can't buy property or vote, and are largely confined to ""camps"") I'd applaud it. If a Lebanese journalist or intellectual said it, I'd applaud louder. If a Lebanese politician said it, I'd stand up on a box and bark like a seal of approval. But if I wake up tomorrow and Urthogie and Jay have created Allegations of Lebanese apartheid based on five quotes they've data-mined, and you're there justifying it, I'll file an AfD the scorn and rhetorical fury of which you have yet to see the likes. We're not here to right the world; we're here to write articles on notable topics.Now if you'll permit me to say it, I occasionally feel that you, and 6SJ7, and Jayjg, and a handful of other editors with remarkable group discipline, do not sufficiently separate your world views from your vision of Wikipedia. Perhaps no one can fully separate these things, but I think a greater effort can be made than you've made so far. --G-Dett 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, it always intrigues me that you take exception to criticism directed at you in the beginning of your entry and conclude with a personal attack against me and an imagined cabal of single-issue, pro-Israeli editors. I can't be bothered to respond to these baseless accusations. But returning to the substance of what you're writing, I'll say this: as an official member of the inclusionist club, I tend to favor articles of dubious notability. I generally tend to support deletions of articles that beg a question, create ambiguity where there should be precision, and/or stoke more controversy. My opposition to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article was based on the fact that it has problems on all these counts, just as ""American state terrorism"" does and for that matter Islamofascism. In all cases, my view has been overruled. Both you and I have to live with this principle until and unless it is overturned by some other event, such as ""words to avoid."" Given this, the other ""allegations of apartheid"" articles must therefore be judged by some other criteria. In your view, the cited sources don't establish notability. I disagree with that view because I see lots of articles in Wikipedia established on a much slimmer basis, but I think you have a legitimate perspective. But it's not a slam dunk, and I simply don't see the evidence that anyone has written articles for the purpose of having them deleted in some grand sweep of things. The worst I can think of the editors who have written the other ""Allegations of.."" article is to enrich the topic by including other countries that have been subject to the same political rhetoric. That, in my mind, is legitimate. We're not here to second-guess and analyze the motives of editors, we're here to help each other write better articles. --Leifern 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)""Stand up on a box and bark like a seal of approval""... nice writing. It almost makes up for some of the nonsense you write... almost but not quite. ""Remarkable group discipline""? What about you and the other people who share your opinions? And you can say that you are just following Wikipedia policies, but I don't have to believe it, when by remarkable coincidence the only country that deserves its own ""apartheid"" article, according to you, is Israel. It reminds me a lot of the creator of what was originally entitled Israeli apartheid, who at a later time renamed another article ""Apartheid outside South Africa and Israel."" He is gone (if he is really gone) but the same anti-Israel political agenda lives on. It is true, G-Dett, that I do not know what you actually think about Israel, but I do see how you edit, the vitriolic and vicious way that you attack those who disagree with you, and the way you twist Wikipedia policies to advance your agenda. 6SJ7 00:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) ""Agenda"". Everything is about israel in your mind. For or against. What a sad little war mentality. I suppose I too have been stamped with having an ""anti-Israeli agenda""? Why not cut the chase and call me a jew-hater just because I want this series of bullshit propaganda articles deleted? Because it is impossible to believe that some wikipedians would be more concerned for caring about articles meeting some minimi quality standards than having the maximum propaganda effect for or against some party in a conflict, isn't it?--Victor falk 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Victor, I have not called you anything, and I think it is uncivil and wrong for you to attribute such a thought to me. You have no idea what I am thinking, other than what I actually write. As for everything being about Israel in my mind, that is hardly the case. But it's a bit difficult to avoid a discussion of the accusations against Israel on this page, which was created more than a year ago as a result of the controversy that erupted over the article now known as Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It was the creation of that article, and the tactics used to keep it, that resulted in this whole mess. Assuming hypothetically that there was a centralized discussion of articles discussing, say, Communism, I suspect you'd probably find some discussion of articles about the Soviet Union. That wouldn't mean that someone who mentions the Soviet Union thinks about nothing else. 6SJ7 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)The problem with that is that now, rather than dealing with one Israel article, we have to deal with a manufactured series which is mostly the work of two editors.--Cúchullain t/c 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I've discovered something interesting. Most contributors to this page will be aware of a recent afd on Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. The closing administrator was of the view that the ""Allegations of ..."" afds were inappropriate in light of the ongoing discussions on this page; I believe that his decision was misinformed, and that the vote should have been allowed to continue. However, this is beside the point of my current intervention. Readers might be interested to view the page as it was originally created by User:Jayjg, on 6 April 2007: [19]. It was quite obviously a quote-farm, and unsuitable for the project. Now, please consider the status of Sex segregation on 22 March 2007, with particular reference to the heading ""Saudi Arabia"": [20]. Consider also the current status of Sex segregation in Islam (a title that may be somewhat problematic, though I'll leave that aside for the moment). A stunning coincidence, as I think you'll agree. Given that ""Saudi apartheid"" was created with material cut-and-pasted from other Wikipedia entries, perhaps it won't be too unreasonable to suggest that the content should be re-merged into the relevant entries. I'll refrain from suggesting that Jayjg's initial cut/paste job was a brazen WP:POINT violation, conducted for transparent political ends. CJCurrie 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) What's stunning is that you think you are making some kind of meaningful point here. I think new articles are born from old articles all the time on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 6SJ9: WP:CFORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Not necessarily. (And that's a 7, not a 9.) 6SJ7 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)If Jayjg had created a spin-off article named Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia after the source article then you'd have a point but since he named it Allegations of apartheid... in spite of what the source article is called it's clear that it was a WP:POINT violation. Lothar of the Hill People 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Except the material in the ""Sex segregation"" article was actually a copy of the material in the Allegations of Apartheid article. Here's what the Saudi Arabia section looked like on July 12, 2006: [21] In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the material in Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid was spun out of the original article, Allegations of apartheid. This is a bogus claim and I wish people would stop repeating it. <<-armon->> 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This doesn't explain why, given the existence of Sex segregation in Islam, Jayjg felt it necessary to name a new article ""Allegations of apartheid in Saudi Arabia"" rather than ""Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia""? Lothar of the Hill People 15:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) User:67.98.206.2 and User:146.115.58.152 have edited {{Allegations of apartheid}} to remove the link to this discussion. As this template is a result of consensus after the AfD, I have restored both edits. (User:146.115.58.152 actually did a helpful one in shortening the text a bit.) Both used the argument that it ""violates"" WP:ASR (it doesn't) but that is a MoS not a policy or guideline. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Good catch, Cerejota. There may be an issue of whether the link to the centralized discussion belongs on the article page or the talk page; on the other hand, there is a tab for the talk page on the article page, and the centralized discussion is really just a different kind of talk page, so there shouldn't be a problem putting it on the article page. 6SJ7 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It's crossing the name-space, which breaks mirrors; see WP:ASR. I've also brought this to the attention of people who monitor that guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_self-references#Template:Allegations_of_apartheid. -- 67.98.206.2 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I've gone thru all the Allegations of X talk pages and added a mention at the top of thie centralized discussion. This should accomplish roughly the same thing as advertising it in the template. -- 67.98.206.2 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I have restored as per consensus. Your arguments Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_self-references#Template:Allegations_of_apartheid are irrelevant, and certainly fit the POV of some around here, which undoes your argument around WP:ASR. This centralized discussion was ruled for by ArbCom. Please do not edit again or you will get banned form editing the template. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you've made no good argument as to why this should be on the list of exceptions to WP:ASR. What else am I to assume other than this is part of the WP:POINT problem being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_apartheid? Threats aside, if you can add this temple to the list of exceptions and it sticks, I will stop trying to make this template conform to WP:Guidelines. -- 67.98.206.2 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) BTW, the MoS pages are actually guidelines despite your opening remarks above. See Template:style-guideline. This may be the source of your confusion. -- 67.98.206.2 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the etxt and links in question under {{selfref}}. If you have content issues, feel free to raise them, but policy-wise, this template is much more compliant than, say, a bunch of cleanup templates out there. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This whole discussion about allegations about something base in one central problem: Can statements of a person be content of wikipedia. We need general rules, how to take care of them. I do not think that every nonsense, any public person had said, should be content of wikipedia. What should be the criteria to embrace statements? Notability of the person? I believe, we all do not wish articles about George W Bush´s allegations about the quality of yesterday´s dinner. Notability of the object of the statement? How about the ten milionth statement, that national socialism was a crime against humanity? The results of the statement. I personally think, this is the only way to construct a clean borderline. If someone says something, just because there is a microphone or a journalist and a newspaper does really print it, because there is no other news and the newspaper has to be filled and nobody cares about it, then this should not appear in wikipedia too, because we know how to fill our servers. There is a different situation, if this statement causes any results, reactions or even a remakable public discussion. For excample the former German federal minister of justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin made a statement about George W Bush and said, his actions were comparable to those of Adolf Hitler. The usual stupid blah blah of a politician. Definitely not notable. In this case there was a storm of protest and Mrs Däubler-Gmelin had to resign her position as a minister. This makes her talk a notable content.To come back to the actual problem of allegations of apartheid anywhere. I am a usual person with high interrest of politics. Therefore I heard or read about many of the problems of human rights violations, mentioned in these articles but I have to confess, I did not know that anyone called them apartheid. Perhaps I even saw Desmond Tutu say so in television, but it simply did not interrest me, what he had to say, as long as he did not reviel any new facts. As long as he (as did twelve million people before him) only told us his absolutely unimportant opignion about the situation, I simply was not interrested. The Palestinians may have been thankfull and the Israeli angry, but how many of them still know, that Tutu even said something, but noone reacted It was the worthless talk of a politician viewing a microphone. It´s the same about the Dalai Lama and China. As long as he does not reviel any new facts or his statements cause any reaction, nobody really cares about what he says. Then we should not care too.--Thw1309 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I second that. I already posted on ""Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid"" the message - Delete all or rename ""allegations"" to ""analogy"". The word ""allegations"" should be banned from Wikipedia in the titles of the articles for the sole reason you have mentioned above. The term ""analogy"" is maybe not so politically correct, but first, we're not babysitters of Israel, second, the author of such article must prove then that the analogy to South African style apartheid is valid, which means: 1. that there is a segregation regarding race and ethnic origin ONLY, 2. that it's a current government's policy. greg park avenue 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I tend to second this view, however I do take issue with the incorrect statement ""1"" that there is a segregation regarding race and ethnic origin ONLY. As has been mentioned repeatedly. Oxford and other language sources in English clearly state that ""apartheid"", when used as analogy, can extend beyond race and ethnic origin. All linguistic sources agree it does refer to a State policy (see my comments on the AfD for Allegations of Islamic apartheid. Which brings me to your point ""2"", which is strange referring to an encyclopedia, who in my opinion should look more to the past than the present: why should we limit ourselves to current events. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Maybe there is apartheid in Israel or China or somewhere else. I can´t tell you. I´m no expert about this, and I have to confess, I´m not interrested weather any existing or not existing violation of human rights can be called apartheid because any violation of human rights is despicable, regardless, weather it´s apartheid or not. If there is apartheid anywhere, then do not discredit the true content of the subject by calling it allegations of; then call the article, discribing this [[Apartheid in coutry xy]] and show the facts, why there is apartheid or there was apartheid. If this apartheid has been in the past, then the first sentence has to be ""Apartheid in xy was a system from date xy to date xy, which..."", but it has to be based on facts not unimportant statements of politicains, nobody cares about. --Thw1309 07:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Regarding the keyword ""allegations"" I thought we look to the present. Otherwise, the keyword in the title shall be ""apartheid-era"" as in the South African article. greg park avenue 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) What do people think of that one?--Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC) It's not a terrible idea, but I think much of what is in the article now would then need go, e.g., some random famous person using the apartheid analogy. Indeed, such an article would/should focus on things that are actually happening, rather than rhetoric and hyperbole. IronDuke 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah, you're right, why would people be more interested in reading about what's actually happening than in the hyperboles of random famous persons?Sarcasm aside, I think it is the only hope for having an article of good quality: stick to the facts. Generally, it seems to me the article on the Israelo-Palestinian are of good quality and neutral, probably since both sides keep tabs on each other. I think a big part of this mess is due to putting the cart before the horses. Before I make up my mind if it's a duck or not, I like to know if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck.--Victor falk 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I think this misses the point. The article isn't about Israeli policies or Palestinian hardship, it's about what a certain number of people say about them. There are other articles about Israeli policies and actions and their effect on Palestinians. --Leifern 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)To quote Mackensen from the ArbCom: ""Allegation of X"" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset, and that any content therein could be discussed more usefully in an article which has a wider contextual foundation.'--Victor falk 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)'Though just joining in, the last few comments are salient. First, types of discourse make for perfectly fine articles. Discussions of apartheid may be suitable for discourse or for gov't policy articles, I can't predict when such the term might be needed. Some of the articles center on discourse, some on policy. Second, NPOV policy means that we need the best possible NPOV language in article titles. Does anybody here dispute that? If not, then the problem can be narrowed: Besides South Africa, who thinks that ""apartheid"" is our best possible NPOV descriptor? (What evidence supports its neutrality?) If ""apartheid"" itself is POV, who thinks that ""alleged apartheid"" is NPOV for a title? Before you answer, ask yourself, will your POV ""opponents"" find this term acceptable and neutral? With such a framework (#1-2), I think a process of testing out descriptors will get us somewhere.I could go on. But is this helpful? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It's tough to evaluate this proposed article without seeing it. But if you are going to make a dummy article, please put this one in your user space, and write it in English, not Latin. :) 6SJ7 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Abusus non tollit usum! (:--Victor falk 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) We have Separation program (Israel), which is a redirect to Hafrada. So we actually have such an article already. That's a reasonably good and stable article. --John Nagle 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Stable, maybe, I didn't check. Good, no. It is mostly original synthesis and is part of the campaign to smear Israel. 6SJ7 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) The astonishing thing is that the hafrada article actually is everything that detractors claim the various ""Allegations of apartheid"" articles are. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Man, JayJG, you *are* good. Why not merge into Hafrada and make that article better? Or is it that *all* criticism of Israel/Zionism/Judaism is to be expunged from Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced? However, I do continue to insist on my defense of Allegations of apartheid articles on the principle that more is better and verifiability not truth. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)""hafrada"" might be a crap article, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing Allegations of Israeli apartheid and the ""series"" of articles created in its wake mostly by Urthogie and Jayjg.--Cúchullain t/c 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)hafrada is exactly the problem. Instead of telling us, how the system works, which impact it has on people and which are the reasons for creating such a system, the article shows us statements of Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy or whoever this guy is. I don´t want to say anything against this guy, he only does not interrest anyone and so does his statement. The hafrada kind of articles is the only even worse than the allegations articles. It´s the same style, a collections of statements instead of facts, but in addition to the nonsense of the allegations of or statements of articles it even uses camouflage. The article on hafrada should be rewritten, it should show a detailed enceclopedic explaination of this hafrada stuff and then, in a last section, as a small part of this article, statements about hafrada. It´s the same with china. If somebody thinks, the world can not survive without the stupid statement of the Dalai Lama, write a section, ""statements"" within the fact based article on the situation of Tibet.--Thw1309 08:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)I should disclose that I am one of the main contributors to the Hafrada article and perhaps explain why it looks the way it does. Hafrada began as Separation policy (Israel). After I finished writing up the page, I came across the Hafrada article. I asked editors at that page if we should merge the two and received positive feedback, so I merged the material. Urthogie (talk · contribs) and Jayjg (talk · contribs) then appeared and began deleting material, claiming that Hafrada was 1) not notable, 2) not a government policy and, 3) not synonymous with separation. Re-writes and the inclusion of more material established a) the notability of the term, 2) it's relationship to policy, 3) how it was used as a synonym not only for separation, but also for unilateral disengagement. Hafrada is an article about the term itself, its meaning, its use, and its relationship to ongoing policies and practices in Israel. This is partially the result of the edit wars between Urthogie and Jayjg on one side and myself on the other. After trying to delete everything, Urthogie had suddenly switched gears and began copy pasting material as is into the article from articles like Israel's unilateral disengagement plan among others. My feeling was that he was trying to get the article deleted by claiming it was a POV fork, and I resisted these inclusions. Ground rules we established to put an end to the war were to use sources that discussed Hafrada itself, and not separation and its various manifestations in general.Tiamat 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC) (I'm not going to include names of editors here, for reasons that will become plain) An article is created called Israeli apartheid. First round of editing dispute about whether any article with such a title can be NPOV An accord of sorts is reached with the title Allegations of Israeli apartheid Article is repeatedly nominated for deletion for being a POV fork with no additional information beyond other articles After these AFDs are not sustained, it appears that a principle has been made whereby ""allegations of apartheid"" articles are not inherently POV but must (of course) live up to other standards, e.g., NOR, RS, etc., in addition to NPOV New articles are created about other countries for which there are allegations of apartheid These articles are nominated for deletion on the basis that they were created in violation of WP:POINT. In addition, there are complaints about ""cherry-picking"" quotes, WP:NOR, etc.So, here's my editorial comment, and I'm just going to be candid: The accusations against the creators of the non-Israeli ""allegations of apartheid"" articles boils down to suspicions of motivation. Some editors have concluded that there is a pro-Israeli cabal here that is trying to get the article about Israel deleted by creating other articles about similar allegations that have been made against other countries. This has been taken to the Arbitration Committee, where various editors have called for other editors to be ""punished"" for disruption, etc. A couple of comments: If we establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled ""allegations of apartheid"" by one country, then that principle must apply to all countries Each article must then survive or be deleted on some other basis than whether the ""allegations of"" premise is any good It must therefore follow that each article should be evaluated on its own merits of NPOV, OR, RS, etc., consistent with community standards for all other articles Once we've determined this, suspicions about editors' motivations are irrelevant. It really doesn't matter why editors create articles; what matters is whether these articles are any good. And to wit, some ""allegations of apartheid"" articles survive AFDs, others haven't. It's as it should be.--Leifern 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Liefern, it's a false premise to argue that ""If we establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled 'allegations of apartheid' by one country, then that principle must apply to all countries"" since not all countries are the same or have the same conditions. There is quite a lot more literature examining the concept of an apartheid in Israel, France or Brazil than there is on whether or not there is an apartheid in Italy. That's why so many of these ""allegations of"" articles have restored to stringing together a few isolated quotes as opposed to refering to academic studies. The debate on whether or not there is an ""apartheid"" in this country or that is completely different for each country so it is simply not possible to treat them in the same way. Your premise argues for 157 odd ""allegations of apartheid in country x"" articles but there simply is not enough credible material even for the ""allegations of"" articles that exist at present which is why so many of them have failed AFDs. What we should focus on is getting rid of the weak articles and giving the remaining articles particular names that reflect their particular situations. The ""allegations of"" prefix is absurd, unencyclopedic and completely weasely and has to be dropped. If your goal here is to find sensible names for the remainig articles then we might make some progress but if your only goal is to eliminate all of the articles or to eliminate the word ""apartheid"" where its use is extensive and well documented then there can be no ""centralized"" solution and we'll have to continue dealing with each article individually. Lothar of the Hill People 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)It would, of course, help the discussion along if you actually read my whole argument rather than cherrypicking the one that was easiest to disagree with. I did also write that ""It must therefore follow that each article should be evaluated on its own merits of NPOV, OR, RS, etc., consistent with community standards for all other articles."" You want to try again? --Leifern 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)There is one big mistake: We did not establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled ""allegations of apartheid"". Please see: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. There you can see, that we did establish the principle not to use the word allegations. In case of the Israel article, some editors were unable to find a solution of their stupid political edit war. Therefore they used the chicken´s way out to call their article allegation of, instead of finding an enceclopedic solution. Leifern is right about one thing. It´s the same with all these allegation articles and the ""principle must apply to all countries"". They all are the same dirt and should be all removed.--Thw1309 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement. See proposals to address similar application at: Talk:Allegations of tourist apartheid_in_Cuba#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Proposal; and Talk:Allegations of French apartheid#Proposal≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I think you are getting ahead of yourself. The deletion of Allegations of Chinese apartheid was way out of order. --Leifern 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Sour grapes on your part; just accept it and move on. I applaud Jossi for taking a positive and constructive approach - this is exactly the sort of attitude we need. -- ChrisO 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)It's not sour grapes to keep the record straight. The deletion of Allegations of Chinese apartheid was, AGF, bad judgement, and the actual content of the article was only tangentially relevant to Human rights in the People's Republic of China and will, presumably, actually reappear in Allegations of apartheid instead when the latter is unprotected. Andyvphil 09:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jossi, I already gave ""go ahead"" on two of them (one support, one neutral - the ones I commented on before), but I give you my blessing on all of them if there is a full packet, otherwise rename allegations to analogy. greg park avenue 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Hi. I've seen some excellent thinking and great proposals put on the table. Some for an across-the-board approach, some specifically for Israel. I see us shifting from one plausible idea to another. But I'm not sure where this is all leading. What I don't see is a process to get us toward consensus. Through what steps can this discussion result in a decision or a recommendation? Let me float the idea of formulating a discussion agenda. I'm not wedded to these items or the order, just trying to get feedback on whether and how to organize this discussion. Step 1. Agree on an agenda. (This is an example.) Step 2. Figure out some groundrules or strategies to help us finish with each agenda item before moving on to the next! Step 3. Clarify our understanding of WP policies and guidelines, as they would apply to the Articles under consideration. For instance: What do naming conventions on self-identification tell us about apartheid? What does NPOV tell us about the the word ""allegations"" in titles? Step 4. Using this understanding, make a list of potential criteria to apply to any proposal. Agree on criteria. For instance, perhaps we can agree on the criterion that any proposal should aim to avoid or improve on the word ""allegations."" Decide which criteria are necessary, sufficient, or desirable. Step 5: List the plausible proposals (e.g., Israeli Separation, Jossi's). Take straw poll on the order of our review. Apply the criteria to our various proposals. Etc.Anyway, my suggestion is to start with an agenda. Who sees some merit in this idea? I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.... Thanks. HG | Talk 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) HG asked on my talk page for some input on naming issues. Having posted this to another talk page earlier, I thought it might be useful to repost it here as well. I recently renamed and rewrote ""Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid"" as Segregation in Northern Ireland, with three policy considerations in mind: 1) Whether or not ""apartheid"" is a word to avoid (currently it isn't), ""allegations"" certainly is - see WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. Note in particular the following: ""These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable."" 2) Policy requires that article titles comply with NPOV. See WP:NCON#Descriptive names (which, I should mention, I wrote a couple of years ago). This is more complicated than it may seem - the East Sea/Sea of Japan controversy is a case in point - but the core principle, as set out in WP:NCON, is that article titles should ""not carry POV implications"". The political term ""apartheid"" carries enormous POV implications; the sociological term ""segregation"" does not. When faced with a choice between a POV title and an NPOV one, we must choose the latter. This implies that we have to replace the term ""apartheid"" with something more neutral. 3) There is nothing in policy - or for that matter in common sense - to support the proposition that fixing one unsatisfactory article has to wait on fixing a separate article. If article A is bad, and article B is bad, the obvious answer is to fix both articles at the first opportunity. The rate of progress may vary between articles, but that's to be expected, because there are different editors and issues involved. I hope this answers HG's questions about my view of the neutrality of the article name. He also asks: ""does the idea of a self-identifying name imply that such self-identification be verifiable?"" Yes it does - it would have to be based on a reliable source. However, I don't think this particular debate really touches on the issue of self-identifying names. Such names are, by definition, confined to human entities such as cities, countries, organisations and so on. Non-human entities (animals, geographical features etc) don't have their own names for themselves (obviously). Concepts such as ""apartheid"" or ""segregation"" likewise can't be ""self-identifying"" because they are merely abstract ideas based on a particular interpretation of social affairs and events - there is no ""self"" to identify. -- ChrisO 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC) ChrisO, thanks for your detailed and helpful response (which speaks to a step 3 in the agenda proposal). Among the various q's I could ask: In the Chinese AfD, I did suggest that ""The Chinese government people do not identify themselves, their actions, or their beliefs with the term ""apartheid."" In South Africa, the people's leaders, political groups, policies etc were affirmatively self-identified as apartheid. China is different, apartheid isn't used to describe people and their beliefs. Although a concept can't be self-identifying, has there been a policy determination that a noun phrase that incorporates people, like ""Chinese apartheid"", is not self-identifying? Thanks again. HG | Talk 01:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) PS Any comment on the general need for an agenda?I must disagree with #1. Allegation is the perfect word in the context of the crime of apartheid. The word doesn't imply the charges aren't ""factual"" only unproven. -- 67.98.206.2 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)This is irrelevant:Linguistically, it would be ""accusation"" not ""allegation"" if what the article where about was the facts or lack thereof of the guilt or innocence of Israel with regards of the crime of apartheid. This hypothetical situation is not happening, as the UN Security Council has not ruled, nor has under its consideration, any formal accusation against Israel. This formal accusation would be the only way that Israel, who has not signed the Rome Statute, can be accused of the crime of apartheid. SO the article cannot possibly be about Acusations of Israeli apartheid. The article has never been about if Israel is guilty or not of this crime of apartheid - althought some have pushed this as original research. Not a single reliable source says or explores this with any seriousness. It has rather been about two distinct things: a) a quotefarm of quotes that have ""Israel"" and ""apartheid"" in the same paragraph or sentence - which I oppose b) an exploration of a highly notable, highly controversial, debates on analogies with Apartheid-era South Africa and Israel proper and Gaza, West Bank and its relationship with the Palestinian Authority - which I support. This debate is notable, and engages figures including ex-Presidents of the United States, ex-Prime ministers of Israel, Knesset members, respected academics like Benny Morris, and assorted political, academic, and journalistic commentators whose notability with regards to issues around Israel is beyond question.This arguments pops up from time to time (along with the incorrect statement that crime of apartheid is not international law) and is about attempts at clumsy WP:SYNTH of a concept that is not as simple as people think.Lastly, ""Allegation"" in a title is a word to avoid. We cannot willfully violate policy and guidelines because they are contrary to the POV of many. In fact, in controversial articles is precisely where we should follow WP:WTA. However, as long as it is consensus, I have no problem alleging that it is OK to have on the title. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)If we have to take ""allegations"" out of the title, a more direct heading might simply be Israeli apartheid, which currently redirects. Compare Islamofascism, which now explores usages of that controversial term. BYT 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I'm totally withyou that encyclopedic titles should be as matter-of-fact as possible, but that's the problem: the article was first called ""israeli apartheid"", then it was renamed ""allegations of israeli apartheid"", a compromise name that still hurt the delicate sensibilities of some editors--Victor falk 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)I'd like to suggest a different perspective: BYT's comment raises an interesting point. When does another existing article serve as a precedent for other articles? I think, relying too on Wikipedia guidelines, an article which violates policy should not be defended by citing similar articles that violate policy. In my view, the Islamofascism violates the a neutrality-protecting Naming guideline: ""When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use."" The self-description guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination. Islam refers to a group of people and they do not identify as themselves by this term, so the article is unjustifiable. Perhaps some of the article content can be placed within a more neutral article about Islam, though this epithet should not be given Undue weight. It's important that we function through our basic policy principles, even if this means re-assessing existing articles. What do you think of my explanation? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)I believe that precisely this point was made, by various editors, at the now-nearly-legendary epoch of the Great Debates about Islamofascism.At that time, those who held to this view, or similar views, concerning the inappropriateness, per policy, ofIslamofascism, were lectured solemnly about the evils of censorship, and reminded that President Bush had used the term.That former President Carter has since ignited a worldwide debate about Israeli apartheid, in a comparably prominent way, seems to be a topic that the editors who so ardently pressed for Islamofascism now would prefer not to address.At any rate, the policy you cite seems to me to be relevant in both cases, and if it is applied to one, it should be applied to the other. If, however, we ignore the policy in the one case, we should not be surprised if there are those who feel it should be ignored in the other case. BYT 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think the Carter and Bush examples are actually strictly equivalent. Carter used the phrase as a metaphor to provoke debate on the human rights situation in Israel, (at least according to an interview I saw with him) whereas I think that Bush asserts that ""Islamic fascism"" actually exists. Also, we have the problem that ""Islamofascism"" has made it into at least one dictionary. Perhaps one way of dealing with these types of articles is to name them ""X (epithet)"" (i.e. Islamofascism (epithet), Israeli apartheid (epithet)). I'm just floating an idea here, and I'm not sure how viable it is. We may just end up back to square one because evidence for the notability of other ""apartheids"" can easily be presented. <<-armon->> 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)The title of Carter's book is Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.He is quoted on Amazon.com as saying, ""Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word (apartheid)."" Doesn't sound very metaphorical to me. BYT 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Sense 2 of the word is metaphorical, just as it is with ""fascism"". This is a big part of the problem. <<-armon->> 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Metaphor: ""All the world's a stage..."" NOT metaphor: ""2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups"". The problem is semantics, not poetics. Andyvphil 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Andyvphil, if I understand Armon, he's saying that definition (2) is only properly used when a policy is LIKE or SIMILAR to the ""real thing"" of official South African apartheid (= definition 1). By properly used, I refer to proper language usage based on a meaning (aka semantics). Def 1 always denotes the official policy. Whereas Def 2 requires a comparative judgment -- sometimes segregating people may be LIKE apartheid (e.g., Jim Crow laws) and sometimes a ""practice of separating"" people is UNLIKE apartheid, though technically fitting the definition (e.g., separating customers into cash and credit queues at the grocers). Also, definition 2 requires a intensity judgment -- is 'apartheid' the right intensity with which a transgendered activist might define the policy of separating people into Men's and Women's rooms? While denotationally correct by def 2, perhaps we can agree that the metaphor is blown out of proportion, even if both policies are wrong. HG | Talk 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)We are, for some reason, fast-forwarding over the key point. What matters is that a) Carter did not use the phrase metaphorically, and b) his usage was manifestly notable, sparking global controversy. BYT 14:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Agreed, armon is wrong. Carter makes comparisons with ZA but he gives no indication that he is using the word ""apartheid"" itself as either a metaphor or an analogy. He seems, whether in good faith naievete or not, to be using the word as if it were identical to its secondary definition, or its definition in the Crime of apartheid documents(self-strike,Andyvphil 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)). But, when used as a metaphor, ""apartheid"" is not a ""dead metaphor"", and we should not pretend it is when choosing article titles. Andyvphil 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See here for a transcript of the interview I was talking about: JIMMY CARTER: The whole title, I wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it's prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what's going on in the West Bank.And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel.Secondly, the emphasis is on peace.And the third thing is not apartheid. I don't want to see apartheid. And since now the entire peace process is completely dormant, there hasn't been one day for good faith substantive negotiations in the last six years to bring peace to Israel, I wanted to rejuvenate this process. -emphasis mine, see also: ...And let me get to the word ""apartheid."" Apartheid doesn't apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel to the nation. It doesn't imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis -- we're not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So Carter is clearly using the word as a metaphor, is pointing towards a bad future state of affairs (as opposed to peace), and is explicitly NOT accusing Israel of the Crime of apartheid. This is the problem with focusing on a word or phrase, rather than the point that the speaker is making. I agree with Jossi's suggestions to merge the various ""apartheid"" allegations, metaphors, analogies and metonymy into the various articles which address the points being made. This is ultimately the most encyclopedic way of dealing with this material. BYT brings up Islamofascism which is out of scope for this discussion, even if it touches on similar issues. As I see it, Islamofascism is a neologism and an epithet for Islamism. However, as I said before, it has made it into the dictionary, so it would be better to have a short article explaining the term, rather than just a redirect to Islamism. <<-armon->> 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) So Carter is clearly using the word as a metaphor, is pointing towards a bad future state of affairs... Uh, no. The transcription has problems (it misstates the title of the book, which does not include a colon -- see the publisher's website -- and then fails to supply quote marks where Carter is quoting his own title: It should read ""It's 'Palestine' first of all... The third thing is 'Not Apartheid'. I don't want to see apartheid..."") and Carter is not a model of extemporaneous lucidity here, but there is nothing to indicate Carter is speaking metaphorically. He says he doesn't want to see apartheid, but that doesn't mean he doesn't consider it to be the actual policy. He has said he does. (See ""A system of apartheid...is the policy now being followed."" in the online excerpt from the book.[22]) He says ""Apartheid doesn't apply at all....anything that relates to Israel to the nation"" which is confusing in that it doesn't even parse, but if you are familiar with his other statements this is recognizable as his stating his position that he is alleging apartheid only in the territories against Palestinians, not within Israel against Arab Israelis (but actual apartheid right now, not metaphorical and not future). And his denial that he was implying racism is exactly what I was referring to when I said he ""seems, whether in good faith naievete or not, to be using the word as if it were identical to its secondary definition"", i.e. Merriam-Webster's ""2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION"" (see above), which it is not by reason of semantics. In that he's being disingenuous, not metaphorical. Andyvphil 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe he's being disingenuous, maybe not. However, the secondary definition of ""apartheid"" you're referring to IS a metaphor (check the article) -which was my point in the first place. <<-armon->> 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)I'm talking about a major public figure who used the word apartheid, directly and without precondition, to describe the condition of Palestinians, without employing any semantic niceties. And thus sparked a global debate. All language is, ultimately, metaphorical. Point, under (studiously ignored) policy is that Israelis wouldn't call their system of government ""apartheid,"" and Muslims wouldn't call their religion ""fascist."" Period. Either we implement the policy, or we don't. Islamofascism (term) was around for a while, and was ultimately derided, and discarded, as somehow bad for Wikipedia's moral fibre. What are you proposing that we call, or do with, these two articles? BYT 09:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)As some of you know, there is also an exploratory renaming discussion for ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" on the Talk page. There's been some discussion of ""allegation"" and ""Israeli apartheid"", further input welcome. Based on that discussion, I am also thinking about some plausible new names on the mediation cabal talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Just as a procedural note, I do not understand why you would start a discussion of this on yet another page. Wouldn't it be better to invite some mediators here, rather than forking the discussion to there? I think we are up to about 15 different pages now where various issues about titles, merges, deletions, reviews, etc. etc. are being discussed. It's not your fault HG, but as the result of the aggregate actions of a number of different people, the discussion is going on in way, way too many different places. 6SJ7 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Hi. Well, I think that's a fair point. I guess I assumed that this conversation was more geared toward an overall, centralized approach and the Talk:AoIA would be for steps that might be taken there. But I could certainly be wrong about that! I'm not adverse to moving or even suspending the conversation there. HG | Talk 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Ok, thanks 6SJ7 for posing a good challenge. I've now fully spelled out three reasons why I think it's worthwhile to still explore non-centralized options on AoIA. I would greatly appreciate everyone's comments and, maybe agreement, with Procedural Principles Toward Consensus on AoIA itself, separate from the worthwhile search for centralized solutions here. Let me know what you think, thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) People may be interested in this proposed compromise on the ""Allegations of Israeli apartheid"" Talk page. BYT 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC) The RfAr has been accepted. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid Thanks!--Cerejota 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 21#Template:Allegations of apartheid. GRBerry 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Cross posting... Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. -- 146.115.58.152 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Gee, thanks for letting us know. I must have somehow missed this in the course of actually editing the encyclopedia. And just when I thought this whole thing couldn't get any more idiotic... 6SJ7 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) A proposal has been made to rename Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please weigh in at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Rename proposal - first steps. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Rename proposal is no longer an active category on the above referenced talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)" 421 425 930 WP:RUGBY Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby 421 If you are looking for the inactive WikiProject, please see the archive here. 422 426 936 WP:SHUARI Wikipedia:Levels of competence 422 In martial arts, there is a concept along the road to mastery called shu ha ri that could be explained as: One who is a beginner plays within the boundaries. One who is proficient explores the boundaries. One who is an expert creates the boundaries—or ignores them altogether.While editing Wikipedia: Beginners don't know (or are only starting to learn) the rules. Intermediate users learn the rules. Advanced users learn the spirit of the rules. Finally, once users understand the spirit of the rules and principles, they can sometimes ignore them. Beginner tip: Don't be afraid, just be BOLD! There's no way you can damage the wiki that can't be corrected in under a minute that doesn't get you in the stocks. Edit Wikipedia, just make a change, go ahead! If you make a mistake, someone will correct you. If someone more experienced than you corrects you and points you at policy, assume good faith and learn what they are asking you to learn. Refusing to learn may result in the community deciding you cannot learn.Intermediate tip: you can pick up a lot of ideas about how consensus was previously formed by reading policy, guideline, and essay pages Can you name the five pillars of Wikipedia, and apply them? What are some issues with the five pillars as chosen? Would you choose other pillars? Why?Advanced tip: Try to get people to react to you in ways that just happen to lie along the lines of policy. When in a discussion, instead of pointing to the policy itself, try to integrate your understanding of the policy in your own words, and try to convince people that way. You'll probably learn a lot from how they reply! Do you understand WP:IAR? If you are an admin, can you enforce policy without use of your admin tools? Can you get people to follow policy, without making a single link to a policy page yourself? Can you convince people to follow the principles behind the policy, simply by setting a good example? Wikipedia:Competence is required Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent c2:ThreeLevelsOfAudience c2:FourLevelsOfCompetence c2:ThreeStagesOfKnowledge c2:ShuHaRi Finite and Infinite Games Wikipedia:Leave it to the experienced 423 427 941 WP:RSL Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 423 "For more information about article rescue, please refer to ARS Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Rescue guide For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's archives and listings at WikiProject CleanupThis is a list and discussion of Wikipedia content for rescue consideration. When posting here, please be sure to: First familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources, as well as the prohibition on inappropriate canvassing Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.) You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list. Sign posts with four tildes ~~~~. Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.The following templates can be used for articles listed here: *{{Find sources|Article name}} - Adds source search options *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (2nd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated twice *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (3rd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated 3 times *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times ATTENTION! Go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ to apply for access to multiple databases to search for sources to help save and improve articles. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL Joel Hardin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussionFormer US Border patrol now a tracker, has a mention an obit in the New York Times. Then there is this. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) A quick search on the Wikipedia library finds sources that I've used to improve the article (and also gave me enough to feel confident voting too). CT55555(talk) 21:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) You did some good work there. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks. @Bruxton actually added the most content. CT55555(talk) 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWLWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Jorgensen I could do with help trying to expand the unicycling part of this article. He is notable for family connections (he is Jeff Bezos's biological father) and had a unicycling career that was making news in 1961, 1962 and 1963, but some editors don't think the 1960's part is important enough to avoid deleting this article, based on WP:1E. So I could do with help from editors who have skills in finding 1960's newspapers published in Albuquerque, New Mexico CT55555(talk) 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL Mizraab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussionA major rock band article is up for deletion. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Its a progressive rock and metal band from Pakistan. What qualifies as a gold record in that nation? If it meets that, it passes the subject specific guideline for bands. WP:BAND Dream Focus 15:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I have struck part of that per WP:NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Tryptofish you are not an unbiased arbiter where the ARS is concerned. (note: I have moved your comments out of the closed discussion) Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't have to be. ARS does not WP:OWN the page, and no one posting here is immune to WP:NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC) You have been very vocal in your disdain for the project, yet here you are. You are watching over the project like an overseer. The WP:FOLLOWING is much more troubling than the phrase ""take a dump"". Read up, based on our own policy page it is not even a PA WP:NPA#WHATIS. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Let's be very clear: so you think that what you did was OK, and what I've done in pointing it out is against policy? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWLThis is an odd one. The article isn't in any danger of being deleted, so no real ""rescue"" issue. I just cannot find the nationality of the subject. And therefore I cannot add the correct WikiProjects, I cannot say she is a Belgium/American/British author, and I cannot add the usual categories, as they all require a nationality. So, if anyone can establish her nationality, that edit would be welcome. CT55555(talk) 09:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC) [1] and [2] both give her nationality as ""British"". [3] says ""now based in Brussels"", although I think that's out of date and she now lives in The Hague [4]. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you! CT55555(talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC) I tried to get this one through DYK but I withdrew the nomination when it was clear that it was jammed up. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I am trying to get this one through DYK at the moment and the question is about the previous stat of the article and number of characters which go toward 5x expansion. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Also withdrawn. Seems the formula for counting a 5x expansion was not met. Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) On the left is a notable photo of a notable person taken during a notable event. All good. On the right is a notable photo of a notable person's space taken during a notable event. Up for deleting, the photo, the biography and the article on the photographer. I'm seeking help, because this photo, I think, might be the photo of the year. Proposals to delete the content or merge it into 2022–2023 Dnipro missile strikes miss the point, the point being that the photo was a lightning rod for the world to pay attention to the civilian casualties of the war in Ukraine. A bit like how the photo of the Death of Alan Kurdi changed the public awareness of the Syria conflict. I have not found a good way to write about this without my work all being proposed for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykhailo Korenovsky Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion#Discussions_approaching_conclusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan DobronosovImprovement to the articles are sought, and also advice about how to find a way to keep the content similarly to how we have content on other notable war photos. CT55555(talk) 04:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Intellectual property rules compliance rules prompted a bot to remove the image above. Here's a link: File:Mykhailo Korenovsky family kitchen.webp CT55555(talk) 17:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)" 424 428 945 WP:BURL Wikipedia:Bare URLs 424 "A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of a web browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation or helping to fix external links that no longer work because the linked web pages or complete websites disappear, change their content, or move without HTML redirection—so-called link rot. A bare URL is the URL with no other information about the source. If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare. In this context, information refers to data that are useful to build a bibliographic citation and/or help fix link rot. Examples include the title of the destination page, the date it was published, its author and so on. Even if the link goes dead, one might be able to use this additional information to find the article elsewhere. Here is an example of a bare URL: Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text, which displays inline as: Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more textCommon variations of this include: Some texthttp://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text, which displays inline as: Some text more textSome text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083] more text, which displays inline as: Some text [1] more textSome text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 Nikon] more text, which displays inline as: Some text Nikon more textAll of the above examples use the same bare URL – it is just a URL with no accompanying information. The word ""Nikon"" as displayed text adds no info beyond what is displayed in the URL; displaying only ""Nikon"" or a number actually gives the reader less info than the raw URL. Contrast this with a full citation using the {{cite web}} template: Some text{{cite web |title=Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows |publisher=Nikon USA Inc |work=Find Answers |date=2008 |url=http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 |access-date=2009-05-09}} more text, which displays inline as: Some text more text, and displays under References as: 2. ""Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows"". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.It shows much more information about the article. Even if the link no longer works, one can see that it previously linked to a web page containing some technical discussion revolving around a specific Nikon firmware update that might be obtainable through other means. Here is a variation of this citation, typed in ""manually"" as: Some text[http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 ""Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows""]. ''Find Answers''. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09. more text, which displays identically inline as: Some text more text, and displays identically under References as: 3. ""Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows"". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.Even though it did not use a {cite ...} template, this version shows full information, and thus is not a bare URL. Some citation styles, such as the MLA style, use full bibliographic citation that happen to display the text of the URL in addition to proper identifying information, like the author, date, and title of the publication. These are not considered bare URLs. Adding a bare URL reference to Wikipedia is much more helpful than no reference. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, that is a helpful first step, and we thank you for your contribution! However, please note that a bare URL reference is also much less helpful than a fully-formatted citation. Please help readers and editors by using full citations instead. A bare URL is much less helpful than a full citation: Bare URLs are subject to link rot. The usability of a bare URL depends entirely on the target web site both continuing to host the page, and retaining its chosen site structure. It is under no obligation to do either. A Bare URL provides much less information to the reader than a full citation. Bare URLs are not very digitally accessible. Screenreaders can navigate directly to hyperlinked text, so digital accessibility guidelines advise hyperlinking descriptive text that explains where the link leads to.Bare URLs are most easily filled by the editor who adds the URL as a reference. That editor has read the webpage, and therefore has all the details in front of them. An editor citing any source should assess it to check that is a reliable source, so they should have checked issue such as article title, date, author(s), publisher, page number, etc. By contrast, another editor coming later to fill the reference has to start from the beginning and replicate all that work ... and by the time they read the webpage, its contents may have been changed or even been replaced with something completely different. === Examples === All of the following bare URL citations of the International Herald Tribune have ""rotted"" (stopped working), since The New York Times restructured the IHT's web site: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/EU-GEN-Denmark-Obit-Wegner.php http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/10/africa/eu.php http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/13/europe/EU-Britain-Zimbabwe.phpA full citation, in contrast, gives the author, title, publisher, publication, and date of the work. So, if the web site address changes, the additional information may assist in finding the new location. If the source is no longer available on the internet, then the additional information may assist in tracking down the source if it is in printed form, microfiche archives, article/paper collections, published as books, and the like. This is a full citation of the first International Herald Tribune article, using the {{cite news}} template: Colman, David (February 1, 2007). ""Hans Wegner, 92, Broke Ground with Danish Modern chair Designs"". International Herald Tribune. La Défense, FR: The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on February 23, 2007. Retrieved February 25, 2020.Notice that with the full information that appeared in the citation before the URL died, it was possible to retrieve the IHT article via Web.Archive.org (which we did here, to add the archived URL), but also via LexisNexis, HighBeam Research, and others (even though the IHT's own webpage is no longer active). Secondary problems with bare URLs are that—unless a readable text is used—they are ugly, and can affect the display of a page. For example, this bare URL with no readable text causes page widening: http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14083&p_created=1159553141&p_sid=PMjnxbji&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD03JnBfcHJvZHM9MTksMTQ3JnBfY2F0cz0xODYmcF9wdj0yLjE0NyZwX2N2PTEuMTg2JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1The length problem can be fixed cosmetically using the form: [very_very_long_URL_is_presented_first Useful readable text comes next]Note that the very first space is what is separating URL from link label, here between ""first"" and ""Useful"" (and inversely the URL cannot contain spaces, but the label text can). Here is an example using the very long link above: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0—Windows... but this cosmetic fix is crude. It is much less helpful to readers than a full citation. And future editors are again left with the challenge of repairing the citation, when the URL in this form of presentation dies. The separate fields of a full citation using citation templates also allow the use of bots and other tools to help with some tasks. Please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. If you encounter an article with many bare URLs, you can help in one of three ways: Tag the article. This can be done in two ways: at the top of the page with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. This displays a header requesting that the citations be expanded, and categorizes the article as needing cleanup, bringing it to the attention of other Wikipedians. The script User:BrownHairedGirl/linkrot.js can be used to apply the tag and to remove it from articles which no longer have any bare URLs. Better still, use {{Bare URL inline}}. This can be done using the script User:BrownHairedGirl/BareURLinline.js Even more helpful would be to expand the bare URLs into citations manually. reFill, RefLinks, and ReferenceExpander are tools can be used to resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Citation bot can also fill some bare references. The output of the tools must be checked by the editor, who is responsible for the edit.Before linkrot became a widespread and well-understood issue, many Wikipedia articles were created with bare URLs. Even today editors frequently cite sources by inserting bare URLs. While this is much better than leaving articles unsourced, it does expose the references to link rot. We can all help to fix this problem. You can help by volunteering to expand bare URLs into proper citations, in articles which interest you, articles which are linked to them, or articles selected as random articles. If you notice an editor habitually adding bare URLs, then please consider leaving a polite note on their talk page thanking them for adding URLs, but referring them to Wikipedia:Inline citations for clear examples of good practices. A list of Wikipedia articles with bare URLs Wikipedia:Citing sources, for information about how to construct a full bibliographic citation. Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations Special:RandomInCategory/All articles with bare URLs for citations Userbox:" 425 429 951 WP:NORWAY Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway 425 You might have been looking for Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. 426 430 952 WP:JOURNALISM Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism 426 "WikiProject Journalism coordinates the editing of articles, related to journalism and news; including: news media; news business and news industry. This project brings focus on the universe of articles that deal with journalism. Please see the project's talk pages for ongoing discussions. Articles can be found at Category:WikiProject Journalism The main page is Journalism. === To Do === === Cleanup === Onward State NoahRiffe (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC) === Members === Add yourself to the list at the following subpage: /Participants === Userbox === Copying the following code to your user page will add the WikiProject Journalism userbox:{{User WikiProject Journalism}} === Related groups of Wikipedians === Category:Wikipedian journalists Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers === New Wikipedia articles related to Journalism === Please feel free to list your new Journalism-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Wikipedia page. DYK has a 120-hour (5 day) time limit from the creation of the article. Katya Soldak, New-York-based journalist and documentary filmmaker with focus of Eastern Europe. La Cucaracha (newspaper), defunct Chicano newspaper published in Pueblo, Colorado from 1976-1983. JaneClawsten (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) David R. Jones (journalist), Journalist and editor for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, winner of two Gerald Loeb Awards. Toodles The Grey (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC) William R. Clabby, Journalist and editor for The Wall Street Journal, winner of a Gerald Loeb Award, and an executive at various Dow Jones news subsidiaries. Toodles The Grey (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Richard F. Janssen, Journalist for The Wall Street Journal, winner of a Gerald Loeb Award. Toodles The Grey (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC) James C. Tanner, Journalist for The Wall Street Journal, winner of a Gerald Loeb Award. Toodles The Grey (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Ross M. Dick Journalist for the The Milwaukee Journal, fourth president of the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing Websurfer2 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC) John Segrue Foreign correspondent for the News Chronicle; twice expelled by the Nazis, he was eventually captured and interned in a German prisoner-of-war camp, where he died in 1942. QueenPuck (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Jessica Abo Journalist. It is currently in an Afd debate (here) and I'd be greatly for your honest opinions about this article. Thank you in advance PaulPachad (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Jason Feifer Editor in Chief of Entrepreneur Magazine PaulPachad (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Eve Barlow A journalist who made headlines at the beginning of the Depp vs Heard Trial PaulPachad (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Distributed Denial of Secrets a non-profit whistleblower site for news leaks founded in 2018, sometimes referred to as a successor to WikiLeaks. Softlemonades (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Taiwan+, a new publicly-funded media and news outlet from Taiwan under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Culture (Taiwan), could use expansion and review. Rchouman (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Template:PulitzerPrize Feature Writing, recipients of the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing, Toodles The Grey (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC) David Pratt (Scottish journalist) Scottish war reporter, photojournalist, author, winner of various awards. CT55555 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Michael Clarkson (journalist), Canadian journalist and author, winner of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award for Print and two time winner of the National Newspaper Award. Toodles The Grey (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Template:CIJAward Broadcast, recipients of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award broadcast category. Toodles The Grey (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Template:CIJAward Magazines, recipients of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award magazine category. Toodles The Grey (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Template:CIJAward Newspaper, recipients of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award. Toodles The Grey (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Template:CIJAward Radio, recipients of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award newspaper category. Toodles The Grey (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Template:CIJAward Television, recipients of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Award television category. Toodles The Grey (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Centre for Investigative Journalism Award (1986–1990), an award given to Candian journalists for excellence in investigative journalism. Toodles The Grey (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) David Steinberg (journalist) (1932–2017), American journalist and 1958 Gerald Loeb Award winner. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Jose Guevara (1917-2002), Filipino journalist for the Manila Bulletin, and art collector. Bruce Livesey (journalist) This article is currently in the AfD process here and could use support.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Robert E. Nichols (1925–1996), American business journalist, president of SABEW. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Template:SABEW Presidents, a navigation template for presidents of the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Ben Schifman, financial editor for The Kansas City Star, second president of SABEW, and winner of a Gerald Loeb Award. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Albert Scardino, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing in 1984 and former publisher of The Georgia Gazette, please help review article, thanks! CatchedY (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Three new navigation templates for winners of the Livingston Award: Template:LivingstonAward International Reporting Template:LivingstonAward Local Reporting Template:LivingstonAward National ReportingWebsurfer2 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Willis Ho, Hong Kong journalist and activist Corachow (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Joseph Livingston, winner of a Pulitzer Prize and three Gerald Loeb awards, creator of the Livingston Survey Websurfer2 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Ad Fontes Media, creator of the famous ""media bias chart."" There are some other media watchdog groups that could use wikipedia pages like AllSides and mediabiasfactcheck.com, but I'll try to get to those when I have a chance. Nablais (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Erwin Canham, journalist, editor, author; article could use some expanding Nablais (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Lawrence Minard, award winning journalist, managing editor of Forbes magazine, the founding editor of Forbes Global magazine, and the namesake of the Minard Editor Award. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Gerald Loeb Award winners for Explanatory, given annually for journalism pieces showing exemplary in-depth analysis and clear presentation of a complex business subject. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Gerald Loeb Award winners for Local, awarded for business, financial, or economic stories centered in a geographic area intended for consumers in that area from a local newspaper, magazine, television station, radio station, or website. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Gerald Loeb Award winners for Feature, awarded for pieces showing exemplary craft and style in any medium that explain or enlighten business topics. Websurfer2 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Nate White, two-time Gerald Loeb Award winner at The Christian Science Monitor.Websurfer2 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Tom McGinty, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.Websurfer2 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Kelly Carr, award-winning investigative business journalist.Websurfer2 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Ging Ginanjar, Indonesian journalist with significant role in Indonesian press freedom. Please help expand. Bongomatic 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Joseph B. White, Pulitzer Prize winner for Beat Reporting. Websurfer2 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Eileen Sullivan, Pulitzer Prize winner for Investigative Reporting. Websurfer2 (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Stephanie Saul, Pulitzer Prize winner for Investigative Reporting. Websurfer2 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Anthony Cormier, Pulitzer Prize winner for Investigative Reporting. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC) David Bennun, English music critic at The Guardian, The Quietus and others; created 21 December 2018. -- Pingumeister(talk) 16:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC) The New Korea Korean-American Newspaper founded by the Korean National Association List of journalists killed in Europe --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Der Nordstern, German-language newspaper in Minnesota from 1874-1931. Ultracobalt (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Interpretative Journalism , Created 9/10 October 2017 , DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Snow Fall, Pulitzer prize winning multimedia feature in The New York Times. Created 11 February 2017. The lorax (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC) List of awards won by the New York Times accepted for publication in Wikipedia on 17 February 2017 Eddie891 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This Week Newspaper accepted for publication in Wikipedia on 16 August 2016. Caerhys (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Doug Kammerer, chief meteorologist at WRC-TV created 23 January 2016 Matt Katz (journalist), WNYC,New Jersey Public Radio, Philadelphia Inquirer, Courier-Post., WNYC,New Jersey Public Radio, Philadelphia Inquirer, Courier-Post per 5 January 2016 David Laventhol, publisher and editor at the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Washington Post, created 10 April 2015 Hot take, journalism term used to describe thoughtless opinion pieces El Marino, second newspaper published in Pichilemu, Chile. Created 18 November 2014 James Pagan, reporter and editor of the Glasgow Herald Dumfries Courier, oldest newspaper in Dumfries and Galloway. Article Created 10 August 2014 Jennifer Steinhauer, writer for the NYT. Article created 16 Jan 2014 Africa Check, fact checking organization for Africa. Article created 7 December 2013 Ali Mahmoud Othman, an imprisoned Syrian journalist. Kevin Ash, prominent British motorcycling journalist killed in a bike accident aged 53. Article created 24 January 2013 Fran Unsworth and Ceri Thomas - Articles concerning two recently promoted BBC executives, created on 12 November 2012, both have backgrounds in journalism so are covered by this project. Nick Pollard - Former Sky News executive, created on 16 October 2012. Okaz; Al Watan; Al Riyadh; Al Youm; Al Eqtisadiah and Al Nadwa - Some of these articles were created recently, some were created long before. Egeymi (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Synapse (magazine) – New article created on April 5, 2012 (by another editor) Tawakel Karman - this female Yemini journalist won the Nobel Peace Prize on 7 October 2011 and her entry falls within the scope of WikiProject Journalism Noramfaizul Mohd Nor - created 9 September 2011 (based on recent news from September 2, 2011, that Noramfaizul, a Malaysian camera operator, had been killed while reporting from Mogadishu, Somalia). Leon Daniel - created 9 July 2011 (recently avoided deletion in AfD; could use help with expanding) Robert W. Chandler - created 22 May 11; DYK 31 May 11 Jen Royle - created 30 July 2017‎ Analytic journalism - created 15 June 2011 White Hands Campaign—created February 2011, newly tagged McCook Daily Gazette - created 2011-03-12 Women in journalism and media professions – created in 2007, newly tagged Breathing (memorial sculpture) - created in 2008, newly tagged The Legacy (Lindenwood University) - created 2010-06-20 Andhra_Prabha — existing stub added 2010-05-08. Expanded to include basic info. Still ongoing. Cambridge Chronicle—created 2010-04-24 Columbus Telegram—created 2010-03-14 Daily NK—created 2009-12-03 Peter Shellem - created 2009-11-02 Journalism Education Association - created stub 2009-08-06. Could use some help if anyone is available. Michael Theodoulou - created stub 2009-05-04 (need help expanding please) Future of newspapers - created 2009-03-17 Al Kaprielian - created stub 2008-12-03 Euromoney (magazine) - created stub 2008-10-12 Google News - existing article added 2008-09-15 Portland Monthly - created 2008-09-12 Kathleen Hays - existing stub added 2008-09-09 American News Project - created 2008-09-07 Las Cruces Bulletin - created 2008-08-20 Las Cruces Sun-News - created 2008-07-25 Alamogordo Daily News - created 2008-05-28 Colorado Springs Independent - stub expanded 2008-03-27 Community journalism — stub created 2008-02-07 Entertainment journalism — stub created 2008-01-31 Political journalism — stub created 2008-01-31 Opinion journalism — stub created 2008-01-31 MacWEEK — existing stub added to project 2007-12-25. Merry Christmas. Wired News — existing stub added to project 2007-12-24 (wow that last addition to the project really took off didn't it) New York Native — Now defunct gay newspaper in NYC (1980-1997). Added 2007-12-15, stub class. Published very first news story on AIDS in 1981. Re-rated Start. Listed in main page DYK on 2007-12-21. Advance Publications — existing Stub added 2007-12-12, might be Start class, not sure yet IDG — existing stub added 2007-11-23 Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Oprah Winfrey, Laramie Boomerang and Utne (magazine) (may be moved back to Utne Reader again, I don't know) — (only added to project, changed the wikilinks here to best guess, and removed my note here from earlier) Bloomberg L.P. — existing stub added 2007-11-11 Existing stubs Adam C. Engst, and Tonya Engst added to project (only added some markup) Jean-François Kahn — French journalist, stubby but referenced; more substantial material exists on French Wikipedia — created 2007-10-29 Alfred Cowles, Sr. — stub created 2007-10-25 Cowles Publishing Company — created 2007-10-24 Cowles Media Company — stub created 2007-10-24 Edmund Chester - created 2007-01-30 Lilia Luciano - this article was created in 12-08 and contains multiple uncited and questionable statements. It reads like a resume and was likely self-written. It requires a fresh review from a television journalism expert. === Did you know? === Noramfaizul Mohd Nor - nominated 2011-09-16 Leon Daniel - listed 2011-08-02 Religion Newswriters Association - listed 2008-09-10 Worth Bingham Prize - listed 2007-11-15 Conscience-in-Media Award - listed 2007-11-12 Cowles Publishing Company — listed 2007-10-29 2007 Bangladesh cartoon controversy — listed 2007-09-26 MinnPost.com — listed 2007-09-02 Mark Kellogg (reporter) — listed 2006-02-15 === Article improvement drive === Ahmed Abba — Needs more content, resource citations, graphics, general cleanup, and translations. — added 2018-03-27 Ezra Klein — Disorganised, non-chronological, poorly-sourced and -written main body — added 2021-02-02 Journalist — Needs resource citations, general cleanup. Should it be split up? — added 2007-04-15 History of journalism — Needs resource citations, more than one source cited, more information for non-English, U.S. press histories — added 2007-04-15 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage — needs reference cleanup (preferably using citation templates) — added 2007-04-15The references have been cleaned up. Three sections need citations.Websurfer2 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Gotcha journalism - Article is awful, most of it is extended hypothetical examples, very little of it is referenced and almost all of it fails to be neutral - added 2012-03-11 Rafael Bracero - is up for deletion, but it does not list the page for voting. In addition, several areas need to be fixed - added 2013-01-14Yiddish radical periodicals, see list here for inspiration Shushugah (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC) === Collaboration of the week === === Peer review === The Daily Show === Good Article nominations === Leon Daniel - Review not yet opened. Robert Novak - on hold, but nominator has retired - anyone willing to take it on? Cambridge Chronicle - Oldest surviving Weekly in the United States === Featured picture candidates === === Featured article candidates === === Review and assessment === Edmund A. Chester - was Vice President of News and Special Events at CBS and recruited by William S. Paley to create the ""Network of the Americas"" in the 1940s in support of cultural diplomacy has been expanded. Kindly reassess the article whenever possible. Many thanks! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL The Berkshire Eagle I have substantially expanded and revised this article over the last several years and would like to suggest a review and reassessment of its C/low rating. [[User:TexelaarV|TexelaarV](talk) 15:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Eve Barlow I just created this article, and I'd be grateful for more input, review and assessment. Thank you in advance. PaulPachad (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC) The Brown Daily Herald could use a review/assessment. Thanks. Bleubsdorf (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Leon Daniel Recently underwent a deletion discussion and I have subsequently cleaned up and improved the article with relevant sources. Could use some more attention, and beginning with a review and assessment would be helpful. Thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Wolfgang Harich Could anyone be able to assess this for me? I expanded this stub for a class project and a peer review is required, so the sooner the better! Thanks! Steven Emerson -- can someone assess? thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Joel Chandler Harris -- Would someone mind assessing this article? Thank you! J L Shakespeare (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Paul Colin (journalist) -- Would someone from this WikiProject rate the importance of the article to complete the WP Journalism template on its talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Rob Capriccioso Can another independent editor assess article nominated for deletion? --Hochungra (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)--Hochungra (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Javed Malik -- Have asked at WikiProject Pakistan for a review of the YouTube videos by someone who can understand the language and if they are a reliable source, they do show that Malik was on TV as per the statement in the article. They were provided by an outside party via email as a source for the statement about Malik. As well, any help to make sure the biography has a NPOV tone. I just helped with the wiki markup as per the email on the talk page. It seems like the article if written properly should be of significant importance from the email content. I think the citations needed templates could be removed now but will get another to do that to make sure it is OK. Thank you kindly.SriMesh | talk 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Serial (podcast), investigative journalism, long-form audio storytelling, exploring 1999 murder case over a whole season. Accepted for DYK 23 October 2014. I tagged it when it was still a stub, then changed it to start class, but it needs an assessment for class and importance. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Spin Alternative Record Guide, just created, no grade. Dan56 (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I've noticed a number of redlinks to some well-respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists from over the years, and am hoping to fill in some of the blanks. Would love to have input from some folks from the Journalism project here! Looks like there's a sizable backlog for assessments so I won't clog it up further, but the first one created was Louis Stark, if anyone would like to take a swing at it. If anyone has an interest in taking on some more of the reviews/assessments for these, I can keep you posted on the new articles as I create them - thanks! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Elizabeth Wagmeister – Requesting importance assessment as I can't find the scale on this WikiProject page. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Musica Jazz - newly created article, requesting quality assessment. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Stephen Bannon - was listed ""low"", needs reassessment ASAP as affects Pres.-Elect Trump transition significantly Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC) The Albany Herald - I have added a history section to this page. Please reassess. Thank you, Cxristopher (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Peter Watson - currently unrated and unassessed for this importance by this project. --Leonstojka (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Alexander Frater - start class, not assessed for importance, significant expansion has since taken place --Leonstojka (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Daniel Dale - Recently added the article to this WikiProject (Start-class under WP:WikiProject Ontario and WP:WikiProject Biography), expanded with more information and removed several unused sources.Isi96 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Jean Enersen - I have significantly expanded this stub class article. It could use a reassessment. Byjaredbrown (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Taiwan+ this media and news platform from Taiwan could use an assessment as part of the Journalism Wikiproject. Rchouman (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Junk Food News - I have made some decent contributions to the stub, went over the existing material plus added the features, history, influence of internet and psychology sections, and would appreciate anyone looking it over and offering any advice for improvement. Thank you! User:RekNek42 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC) ==== Statistics and quality content listings ==== List of all subpages of this page Category:Journalism {{Portal|Journalism}} {{Journalism}} {{WP:WikiProject Journalism/sidebar}} {{WikiProject Journalism}} (for relevant article talk pages) {{ISSN-needed}} (for relevant article talk pages) {{Newspaper rationale}} (for image pages) === Invitation template === {{WikiProject Journalism invitation}} === Infoboxes === {{Infobox journalist}} {{Infobox Newspaper}} {{Infobox Magazine}} {{Yiddish Journalism}} === Stub sorting === {{Journalism-stub}} {{Journalist-stub}} {{newspaper-stub}} {{US-newspaper-stub}} {{mag-stub}} === Citation formatting === {{cite news}} {{cite web}} === Newspaper navigation === === Related WikiProjects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers === Descendant WikiProjects === WikiProject Magazines Wikipedia's The Signpost Newsroom online publication. Thousands of newspapers on the Net Presse en ligne 4 International Media & Newspapers - world newspapers online 20th Century Press Archives Thematic dossiers of German and international newspaper clippings, up to ~1949 Newseum | Today's Front Pages | Map View Newseum | Today's Front Pages | Gallery View Newspaper Death Watch" 427 432 954 WP:RELISTBIAS Wikipedia:Relist bias 427 "Below is an example Articles for Deletion discussion. Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Obviously fails WP:GNG. Only source is a press release from the company, and I'm unable to find any online sources that even verify the company's existence. Their claims pass WP:A7, at least, but they're not covered in reliable secondary sources. ~ Experienced Editor #1 Delete, mostly per the above. The press release is only available via the company's cookie-cutter website. This could even be a hoax, for all we know. ~ Experienced Editor #2 Keep. If they deliver the product they're promising, this would revolutionize the world! Wikipedia would look backwards if it failed to cover this. ~ WP:SPA #1 / article creator Keep. As the CEO of the company, I can guarantee that we're for real. Email me at if you need to verify. ~ Apparent CEO Keep. We're real and here to stay. ~ SPA #2 Delete. No sourcing indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. ~ Experienced Editor #3 An experienced admin would properly close this discussion as ""delete"", as all policy-based rationales clearly favor deletion. Non-admins can't close as ""delete"", however. Faced with the options of keeping, relisting, or walking away, a non-admin closer often chooses to relist the discussion. Their rationale for relisting is that the vote tally was close, and at least relisting is better than doing nothing. In another week, maybe the tally will be more one-sided and assist the admin in closing as ""delete"". That's relist bias. Non-admins are welcome and encouraged to close deletion discussions, but they're unable to close most XfDs as ""delete"". Because of this, it's possible to intentionally or unintentionally develop a bias toward alternative outcomes, such as relisting. This is harmful to the project. By relisting a discussion which has already fully debated the merit of the article, the non-admin has unintentionally wasted the time of any other editors who stumble upon the open discussion before it is next closed and the time of the next closer. As more and more discussions are relisted, they can also unintentionally cause a backlog to develop, as closers a week from now will need to close all of that day's discussions in addition to the relisted discussions which should have been properly closed the first time around. Non-admins can prevent themselves from developing a relist bias by doing the following: Don't relist discussions unless there is a clear reason to do so. For instance, if new information shows up late in the discussion, relisting is usually appropriate. Make use of ""no consensus"" closes when appropriate. If all points have been fully debated but no consensus has emerged, closing as ""no consensus"" is preferable to relisting. As a non-admin, don't relist discussions you think should be closed as ""delete"". If an admin will eventually need to close the discussion as ""delete"", they might as well do so now. Kicking that close a week down the road isn't helpful. Participate in the discussion. Review the issue in question, research, form an opinion, and post your interpretation of the issue. Help make the closing decision a little more clear for the next editor/admin who comes along. Don’t relist discussions with low or no participation in the absence of any dissenting opinions. For articles, admins can treat them as expired proposed deletions, usually resulting in immediate soft deletion. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions" 428 433 956 WP:CBM Category:Articles needing cleanup 428 "This category groups together the articles needing general clean-up. You can help by clicking through to an article and editing it. You can find articles by: Longest wait time - see the monthly subcategories below. Most daily page views last month Topic, using WikiProject tags, subdivided by type of cleanup needed Topic, using Category:Wikipedia cleanup by subjectYou can usually find more information about why the article was tagged: At the top of the article itself (the {{cleanup}} tag now requires a ""reason"" parameter). The article's talk page. Possibly on Wikipedia:Cleanup if the article has been dual-listed.If you're unsure why the tag is there, the best thing to do is to ask on the article's talk page and ping the editor who added the tag (who can be found by checking the ""View history"" tab). If there is a dispute or if an expert opinion is needed, you can also ask for a third opinion, or ask for an expert opinion on WP:RFC or a WikiProject. If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article. For more specific needs or for help on deciding when and how to tag, see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Articles in the monthly subcategories are tagged e.g. {{Cleanup|date=March 2023}}. Articles placed in this category (by a clean-up tag) will be automatically re-filed by a bot to the appropriate monthly subcategory. This usually happens within 15 minutes, so there should not be many articles in the category." 429 435 962 WP:SPAMHOLE Wikipedia:Spam event horizon 429 "The Spam Event Horizon is a stage in the development of the external links section of an article. The development goes something like this: Sources, which are reliable sources of information used in the creation of the article Authorities on the subject, such as major organizations with an interest Points of view starting to creep in, minority dissent from the authorities and other monographs Spam for commercial providers in related industries Vanispamcruft links to www.myspace.com/randomuser/randomthoughts.htm added by their authors because ""I think that too"" the Spam Event Horizon where the number of links is so long that no realistic attempt is made to assess individual links on a continuing basis for relevance or indeed existence. Revamping to rid the article of extraneous cruft, consisting of one of: a radical return to Sources, Authorities, or Points of view, replacement of content and re-entry into Spam and the following primary stages of evolution escalation to the Powers That Be, which begets either of: educated Dismissal the rare Change in Wikipedia policyOnce an article has passed the Spam Event Horizon, the number of links to commercial providers (sometimes several links to different pages on the same site), wix/tripod/whatever sites, blogs, POV rants, 404 DMOZ pages and other cruft begins to spiral out of control. When the external links section is broken down into subsections, you know something is seriously wrong. Many of these links are clumsy attempts at search engine optimization, others are simply added because, after all, if everybody else has linked their site, why shouldn't I? As an example, here is the external links section from Fathers' rights as of 31 December, 2005. You won't persuade me that this is anything other than mad linkspamming. Once an external links section moves past the Spam Event Horizon, any further additions to it are overwhelmingly likely to be spam. The best remedy is to evaluate each link one at a time. However, the reward... a perfect external link section... is sometimes not worth the hours of in depth investigation that it might take. If you do notice some useful external links in the grouping, an even better approach is to convert into references those that actually back up the factual content of the article, and to delete the rest. In other words, keep the links that are actually referenced in in-line citations within the article and delete the rest. Another good option, (and one requiring less effort) is to remove all the obviously commercial or promotional links to the article's talkpage: any link to a page offering to sell something or attempting to persuade you toward a point of view. These may be useful and could assist editors in improving the article. The solution that takes the least effort and the one with most risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is to simply delete the whole thing and start anew keeping a strict eye on each new addition and applying WP:EL and WP:SPAM liberally. It's not always the best option, but it can often be the only viable solution. Be careful however about possibly starting an edit war. A more tactful method is called for in those situations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat Fixing Broken Windows – ""... consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.""" 430 436 963 WP:FOOLS Wikipedia:Rules for Fools 430 "April Fools' Day has historically been a contentious day on Wikipedia, and the limits on how editors may play jokes and pranks on other users and the encyclopedia have been disputed for some time. While there is no consensus on a complete April Fools' Day joke ban, editors are advised to use common sense. To help settle the debate on what is and is not allowed on April Fools' Day, several rules have since been established based on this request for comment in 2013, this request for comment in 2016, and this request for comment in 2020 for users who choose to play jokes on April Fools'. === General === Wikipedia policies and guidelines still apply on April Fools' Day, especially the policies on edit warring, no personal attacks and biographies of living persons.The Main Page is exempt from rules No. 1, and No. 2: All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the ""article"", ""help"", ""talk"", and ""help talk"" namespaces. Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace, will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing. All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}. All jokes must be acceptable. Jokes that are hateful, discriminatory, and/or intended to make others feel unwelcome will not be tolerated. (This should go without saying: If you think that the joke you're about to publish might be taking it a bit too far, you should assume that it is, and do not publish it.) === Other rules === Do not edit war or vandalize individual years' April Fools pages. These pages are meant to document pranks, not have pranks performed on them. There is a precedent for deleting COVID-19 joke pages. These pages have been described as bad taste due to the sensitive nature of the topic which falls under rule #3 above. === Joke deletion nominations === To minimize disruption of Wikipedia, please keep the following rules in mind if you consider creating an April Fools' Day joke deletion nomination: You must immediately remove the line {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}. Otherwise, a bot will add a deletion notice to the mainspace article. Do not use Twinkle to create the deletion nomination page because that adds a tag to the mainspace article. The deletion log for 1 April will have a separate section for joke nominations. This is to avoid disrupting the regular business on AfD. Please do not create a joke nomination outside of this section. Make sure the general formatting in deletion log pages is not changed, to prevent automated or semi-automated processes from breaking. In particular, the """" comment at the top of the deletion log must not be changed or removed.Since no April Fools' Day jokes may appear in the Talk: namespace, please do not create joke merge proposals, requested moves, or other proposals that would ordinarily appear in the article talk namespace. === Conduct === New editors who are unfamiliar with April Fools' Day on Wikipedia may see these jokes as vandalism, while other editors may find the jokes (no matter how innocent) unwanted if placed in areas such as their userpage. It is a good idea to find out whether the recipient of a joke is open to this type of humor before playing the prank. In general, editors should avoid reverting jokes that comply with the above rules and are made in the spirit of April Fools' Day. Editors who revert non-harmful jokes should be assumed to be acting in good faith, and should not be sanctioned. Please do your best to make your joke visible towards others. Hey.... if you have a joke then share and tag it, don't change some obscure redirect page that isn't visible towards others and expect a happy response. Posting jokes on the Noticeboards is not advisable. === Material === For the main page, there is a consensus for ""Did you know"" entries to include ""clever puns rather than poop jokes and sexual innuendos"". Please double-check the current time. April Fools' Day starts at 00:00 UTC April 1 and ends at 00:00 UTC April 2. Please do not play April Fools' jokes outside of this time, even if it is April Fools' Day in your own time zone. How to celebrate April 1? Wikipedia:April Fools How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid on Uncyclopedia {{AprilFoolsNotice}} {{Not April Fools}}" 431 437 965 WP:RC Help:Recent changes 431 "The recent changes page is accessed from the Interaction Menu on Wikipedia's sidebar (displayed on the left side of the screen). It lists the most recent edits made to pages on Wikipedia. Using this page, you can monitor and review the latest contributions, to discover and correct mistakes and to spot and revert vandalism. Options can be set to filter and display recent changes according to the preferred criteria (present at the top of the recent changes page, containing three sections: ""This page"", ""Utilities"" and ""About us""). The available filters are featured articles, good articles, living people, new editors' contribs, IPs' contribs, mobile contribs and by namespace. It can also be filtered according to tags by typing in the specific one, such as ""Visual edit"", ""large plot addition"" or ""blanking"", etc. Most (although not all) bot edits should be marked with the bot flag and be hidden by default (if enabled, they will be marked with a b in the recent changes logs and in watchlists). If you see a bot edit that shouldn't appear in the recent change logs or your watchlist, please report it to the bot operator per WP:BOTISSUE. For a more detailed description, see the recent changes help page of MediaWiki. Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit Special:AbuseLog" 432 438 968 WP:OWNFEET Wikipedia:Every edit must stand on its own feet 432 "Every edit must stand on its own feet. Before making multiple edits, think twice about the order in which you make them. Do not make an article worse with one edit and justify it on the grounds that with others coming soon it will be better. It is weak to argue that it only causes limited disruption in the interim, because every edit is an edit. You cannot group edits together, categorize them or in any way make several edits into one. Articles are visible both to readers and to editors at all times, and members of either community who see the article degenerate may be confused about your intentions. Reculer pour mieux sauter.To draw back so as to make a better jump.— Napoleon I This does not mean of course that every edit towards that goal must be independent of every other, only that it must move towards that goal and not away from it. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. — Ralph Waldo Emerson For example, augmenting or formatting references can take some time and be done over several sessions. While doing so there may be a combination of styles in the references list, but on each edit it becomes slightly more consistent and so slightly better. If, in the alternate, the tags were renamed to something else in the meantime so that the reference list was consistent — consistently empty — that would be a backward step since the primary purpose of the reference list is to enable readers to find references. Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. — Dorothy Gale Remember that at any time a reader can view the article, and remember that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are readers, not editors. If a reader sees a degenerate article it does not give a good impression of Wikipedia. Ideally, every edit makes an incremental improvement, large or small. Sometimes this means having to plan carefully how to make a large edit in small stages, so that at each incremental stage of improvement the article still stands on its own feet. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids. — see List of misquotations (on Wikiquote) Another editor may wish to work on the article between your first and subsequent edits and revert or undo your changes or add their own, which may disrupt your ultimate goal if they are unaware of your intention. You may then have to incorporate their edits into your own changes later. For this reason, it is best to ensure that each edit can be justified in its own terms, that is, that it stands on its own feet. While there are several means to help stave off unnecessary attention by other editors, the article is still always live. Many editors keep a list of articles on their watchlist and will look at an article and start editing it as soon as you make changes, even if it has not been changed for months or years. This can be surprising, even frustrating, since often it seems little attention is paid to the article's talk page, yet as soon as you make some edits lots of editors start to take notice. This is not opportunism or bad faith, but because the article has been stable for a time other editors with an interest in it will look to see what changes have been made and why. They may even have forgotten that they had intended to make more changes themselves, but because their edits stood on their own feet it was not that important because the article was still an improvement on what went before it, and the change reminds them and stimulates them to add their own changes. This behaviour by other good-faith editors exacerbates an editing style where individual edits do not stand on their own feet: a backwards step is likely to be undone or reverted. On reflection, it is not surprising that if a stable article suddenly gets changed, especially if it is by an editor who has not had any involvement in the article before, other editors will scrutinize the edit carefully. Stability does not mean that the article is not cared for. === Using ""Edit in progress"" template tags === A ""Beware of Dog"" sign hung on the gate where the pit bulls escaped, indicating the owners knew the dogs were dangerous. — various websites. The templates {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}} can be used to show that an article is incomplete and rapidly changing. They warn readers and editors that an editor is actively working on an article, so not to expect it to be complete and perhaps to be more cautious before making changes that may conflict with another editor's. Their legitimate aim is to avoid duplicated or conflicting work between editors and to warn users that the quality of the work is less than some end goal that will be achieved reasonably soon. But the quality of the work should always be no worse than the version before it. Using these templates is no excuse for making edits that do not stand on their own feet. If every edit stands on its own feet, the {{inuse}} tag is, strictly, unnecessary. However, it still serves the purpose of giving pause to other editors who may otherwise, from a legitimate starting point, take the article in a different direction from that which you had intended. Do not cry wolf by overusing it. {{underconstruction}} is different in that it is intended to show that the article is being actively edited but not in the very short term (e.g. the user is going to sleep or to the library, which often of course is the same thing). It does not imply even informal protection of the article, simply that it is recognised it is not finished. Consider using more specific tags such as {{unreferenced}} or {{cleanup}}. === Make small edits === Add little to little and you have a big pile. — Ovid By ""small edit"" we mean less the actual size of the edit, but that it addresses one particular concern about the article, however many characters the change that is. So, adding wikilinks is a small edit; augmenting references is a small edit; changing an erroneous spelling is a small edit; doing all three at once is a large edit. Of course sometimes in passing one might spot a typo or something that can be fixed without comment, but think carefully before trying to mix two types of changes in one edit: is it really a typo or just spelt in a different variety of English? Making small edits that stand on their own feet also allows other editors to use differencing tools to see exactly the nature of each change, and good edit summaries can also help enormously to explain the reason for the change. In the edit summary, don't say what, say why. Necessarily the two overlap, but there are tools to say what, to give a short reason for the change is very useful, even if it is just ""typo"": it may save other editors the need to look at the change at all, if they understand its gist. Limitations in the differencing tools may make it hard to spot small changes when bound together into one large change. It may be difficult to spot small slips in white space, sentence reordering, and so forth. This may incline other editors to revert the large change if it seems drastically different from the previous version but they cannot directly compare them; for example if the differencing tool does not recognise the reordering of paragraphs, and marks them as deletions and insertions (as Wikipedia's built-in tool does). Large changes get hard to justify under Be Bold!. While making many small changes should not be done simply to sneak past the attention of other editors, making small incremental changes gives a clear indication in the history of the path being followed and probably suggests the goal. Of course this does not obviate the need for discussion on talk pages and so forth, but if as often happens no discussion takes place, it can save effort to make small changes where editors may be watching the page but do not participate on its talk page. They may start to contribute after the first small change rather than having to argue against a large change that is essentially a fait accompli. With smaller edits that stand on their own feet, other editors can just revert that one edit. Even if they have to do it manually (if other related edits have happened since), at least it allows the individual edits to be able to be referred to in their own edit summary, or in discussion on the talk page. Most editors on Wikipedia act in good faith and so will happily keep a good edit or even improve it further. Making small edits that stand on their own feet helps towards that goal, because at least if there is disagreement over a change, all the other changes can be kept with (implicit) consensus. For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard. — Hamlet III iv Bots make huge numbers of edits in short periods of time: any error, no matter how small, will quickly create problems, and it can take a long while to unravel them either automatically or manually, once they are discovered by frustrated editors who would rather be improving Wikipedia than undoing a bot's bad behaviour. The actions of a bot must be carefully thought out and tested before being ""set free"" to run in the mainspace. Just because a bot has passed through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval does not make it fit for a particular purpose: administrators approve it on the basis that it works correctly, not on whether its aim for a particular case is necessary or valuable (which, unless the bot is intended only to be run once, cannot be predicted at the time of approval). It can help to discuss your intent and purpose on the talk pages or on an appropriate project talk page before running it. Most Wikipedia editors have good faith and run bots to improve Wikipedia, but it can be surprising to other editors if a bot suddenly starts changing many articles when it is not clear why, and this is especially true if bots make multiple edits which, taken individually, do not stand on their own feet. At the worst this ends in an edit war between the bot and human editors: the bot changes something, the human editor changes it back, the bot changes it again, and so on. There is usually good faith both by the human editor and the bot's author, but the bot's aim is not achieved because the two have different goals. See Wikipedia:Pruning article revisions#Problems with numerous revisions. Wikipedia:Essays Wikipedia:Responsibility Wikipedia:Accountability" 433 439 969 WP:WE User:Cacycle/wikEd 433 "wikEd is a full-featured edit page text editor for regular to advanced users on Wikipedia and other MediaWikis. wikEd features syntax highlighting, reference, template, and code folding, on-page Show preview and Show changes, and advanced search and replace functions. Please check the wikEd help page for details. wikEd works under all web browsers except Internet Explorer. == Quick features == (For a more detailed feature list see below)Syntax highlighting with code check and reference, template, and code folding Comfortable search and replace with regular expression support and type-ahead find On-page Show preview and Show changes Pasting, import, and wiki code conversion of formatted text, e.g. from Microsoft-Office and web pages Open links and wiki-links with a ctrl-click Fullscreen editing mode Single-click fixing of common issues and mistakes Works for every MediaWiki and has been translated into many languages == Installation == How to install wikEd (choose one option): See wikEd installation page for more details. That page also explains how to install wikEd on non-Wikipedia wikis and on wikis without internet connection and how to create a wikEd gadget. == How to use it == Simply check wikEd under the Gadget section in your Wikipedia preferences (or use one of the other installation methods from above). Check the wikEd help page for a description of all buttons. For a local installation as a Greasemonkey user script see below. For more information, see below or check the wikEd installation page. == Full features == (For a quick feature list see above)See also the wikEd help page for a description of all buttons and functions. wikEd adds the following functions as buttons above the edit textarea: Pasting formatted content, e.g. from web pages, other wiki pages, MS-Word, or MS-Excel Converting the formatted content to wikicode including tables Wikicode syntax highlighting, based on a real JavaScript wikicode parser Embedded image preview Code check Reference, template, and code folding: ..., {{..}}, character entities such as  , and table code User friendly table editing Highlighting of different types of dash and blank characters Internal and external links in the edited text can be opened (ctrl-click) Redlinks are displayed in red Link redirects are displayed in a tooltip popup Find and replace: Case insensitive and regular expression support Find ahead as you type Find and/or replace all occurrences Find and replace history On-page Show preview Replaced by a background server preview (using Ajax) On-page improved Show changes: Improved inline format (additions and deletions in a continuous text) Uses server-independent User:Cacycle/diff Detects and displays text block moves Intelligent and persistent Edit summary field history Predefined and customizable summary texts Fixing common mistakes with one button: Fixing wiki links with redirects to final target article (Ajax) Fix Unicode character representations to either actual characters or character entities (depending on browser support status of character) Fix common typos using AutoWikiBrowser RegExTypoFix rules Fix redirect links to the final target Mathematical and chemical formulas Basic – spaces and empty lines Dashes Units HTML – change html code to wikicode (including tables) Capitalization of headers and lists Article navigation: jump to headings from the find field drop-down menu Fullscreen editing mode All buttons have popup descriptions (titles) Alphabetical sorting of lines and link lists Fully customizable via CSS and configuration settings Intelligent selection of affected text, e.g. the word under the cursor, the current line, or the current paragraph Font size zoom for edit box Compatible with the standard editing toolbars On/off switch (logo next to the logout link) Automatic update and installation of new versions Support for user-defined buttons and functions Improved diff display on version comparison pages (using wikEdDiff) Keyboard shortcuts for buttons Template and parser function highlighting for template developers Can be installed as a gadget, user script, site script, or Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey script Runs on every MediaWiki installation and for anonymous users when installed in the browser as a Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey script Active on normal edit pages, read-only pages, view deleted pages, upload pages, the edit raw watchlist page, and semantic forms Fully translated into many languages == Translations == See wikEd international for translations of wikEd and how to install them. wikEd has been translated into Arabic, Chinese (simplified), Chinese (traditional), Croatian, Czech, Dutch, Esperanto, Finnish, French, Galician, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kazakh, Lower Sorbian, Malay, Norwegian, New Norwegian, Persian (Farsi), Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Sicilian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, Upper Sorbian, and Vietnamese. Detailed instructions on creating new translations can also be found on the wikEd international page. == wikEd userbox == If you're on Wikipedia, paste the following text to your user page: {{User:Cacycle/wikEd userbox}} to get this userbox: Check who is using this box. == Known general issues == On Google Chrome and Chromium, the Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts do not work in WikEd. wikEd conflicts with the Syntax highlighting Beta, which is available in your preferences. wikEd currently does not work in Internet Explorer and older versions of Opera (version 15 and below) If you are using a really old computer or are editing very long articles, then you could speed up page loading by temporarily disabling the syntax highlighting by pushing the button or by temporarily turning wikEd off by pushing the button next to the logout link. wikEd relies on the browser-internal rich-text editor and uses formatted text (similar to MS Word or Outlook). This causes the following inconveniences: Syntax highlighting of new and changed text has to be invoked manually by pushing the button (see Firefox feature request). It is not possible to enter tab characters. In order to enter tabs, you have to temporarily disable wikEd using the button. Be very careful when using the purple fixing buttons and always check the Show changes functions for unanticipated changes. There are cases where the simple rules used for these buttons can damage articles. wikEd is incompatible with certain scripts and extensions that rely on, or change, the original text edit box (see the next section). == Compatibility == === Browser support === wikEd works under Firefox, SeaMonkey, Safari, WebKit, Google Chrome, Opera (version 15 and higher) but not yet under the currently not standards-compatible Internet Explorer. === Skin support === wikEd works with all native MediaWiki skins and most of their derivatives. Other supported skins include: Pinkwich5 (Citizendium) Monaco, Quartz, Searchwikia, Oasis (Wikia) Cavendish, Devmo (wiki.mozilla.org, developer.mozilla.org) Gumax [1] Pixeled [2] === Scripts, add-ons, and extensions === In general, wikEd is incompatible with scripts, add-ons, or extensions that rely on or change the standard text edit box. The reason is that wikEd replaces the normal text area with its own separate rich-text iframe. Many of these scripts will still work if wikEd is temporarily turned off by pressing the button, making the changes, and re-enabling wikEd. It is possible to make scripts compatible with wikEd (see below). ==== Compatible scripts ==== This is a short and incomplete list of scripts and gadgets that are compatible with wikEd: Navigation popups Twinkle ==== Incompatible scripts, add-ons, and extensions ==== This is a short and incomplete list of scripts and gadgets that are not compatible with wikEd: MediaWiki LinkedImages Extension MediaWiki Wikiwyg Extension Mediawiki FCKeditor Extension Mediawiki CodeMirror Extension Mediawiki TwoColConflict Extension Mediawiki VisualEditor Extension ==== Making scripts compatible with wikEd ==== The wikEd edit box is a rich-text iframe while the standard edit box is a textarea with the id wpTextbox1. Nevertheless, developers can make their script compatible with wikEd by copying the text from the wikEd iframe to the standard textbox before making their changes and then copying the content back to the iframe. The following code is cross-browser compatible and wikEd-independent: A more sophisticated way to apply local changes similar to custom button handlers is shown below. The example implements a ""
...
"" add or remove function around selected text: You can also add your custom functions to hooks that are executed on events such as wikEd setup, wikEd turned on or off, and classic textarea or wikEd frame turned on. It is also possible to directly apply changes to the wikEd edit frame, please see the wikEd development page. === Troubleshooting / FAQ === This section focuses on getting wikEd to work. For other problems see the wikEd help page. ==== wikEd does not load ==== You have followed the installation instructions above, but the wikEd logo is not displayed on top of the pages next to the log out link and the wikEd buttons do not appear on edit pages. Please try the following: Refresh your browser cache: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R) Enable JavaScript in your browser If you are using wikEd on a non-Wikipedia installation check if $wgAllowUserJs is has been set to true in the MediaWiki initialization file LocalSettings.php by an administrator If you have installed wikEd on a skin-specific page such as User:YourUsername/vector.js, then wikEd is only available under that skin. Use the general User:YourUsername/common.js page instead. Check the JavaScript Error Console for error messages. See reporting JavaScript errors; Firefox: Tools → Web Developer → Browser console; push clear and reload the page; Chrome: Control button → Tools → JavaScript console. If there is an error message caused by wikEd please report to the wikEd discussion page. == wikEd info and navigation box == Every wikEd project page has a navigation box on top. You can add this template to an English Wikipedia page by adding the following code on top of the page text: {{User:Cacycle/wikEd_template}} The following code can be used for wikEd navigation boxes and templates on non-Wikipedia sites and non-English Wikipedia pages. The box uses external html links. If you are not on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia site like Wiktionary or Wikinews, then you have to upload the logo WikEd_logo64x64.gif to your own wiki. {| style=""margin: 0 0 0.75em 0.75em; float: right; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0;"" |- style=""background: #d4d0cc;"" | style=""padding: 0 0.5em 0 0.8em; border-top: white 1px solid; border-right: black 1px solid; border-bottom: black 1px solid; border-left: white 1px solid;"" |
[[Image:WikEd logo64x64.gif|64px]]
| style=""padding: 0 1.5em 0em 1.5em; border-top: white 1px solid; border-right: black 1px solid; border-bottom: black 1px solid; border-left: white 1px solid;"" | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd '''wikEd''' Homepage] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd Discussion] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd_international Translations] · '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd_help Help]''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd.js Code] |} === Customization === wikEd is fully customizable, including color schemes, language, and custom buttons and functions. Please see the wikEd customization page on how to adapt wikEd to your personal preferences. == Bug reports == Please post your detailed bug reports to User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd (the discussion page of this article). Please use the bug reporting form on top of the page and add your report to the bottom of the page. == Who's using it? == Please see the gadget preference statistics. Additionally, the following search link gives you an idea how many users of the English Wikipedia are loading wikEd through their skin.js or common.js pages: Search Wikipedia. == wikEd is not == WikEd, a wiki plugin for the Vim editor WikEd, a Wikipedia username == Copyright == All wikEd-related code and Wikipedia article content is released into the public domain:" 434 440 977 WP:RAC Wikipedia:Request an account 434 "To prevent the automated creation of Wikipedia accounts using bots or scripts, Wikipedia uses an image verification method (called a CAPTCHA) to assure that new accounts are being created by a real person. To further combat account creation abuse, Wikipedia also prevents the creation of new accounts with usernames that are too similar to other existing Wikipedia accounts. If you have attempted to create an account but are having trouble with the CAPTCHA image verification step (perhaps because you are using a screen reader or a browser that does not support images), or if you have chosen a username that is too similar to an existing username, you can request an account be created for you. === Instructions === To request an account using the 'Request an Account' process, please read and follow all of the instructions below: ==== Before you begin ==== Review and understand Wikipedia's Username Policy, as any account request that is in violation of this policy will not be approved. Remember that you should generally only use one Wikipedia account. You are required to disclose all of your alternative and previously-used accounts in your request using the 'Comments' field. Any account requests that show evidence or the indication that you have ownership of an undisclosed account will not be approved. Any requests made with the intention of using the account as an illegitimate alternative (such as to hide edits or conduct, evade or circumvent blocks or sanctions, or cause disruption) will not be approved. Additionally, your attempt(s) may be reported, and may result in additional sanctions. Understand that this is not the place to request assistance with the deletion or recovery of any existing accounts. If you have forgotten your password, and you did not register your account with an e-mail address, then it cannot be recovered. Your only option is to create a new account and request a usurpation of your old username. Register an email address if you do not have one. You must verify your email address in order to complete your account request. Your account must also have your email address in order for it to be recovered in the event that you lose the ability to access it. ==== When you are ready to begin ==== Click the ""Request an account"" link below, and a wizard will help with assisting you. If you're directed to complete a form in order to request an account, fill out all fields. Check your e-mail inbox for updates and further instructions regarding your account request. If your request is approved and your account has been created successfully, you will receive an automated e-mail from wikiwikimedia.org with your username and a randomly-generated password to your new account. You can use these credentials to log in, where you will then be prompted to create a new password. If there are problems with your request, you will receive an email with an explanation and the reason your account request could not be approved. You are welcome to submit a new account request using a different username. === Didn't receive your account update email? === We hope to process an account request the same day of its submission. However, it is not uncommon for requests to take 2-3 days depending on the work load and volume of requests currently pending review. In rare cases (such as server downtime or the sudden submission of an extremely high amount of legitimate account requests), requests may take longer. Please be patient; your request will be processed as soon as possible. Before submitting a new request or inquiring about the progress of your current request: Check your email's ""spam"" folder. Most often, the email was mistakenly flagged as spam. Verify that the account update email wasn't accidentally moved or otherwise triggered by any email filters or rules that you have set up for your inbox. Check all of your directories and sub-directories, and search for wikiwikimedia.org to see if it arrived. Did you request an account using an email address from Gmail? Your ACC request update may have been automatically filtered into one of the five default Category tabs that are enabled by default (usually the ""Social"" or ""Promotions"" category). Check each category and verify that the email wasn't automatically routed from your inbox and into one of them. Try recovering the account that you requested. If your request was approved and you just didn't receive the email containing your temporary password, you can have a new password generated and emailed to you by filling out Wikipedia's password reset form. === === If you need any further information, please ask at the talk page. To become an interface user who acts on requests, please see the guide." 435 441 979 WP:YEARS Wikipedia:WikiProject Years 435 "WikiProject Years is a project dedicated to improving all year-related articles on Wikipedia. We cover all year, decade, century, and millennia articles and their subarticles. Our scope is incredibly large, so we rely a lot on automated bots to do more tedious tasks. This WikiProject's first aim was primarily to formalize the unofficial standard used for creating year pages. A standard was created and then transferred to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. The project still conceivably has responsibility for maintaining/improving that standard. The project currently oversees all year articles, (e.g. 1345, 2008), decade articles, century articles, and millennia articles, as well as their sub-articles (e.g. 2008 in sports). The parent of this WikiProject is the WikiProject Time. WikiProject Current events WikiProject Years in science (inactive) The various ""years in (foo)"" pages need their own project pages as well. +sj + 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Days of the Year Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines (inactive) Wikipedia:WikiProject History Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year (inactive)(Also, since year articles cover science, philosophy, arts, literature, and other subjects, this project has connections to several other projects not listed.) The collaboration of the week is 2022 in religion Expanding of recent year-in articles Pages can still be rescued even when the project becomes inactive Categories for discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2021 floods in South America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2021 floods in Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in South America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2019 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2019 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2019 floods in Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2018 floods in Oceania (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion(281 more...)Featured list candidates 08 Feb 2023 – List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by EN-Jungwon (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees 28 Mar 2023 – 2001 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Thebiguglyalien (t · c); start discussionRequests for comments 24 Feb 2023 – Tornadoes of 2023 (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Elijahandskip (t · c); see discussionPeer reviews 27 Jan 2023 – 10th millennium BC (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by FerdinandLovesLegos (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged 11 Mar 2023 – History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s by Historyday01 (t · c); see discussion 11 Mar 2023 – Animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s by Historyday01 (t · c); see discussion 11 Mar 2023 – Animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s by Historyday01 (t · c); see discussion 11 Mar 2023 – Animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s by Historyday01 (t · c); see discussion 25 Nov 2022 – Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present by Aplucas0703 (t · c); see discussion 25 Nov 2022 – List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s by Aplucas0703 (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split 26 Sep 2022 – 2022 in sports (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Tymewalk (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation 23 Mar 2023 – Draft:Timeline of Old Calabar history (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Philipakoda (t · c) The WP:YEARS department that assesses articles for quality and importance can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Assessment. If you are interested in assessment and review, please add your name to the list of reviewers on the assessment page. ==== Current status ==== There is a bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.Popular pages lists top Years articles with the most frequent views. It is updated monthly. === Inactive Participants === FAs GAs 1346DYKs 1345 2021 in China === Year in Topic boxes === Each century has a different year in topic box, depending on how much information is available in Wikipedia. The following have been created so far: {{C21YearInTopic}} {{C20YearInTopic}} {{C19YearInTopic}} {{C18YearInTopic}} {{C17YearInTopic}} {{C16YearInTopic}} {{C15YearInTopic}} {{C14YearInTopic}} {{C13YearInTopic}} {{C12YearInTopic}} {{C11YearInTopic}} {{M1YearInTopic}}The last one is for the whole 1st millennium (1-1000 AD). However it has not yet been decided how many there should be. See talk page and survey for discussions. August 2005 survey results Warning: The following example is a bare bones idea of how a year page should look. If you believe something is missing want to add it to ""2004"", please don't edit this page but go to 2004. === Infobox === Each year should have an infobox at the top right. The templates will be the template {{Year box}} followed by the template {{C21YearInTopic}} (or applicable centuries template, see above). {{Year box}} {{C21YearInTopic}} === Intro section === The first sentence in the introduction explains that the page is for a year and not a number. This statement should only be included if the number is on the List of numbers page. The second introduction sentence will describe the year (a link to a calendar) and the type of calendar the year belongs to. The following sentence lists any official designation the year has. For articles containing year summaries, the intro summarizes the year as a whole in a manner consistent with WP:LEAD. {{about|the year|the number|2004 (number)}} '''2004''' is a [[leap year starting on Thursday]] of the [[Gregorian calendar]]. It was designated the: *''International Year of [[Rice]]'' (by the [[United Nations]]) *''International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against [[Slavery]] and its Abolition'' (by [[UNESCO]]) *''Year of the Monkey'' (by the [[Chinese calendar]]) '''See [[The world in 2004]] for a description of the state of the world in this year.''' === Sections === === Events === The events section is divided into months; each month has a calendar at the beginning and lists any important events that occurred. The month header once linked to the particular month in the year (e.g. January 2004), but no longer does. Each item links to the day. == Events == ===January=== * [[January 3]] – [[Flash Airlines Flight 604]] crashes into the [[Red Sea]] off the coast of [[Egypt]], killing all 148 aboard. * [[January 4]] ** [[Mikhail Saakashvili]] wins the presidential elections in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]. ** [[NASA]]'s [[MER-A]] (''Spirit'') lands on [[Mars (planet)|Mars]]. ===February=== * [[February 1]] – A [[hajj]] stampede in [[Mina, Saudi Arabia|Mina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], kills 251 pilgrims. ===March=== ===April=== ===May=== ===June=== ===July=== ===August=== ===September=== ===October=== ===November=== ===December=== === Category === Add any such timeline articles to the timelines category for that year. eg Category:2019-related timelines. and also the timelines category for years for that topics. eg Category: Political timelines by year. === Summary of year === A summary of the year may follow the timeline, describing events of the year. Be sure to cite everything in this section. === Births section === The Births section lists notable births in that year, divided into month sections. Each entry links to the day page, has a very short description of the person, and links to the death year if known. == Births == ===January=== * [[January 21]] ** [[Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway]] ** [[another name]], American author (d. [[2005]]) * [[January 31]] – [[another name]], Polonesian King (d. [[2003]]) ===February=== === Deaths section === The deaths section begins with a see also statement, and follows the same format as the births section: Month section, day link, name, and birth year link if known. == Deaths == '''For more deaths see: [[Deaths in 2004]]''' ===January=== * [[January 27]] – [[Jack Paar]], American television show host (b. [[1918]]) ===December=== * [[December 28]] ** [[Jerry Orbach]], American actor (b. [[1935]]) ** [[Susan Sontag]], American writer and activist (b. [[1933]]) === More === It has not yet been decided what else will be included on the year pages. Many currently have sections for awards, fiction, see also, references, external links etc. These sections may be removed (or more likely moved to a separate page to be included on the infobox) later, but for now the following form can be followed to close out the page. ==External links== {{commonscat|2004}} [[Category:2004| ]] === Notable world leaders === A gallery of notable leaders states and organisations are included in decade articles. In general, only leaders in power for over two years within the decade and current leaders should be listed, with a maximum of three per state or organisation. Leaders are ordered alphabetically by their associated state or organisation. Within each state, list monarchs first, then other types. Within each type, list in chronological order." 436 442 982 WP:ORS Wikipedia:Objective sources 436 Please remember that the website, news program, and newsletter that you find reliable and often use to get information may not be viewed the same by other editors of Wikipedia. In these situations it is best to find an objective source which corroborates your favored source. Many times discussions on whether to include information into articles turns on whether it can be reliably sourced. Often the discussion may proceed like this: Editor 1: Has this been reported anywhere? We need a reliable source.Editor 2: Yes, I saw it last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.Editor 1: Olbermann!? That's not a reliable source, that guy lies all the time and has a bias against X in any case.Editor 2: That's not true, and besides most of the information on that program is true anyway. You don't have to like the source, it only needs to be reliable.Although editor 2 may be correct in reading the letter of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources, another response, which would have garnered more good faith, and would be more preferable would have been this: Editor 2: Fine, you don't like Olbermann, but he was reporting on something that was in the AP, and I can find the story in my local newspaper.Or Editor 2: Although I think the information is reliably sourced, I'll wait to find a source that we both agree is reliable, like the newspaper or AP. Although you will find some users who think a mainstream newspaper like the New York Times is unreliable, this essay is not meant to lend credence to claims of liberal/conservative bias in the news media. However, even in mainstream print media editors should be aware of the difference between items in the editorial columns and items in the news section. Specifically if an item is in a special column, editorial or op-ed piece, editors should look for corroborating information in the news section. Further, although there are many authors, pundits, celebrities, and journalists that may garner trust and the aura of reliability as their views fit in line with yours, that does not necessarily mean that they also pass the tests for reliable sourcing. For example, Al Franken's book is not the best source on whether Bill O'Reilly actually grew up in Levittown. Rather than using Al Franken's book, a copy of the Country Recorder would be more objective and suitable. Further items in the Bill O'Reilly newsletter may seem to be objective and reliably sourced, however, still attempt to find news article relating to the subject before using the newsletter as a source. Nothing in this essay is meant to comment on the veracity of the authors in question. It is only to point out that the motives of the individual may cause the fudging of important details which would add context to a situation. This would make ordinarily reliably sourced information less reliable. In this era of 24 hour news channels sometimes the distinction between what is news and what is commentary can be blurred. It is important for editors here to know the difference between what is being reported and what is simply rumor and innuendo provided by the host of the news commentary program. To that end, it is probably in the editor's best interest to not source items to these programs although they may feel that these programs are trustworthy. Simply because you saw something on Greta Van Susteren, does not necessarily mean that you are getting an objective review of what actually happened. In these cases, it is in the editor's best interest to review what more objective sources, like the AP or Reuters are reporting. Although news commentary shows like Nancy Grace, Scarborough Country, Hannity and Colmes, and the O'Reilly Factor will often engage in serious discussion of current news, it is important for the editor to distinguish that these shows often have an open agenda. Granted these shows do not fall into the category of extremist sources, however, the agenda of the program may color the presentation of certain information. Therefore, it is advisable that editors refrain from using these shows as primary sources for information not sourced elsewhere. In addition, editors should be mindful that programs which discuss news, but are primarily comedic in nature, like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show, should not be used as a source unless it is in reference to something occurring during the show. Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These includes blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example, the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog. If the article can only be accessed through the blog, perhaps the editor should explain in the citations where the article is from and state that the Post is only hosting it. Likewise, the Drudge Report and other websites similar to it, although not blogs per se, may often contain breaking news which has not been reported in the mainstream media. It is advisable for editors to simply wait until it is reported in the mainstream media. If it is truly something of note, it will be reported somewhere in the media in due time. Wikipedia:Check your facts, essay Wikipedia:Common knowledge, essay Wikipedia:Independent sources, essay Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith 437 443 984 WP: RINGS Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth 437 "Welcome to the Middle-earth WikiProject's main page. This Wikiproject was created on 23 November 2005 and activated and merged with the Silmarillion WikiProject on 1 March 2006. This project is an effort to bring order, class, and professionalism to all Tolkien-related articles and media. These include Tolkien's writings, film adaptations of his works, and other works inspired by Tolkien. If you are interested in joining this collaborated wikiproject, please see the participants section and sign your name to join. You must also sign your name on the roll call whenever the announcement springs up in the talk page. This is usually at the top of the named roll call section. This is primarily for the uses of current active participation. All participants who wish to leave the project please remove your name from the list and add it to the template hosted below active participation page. === Mission statement === Our mission is to focus collaboratively on efforts to promote interaction, co-operation, and communication among members in order to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Tolkien's legendarium. For examples of articles that have reached an elited state of class see below. === Scope === Our members cover articles that have anything to do with a range of the following: Tolkien's novels, characters, places, plots, etc. film adaptations. Tolkien-related books, resources, or media. === Goals === Our goals include: To standardize Tolkien-related articles to follow this WikiProject's style guidelines To follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, to reduce what should not be done. To improve Tolkien-related articles up to Good Article, Featured Article/or Featured List You may wish to add your name to the list of participants. === What you should do === Fix mistakes. Take a look at the discussion links and contribute what you can. Follow the Standards for this WikiProject, as well as the Wikipedia's Manual of Style page. Cite your sources. Follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. ""Be bold in updating pages, but do not be reckless!"" === What you should not do === Anything that Wikipedia is not follows here as well. No point-of-view, please! No speculation, no assumptions, no fan theories. No Original Research, no unsourced claims. No vandalism, and no revert wars either, see the discussion page for details to sort out any quarrels you may have with others peacefully. === Improve Outline of Middle-earth === The outline of Middle-earth is a centralized navigation hub for the subject of Middle-earth, arranged as a hierarchical topics list. It is part of Wikipedia's outline system which is one of Wikipedia's contents systems. It was built as a ""reverse outline"", a structural model of existing work, which in addition to being a summary of the work, can reveal the gaps and other weaknesses for revision purposes. Please look it over and fill-in missing topics. If Wikipedia has an article or article section about those topics, please add links to them. === Accomplishments === ==== Featured articles and lists ==== J. R. R. Tolkien — was featured on the front page on 15 November, 2006 Beowulf and Middle-earth — was featured on the front page on 25 February, 2022 The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) — was featured on the front page on 15 November, 2011 The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II — was featured on the front page on 2 March, 2013 List of accolades received by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy ==== Good articles ==== TolkienSome 170 articles, including: The Lord of the Rings The Hobbit Battle of the Pelennor Fields The Scouring of the Shire The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen Saruman Quenya The Great War and Middle-earth Christianity in Middle-earth Naming of weapons in Middle-earth J. R. R. Tolkien's influences Themes of The Lord of the Rings Poetry in The Lord of the Rings Impression of depth in The Lord of the RingsDerivative works Figwit The Lord of the Rings (film series) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game) Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Wikipedia:WikiProject Films Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels Please award this star to whoever has contributed a great amount to Middle-earth related articles." 438 444 987 WP:TEAMWORK Wikipedia:Collaborations 438 "To improve the quality of articles that are short or lacking in detail, Wikipedia's community takes part in collaboration to expand and improve articles. A collaboration on an article may be chosen by a group of users interested in the topic (WikiProjects) for a period of time (a week, fortnight, or month) or random editors coming together under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing. The Bold–refine process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Collaboration takes place in all areas. Organised collaborations may take place on specific topics or subjects (e.g. cinema, cryptography, or science), and regional focuses (e.g. India or Africa). These organised collaborations are set up in conjunction with related WikiProjects or WikiPortals. Some have taken on other functional areas, such as translations of foreign-language articles, or book reporting. A few even focus on Wikipedia maintenance issues, rather than substantive additions. Collaborations can also range in the scope and aim of their work—most attempt to raise articles from stub level to comprehensive articles, while others attempt to polish larger articles until they reach featured status. One of the attractions of Wikipedia is that editing is collaborative. Anyone may edit an article, and anyone may edit another person's edits. Therefore, more than one person is able to contribute to an article, which has the advantages that the article may be developed more quickly than if it were just one person writing it, and the article has the experience of many contributors. Create the main collaboration page at Wikipedia:Collaborationname. (See Starting a new page) Create an outline on your collaboration page: Most collaborations have the following content: introductory overview text; Template:COTWs; a notice of the current collaborations; links to subpages listing previous collaborations and failed nominations; selection process rules; directions for nominating articles; the list of nominees; a list of the templates used by the collaboration; and a list of relevant collaborations on other projects. Identify topical areas within the scope of your collaboration: A good way to do this is to copy the listings of Special:Whatlinkshere for the most important articles related to your project. If possible, link to a sample article to let other Wikipedians see what the collaboration hopes to achieve. Advertise! Create a collaboration notice template, and insert it at the top of the article page in case of ""current notices"" and the talk page for nominated collaborations. Post a notice at the Village Pump to alert potential new members. You could also notify any appropriate WikiProject Look at the history of contributors to articles that fall within your collaboration's topical area. Many of them might consider joining your collaboration if you leave a message on their talk page. Find prospective members on IRC at Libera Chat in the general #wikipedia-en connect discussion channel. Collaborate! === Templates === See Category:Wikipedia Collaboration templates for collaboration templatesMost collaborations use templates to mark the current collaboration and candidates for future collaborations. The template marking the current collaboration should be placed at the top of the article in question. If a collaboration project is abandoned or neglected (such as left for twice as long as an article is scheduled to be current), the template should be removed from the current article and the collaboration marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}. Candidacy templates should be on the talk page. As talk page templates these candidacy ones should use the Coffee Roll format established at Template standardisation, or be incorporated into a WikiProject template. Wikipedia:Articles for improvement Wikipedia:Editing Weekend Wikipedia:Collaboration first {{CotM}} - talkpage template for Collaborations of the Month" 439 445 988 WP:WIGAD Wikipedia:What isn't grounds for article deletion 439 "There have been a number of AfD nominations in recent months suggesting that articles should be deleted, for example, due to ""lack of sources"" or being ""badly written."" As long as the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, the article should never, ever, ever be deleted. Even if the whole article is a copyright violation, remove the violation and turn it back into a stub. If there are no sources, add citation requests to the article and work on finding sources. If it is badly written, rewrite it! Another issue is the use of essays like this one as grounds for the deletion of an article. Many Wikipedians have made statements such as ""Delete per WP:Fancruft."" This is, of course, ridiculous: Fancruft is an essay, not a guideline. Wikipedia does have guidelines for how various sorts of ""cruft"" should be treated, and thus citing an essay (falsely) as a Wikipedia rule is unnecessary." 440 446 990 WP:ASUE Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force 440 "The Lemony Snicket task force is a group of Wikipedians formed to better organize information in articles related to Lemony Snicket and A Series of Unfortunate Events. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this task force will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page, see the to do list, or simply keep on eye on the Lemony Snicket task force watchlist. If you would like to join the Lemony Snicket task force, click the ""edit"" link to the right and add your username below in alphabetical order using #{{user|USERNAME}}. You are also encouraged to join WikiProject Novels. If you decide to leave the task force, please remove your name from the list below. === Active members === AJ Mory (talk · contribs) Mr. Anon515 (talk · contribs) Anthonyelder23 (talk · contribs) Bilorv (talk · contribs) Charles Snicket (talk · contribs) CrabFreak (talk · contribs) CyberGhostface (talk · contribs) Cymru.lass (talk · contribs) Dustkateb (talk · contribs) Emma Jane A. (talk · contribs) HiddenHand (talk · contribs) Frickative (talk · contribs) Gloryify (talk · contribs) Iuio (talk · contribs) Mr. Random (talk · contribs) Nicole A. Jenkins (talk · contribs) Nyswimmer (talk · contribs) OneWeirdDude (talk · contribs) Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs) Peacegirl670 (talk · contribs) Rident (talk · contribs) Sillybillypiggy (talk · contribs) Spittlespat (talk · contribs) Starkiller88 (talk · contribs) TechFilmer (talk · contribs) Terciel (talk · contribs) The Man in Question (talk · contribs) The Shadow-Fighter (talk · contribs) Tonnatwajes (talk · contribs) WittyQuote (talk · contribs) Kirananils (talk · contribs) Good afternoon (talk · contribs) TuorEladar (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC) === Inactive members === ACBest (talk · contribs) Baroques (talk · contribs) Clamster5 (talk · contribs) EoinMahon (talk · contribs) Gruesome Pet (talk · contribs) Hortensio (talk · contribs) Ladywitchthought (talk · contribs) Orthologist (talk · contribs) Melie (talk · contribs) === Supporters === Glimmer721 (talk · contribs) Kevinalewis (talk · contribs) – representing WP:Novels; assisting as experienced editor Minecraftpsyco (talk · contribs) Wham Bam Rock II (talk · contribs) WP:NOVELS Lemony Snicket task force which is concerned with any article related to the various works of fiction (games, films, books) by Lemony Snicket. === Goals === To improve the general standard of articles pertaining to Lemony Snicket. To establish a style guide in furtherance of this. To establish a general standard of notability for these articles. To improve the quality of information within these articles. To organize information in an efficient and appealing manner. To get articles promoted to featured === Featured content === === Good articles === This advertisement is for use in user pages and user talk pages only. Failure to act accordingly might result in you getting blocked. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force/Advertisement}} Category:Lemony Snicket Category:A Series of Unfortunate Events Category:A Series of Unfortunate Events characters Category:Works by Lemony Snicket Category:Books in A Series of Unfortunate Events Category:Lemony Snicket task force (et al.) (Category:Daniel Handler) Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm. We would like to ask you to review the Lemony Snicket task force articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th. We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)" 441 447 992 WP:RSFS Wikipedia:Reliable sources for software articles 441 The Wikipedia articles should rely on and reference reliable sources. Being an essay, this document provides a commentary on application of corresponding policy to the articles about software. Software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console. The sources of unquestionable reliability simply do not exist; though generally the following criteria define the source that would likely be seen as reliable by the majority of editors: The books, scientific papers and mass-media articles by the authors who are both generally accepted as the experts in the field and are independent from the topic of the article. The books, mass-media articles and blogs, published by the people and organizations with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The articles in the online media, which is generally accepted as a reliable source of software-related information. The choice of sources should heavily rely on the material they are supposed to support. === Primary sources === The primary sources should be used with care. Though the authors of software possess the deepest possible knowledge of the software's features and implementations, their approach to sharing information can be heavily influenced with the goals of promoting the software. Avoid using the primary sources for commercially available software description. The primary sources should not be used if the issue is argued in the third-party sources. In cases when such arguments are encountered, the claims of primary sources can only be cited in combination with independent third-party sources explicitly supporting such claims. If the style of the source appears to be promotional, this source should not be cited. Never use primary sources to support the claims about the software's reception (such as popularity or user base). === User communities === The games' fan sites and user communities can be a valuable source of the in-depth information about the software. Still, such sources ordinarily lack any editorial control and may contain the false information, so generally they should not be cited until the statement they are supposed to prove is not cited elsewhere; even in that case such information should be removed from the article if anyone expresses doubts about its inaccuracy. Never cite forum posts and the writings by unknown authors. Avoid quoting such sites or reusing quotes from there. === Directories and download sites === The sites that are supposed to inform users about the existence of software or provide downloads (such as Softpedia or SourceForge) can only prove the availability and release dates of the software, though primary sources are still preferable in determining these facts. The publishers' descriptions on such sites should be considered yet less reliable than the primary sources. The editors' reviews in such sources should be used carefully. A software repository may describe the software's feature set, edited independently of the software's own publisher. === Online media and blogs === The decision to cite an online media should be based on its reputation for fact-accuracy and depth of coverage, which should match the claim's impact on the article. The important claims should be backed with solid, undisputable reputation. Nevertheless, if the source has a known, widely acknowledged bias, the same rules as for the primary sources should be applied to the material that is related to such bias. It is also important to make difference between the blog, hosted by reputable mass media source, and the mass media source itself: being a blog post, the cited source may or may not be subject to editorial overview and/or reputation of the source for fact checking, independence of the top and other properties of publisher, which make it reliable. The less important are the claims, the less strict rules should apply. E.g., the claims about product X being criticized for reason Y could be supported by virtually any source, including the uncontroversial Slashdot posts, reputable blogs (e.g. Lifehacker) and local newspapers. The sources specializing in the field of computing and software should be generally considered more reliable than the general public sources. The editor of Washington Post is likely to possess less knowledge of the software topic than the editor of Ars Technica. Thus the description of the features, algorithms or implementations of the software should be supported with the sources known for better understanding of such details. The mailing list and developer conferences (like FOSDEM) closely related to the subject are a valuable source of community-reviewed information from the people and organizations with the in-depth knowledge of the subject. Though, reading the whole thread of a mailing list discussion (or the reviews of the conference) before actually citing the material may save a lot of editors' time and effort. 442 449 995 WP:HIJACKING Wikipedia:Don't hijack references 442 "Sometimes you make an edit, in which information is altered or added to a page, when the previous information was referenced. Now, that's all right; not all references are accurate, new information can become available, and so on. However, in many cases, the altered or added information will be altered or added in such a manner that the citation referencing the previous information, appears to be referencing the new information as well. Altering numbers, as in census results, climate data, or production total tables, is a common example of this ""reference hijacking""; less common, but still happening often enough to be noticed, is slipping in additional prose text inside a sentence that is followed by the citation tag. These are often good-faith errors by newbies, who simply overlook the existence, or don't know the purpose, of the tags. While it can be passed as a mistake, this trick is, however, also a favourite tactic of vandals. Bottom line: don't hijack references. When changing referenced content, add a new reference, or remove the original reference if it's erroneous and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag, preferably an explained one {{citation needed|reason=your explanation of the issue}}, and with an edit summary repeating the same explanation of the issue. Don't change the numbers in the table and leave the original reference for the entire table; do the same as you would in the first case mentioned. When adding wholly new information, make sure you are not adding it just before an existing tag. Adding new information in the middle of a paragraph that used a single citation at the end is admittedly tricky, and a good argument for ""don't reference a whole paragraph to one cite at the end"". But still, if you're adding something: cite it! The usual solution to adding new information to a paragraph that had only one source is to move the citation to before your insertion, add your new material with a new citation, and add a short repeat citation to the original source at the end of the paragraph. Another approach is to use repeat citations for each sentence in the paragraph other than your addition with its own source. WP:Citing sources § Text–source integrity – the Wikipedia guideline on the matter WP:Citation underkill and WP:Why most sentences should be cited - essays suggesting to cite every sentence WP:Cuckoo editing" 443 450 999 WP:AUTISM Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism 443 Welcome to WikiProject Autism. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Autism and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please add yourself as a participant in the project, inquire on the talk page, and see the to-do list, below. To improve the overall quality of articles relating to autism and the culture of those on the Autism Spectrum. To encourage collaboration and the formation of a community of those on the Autism Spectrum and interested non-autistic Wikipedians. To achieve a consensus from a wider group on what are sometimes controversial topics, emphasizing a representation from people on the Autism Spectrum. To improve the relevant content from all regions of the world. To integrate all of the articles into a consistent classification schema (e.g. category hierarchies) Articles relating to the autism spectrum Articles about someone who is publicly known to be autistic Articles about organizations and groups who support or advocate for autism Articles about organizations and groups who mistreat or have prejudice against autistic people Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on autism, politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling/editing this sort of topic. Citation is your gateway to adding a sentence or paragraph. Do not copy original text as-is; you must reword them as neutrally and non-offensively as possible. To add your name here, place the WikiProject Autism userbox on your user page (please do not place on a subpage, as it will look weird on the list. After adding it, click to refresh this list. Feel free to tag autism-related articles by placing the following text at the top of their talk pages: {{WikiProject Autism}}. === Article alerts === === Recognised content === ==== Featured articles ==== Amphetamine • Bupropion • Coeliac disease • Digital media use and mental health • Dustbin Baby (film) • From the Doctor to My Son Thomas • Ketogenic diet • Courtney Love • Lisa Nowak • Schizophrenia • Tourette syndrome • Kate Winslet ==== Former featured articles ==== Asperger syndrome • Autism • Down syndrome ==== Good articles ==== 17q12 microdeletion syndrome • Adderall • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder • Augmentative and alternative communication • Barfi! • Drew Carey • Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services • Cognitive flexibility • Crohn's disease • Disability Day of Mourning • Diver communications • Down syndrome • Dyslexia • Epilepsy • Imprinted brain hypothesis • JJ (Skins series 3) • Prince John of the United Kingdom • Joint attention • Koi... Mil Gaya • Jason McElwain • Mental status examination • Methamphetamine • Elon Musk • Pathlight School • Postal (comics) • Power Rangers (film) • Michael Savage • Speech-generating device • Thiomersal and vaccines • Greta Thunberg ==== Former good articles ==== 2010 Autism Speaks 400 • Attachment therapy • Roseanne Barr • Borderline personality disorder • Eugenics • MDMA • Social anxiety disorder ==== Did you know? articles ==== 17q12 microdeletion syndrome (2021-02-25) • Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (2005-04-03) • Animal model of autism (2013-12-18) • Paul Ashwood (2013-11-01) • Aspergirls (2014-09-20) • Autism Act 2009 (2009-12-12) • Autism Cymru (2012-09-24) • Autism Every Day (2006-06-08) • Autism Is a World (2005-02-25) • Autism: The Musical (2008-04-03) • Autism's False Prophets (2008-11-19) • The Autistic Brain (2021-01-15) • Biola Tak Berdawai (2011-09-21) • Bethany Black (2008-07-02) • Susan Boyle (2009-04-22) • Michael Burry (2010-04-06) • Children of the Stars (2010-09-14) • The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play) (2013-05-15) • Digital media use and mental health (2019-09-05) • Disability Day of Mourning (2021-03-30) • Dustbin Baby (film) (2008-12-27) • Dyslexia (2015-04-06) • Empathy quotient (2016-05-21) • From the Doctor to My Son Thomas (2014-12-27) • Raphael Gray (2009-05-16) • Mette Ivie Harrison (2018-06-21) • Todd Hodgetts (2012-08-27) • Imprinted brain hypothesis (2021-03-06) • JJ (Skins series 3) (2009-07-20) • Joint attention (2012-04-10) • Illana Katz (2008-12-03) • Mitchell Kilduff (2012-08-29) • Lindsay Mason (2014-05-30) • McGurk effect (2011-12-06) • Methamphetamine (2005-11-03) • Elon Musk (2021-06-15) • Normal People Scare Me (2009-10-08) • Lisa Nowak (2020-10-23) • Parent management training (2014-11-16) • Power Rangers (film) (2018-01-11) • Eric Schopler (2006-07-18) • Sensory friendly (2022-08-22) • Strange Son (2011-09-07) • Greta Thunberg (2019-01-02) • Magdalene Visaggio (2019-09-09) • Emily Willingham (2013-11-26) ==== Featured pictures ==== File:Dustbin Baby- April in the graveyard.jpg ==== Good article nominees ==== Communication • Gary Numan ==== In the News articles ==== Julian Assange (1969-12-31) • Prince Azim of Brunei (2020-10-26) • William Christopher (2017-01-01) • Robert Durst (2022-01-10) • Dave Greenfield (2020-05-05) • Adrian Lamo (2018-03-17) • MMR vaccine and autism (2010-02-02) • Terry Nichols (2004-03-24) • Tara Palmer-Tomkinson (2017-02-10) • Oliver Sacks (2015-08-30) • Andrew Wakefield (2011-01-06) ==== Main page featured articles ==== Amphetamine (2015-04-03) • Asperger syndrome (2004-04-17) • Autism (2005-08-24) • Bupropion (2007-12-21) • Coeliac disease (2008-05-18) • Digital media use and mental health (2019-11-06) • Down syndrome (2006-12-05) • Dustbin Baby (film) (2011-02-26) • From the Doctor to My Son Thomas (2016-11-07) • Ketogenic diet (2010-01-17) • Courtney Love (2017-04-02) • Schizophrenia (2005-10-24) • Tourette syndrome (2020-03-03) • Kate Winslet (2019-10-05) ==== Picture of the day pictures ==== File:Dustbin Baby- April in the graveyard.jpg (2011-09-25) ==== Level 2 vital articles ==== Communication ==== Level 3 vital articles ==== Disability • Friendship • Mental disorder ==== Level 4 vital articles ==== Amphetamine • Attention • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder • Autism spectrum • Behaviorism • Jeremy Bentham • Bullying • Henry Cavendish • Charles XII of Sweden • Paul Dirac • Down syndrome • Dyslexia • Empathy • Epilepsy • Intellectual disability • Interpersonal relationship • Introspection • Jigsaw puzzle • Oxytocin • Psychiatry • Schizophrenia • Vaccine hesitancy • Visual impairment === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Autism-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,500 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. === Assessment === Assessment === Peer review === Peer review === Statistics === === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Disability WikiProject Psychology WikiProject Medicine's Psychiatry task force === Sister project links === Projet Autisme [Project Autism] on French Wikipedia วิกิพีเดีย โครงการวิกิออทิซึม [Autism WikiProject] on Thai Wikipedia 444 451 1001 WP:MASSCREATION Wikipedia:Bot policy 444 "The bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work. It also covers the work of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective on behalf of the English Wikipedia community. Other languages may have their own bot policies which differ from this one. Bots (short for ""robots"") generally make automated changes or actions. After launching the bot, an assumption can be made that there is no further need for human decision-making. Assisted or semi-automated editing covers specifically lower-speed tools and scripts that can assist users to make decisions but leave the actual decision up to the user (see Assisted editing guidelines below). Scripts are personalized scripts (typically, but not always, written in JavaScript) that may automate processes, or may merely enhance the existing MediaWiki interface. The Bot Approvals Group (BAG) is a group of users with appropriate technical skills and wiki-experience, whose members are approved by the community to oversee and make decisions on bot activity and on-wiki operation for the community. The BAG also determine the classification as bot or assisted editing, in ambiguous cases. Formal work by MediaWiki developers is outside the scope of this policy. Because bots: are potentially capable of editing far faster than humans can; and have a lower level of scrutiny on each edit than a human editor; and may cause severe disruption if they malfunction or are misused;the community expects bots to meet high standards before they are approved for use on designated tasks. The operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in ways outside their approved conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator. Note that high-speed semi-automated editing may effectively be considered bots in some cases (see WP:MEATBOT), even if performed by a human editor. If in doubt, check. === Bot accounts === Contributors should create a separate account in order to operate a bot. The account's name should identify the bot function (e.g. Bot), or the operator's main account (e.g. Bot). In all cases, it should be immediately clear that the edits are made by an automated account, which is usually achieved by including Bot at the end of the account name. Bots must edit only while logged into their account. Tools not considered to be bots do not require a separate account, but some users do choose to make separate accounts for non-bot but high-speed editing. The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot. Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks. In particular, bot operators should not use a bot account to respond to messages related to the bot. Bot operators may wish to redirect a bot account's discussion page to their own. ==== The ""bot"" flag ==== Bot accounts will be marked by a bureaucrat as being in the ""bot"" user group upon BAG request. This flag reduces some of the technical limits imposed by the MediaWiki software. Edits by such accounts are hidden by default within recent changes. Bot accounts may also be added to the ""copyviobot"" user group upon BAG request; this flag allows use of the API to add metadata to edits for use in the new pages feed. ==== Activity requirements ==== Bot accounts that have had no logged actions or edits for two years, where the listed operator has also had no logged actions or edits for two years, will be deauthorized. Following a one-week notification period on the bots noticeboard, and the operator's talk page, prior task approvals will be considered expired and bot flags will be removed. Should the operator return and wish to reactivate the bot, a new request for approval (BRFA) must be completed. ==== Bots directed to edit by other users ==== Some bots allow other editors to direct the bot to make an edit or other action. It is recommended and preferable to use OAuth to make the edit on the user's account directly. However, it can be permissible to instead make these edits via a bot account (particularly if necessary due to the actions being privileged), provided the following conditions are met: Disclosure: The identity of the Wikipedia user directing the edit/action must be publicly disclosed, typically by linking the username in the edit summary. Verification: The identity of the Wikipedia user must be reliably verified to the bot in a manner not easily faked, bypassed or avoided. Suitable methods include a non-trivial password, IP restrictions, wiki login or IRC hostname. If the bot is used to make sensitive actions, stronger methods of verification may be required. Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus. === Bot requirements === In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: is harmless is useful does not consume resources unnecessarily performs only tasks for which there is consensus carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for usersThe bot account's user page should identify the bot as such using the {{bot}} tag. The following information should be provided on, or linked from, both the bot account's userpage and the approval request: Details of the bot's task (or tasks) Whether the bot is manually assisted or runs automatically When it operates (continuously, intermittently, or at specified intervals), and at what rate ==== Performance ==== While performance is not generally an issue, bot operators should recognize that a bot making many requests or editing at a high speed has a much greater effect than the average contributor. Operators should be careful not to make unnecessary Web requests, and be conservative in their editing speed. Sysadmins will inform the community if performance issues of any significance do arise, and in such situations, their directives must be followed. Bots in trial periods, and approved bots performing all but the most urgent tasks, should be run at a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary. Unflagged bots should edit more slowly than flagged bots, as their edits are visible in user watchlists. The urgency of a task should always be considered; tasks that do not need to be completed quickly (for example, renaming categories) can and should be accomplished at a slower rate than those that do (for example, reverting vandalism). Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds. Bots editing at a high speed should operate more slowly during peak hours (12:00–04:00 UTC), and days (middle of the week, especially Wednesdays and Thursdays) than during the quietest times (weekends). Bots' editing speed may also be adjusted based on replica database server lag; this allows bots to edit more quickly during quiet periods while slowing down considerably when server load is high. This can be achieved by appending an extra parameter to the query string of each requested URL; see mw:Manual:Maxlag parameter for more details.Bots that download substantial portions of Wikipedia's content by requesting many individual pages are not permitted. When such content is required, download database dumps instead. Bots that require access to run queries on Wikipedia databases may be run on Wikimedia Toolforge; such processes are outside the scope of this policy. === Good communication === Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any enquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable, so long at it is clear on both the bot page and the bot's talk page that this is where comments should be directed, and that the landing page is not confusing to an English speaker. External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves. This is a condition of operation for all bots. Note that you can enable email notifications of pings and talk page messages in the notification section of your bot account's preferences. === Configuration tips === Bot operators may wish to implement the following features, depending on the nature of the bot's tasks: Bots which deliver notices and newsletters are encouraged to provide a method of opting out of non-critical messages, especially when posting on user talk pages. Instructions for opting out can then be advertised both on the bot user page (example) and on the message delivered (example). Bots which edit many pages, but may need to be prevented from editing particular pages, can do so by interpreting {{Bots}}; see the template page for an explanation of how this works. Bots which ""clean up"" in response to non-vandalism user edits may honor {{in use}} to help avoid edit conflicts, either by checking for the presence of that template (and redirects) or the category Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit. The template's documentation states that a bot that honors {{in use}} may ignore the template if it has been more than 2 hours since the last edit. Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot's operation is useful in some circumstances – the bot can be enabled or disabled without resorting to blocks, and could also be configured in other ways. For example, the bot could check the contents of a particular page and act upon the value it finds there. If desired, such a page could then be protected or semi-protected to prevent abuse. Bot operators doing this should bear in mind that they retain all responsibility for their bot account's edits. To avoid unnecessary blocks, the bot may use assertion to prevent editing if it is logged out. New bots, and bots which have previously edited while logged out, are required to use assertion.Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot. === Restrictions on specific tasks === ==== Categorization of people ==== Assignment of person categories should not be made using a bot. Before adding sensitive categories to articles using a bot, a human should manually check the list of potentially affected articles (see Wikipedia:Categorization of people). ==== Context-sensitive changes ==== Unsupervised bot processes should not make context-sensitive changes that would normally require human attention, as accounting for all possible false positives is generally unfeasible. Exceptionally, such tasks may be allowed if – in addition to having consensus – the operator can demonstrate that no false positives will arise (for example, a one-time run with a complete list of changes from a database dump), or there is community consensus to run the task without supervision (for example, vandalism reversion with a community-accepted false positive rate). Examples of context-sensitive changes include, but are not limited to: Correcting spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes. Converting words from one regional variation of English to another. Applying context-sensitive templates, such as {{weasel word}}. Changing HTML entities to Unicode characters whenever the Unicode character might be difficult to identify visually in edit-mode, per the Manual of Style. ==== Cosmetic changes ==== Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers, screen readers, when printed, in PDFs, or when accessed through other forms of assistive technology (e.g. removing a deleted category, updating a template parameter, changing whitespace in bulleted vertical lists); the ""user-facing interfaces"" of Wikipedia, such as category listing or on-wiki and external search engine results (e.g. changing category sort keys, noindexing, search engine summaries/snippets, or page images); the ""administration of the encyclopedia"", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs (e.g. changing {{citation needed}} to {{citation needed|date=September 2016}}); or egregiously invalid HTML such as unclosed tags, even if it does not affect browsers' display or is fixed before output by RemexHtml (e.g. changing ... to ...)while changes that do not are typically considered cosmetic. Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Consensus can, as always, create exceptions for particular cosmetic edits. For example, the community frequently determines that a particular template should be substituted so it can be deleted, even though the substitution does not change the output of the page. Consensus for a bot to make any particular cosmetic change must be formalized in an approved request for approval. Keep in mind that reverting a cosmetic edit is also a cosmetic edit. If the changes made in a cosmetic edit would otherwise be acceptable as part of a substantive edit, there is no reason to revert them. Report the issue to the bot operator instead. While this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance if making such changes in a bot-like manner. ==== Interwiki links ==== Interwiki bots should add interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on the English Wikipedia, unless the task cannot be performed on Wikidata (such as linking to a section). Interwiki bots may remove interwiki links from English Wikipedia articles only if already present on Wikidata. Globally-approved interwiki bots are permitted to operate on English Wikipedia, subject to local requirements. Interwiki bots running in the Template namespace must ensure links are not transcluded on all pages using the template by placing them in the appropriate documentation subpage section, or non-included portion of the template if no documentation subpage exists. (Bots running on Wikidata need to comply with Wikidata's bot policy.) ==== Mass page creation ==== Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This requirement initially applied to articles, but has since been expanded to include all ""content pages"", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace. These include articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals. While no specific definition of ""large-scale"" was decided, a suggestion of ""anything more than 25 or 50"" was not opposed. It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Bot operators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval. Per a 2022 RfC, all mass-created articles (except those not required to meet WP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individually moved to public facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors. While use of these alternatives does not remove the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large. Note that while the WP:MEATBOT-like creation of non-content pages (such as redirects from systematic names, or maintenance categories) is not required to go through a formal BRFA by default, WP:MEATBOT still applies. === Requests for approval === All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing pages, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved for each of these tasks before they may operate. Bot approval requests should be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval (BRFA). Requests should state precisely what the bot will do, as well as any other information that may be relevant to its operation, including links to any community discussions sufficient to demonstrate consensus for the proposed task(s). In addition, prospective bot operators should be editors in good standing, and with demonstrable experience with the kind of tasks the bot proposes to do. During the request for approval, a member of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) will typically approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly. The terms and extent of such a trial period may be determined by the BAG. Bots should be supervised during trial periods so that any problems may be addressed quickly. The bot operator is responsible for reviewing the edits and repairing any mistakes caused by the bot. The BAG may also approve extended trials should problems arise with the initial trial and until community is confident the bot will function correctly. The request will generally be open for some time during which the community and BAG members may comment or ask questions, and give feedback on the trial. The decision to approve or decline a request should take into account the requirements above, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussions of the request. Consensus formed by a small group on a low-traffic talk page has frequently resulted in controversy when it comes to the attention of the wider community. Bot operators are encouraged and often asked to notify the relevant noticeboards whose areas may be affected or whose expertise in the area could provide useful comments and insight into the proposed task. Once the request has demonstrated its conformance with the community standards and correct technical implementation, the BAG may approve the task. The BAG may also decline a request which fails to demonstrate community consensus to perform the task. Occasionally, the operator may wish to withdraw the task or the BAG may mark a stale request as expired. Closed requests are archived and preserved for future reference. Should the task be approved, the ""bot"" user group flag will be assigned by any bureaucrat and the operator may run the bot as intended. The BAG may also occasionally speedily approve or decline BRFAs without having a trial period. Non-controversial, technically-simple tasks or duplicates of existing tasks, especially if performed by trusted bot operators, can be speedily approved. Similarly, controversial or commonly declined tasks, especially by new editors, may be speedily declined. ==== Valid operations without approval ==== Operators may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox. Such test edits may be made from any user account. In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval. Should bot operators wish to modify or extend the operation of their bots, they should ensure that they do so in compliance with this policy. Small changes, for example to fix problems or improve the operation of a particular task, are unlikely to be an issue, but larger changes should not be implemented without some discussion. Completely new tasks usually require a separate approval request. Bot operators may wish to create a separate bot account for each task. Accounts performing automated tasks without prior approval may be summarily blocked by any administrator. ==== Bots with administrative rights ==== Bots with administrator rights (a.k.a. ""adminbots"") are also approved through the general process. The bot operator must already be an administrator. As with any bot, the approval discussion is conducted on two levels: Community approval for the bot's task. This discussion should take place at an appropriate forum, such as the Administrators' noticeboard or the Village Pump, prior to the BRFA. Without a demonstrated need/want for such an adminbot, the BRFA will either be put on hold until this is demonstrated, or the bot will be denied approval. The technical assessment of the bot's implementation. It is recommended that the source code for adminbots be open, but should the operator elect to keep all or part of the code not publicly visible, they must present such code for review upon request from any BAG member or administrator.To demonstrate the implementation, adminbots should either be run ""dry"" without a 'sysop' bit (if practical), or be run on the operator's main account, with its edits clearly marked as such. When BAG is satisfied that the bot is technically sound, they will approve the bot and recommend that it be given both 'bot' and 'sysop' rights. The bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus (including publicity of approval discussion) underlies the approval. As adminbots have much more destructive potential than regular bots, their operators are expected to monitor them closely during development and trials, including after code updates. Adminbots should be immediately shut down at the first sign of incorrect behavior. Administrators are allowed to run semi-automated admin tools on their own accounts but will be held responsible if those tools go awry. Neglect while running adminbots and tools constitutes tool misuse. If an administrator responsible for one or more adminbots is desysopped, their bots should be immediately desysopped at the same time (except if the administrator voluntarily stepped down in uncontroversial circumstances). === Appeals and reexamination of approvals === Requests for reexamination should be discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. This may include either appeal of denied bot requests, or reexamination of approved bots. In some cases, requests for comment may be warranted. Such an examination can result in: Granting or revoking approval for a bot task; Removing or placing the account into the bot user group; Imposing further operational conditions on the bot to maintain approval status.BAG has no authority on operator behavior, or on the operators themselves. Dispute resolution is the proper venue for that. === Minor malfunctions, complaints, and improvements === If you have noticed a problem with a bot, have a complaint, or have a suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator directly via their user talk page (or via the bot account's talk page). Bot operators are expected to be responsive to the community's concerns and suggestions, but please assume good faith and don't panic. Bugs and mistakes happen, and we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Minor changes and tweaks to the bot behavior usually do not need to be reviewed by the community at large, so long as they do not exceed a reasonable interpretation of the bot's original mandate/BRFA and have consensus. For instance, a bot approved to archive discussions on a specific WikiProject's page does not need another BRFA to change the details of the archiving (e.g. thread age or activity requirements). However, to begin archiving another projects' page the operator should probably submit another BRFA, which might be speedily approved. As another example, a bot originally approved to remove deleted categories from articles would need approval to expand its scope to remove deleted files. === Major malfunctions and complaints === If the bot is causing a significant problem, or the bot operator has not responded and the bot is still causing issues, several mechanisms are available to prevent further disruption. Many bots provide a stop button or means to disable the problematic task on their bot user page. This should be tried first, followed by a discussion of the issue with the bot operator. If no such mechanism is available (or if urgent action is needed), leave a message at the administrators' noticeboard requesting a block for a malfunctioning bot. Per the noticeboard's guideline, you are required to notify the bot operator of the discussion taking place at the noticeboard. If you are concerned that a bot is operating outside the established consensus for its task, discuss the issue with the bot operator first, or try other forms of dispute resolution (BAG members can act as neutral mediators on such matters). If you are concerned that a bot no longer has consensus for its task, you may formally appeal or ask for re-examination of a bot's approval. === Bot-like editing === Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. === Blocking a bot === Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval or the bot policy. A block may also be issued if a bot operates without being logged in to an account, or is logged in to an account other than its own. Bots which are known to edit while logged out should have assertion, or a similar function, added to them. Operators can be notified with {{Bot block message}} (for approved bots that are broken) or {{Uw-botblock}} (after blocking unapproved bots). Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely. === Bot Approvals Group === Members of the group are experienced in writing and running bots, have programming experience, understand the role of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) in the BRFA process, and understand Wikipedia's bot policy. Those interested in joining the group should make a post at WT:BAG explaining why they would be a good member of the team and outlining past experience, and then should advertise the discussion at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOTPOL and WP:BOTN. After seven days, an uninvolved bureaucrat will close the discussion. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG. === Assisted editing guidelines === Assisted editing, also known as semi-automated editing, covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Examples of this include correcting typographical errors, fixing links to disambiguation pages, cleaning up vandalism, and stub sorting. Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired. Editors may wish to indicate consensus for the task, if it is not already clear, in edit summaries and/or on the user or talk page of the account making the contributions. Contributors may wish to create a separate user account in order to do so; such accounts should adhere to the policy on multiple accounts. A bot account should not be used for assisted editing, unless the task has been through a BRFA. While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, semi-automated processes that operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make an approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. Note that any large-scale semi-automated content page creation requires a BRFA. Authors of assisted editing tools are permitted to create their own approval mechanism for that tool; if bot approval is required for use of the tool, this is in addition to, not instead of, the normal approval request process. AutoWikiBrowser is an example of a tool with such a mechanism. Release of the source code for assisted editing tools is, as with bots, encouraged but not required. === User scripts === The majority of user scripts are intended to merely improve or personalize the existing MediaWiki interface, or to simplify access to commonly used functions for editors. Scripts of this kind do not normally require BAG approval. Wikipedia:Global bots policy meta:User-Agent policy Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group Wikipedia:Bot requests Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots Wikipedia:Creating a bot Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots Wikipedia:Types of bots Wikipedia:User access levels meta:Bot policy (not in effect here)" 445 452 1003 WP:INEI Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India 445 Some Wikipedians have formed a project to improve organisation and standardised look and feel of articles related to the Education in India. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there. New articles page contains articles that may be Education in India related. Please add this page your watchlist and monitor the articles. The scope of this article fundamentally is loosely defined as all articles and sections relating to Education in India. Almost all of these will be (eventually) categorised under Category:Education in India and Category:India Creation of a generally standard look and feel for all Education in India-related articles. To produce as many Featured Articles as possible related to Education in India. === Article alerts === Please add your name to this list using # {{user|username}} GargAvinash (talk · contribs) Nitesh003 (talk · contribs) P.Kumar1988 (talk · contribs) TarunSEO21 (talk · contribs) Rajnishsharma360 (talk · contribs) JPskylight (talk · contribs) AnkurHow (talk · contribs) AKS2000 (talk · contribs) Indianwebwiki (talk · contribs) North India pages Prof tpms (talk · contribs) South India pages Szmohitkumar (talk · contribs) Cutest Penguin (talk · contribs) sparkume (talk · contribs) bishwa_777 (talk · contribs) Tashu jal (talk · contribs) C.S.Abishek (talk · contribs) Ranjit78 (talk · contribs) 123sarangi (talk · contribs) Light001 (talk · contribs) Ravitashaw (talk · contribs) Atul1209cambridge (talk · contribs) Aviwaghole (talk · contribs) Harivardhini (talk · contribs) Janendra (talk · contribs) Abhilash18 (talk · contribs) Nikhiltsa (talk · contribs) Jayabharat (talk · contribs) Indwar (talk · contribs) Neurofreak (talk · contribs) balajijagadesh (talk · contribs) Ramesh Ramaiah (talk · contribs) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) Meyvun (talk · contribs) Akviinakash (talk · contribs) Siddhartha Ghai (talk · contribs) Rsrikanth05 (talk · contribs) Logicwiki (talk · contribs) trakesht (talk · contribs) MikeLynch (talk · contribs) Srikarkashyap (talk · contribs) Muhandes (talk · contribs) Abhinay.leo (talk · contribs) SidhardhRamesh (talk · contribs) Abhishek191288 (talk · contribs) Utkarsh1992 (talk · contribs) Aaditya 7 (talk · contribs) subin.a.mathew (talk · contribs) Sarvpriye (talk · contribs) wasifwasif (talk · contribs) Rahulghose (talk · contribs) hariehkr (talk · contribs) Vigneswar Raj (talk · contribs) shashanksingh.1102 (talk · contribs) Whitecirius (talk · contribs) Rajnishbjn1 (talk · contribs) Nitish.game (talk · contribs) Vamiqsalman (talk · contribs) krishbisht (talk · contribs) AshLin (talk · contribs) Adityajoardar9 (talk · contribs) Basit188 (talk · contribs) Abhinav priya (talk · contribs) Sandeep pranavam (talk · contribs) Deepesh2255 (talk · contribs) Nimits1 (talk · contribs) Aravind V R (talk · contribs) Vensatry (talk · contribs) Souravmohanty2005 (talk · contribs) Knowledge Vampire (talk · contribs) Vishwesh.prabhudessai (talk · contribs) Minakshinajardhane (talk · contribs) BengaliHindu (talk · contribs) shinoda.manu (talk · contribs) pulkit1994k (talk · contribs) Meyvun (talk · contribs) itsmesid (talk · contribs) ksanthosh89 (talk · contribs) Lakshman bahadur (talk · contribs) scalebelow (talk · contribs) Tatiraju.rishabh (talk · contribs) Sujitkumarpatil (talk · contribs) Spy99 (talk · contribs) Johnofjln (talk · contribs) Incrazy (talk · contribs) Rahulpattuvam (talk · contribs) Ashwin.64 (talk · contribs) Ashutosh.manager007 (talk · contribs) Govindmaheswaran (talk · contribs) Prahaladhan (talk · contribs) Swatinits (talk · contribs) Ashankm (talk · contribs) Gunjeetsingh90 (talk · contribs) Anshul.genius (talk · contribs) sparkume (talk · contribs) ined2011 (talk · contribs) riyas.bca (talk · contribs) Anshu2212 (talk · contribs) Prav001 (talk · contribs) Anbu121 (talk · contribs) DebashisM (talk · contribs) Amit Jivani (talk · contribs) Vishaltwiki (talk · contribs) Aj3953 (talk · contribs) prasoonk (talk · contribs) Suhebriazsaifi (talk · contribs) Soumitrahazra (talk · contribs) kritidas (talk · contribs) sandeep076 (talk · contribs) Chu86happychu (talk · contribs) NihilisticDumb (talk · contribs) Hhimanshu.mishra (talk · contribs) Gauravpruthi (talk · contribs) Sumeetydv (talk · contribs) Ashwin.64 (talk · contribs) Ankit Abhishek (talk · contribs) bhattacharjee.santanoo (talk · contribs) Ee10b114 (talk · contribs) Niharr (talk · contribs) abhishek420 (talk · contribs) janendra (talk · contribs) bharathiya (talk · contribs) Chiranjibmazumdar1 (talk · contribs) 15mayankm (talk · contribs) Abhilash Mhaisne (talk · contribs) Eiennotoso (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) MSheshera (talk · contribs) CAPTAIN RAJU (talk · contribs) Nayan Panchal (talk · contribs) Asad2723 (talk · contribs) P.Shiladitya (talk · contribs) Krish CB (talk · contribs) Luigi1337 (talk · contribs) Jazze7 (talk · contribs) coolcolney (talk · contribs) for Mizoram Waltor Bishop (talk · contribs) AnM2002 (talk · contribs) MHRD, J&K .edu.edits (talk · contribs) for Universities Roller26 (talk · contribs) Vincentvikram (talk · contribs) DEFCON5 (talk · contribs) Rapturemania (talk · contribs)Userbox: The syntax for the userbox for members of this project is {{User WikiProject Education in India}} Wikipedia:WikiProject India Wikipedia:WikiProject Education No descendant WikiProjects have been defined. Portal:Indian Education Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in India Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) Refer to : Place this WikiProject notice {{WP India}} at the top of an article's Talk page to direct editors to the WikiProject Education in India for guidelines. To use it, place {{WP India|education=yes|education-importance=}} at the top of an article's Talk page. It will produce: For stubs about the Indian education, use {{India-school-stub}}. This will go into the Category:Indian school stubs category. For stubs about the Indian universities, use {{India-university-stub}}. This will go into the Category:India university stubs category. Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India\Invite none at the moment === Featured lists === none at the moment R.V. College of Engineering none at the moment Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 446 453 1004 WP:DELETIONISM WP:DELETIONISM 446 meta:DeletionismThis page is a soft redirect. 447 454 1005 WP:TOOLS Wikipedia:Tools 447 "To search for tools, see Toolhub. Editing tools, tools intended to provide enhanced editing functionality. Contains edit page tools, edit bots, spellcheckers, wikisyntax conversion utilities, etc. Browser tools, tools categorized by browser type Citation tools, tools for citing and referencing Anti-vandalism tools, tools for patrolling and cleaning up Wikipedia Alternative browsing, alternatives to accessing Wikipedia through your web browser (mobile devices, desktop integration, alternate portals, etc.) User scripts, a collection of JavaScript routines that add functionality to Wikipedia pages (e.g., regex search and replace, changing article formatting, and simplifying common tasks) WatchlistBot is a bot that delivers realtime alerts via instant message (XMPP) when watched articles are edited or when watched users or IP networks edit. Navigation shortcuts offer the ability to add personal links to the sidebar, providing quick and easy access to favourite articles within Wikipedia. Finding duplicated references: a tool that will find references with the same URL on a page, with some false positives and missed items, is the URL Extractor For Web Pages and Text. It is not a Wikipedia tool, and there may be other tools available for the purpose. Instructions on its use for Wikipedia are in WP:DUPREF. Such references can often usefully be merged, using for all except one. GlobalWPSearch, search across projects and show missing interlanguage links. macOS Dashboard Widget (deprecated) whichsub finds transcluded templates of a given page which contain a given string. Find Link Tool Find links on Wikipedia. Tool created by Edward Betts. Wikimedia Global Search, perform Elasticsearch-based searches across the wikitext of all Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) wikis via WMCS Toolforge and Cloud Elastic services. Due to potential for abuse of expensive long-running queries (e.g., DoS attack), SUL login is required. Note: Google search results can be several days or even weeks out of date.Citer for Google Books URL, DOI, ISBN, PMID, PMCID, OCLC and DOI and Google Books Citation Maker converts bare url into {{cite book}} format. See also Help:Citation tools#Tools. Mirrors of Wikimedia content can be filtered from Google search result pages in Firefox using the CustomizeGoogle extension. See meta:Mirror filter for instructions and a filter list. Wikipediavision (designed by László Kozma) visualizes recent anonymous edits using Google Maps. === Google Slides === meta:User:Tbayer (WMF)/Converting Google Slides to wikitext (tutorial) === Google Docs === meta:User:Tbayer (WMF)/Converting Google Docs to wikitext (tutorial + Python script) verify Flags text that is potentially incorrect or uncited by comparing the information in the article to the text of its citations. === General === User:Ixfd64/revision sizes, R program for visualizing revision sizes over time Wikipedia:Wiki2VCS, script that loads histories onto one's computer, so that they can be quickly diffed and searched XTools Page History Page statistics and visualization, provides sortable and exportable list of all contributors with number of edits and amount of added text. Provides also results of syntax and grammar checks and latest assessment history. === Finding the responsible user === WikiBlame, searches for given text in versions of article whoCOLOR, browser script for Grease/Tampermonkey, highlights original authors directly in the article, gets data from a publicly accessible API XTools Blame, find edits that added the given wikitext Who Wrote That?, browser extension for Chrome and Firefox, shows editor information for text as use moves mouse over article text. User contribution search, finds all the edits by a user to a single page Edit summary search, find all the edits by a user such that their edit summary contains the specified string Wikipedia Page History Statistics Page history statistics by User:aka, builds an edit history overview page XTools Pages Created – lists all pages created by a user (including deleted ones) afdstats Analyse AfD !votes against the result Articles for Creation Review History. This tool shows a list of a user's WP:AfC reviews. User-level gender statistics for Wikipedia : gender statistics about the list of created articles. Look at your list of created articles through Wikidata. Look at your list of created articles with the Xtools Page Prose API Map your list of created articles through Wikidata. Wiki streaks, look up a user's ""wiki streak"": how many consecutive days they've made an edit ==== Edit counters ==== XTools Edit Counter A powerful and full-featured editor analysis tool. Administrator Statistics for the English Wikipedia (updated daily) User contributions (Luxo), find contributions on enwiki and other Wikimedia sites XTools AdminStats Shows statistics of admin actions, broken down into individual actions, arbitrary period selectable ==== User interaction analysis ==== Editor Interaction Analyzer compares the edits of two to three specified editors to see which articles overlap, sorted by minimum time between edits by both users. Only works on the English Wikipedia. Speed: slow. Intersect Contribs, compares the edits of two to eight editors at any WMF wiki to see which articles overlap. Speed: fast. Intertwined contributions, merges the contributions of two editors at any WMF wiki into a single list. Speed: fast. (Currently not working: error connecting to database.) Interaction Timeline a chronological history of two users' across pages where they both made edits. === Visualization === Wiki Replay, see m:Grants:IEG/Replay Edits and wm2014:Submissions/Replay Edits for more details. de:Benutzer:Atlasowa/edit history visualization === Google Docs Spreadsheet === MediaWiki Table Utility or this updated version This class constructs a MediaWiki-format table from an Excel/GoogleDoc copy&paste. It provides a variety of methods to modify the style. It defaults to a Wikipedia styling with first column header. === Microsoft Office === ==== Word ==== ===== 2007 and later ===== Microsoft Office Word Add‑in For MediaWiki. For Microsoft Word 2007 or 2010. (Not Supported from Version Word 2013) ===== Prior versions ===== For other Macro, see mw:Word macros, Visual Basic macros to use within Microsoft Word to prepare content to be pasted into a Wikipedia page. wikEd, a full-featured in-browser text editor for Wikipedia edit pages that can convert text and tables pasted from Microsoft Word with a button click ==== Excel ==== excel2wiki: Copy & Paste Excel-to-Wiki Converter tab2wiki: Converts tables (tab-delimited, e.g. copied from Excel) to Wikitext tables de:Wikipedia:Technik/Text/Basic/EXCEL-Tabellenumwandlung/en: Convert EXCEL-Table with most formatting like background- and fontcolor, fontstyle (bold/italic), columnheight, -width, etc. to Wiki-tableformat de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb/csv2wp (en) or CSV Converter: Converts many types of spreadsheet tables, including CSV, tab-separated, etc., to MediaWiki or HTML csv2other: a free open source tool, in .net, to convert CSV and EXCEL files to wiki table format === OpenOffice/LibreOffice === LibreOffice Writer is free. It can open almost any file format. It can export to Mediawiki: File menu > export > save as type > MediaWiki. It will save the file as a .txt file which can be opened with any text editor. Copy the wiki code from the text file. You can save any web page as an HTML file, and then open it in LibreOffice Writer. Edit as needed. Remove the parts you don't want. Keep only tables for example. Then export to MediaWiki. Tables can be further edited in LibreOffice Calc. See: Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files. And: Help:Table and the section on spreadsheets and the Visual Editor. === HTML === Html2Wiki is an extension for MediaWiki that imports HTML === Python === Table2wiki.py part of the Pywikipedia bot framework, web port === LaTeX === User:Jmath666/latex2wiki, LaTeX to Wikicode translation tool === CSV === CSVLoader is an AutoWikiBrowser plug-in that allows creating and updating articles using CSV data files. === Many formats === Pandoc is a universal document converter Help:Export, Special:Export - XML Special:Book - PDF mw:Alternative parsers - various, including HTML and XML wikitable2csv - CSV mw:Extension:TextExtracts - HTML or plain text; without links meta:User:Tbayer (WMF)/Converting wiki pages to plaintext emails - text MediaWiki to LaTeX - PDF, EPub, Odt or LaTeX Wiki Embed Plugin - WordPress GeoLocator, Wikipedia compatible geotagging metadata generator and coordinate editor Syndication, RSS feeds, etc. Researching Wikipedia: Tools for data analysis Not English, tools that have not yet been translated completely into English. Some need their descriptions translated from German, others are not available in English. Help translate if you can! Note: Checkinks is buggy use with caution. Consider using instead Internet Archive Bot which can be found in the History tab of any page: ""Fix dead links"" – login does not require a password. WikiBiff, To alert users when they have new messages waiting on their talk pages Desktop Watchlist, Enhanced watchlist for Windows Category Watchlist, Watching additions and removals to categories CategoryWatchlistBot, Watch category and/or template additions/removals, supports partial name matches and subcategories PetScan (manual), searches categories recursively. Will find subcategories that overlap with other categories, templates, etc. User:SuggestBot for suggested articles you might like to edit RAMP editor: can generate enhanced authority records for creators of archival collections XEcho Shows your global cross-wiki notifications from 800+ wikis at a glance quarry:, a place to run queries on databases of Wikimedia projects MTC!, A tool that makes it easy to transfer files to Commons en masse. Wiki Editor Plugin for Notepad++ 32-bit (x86) – a free source code editor. MediaWiker Plugin for Sublime Text. MediaWiki syntax highlighting and editing capabilities. MediaWiki Tables Generator (online) Wikipedia:Get my IP address Wikipedia:Database download (for code useful for dealing with offline dumps) Wikipedia:Scripts Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set (Firefox optimization) Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools Wikipedia:Link rot § Tools Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts § Installing (How to install user scripts) Help:Text editor support {{Editor tools}} meta:Help:User style Toolforge meta:Toolserver/Projects meta:Open Source Toolset meta:User:Duesentrieb/Tools Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files" 448 456 1008 WP:NPOINTS Wikipedia:Notability points 448 "Notability points is a useful way of thinking of whether something is notable (and worthy of inclusion) or unnotable (and not worthy of inclusion) Everything has a certain amount of notability, this can be put on a (rough) scale, from your cat, some really important things like chemistry, Lenin, the Earth, the Sun etc. There is an inclusion threshold of n ""points"" where n is an arbitrary number. Let's say it's 100. In reality, n is not a fixed value. Some things with only 75 points are kept, other things with 125 points are deleted. This is the grey area that everyone argues about. It sometimes seems strange that a reality TV contestant who appeared on a few TV episodes whose fame hinges on a sex tape may be deemed notable, but a Harvard professor with a PhD and 30 years teaching experience may be deemed non-notable. Points are cumulative, that is, if you get 25 points for X, and 35 for Y, and 45 for Z, then you get 105 points in total. This means that a number of individually relatively insignificant things can be notable in totalis. Points can be received for the subject either doing something or having something done to it. Nothing should be excluded from consideration, and this includes guidelines such as ""WP:VICTIM"", ""WP:NOTINHERITED"", where notability for being a victim of a crime or a relative of someone who is notable is downplayed; yet it can and does contribute sometimes." 449 457 1012 WP:GFDLC Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance 449 "A number of sites that mirror and fork Wikipedia may not be complying with all the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This page should be used to track sites that use Wikipedia's GFDL text (but not CC-BY-SA). Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance should be used instead for newer mirrors (copied starting June 15th, 2009) that use Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) text. Remember that the dual licence which applies to all new editor generated text since that date means that a site only has to comply with one of the licences. So check for compliance with either licence and make a note of which licence the site is most compliant with. The exception is text imported from external sources which may potentially be CC-BY-SA licensed only. Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for instructions about adding new sites. At the bottom of this page there is a section named ""Former content users"" that is used for websites that at one time hosted Wikipedia content, but no longer do. This should be checked periodically. Problematic sites sometimes get listed on the mirror list without ending up here. So check the mirror list too: (Numbers) ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU VWXYZ All In this section, please add new entries to the bottom of the list. NUC.edu Absolute Astronomy S/KeySource Music is Everywhere Best Pest Control animefanwiki eBaum's World bluerhinos.co.uk master linux 99Colors Aaronlanguage.com Academic Kids Allrss.com Algebra.com Animal Web Guide Armageddon Online Artilifes.com Astra 2D Baidu Baike Barry's Tickets Biolicense.net Biographie.net Bizgos Blastgard_International Bobby-fischer Bobbysouthworth.com Bookyards Britain tv Caninecrib CaribbeanMD Carlos Zambrano cassiopedia.org Celebrityspy.org Chinese Psychology Online Clearups.com Conservapedia Consumer's Research Council of America Comedy Zone CompWisdom Cooking Vinyl UK Cunnan (SCA wiki) Creekin.net Cricket Updates Crystalinks.com Cuil search engine CultureCentric CuteWalls.com cyclechaos.com Darlington F.C. DATAFORMATO.COM datapan.com dCult.com DefinitionCenter.com devon.tv doctorsmedicalopinion.com double-bass.koopal.com Earth History Ebabylone eBay Listing Index ebroadcast.com.au economicexpert.com Editthis.info EdvardMunch.info emporiumbooks.com.au Englishpremier Enquirerworld epier.com EquityEdu eurovisionarchive F1complete.com Famous-astrophysicists.com Fight Sport Magazine Fililquarian Publishing Filmsdown.net FindTarget FirstCarHire.com Fitness pills fonebiz.co.uk footballyears.net fraudwatchernetwork.com Freebase TheFreeDictionary.com Free Glossary gamblingsitesforsale.com gamelow.com gameosis.com Game-web Glasglidius GlobalCPR Global Vision publishing Gogeeky governpub.com GreatPersonalities greatsite.com Greatsite discussion HomeGrown Poultry Knowledge Base Homestay Finder.com Horizonmonthly.com i2osig.org idrewthis.org infofx.info InformationClub.com Informationgenius Infovoyager and infopedia-related sites instagram.com/historyofthebatman Instructional Design iqexpand.com iRepresentin Isulong SEOph atc.ruv.net/infopedia/ InfoWrangler InvestingCompany.com Iwannarock.net Jewish Virtual Library jGames.co.uk Jiggies journical.com Juicee News Daily Judaic.com Justrec.com K12 Academics Katalog(at)KupKomputer.pl Kids.net.au Killersudoku.co.uk Knol Knowledge Giant knowmore.org lakerplayers.org Last.fm libra-energy.eu Linix Encyclopedia literaturemania.com LiveSeattle.com mahurivaisya Maratechnology.com Marijuana.com masterliness.com MB CEO 2.0 Measuroo.com Medbib Media UK - ""The Knowledge"" meds4dumbbells.com milliondollaridea.com mistyped.info MochaCity.com MOCpages moono.com munro-madness.com muppetpastor.org Musictnt.com myadvertisers.com Myoutofcontrolteen Namibia Internet Gateway Nationmaster Nativewiki NBC.com Nextdaywatches.com NicheCreator.com NOPAC Talent Notfah.com Objectssearch Encyclopedia - 'the free encyclopedia' www.objectssearch.com encyclopedia oceanru.com onlyidol.com open-encyclopedia.com otherground Palestine article peacelink.de Phatnav.com planetphonecards.com Plastic-surger PRC People's Daily phatnav.com Phobia Finder Piano Paradise Pickupgame.com Pontefract Young Farmers PostgreSQL General Bits Protoillyrian Public Domain art Public Domain Content Encyclopedia Quarrel Network Quickseek.com Qwika ratfanciers.com read-and-go.hopto.org realestate.ca River-Styx.net Rolex-Replica-Fake.com RSA article RC-Wiki RxWiki ROOSTER SAILING SciPeeps.com SciFiPedia Scripophily.net SearchEnterpriseLinux.com Secretmaker sensagent.com Seo Wiki Shoepedia Slider SmartPedia SMSO.net Snazon.com SpivO.com SportsHead Star Trek: USS Scorpion StateUniversity.com StudioReview TelecomPie.com Terraformers Society of Canada Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#Territorioscuola TheComDaily.com Theopedia The Planets the-real-story.com ticketexplore.com ticketnest.com ToCatch.info Trango.info Trip Atlas TYPEsyria.com Type United Kingdom Ultimate Language Secrets USGOVi.com Vagabond Poet Vipstars.us VoyageNow.com The W2N.net Wikipedia Wackipedia.com Web-Dictionary.org Welcome to New York Whatis.Tv What-means.com/ wiki.unas.cz WikiChiro.org / ChiroWiki.org Wikidpedia Wikiality.com Wikileasing Wikimapia wikirun.com Wikitextbook Wink WordDisk wordsonline.org World of Celebrities WorldLingo.com worldsexexplorer.com Wulong for Life Xtrj.org yauba yamour.com You Health Questions and Answers Yourlit.com Zazzle.com zipox and nine others Zinc.org Zoo-Hoo.com 101languages.net 2008/9 Wikipedia Selection for schools 2violent.com 999 Network Abbaci books Academie.de Net-Lexikon About.com All Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia All2know.com Allabout.cc allmichaeljordan.com All_About-puppies.com All Science fair projects Answers.com aRiKaH Arkansas Encyclopedia Artistopia Arts and Design Info ArtPolitic Asinah.net AskFactMaster.com azplayers.com Baghdad Museum BigMac.biz BIGpedia Biocrawler Biology Daily Biography Base Biography Finder Blinkybits Bobbysouthworth Braindex Brandt.kurowski.net Brough's Books Calendar of historical events births holidays and observances Campusprogram.com Canbet.com CapitanCook Casinozone.info Chemistry Daily Chessbase.com chess.go.ro colombialink.com Connect_Online Cookery-Online Cooldictionary.com copernicus.subdomain.de cyberpedia.net Dictionary of Meaning didgeridooman.com Din Cyclopedia Disease-Reference.com DomainsAreFree.com Dr. Damerow E-paranoids eBook 2u (ebook2u dot com) Emycontent.com and allaboutall.info Encyclopedia 4U Encyclopedian Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt EncycloZine English-football Enpsychlopedia eslbase Explained.At Everything Preschool explanation-guide explore-*.com ezResult.com fact-archive.com FactBook.org Factbug Fact-Index Facts About Famous Like Me famouspeople.co.uk Fastload.org Feedbus.com Filmbug Fixed reference foosquare.com France.com freedownloadsoft.com Gainsville.com gamerwiki.com Gateserver Geekopedia GeneaWiki (GeneaNet) Geodatabase George Orwell GlobalGuide.Org Guajara.com GoUpstate.com hallencyclopedia.com Help.com History of Scotland Hi.is/~joner Icon Group International informationheadquaters.com Infostar.cz / Eurotran ipedia InfoHeadquarters.com Ireland information guide i-Gratis Japan-101 Knover.com Knowledgegeek Knowledge Is Fun Knowledgerush LaborLawTalk Legal Information Source liverpoolcityportal.co.uk logicjungle.com MagicalJourneys.com Malaspina Great Books MathDaily.com Maxpedia Memory Alpha Metajam metaweb Mind42.com mon-photo.com - Fotos del Mundo / Photos from around the world Motorcycle Accessories Museum of Learning Mybenches.com Non-violence.org No-Gambling.com Nodeworks Encyclopedia objectsspace.com Observances, Holidays and Celebrations Omnipelagos.com OmniKnow Online-Encyclopedia.info Open-dictionary.com Pediax.org Pharma-help.com phillywire.com PhysicsDaily Playfuls Powerset pro-researcher.co.uk Psych Central Public School Review Pythonland Quickly Find www.quotesplace.com Rickygervais.com Rashadevans.tv SageReport.com ScienceDaily Seattle Luxury Inc. Sheppard Software spellcorrect.info Teachersparadise.com Teamsugar.com The Pedia TheFreeDictionary.com Therfcc thinkingaustralia.com Tranquillizer.co.uk TvWiki TypeEncyclopedia.com Travel Destinations TopArticle.com Travel Goa TutorGig t-st.de Uberpedia Ufaqs Unipedia.info USA Information 01 veropedia.com VirginRadio.co.uk Wacklepedia.com wapedia.mobi Web Hosting Glossary websign.sk Webster's Online Dictionary- the Rosetta Edition Wikimirror Wikinfo (wiki) Wikipedia On DVD Wiki Ireland WikiNASIOC - Imported data from Metawiki in 2008. Mentions ""Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2."" but the link goes to an external copy of GFDL 1.3 (!). Has ""Category:Meta-Wiki"" (with a red link) but does not mention Wikimedia in any way. Not sure if the category is enough for crediting Wikimedia. The history only shows one edit from 2008, but the Metawiki article has many other edits going all the way back to 2006, which are missing from the mirror's history. The second edit listed on WikiNASIOC appears to be a local edit of Wikimedia's data. Wikitruth wikiverse.org wikix.ipupdater.com wordIQ World Geography Information World Wide Web Find xarts.net Xasa Yawiki Yotor Facts yourart.com 2place.org 33Beat.com Abbaci books aboutsociology.com Anoca.org Armeniapedia Biodatabase.de bookonlinesale.com bopedia.com Borgfind Clusty DuranDuranFans.com freepedia.org InfoSearchPoint iqnaut.net KnowLex latitudezero.org LocalColorArt.com The Logo (A Book) The Mcfly Network Medlibrary.org Molinu Nebulasearch.com Nexuscience.com onelook.com PortalJuice.com Psihologie San Luis Obispo Bill of Rights Defense Committee Totally Explained Unification Encyclopedia Project WikiGadugi WorldHistory yourencyclopedia.net widescale.com Wikinfo.org 1-bike.com 1-player.net 10baset.info 21ma.com 2BuyGood.com/InfoPedia aaez.biz aardogs.com ArticleHead.com AskMyTutor Asia Information 01 Basic Famous People Biography.ms bird-center.net blogopt.com BrainyEncyclopedia BT Research Brujula.net Bvio cassiopedia.org catalogofcasinos.com Catholic University of Brussels Creotec csf.colorado.edu Definition-info Digimelon Dutch wiki freeler Egenas Elexi.de Elresearch emeagwali.com Encyclopaedic.net Encyclopedia of Sexuality Engine.blogsome.com Enlightenweb EssayCrawler eurofreehost.com ExplainPlease.com EzOrange Factdex FactSite famous.tc Flyfloss Free definition golf-corner.net Greatestinfo.org Poncier Previewseek pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com Worldsearch Wiki.defau.lt ^ This is required by §4(J) of the GFDL. ^ This is required by §4(H) and §2 of the GFDL. ^ This is required by §4(B) and §4(I) of the GFDL." 450 458 1014 WP:DELICIOUS Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them 450 "It's a well-known fact that new Wikipedia users are delicious, especially with grilled red onions, mayonnaise, and hurt feelings. For a long time, established users have been advised to avoid their succulent goodness. But there is an old Italian proverb—""I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci""—the forbidden fruits are the sweetest. Admins simply cannot stop themselves from giving in to temptation. Clearly a new direction is necessary. Biting too many newbies is a sure-fire path to complacency and overindulgence; biting too few leads to cravings, the inevitable desire to go on the rogue admin warpath. Therefore, admins are counseled to practice moderation in their munching of newbies. Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies" 451 459 1016 WP:SUPERVOTE Wikipedia:Supervote 451 "Supervote is a term used on Wikipedia, often in a deletion review or move review, in reference to a discussion closure (""a close"") that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion. It is usually used as an accusation that this is the case, carrying the implication that the closer should have entered the discussion as a participant instead of closing, and that the close should be overturned. Deletion discussions are closed to reflect the consensus in the discussion. === Advice to editors decrying a supervote close === It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more ""keeps"" than ""deletes"" but the ""deletes"" are grounded in policy and the ""keeps"" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the ""keeps"" are grounded in policy), it's not a ""supervote"" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. (See also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus.) === Advice to admins facing a defective debate === However, an XfD discussion is not an ""admin's suggestion box"" either. Unless there are serious policy problems with the majority view, a consensus heavily skewed to one side should not be closed the other way. For example, if the majority view at an AfD is based on a position that would clearly violate verifiability or BLP concerns, the majority is wrong. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the majority wants to keep a file in a FfD debate if it would violate the non-free content policy, which is prescriptively enforced as a legal matter. If a person feels that the opinions expressed in an XfD are contrary to policy but is not certain, then it is better to comment instead of close. The point raised can help inform the discussion, and this may help someone else to close appropriately. There are several varieties of supervote, all of them problematic except the last one: Consensus-reversal supervote: A discussion has concluded for a particular action, based on solid policy reasoning, but a minority takes a different view that has less backing. It is supervoting to close in favor of the dissenters. If a neutral closer would not have produced such a close, the discussion should not close that way. Pile-on supervote: A discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such, ignoring the policy faults of their arguments. If an impartial closer would have used admin discretion to close against the majority, that is the way the decision should be closed. Forced-compromise supervote: A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a consensus, it should be closed as such. If it did, it should be closed with that consensus, not with an ""I'm going to force everyone to get along"" attempt to split the difference. Attempts to do so often produce impractical or nonsensical results. Closers may add a note about significant dissenting viewpoints, caveats, and suggestions for future resolution or improvement, without trying to include them as part of the consensus determination, and this is sufficient. Left-field supervote: A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is a supervote to close in favor of a solution no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported. If one has a solution to propose, it should be included in the discussion as a comment. If it's too late, it can be suggested in a later discussion. The extant discussion must have a close that reflects its actual contents. (But see next item.) Withdrawal supervote: The original proposer may feel like the winds of the discussion have blown one way or the other, and feel like they should withdraw their ideas to let another action run its course. But it is not acceptable for proposers to withdraw for the purpose of getting a non-status-quo result or if somebody still dissents to the status quo, as it denies the result of a basis in the consensus of other involved editors. Non-prejudicial supervote: (Covered in detail below.) A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. A closer makes an editorial, rather than administrative decision, and it moots the discussion. Alone among supervote types, this kind is often not problematic, because anyone who objects may revert it (or expect the closer to revert), with discussion continuing or being closed differently. === Non-prejudicial supervote === A ""non-prejudicial supervote"" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an ""editorial decision"" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one). For example, redirect is an acceptable compromise when consensus is against a standalone article but split among merge, redirect, and delete. It might also apply if an administrator closes an AfD with no !votes as ""delete"" but offers to restore the article upon request. As an editorial decision, the standard rules of consensus-building and edit-warring apply to the result of such a close so no attempt should be made to ""administratively"" enforce the result. If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. As closing deletion discussions is an administrative action, closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the administrators' accountability policy, and must explain all closes when questioned. Be careful not to skip this step, or treat it as a mere formality. If the closer refuses to revert or adjust their closure and you find their explanation insufficient, nominate the closure for review (WP:Deletion review for XfDs, WP:Move review, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard for RfCs and other discussions), to have the close itself discussed by the community. If an editor repeatedly fails to close based on consensus, or refuses to respond to questions regarding possible supervotes, despite multiple warnings and overturned closures, they may be banned from closing deletion discussions by the community (usually at WP:ANI or WP:AN), or even desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list § Closing discussions Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Snowball clause" 452 460 1017 WP:BACONCABAL User:Kelapstick/Bacon Cabal 452 If you love a prospect, or bacon, you will certainly come hither The Bacon Cabal is a group of Wikipedia editors who collaborate (and occasionally cooperate) to create, expand, and push their own agenda on improve encyclopedic coverage of articles related to bacon. Other activities of the Bacon Cabal include preparation of bacon dishes, primarily to photograph for use in their Wikipedia articles, but also to eat. The Bacon Cabal was the sponsor of the Bacon Challenge 2009, Bacon Challenge 2010, the Bacon Challenge 2011. == Members == bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) Bearian (talk · contribs) Bongomatic (talk · contribs) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) Cirt (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Kelapstick (talk · contribs) LadyofShalott (talk · contribs) Rin tin tin 1996 (talk · contribs) RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) Serten II (talk · contribs) SuperHamster (talk · contribs) == Member photo gallery == 453 461 1020 WP:soft redirect WP:soft redirect 453 "A soft redirect is a replacement for the usual ""hard"" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K). Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page, requiring them to click through to the redirected link as opposed to automatically taking them there. Unlike normal redirects, a soft redirect does not use special code or functionality of the wiki software. All they consist of is a notification to users, showing the destination to another site to obtain the information they were seeking. The technique is particularly likely to be used when redirecting users across Wikimedia sister projects—for example Wikipedia:Gather is a soft redirect to mw:Gather. Normal redirects would be undesirable in these circumstances, and hard interwiki redirects are disabled per these reasons that they could not be easily edited without hand-crafting the correct URL, since clicking on a link to the redirect page would take you straight to the redirect's target and there would be no ""Redirected from foo"" message to click, so it would be difficult to return to the redirect page itself; there would also be infinite-loop security considerations. Another situation where soft redirects are used is when the intended target is a special page, and the system automatically ""softens"" attempted hard redirects to special pages. For example, Wikipedia:List of tags redirects to Special:Tags. Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers. Instead, editors should link to the alternate language Wikipedia directly with one of various forms of interlanguage links. Soft redirects are intended mostly for external use, where hard redirects will not function. For internal use in general, hard redirects should be used instead. In English Wikipedia, categories with the {{Category redirect}} template are also called ""soft redirects"", due to their similarity to interwiki soft redirects. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories for the policy. Do not put redirect categorization templates on soft redirects ({{Wikidata redirect}} is an exception). The following templates are used to create a soft redirect link: {{Soft redirect}} for all soft redirects except those below: {{Double soft redirect}} for two different sister projects or two different pages within one sister project {{Category redirect}} for category redirects {{Portal soft redirect}} for soft redirects from the portal namespace {{Wiktionary redirect}} for Wiktionary redirects {{Wikidata redirect}} for Wikidata redirects {{Wikibooks redirect}} for Wikibooks redirects {{Wikiquote redirect}} for Wikiquote redirects {{Wikisource redirect}} for Wikisource redirects {{Wikispecies redirect}} for Wikispecies redirects {{Wikivoyage redirect}} for Wikivoyage redirects {{Commons redirect}} for Commons redirects Soft redirects to targets outside Wikipedia (e.g. to meta.wikimedia.org) do not require any categories to be added manually. For soft redirects that go from Wikipedia's mainspace to targets outside Wikipedia or to targets in any other Wikipedia namespace, add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to mark them unsuitable for any printable version of Wikipedia. For any soft redirect that goes from one Wikipedia namespace to another Wikipedia namespace, add the relevant category placing it within the appropriate sub-category of Category:Cross-namespace redirects, i.e. describing it by the target namespace: Category:Redirects to user namespace, for a soft redirect to a user space page (but not to a user talk page). Note: by its name, template {{R to user namespace}} would seem appropriate to use, and indeed that template would apply the ""Redirects to user namespace"" category, but that template's instructions indicate it should not be used for soft redirects (at least in part because it would display inappropriate/confusing information for editors/readers following the soft redirect), so manually apply the category, instead. Category:Redirects to talk pages, for a soft redirect to any talk page, whether the talk page is that of a user, or of a category, or of a template, or of a mainspace article, etc. Note: Likewise, {{R to talk page}} would seem appropriate, but that template is also not be used on soft redirects. Category:Redirects to category space Category:Redirects to help namespace Category:Redirects to the main namespace Category:Redirects to portal space Category:Redirects to project space Category:Redirects to template namespace For purposes of administration, particularly deletion, soft redirects are subject to the same administration processes as regular redirects, and should not be handled by processes that are intended for articles. For deletion this means that soft redirects are subject to R2 – R4 speedy deletion criteria, and are not subject to A1 – A10 speedy deletion criteria. For more deliberative deletion, soft redirects should be handled through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and are not subject to either Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. They are also specifically subject to G8 deletion if their target does not exist, as this has replaced the old R1 criterion. Help:InterWikimedia links list of possible redirect targets m:Soft redirect the equivalent metawiki page about soft redirects Wikipedia:Redirect for hard redirects {{Redirect with possibilities}} Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Other projects, where a soft redirect is considered an alternative to deletion m:Help:Transwiki, for instructions for using the Transwiki: namespace when moving entries between Wikipedia and Wiktionary" 454 462 1022 WP:SEOBOMB Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO) 454 "Wikibombing is a neologism that describes the appearance that an editor may be using search engine optimization (SEO) techniques in order to maximize the search engine results ranking of any topic or topics covered in Wikipedia. The term is a reference to the well-established practice of Google bombing. The following actions may create the appearance of promotion, both within the Wikipedia community and elsewhere. Such actions, undertaken unilaterally and without discussion on an appropriate talkpage, may leave the community unsure of your motivations: Providing excessively detailed coverage of a topic, such as a commercial product, politician, or religious leader. This may be done by citing and linking dozens of trivial references, rather than a representative sample of major coverage. Creating multiple navigation templates or portals that link to an article, and adding these to multiple unrelated articles. Inserting prose into articles which gives undue praise towards a subject. Editors are advised to avoid boldly adding material which could be perceived as promotional. Before adding material that could fall under this criterion (see above), editors are encouraged to seek broad input from talk pages, noticeboards and relevant WikiProjects to determine the boundary between legitimate coverage and promotion. When encountering the apparent promotion of a topic by another editor or editors, it is important to assume good faith. It's natural to want to link to articles that you've been working hard on, and editors may fall into the trap of promotion without realizing it. None of the actions listed above proves that the editor has a conflict of interest, or is editing for political or commercial reasons; these behaviors are often part of normal editing and in fact are sometimes encouraged. Editors who behave as described above often have no intention of boosting search rankings and may be unaware that they are doing so. Creating or expanding articles, linking them with templates, and nominating them for DYK are standard Wikipedia practices. In the case of noted SEO attempts, Google bombs, or other political controversies—in which coverage of the SEO attempt might be confused with its perpetuation—these practices require caution to avoid the appearance of promotion. Since the goal of Wikipedia is to be a widely used encyclopedic resource, high page rankings and page rank boosting edits are not to be avoided per se. Wikipedia would hardly be fulfilling its project mandates if its pages couldn't be found easily, that is to say near the top of any relevant list of search results. It is when Wikipedia and/or its relevant article becomes a part of the very story being covered that more vigorous pruning may be warranted. Please refer to the applicable policies for further details. WP:Activist WP:Advocacy Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia:Citation overkill WP:Coatrack WP:DYK § Selection criteria (""Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."") WP:LINKFARM nofollow WP:NPOV WP:Overlink crisis WP:Paid editing WP:Search engine optimization WP:Soap" 455 463 1025 WP:ASE Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor 455 "Articles written by a single editor have a higher probability of needing attention than those which have received contributions from several editors. So, we generate a list of articles that have been written by an inexperienced editor and have not yet received any collaboration. Some of the articles are good, but others need to be fixed or flagged appropriately, so that the topic experts can enhance them. When reviewing an article, the underlying idea is: Fix what you can fix and tag the rest, so that more experienced editors can find and fix them. Helping is easy, fast and even entertaining, if you are curious. First open the Articles list in a new window, and begin reviewing the articles. When you're done, delete the article(s) from the articles list. Feedback is always welcome on the talk page. For each article, check all of the following things: If the article contains insults, random characters, such as ""dkhgdsklhskl"" or any other nonsense, then revert the problems or delete the nonsense. If there are no good revisions to revert back to, then nominate for speedy deletion. If the article appears to be a blatant advertisement, then place {{advert}}, or if it's irredeemable, add {{db-g11}} at the top of the article. If the article does not have enough wikilinks, then place {{dead end}}, for no links or {{underlinked}}, for few links at the top of the article. If the article is about something that might not be notable enough, then place {{notability}} at the top of the article. If you feel the article needs a topic expert's attention, then place {{expert-subject}} at the top of the article. In any other cases of problematic content, place {{cleanup}}, and explain the problems in the tag or on the talk page, at the top of the article.Please also check: Stubs: If the article is very short, perhaps only a few sentences and needs to be developed, then it is a stub. If the article is not yet tagged as a stub, then place {{stub}} at the bottom of the article. First sentence: The first sentence of the article must introduce the context. For instance, the Jazz article's first sentence must at least explain that Jazz is a kind of music, with a wikilink to the Music article. If it does not, please fix it. If fixing it is too difficult, place {{lead rewrite}} at the top of the article. Sources: If the article does not cite any sources or references for facts that are likely to be challenged, then paste {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article. If it has some sources, but you think it needs more, place {{citations missing}} at the top of the article. If there are sources, open them and check that the content of the article matches. Take note of the ""magic number"" which can be found at the bottom of the articles list (for instance: 1050). Go to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/48504 Log in (you can use your Wikimedia account). Press ""Fork"". At the first line of the script (which starts with ""SET @MAGIC""), replace the number with the one you got in step 1. Press ""Submit Query"". Wait until the query completes, it can take up to 30 minutes. A list of page titles appears at the bottom. Press ""Download"" and ""TSV"". Open the TSV file with any text editor. Copy the content to the articles list (just the line after ""List:""). Increment the magic number by 50, for instance if it was 1050 replace it with 1100, and save.If anything does not work as expected, please detail the problem on my talk page, thanks! You may be interested in placing the userbox shown below onto your userpage with the following code: {{Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor/Userbox}} If you would like an article to be checked, simply add it to any section of the articles list. Some of the listed articles may already have more than one author, because the list is not updated that often. It does not matter, just check them like the others. Technophiles might be interested in collaborating on the source code used to generate the list: SQL script, currently used: See the link above Groovy script, abandoned because it was inefficient, taking a lot of server resources Dump-based approach, abandoned because the list would become stale before half of it is reviewed." 456 464 1027 WP: BUREAUCRAT Wikipedia:Bureaucrats 456 "Bureaucrats are Wikipedia users, usually administrators, with the technical ability to perform the following actions: Add the administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, account creator, pending changes reviewer, or bot user group to an account. Remove the administrator, interface administrator, account creator, IP block exemption, pending changes reviewer, or bot user group from an account.They are bound by policy and consensus to only grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. In the same fashion, they are expected to exercise judgement in granting or removing bot flags with the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. Actions by bureaucrats are also bound by the policy on use of administrative rights. Bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to remove administrator permissions in certain situations outlined below. Bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to remove bureaucrat rights from users or to grant or remove certain levels of access such as oversight or checkuser rights. These actions are performed by stewards, a multilingual group of individuals who serve all Wikimedia projects and are elected and reconfirmed annually by their users. Changes in user rights by stewards are recorded at meta:Special:Log/rights; for more information, see m:Steward requests/Permissions. Users are granted bureaucrat status by community consensus. The process is similar to the process of granting administrator status, but the expectations for potential bureaucrats are higher and community consensus must be clearer. See Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship. On the English Wikipedia, there are currently 21 bureaucrats. These are instructions and procedures concerning bureaucratic actions and processes. === Promotions and RfX closures === Note: Similar to non-administrators closing deletion discussions, Requests for adminship can be closed by non-bureaucrats in certain cases; for example if the user has withdrawn the request or the outcome is very unlikely to be positive (see WP:NOTNOW). Non-bureaucrats should be very careful in the latter case and only close RfAs when they are not in doubt. In such cases the requesting user should always be asked to consider withdrawal first.Wait at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group Check the history for the transcluded page to be reasonably sure that the comments are genuine Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be promoted using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement Edit the nomination. Add the relevant archive top template above the top-level header on the page, remembering to substitute:For requests for adminship or bureaucratship Replace the automatic {{rfah}}, ""Voice your opinion"" and {{rfatally}} template with {{subst:finaltally}}, filling in the template as appropriate (example) If there is a consensus, promote to admin or bureaucrat using Special:Userrights. If present, remove userrights made redundant by the sysop flag. Refer to Special:ListGroupRights for details on which other rights are included with the new user rights level. Please reference the RfA (or RfB) when making the promotion Remove the request from requests for adminship For successful nominations, add a summary of the outcome to successful requests for adminship or successful bureaucratship candidacies and update the relevant counts. For unsuccessful nominations, add the summary to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Alphabetical), or Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies and update the relevant countsFor requests for membership in the Bot Approvals Group Add the user to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group Add a summary of the outcome to successful or unsuccessful Bot Approvals Group candidaciesInform the user of the result, whether it is successful or unsuccessful (perhaps using one of the optional templates) === Removal of permissions === Bureaucrats may remove the ""administrator"" user right from an account in some situations: If self-requested by the administrator By official request of the Arbitration Committee If the administrator is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators If the account belongs to an editor who has been verified as deceased (in which case, all user rights should be removed). See also WP:DWG.Bureaucrats should include a permanent link to the request or relevant policy when removing permissions. If necessary, the affected user should be immediately notified and given a reason for the removal along with advice on seeking the reinstatement of the permissions. Should the extended confirmed group have been removed from the account since becoming an administrator, it should be restored when removing administrator permissions. The interface administrator policy requires removal of the interface administrator permission upon removal of the administrator permission. The use of these procedures is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, or removal following a request from the Arbitration Committee, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions. ==== Deceased Wikipedians ==== If an editor is verified as having died, all permissions on the account should be removed. Unless the account is suspected of being compromised, it should not be blocked. For Checkuser, Oversight and Bureaucrat rights, which cannot be removed locally, a request to remove those should be posted on m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. See also WP:DWG. ==== Inactive bureaucrat accounts ==== There are two separate activity requirements applicable to bureaucrat accounts: Bureaucrat accounts that do not meet the level of editing activity expected of administrators may have their bureaucrat permissions removed. The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page in line with the procedures for administrators before the request is made. Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions. This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools. If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. If a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page one month before the removal, and again a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship. === Restoration of permissions === In the case that a former administrator or bureaucrat requests their permissions be restored via the bureaucrats' noticeboard: Check that the user in question is indeed a former administrator or bureaucrat (in particular, a bureaucrat restoring permissions should satisfy themselves that the account has not been compromised since the permissions were relinquished). Check that the prior access removal was voluntary, or due to inactivity. Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. To allow time for requests to be checked thoroughly, it is required that a minimum of 24 hours elapse before restoring permissions. This requirement provides a reasonable amount of time for bureaucrats, administrators, or other editors to comment on the request, if necessary. This threshold of time may be lengthened at a bureaucrat's discretion if new information arises during the 24 hour hold. If a former administrator (""lengthy inactivity"") or bureaucrat (""inactive bureaucrat accounts"") has been inactive (defined by zero edits or logged actions) for a period of two years or longer after the removal of permissions (or for two years from the last edit or log action in the case of permissions removed due to inactivity), they must be successful in a new request for adminship or bureaucratship to have the permission(s) restored. If a former administrator has been administratively inactive (defined by zero logged administrative actions) for a period of five years or longer, and the removal was for inactivity, they should be successful in a new request for adminship to have the permission(s) restored. Before restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a bureaucrat chat. If the permission is restored, list the user at Wikipedia:List of resysopped users. === Bot flags === Bot flags may be granted or removed in accordance with the bot policy, often on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. This extends to the copyviobot flag. (On process page) Ensure that the request is compliant with relevant policies and guidelines and that a Bot Approvals Group member asked for the bot to be flagged. Bot flags may also be granted or removed in other situations (such as requests to the bureaucrats' noticeboard or other noticeboard discussions). Use Special:UserRights to set or remove the flag, with a link to the approved BRFA or permanent link to the relevant discussion as the rationale. === Interface administrator === The interface administrator user group may be granted or removed according to the interface administrators policy. A bureaucrat mailing list was established in March 2009, but was retired following a discussion in 2017. It was intended as a convenient way to notify bureaucrats about urgent matters or, on rare occasions, to discuss private matters. Any issue that is neither urgent nor necessarily private should instead be handled at the appropriate on-wiki venue, for instance at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. For sensitive matters you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly. Special:Log/rights: log of user rights changes; Special:Log/renameuser: log of local username changes (global username changes between 9 July 2014 and 19 March 2015 affecting local accounts were not logged locally); m:Special:log/gblrename: log of global username changes (became available 9 July 2014); Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log: for Bureaucrat activity (user rights adjustments) before 24 December 2004; Wikipedia:List of resysopped users: listing of users resysopped by Bureaucrats; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: discussion of Bureaucrat-related matters (please note that questions relating to decisions by particular bureaucrats should be directed to their talkpage in the first instance); Wikipedia:User access levels: general information on the English Wikipedia's user rights system; User:NoSeptember/crat stats: Bureaucrat activity statistics (historical through 2011); m:Stewards: information on users who can grant and remove all user flags Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list: for use with Special:Massmessage {{User wikipedia/Bureaucrat}} – a userbox template to indicate you have the Bureaucrats user right {{Bureaucrat topicon}} – a top icon template to indicate you have the Bureaucrat user right – adds a category to page automatically" 457 465 1029 WP:RESPTAG Wikipedia:Responsible tagging 457 "When a Wikipedian who practices responsible tagging sees a problem with a Wikipedia article, they clearly label the problem with the appropriate tag. As needed they then leave information clarifying what should be done on the talk page. The outcome is a communication protocol that minimizes the use of reviewer's valuable time while maximizing the likelihood that the article's maintainers will improve the article. We have to admit that many Wikipedia articles have serious problems which require painstakingly careful and time-consuming editing to fix, and which render their content quite unreliable even for the most error-tolerant applications. It is necessary to clearly tag such articles, preferably with a shrill color, until someone comes along who has both the time, inclination and domain expertise to carefully edit the article and solve its most pressing problem. For example, if an article relies heavily on unreliable sources, then readers need to be alerted to that fact, until an editor can introduce more reliable sources, such as academic journals. It is much easier and less time-consuming for an experienced Wikipedian to identify and label an article's problem than it is to actually fix the problem. But this is not to denigrate the importance of identifying and labeling problems. In fact, the identification and labeling step is often botched, resulting at best in a long delay until the problem is fixed, and at worst in an edit war in which several people revert the tagger, who refuses to explain the reason for the tag. This essay will give advice about specific tags, but the general gist of it is this: If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you. In some cases, the explanation might be short enough to fit on an edit summary. Writing brief but complete edit summaries is always encouraged. However, it's still a good idea to include it on the talk page, preferably with a heading saying something like ""Reason for grammar clean up tag (cleanup-grammar)."" The problem with edit summaries is that after the tag is placed there could be a lot of edits to the article which don't address the concerns stated in the tag, making it hard to find the reason. By including the explanation on the talk page with a suitable heading, it becomes easier for others to find an explanation for the tag. Putting the reason in an HTML comment next to the tag is another available option, but it doesn't hurt to duplicate this on the talk page. In any case, it is quite possible for the tag to remain on the page for some time. If you would hope that the person trying to clean up the tag would contact you then it is easier to find you if you leave a message on the talk page than to have to trawl through the history to determine who you are. Another important thing about the explanation: it needs to show to others that you actually read the specific article and you honestly believe it has the deficiency indicated by the tag, it shows that you're not just tagging on a whim. It also shows you did not just copy and paste from a similar explanation for a related article with the tag in question. This essay is not about current events tags nor future tags, nor is it about deletion tags. The Articles for Deletion tag directs people to a separate page to ponder the reasons, while the proposed deletion tag requires a reason to be given within the tag itself. This essay will give fictionalized examples, but they are actually not exaggerations of the sort of thing that happens when an article's problem is incorrectly labeled. A quick word about inline tags: inline tags such as the ""citation needed"" tags provide more context for future editors, but even these tags can create some of the issues associated with maintenance tags. Take this fictionalized example: The person who placed this tag isn't completely wrong, but failed to notice that a citation is in fact given. Granted, it needs formatting (such as italics for the journal title), and a concluding page number, if available, but the citation needed tag is incorrect. A ""refimprove"" tag at the top of the page would make more sense. Citation needed isn't the only inline tag available, there are a few others that are better suited for some situations. === The catch-all clean up tag (cleanup) === This is of course a fictional example, so we're assuming that there really is such a surgical procedure. What's wrong with the article? There are no misspellings, no informal language, no off-topic digressions. The general clean up tag provides both a link to the talk page and a link to a list of more specific clean up tags. If you don't have the time to look at the more specific clean up tags, at least take a minute to write a few lines in the talk page as to what kind of clean up you think is necessary. This tag used to have a link to help users find more specific clean up messages. For some reason, this has been removed, making it harder for responsible taggers to find the appropriate specific tag. This has understandably sparked some annoyance, see Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup. === The confusing tag (confusing) === Without an explanation on the talk page, the {{confusing}} tag lacks any context and so only creates new confusion. If you're going to put this tag on a talk page, you should try to explain what was it that you found so confusing: Were you confused because of a single statement in the article, or were you confused by the entire article? Were you confused because the article contradicts something in another article? Were you confused because you don't know anything whatsoever about the subject of the article? Were you confused because of an excessive use of technical terms or jargon? Were you confused because of an excessive use of mathematical formulas? Were you confused because of an excessive use of musical notation? Were you confused because of an excessive use of diagrams? Were you confused because of an excessive use of screenshots? Were you confused for some other reason altogether? === The copyedit clean up tag (copyedit) === In a few rare cases, it will be clear that the entire article is filled with misspellings and grammatical mistakes. But it will happen more often on Wikipedia, where many editors are not native English speakers, that the two or three offending paragraphs are buried somewhere in the middle of the article. So, given that the current wording of the tag is quite vague, it is necessary to provide more guidance as to what the problem is. In this example, then, one might say in the talk page something like ""The spelling of the paragraph beginning ""in 1953, a plaq was fuond..."" is completely atrocious. The grammar seems to be OK, but the misspellings could be obscuring the grammatical problems."" Or if an article's problem is grammar, and not spelling, then the talk page should say so. For example: ""The final paragraph is one long run-on sentence. A few periods would help, and maybe we could even break that paragraph up into smaller paragraphs."" This will allow a native English speaker to be bold and improve the article even if it is outside their area of expertise. Even if the entire article is misspelled, it will be very useful to say it on the Talk page, since it will allow the next editor to inform the others of something like ""I cleaned up the first two paragraphs but didn't have time to go through the rest of it."" === The missing information tag (Missing information) === You don't have to supply in the talk page what the article is missing, because then you might just as well complete the article. But you DO have to give a good, general idea of what it is you think is missing. For the sake of keeping the example short, we have used a stub. In practice, it might be better to reserve the use of this tag for articles too long to be considered stubs yet still somehow incomplete. In the example, you don't have to be a mathematician to be able to tell that the article states there are just six Zhang-Glüffliger yet only lists four: 2, 3, 17, 61. No reason is given as to why the fifth and sixth Zhang-Glüffliger are not listed, nor can we even be sure that none of 7, 11, 13 are Zhang-Glüffliger primes (not to mention 19, 23, 29, ... 59). Also, the article doesn't say what the Zhang-Glüffliger inequality is; presumably the journals cited can provide the answer. These are the kinds of issues a responsible tagger would raise on the talk page of an article they've tagged as incomplete. Sometimes the tag applies just to a section. In that case, the syntax between the curly braces is ""Incomplete|section|date=Month Year"" Another alternative is to use {{Expand section|1= * Career from 1952 to 1960 * Final days after 1972 retirement |{{subst:DATE}}}} which provide a more specific location of the issue and specifies what needs fixing in the main body of the article. This type of tag is self documenting and will get a result even faster. === The rewrite tag (rewrite) === The rewrite tag is frustratingly vague. Its canned text does not point to a specific problem (unlike copy edit tags like the grammar and spelling tags). The canned text also says that the Talk page ""may contain suggestions."" It better, or probably no one else will know why you tagged it. In our fictional example, the tagger put only the rewrite tag and no others, and the article had no other tags whatsoever. If someone removes a rewrite tag you place, you'd be very well advised to look for a more specific tag, instead of simply slapping the vague rewrite tag back on. Before placing a rewrite tag, please look long and hard for a more suitable tag. If you honestly can't find one, then follow the canned text's link to the Talk page and leave a concise but detailed message explaining what in the article needs to be rewritten. === The ""too many links"" tag (overlinked) === Not every case of overlinking will be clear. When every word is a link the problem is obvious. If you tag an article as ""overlinked"", no one expects you to actually review each link (as you probably don't have the time to do so, and if you did it would just be easier for you to cut down some of the links). But it would be very helpful to others for you to leave on the talk page one example from the article where you don't think the link is terribly helpful or relevant. For this example, you might say something like ""I don't think the links to either long or thin are all that helpful, there are probably other links in this article we could do without."" === Unreferenced tag (unreferenced) === By placing an {{unreferenced}} tag on a page, you're representing that you have actually read the article and found no references whatsoever of any kind, including parenthetical references, general references and websites that actually support the article content, but that have been mis-labeled as external links. It is not enough to determine that the article lacks Wikipedia's most commonly used hyperlinked footnote citation format: you must have determined that there are zero citations in any format. If you don't actually have the time to read the article to make sure it really has no references, consider using a less severe references needed tag, or better yet, leaving it alone. But let me be clear on one important point: while placing an unreferenced tag does not obligate you to find references for the article, it does obligate you to make an effort to point people in the right direction. You must think that references can be found for the article in question, even though you don't have the time to dig them up yourself right now. In the example, you might suggest ""Try medical journals for surgeons."" If you honestly think no one will be able to find any references to support this, then nominate the article for deletion. Don't waste people's time with requests you think are impossible to fulfill. === Additional references needed tag (refimprove) === It would of course be silly to place an ""unreferenced"" tag on this page. The talk page ought to give some kind of idea as to what additional references would be helpful. For example, ""It would be nice to use references from journals other than the Petorian Journal of Medicine."" If you have the time, you should also flag with citation needed tags one or two statements not supported by the references already in the article. === The uncategorized tag (uncategorized) === Experienced Wikipedians will probably have HotCat installed, and for them it usually just as quick to add at least a high level category as it is to tag an article as uncategorised. Ideally this tag should only be used by inexperienced editors, or when you don't have the foggiest idea what the article is about. Suppose that you have no idea what the example is talking about. You could try clicking on one of the links. If you click on ""Gaussian prime"", you're taken to Gaussian integer; that article is categorized under Cyclotomic fields, Algebraic numbers, and Lattice points. So you're not sure if any of these categories apply to our example article, that's OK. By now you should have some idea that all this has something to do with math. In fact, the first line of our example says ""In mathematics""! You should go ahead and put in ""[[Category:Mathematics]]"". This might be too general, and there is certainly a more precise category. But an overly broad category is much more helpful than some vague tag, because the overly broad category increases the chances that someone with knowledge of the broad topic will be able to categorize the article in a narrower category. With the uncategorized tag, it could be days before a more experienced Wikipedian categorizes it. === Neutrality disputes (POV-check) === The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on. === Globalization issues (globalize) === Some topics just don't span the whole world. However, in some cases, the persons editing a particular article have focused entirely on one small corner of the globe to the exclusion of other parts of the world where the topic also applies. In such a case, one ought to leave on the talk page a list of places one thinks the topic might also apply (or if it's worldwide, say so). In our example, the writer seems to have limited themself to a Polish enclave in New York, ignoring the Eastern European country where these pastries were probably invented. === In-universe (in-universe) === The tagger refuses to explain the tag on the talk page, and the other contributors are tripping over themselves to point out that Joe Calcarone is fictional so that no one could possibly miss this fact. What would it take to satisfy the tagger? The other contributors have no idea. === Original research (original research) === How's this original research? The talk page might explain that the author of the article has ""DrHartMan"" for their username, or that there is in fact no such journal as the RIJP. (In the latter case, there might be a better template, I think.) === ""Resembles a fan site"" (fansite) === Another vague tag. This tag is typically slammed on with in-universe and original research tags, and for the tag slammer it is enough to see that the article is long to not bother checking whether the article really does contain ""excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links."" Even good people with good intentions sometimes use this tag. But the problem is that there is great diversity to fan sites, and likewise there is great diversity to the stereotypes about fan sites. Some fan sites are filled with ""irrelevant praise"" but have very little data, trivial or not. Other fan sites are filled with several different (but very similar) pictures of a particular character but hardly have any words of praise. Some fan sites with lots of text have a lot of misspelled words. A person with good intentions might only read the boldfaced part of the tag, and, satisfied that the article in question fits their own particular stereotype of what a fan site is, does not bother to explain it. Someone else comes along, and the article does not fit their stereotype, so they remove the tag and whatever problem the person with good intentions thought the article had could very well be lost to obscurity. So before placing this tag, ask yourself: Is there a better, more specific tag? Or is there something I could do right now to fix the problem which would only take me a couple of minutes? If the article has way too many pictures that convey very little addition information about the topic, why not just remove some of them? If the article has lots of misspellings, why not put a copyedit tag on? In our example, the tagger had good intentions. Prompted by the words ""very sexy actor"" they put on the fan site tag. The tagger was actually not bothered by the list of episodes Calcarone has appeared in (and the tag now says something about ""lists""). So the tagger would have saved everyone a lot of confusion by simply removing the words ""very sexy"". Tags should be placed at the top of the section to which they apply. Tags that apply to an entire article may be placed at either the top or the bottom of the article (uncategorised is normally at the end, where the categories would be). But if a tag applies to more than one, but not all, the sections of the article, it's a judgment call. Whatever call you make, you should explain how you made that call in the talk page. It is possible for one article to have several different things wrong with it. The problem with putting an individual tag for each of these problems is that the lead line of the article is pushed way down (and perhaps off) the screen, and then it looks like tag bombing even if that wasn't the intention. For those cases there is the multiple issues tag, an umbrella tag under which several different tags can be brought together under one box. Theoretically, this tag should be used when an article has two or more different issues, but technically it can be used when an article has only one or even no issues. However, just because this tag takes up less space than several individual tags doesn't mean one shouldn't carefully select the tags that would be most helpful to other editors. The tags discussed above should be used if the tagger believes the article could actually be improved if the deficiencies listed were addressed. But if the tagger honestly believes the article can't be improved at all and doesn't even belong in Wikipedia, then it is better to nominate the article for deletion. Not all tags mean that there is something wrong with a page, just some important difference readers need to be aware of. Even though these tags don't indicate a problem and their misapplication probably wouldn't cause edit wars, one is still responsible for choosing the most specific tag applicable and explaining borderline cases. === Time-sensitive tags === Future events. Most predicted or scheduled events usually happen, though rarely exactly as forecast or planned. Examples include: solar eclipses, hurricanes, parliamentary elections, championship games. Readers need to be aware who predicted or planned the event and that the information in the article will most likely change once the event actually happens. See Category:Temporal templates to find the template that is best suited for the future event article at hand. Once it is verified that the event is actually happening, or happened, the future tag should be removed. Tags for future events have been deprecated. They could be restored in the future. Current events. When an event is in progress, there might be some lag in reporting what is going on, so readers need to be aware that more complete information could surface in the very near future. Note that not all types of events having future tags have current tags, especially events that don't last for very long (for example, the airing of a new half-hour episode of a popular television show). === Permanent tags === There are no permanent tags for articles, but there are permanent tags for talk pages, project pages, category listings, etc. The essay tag at the top of this article is one example of a tag that should stay on the page permanently. The opposite of responsible tagging is of course irresponsible tagging. There are at least two irresponsible tagging techniques. === Timed mass harassment === With this technique, an irresponsible tagger waits for a time recent change patrollers are unlikely to be logged on to bombard several dozen pages pertaining to a particular topic with the same tag. That way, when the recent change patrollers get around to it, they might perhaps give up in frustration and not try to do anything to address the problem the several dozen pages allegedly have. === Tag slamming === A responsible tagger would read each page before applying any tags, and then leave on the talk page a message that shows that they indeed read the page, honestly believe it applies, and are not acting under a whim or worse, in a sinister plot to wear down those who disagree with them. The tag slammer, by contrast, does not read a page before applying tags and they certainly do not read what the many tags say. Some tag slammers need only very slim justification for the tags they choose so that others will, in seeing that the tag holds some amount of merit, will not remove it. Other tag slammers merely slam every tag they can think of. Tag slammers are somewhat easier to deal with than timed mass harassers. Even if there have been legitimate edits by others besides the tag slammer since the large groups of tags was slammed on, removing the slammed tags is fairly easy because most tag slammers like to slam the tags at the very top of the page. Help:Maintenance template removal" 458 466 1031 WP:TIO Wikipedia:Taking it outside 458 "There can be some very long drawn out exchanges on discussion pages, often between a small number of users. You've seen them. You've probably been part of some. For users trying to follow a discussion, it can be very annoying to read through seemingly endless text while people work out the minutiae of some issue, or else just have a pissing match. Often these conversations lead to some interesting results, but by the time you get there your eyes have glossed over and your brain has clicked off. What can you do? Suggest that people ""take it outside"", one of two ways. Taking it outside can mean moving the conversation off the page and finding a new home for it on another wikipage. Here's how it works: At any point in a conversion, someone suggests to ""take it outside"". Someone, a participant in the exchange or even the person making the suggestion, copies the conversation to an existing talk page or creates a new sub-page of the current conversation. Just enough of the beginning of the thread is kept on the original page to convey what the exchange is about. It gets linked to the new location of the discussion. Anyone reading the original discussion can choose to follow the link and join in on the discussion. The people involved continue to discuss whatever it is, as long as they want or until they reach a consensus. A summary of the result can be added back to the original conversation. Ever wanted to tell an editor what you really think of him? Since wikirules do not apply to off-wiki pages, ask an editor to ""take it outside, off Wikipedia completely"" means that editors can agree to vent off Wikipedia, where Wikipedia rules don't apply. At any point in a conversion, someone suggests to ""take it outside, off Wikipedia"". Someone, a participant in the exchange or even the person making the suggestion, copies the conversation to an off wikipage. Just enough of the beginning of the thread is kept on the original page to convey what the exchange is about. It gets linked to the new location of the discussion. Anyone reading the original discussion can choose to follow the link and join in on the discussion. The people involved continue to discuss whatever it is, as long as they want or until they reach a consensus. Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down Wikipedia:IRC Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion Wikipedia:Words of wisdom" 459 467 1032 WP:NT Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Territory 459 Board | List | Australia Portal | Projects | To-Do === Tools === Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. === External watchlist === Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Northern Territory 460 469 1035 WP:MOSAM Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime and manga 460 "This is the manual of style for anime, manga, and related articles. It is written with a strong eye towards friendliness to new contributors, who make up the majority of edits to anime- and manga-related pages. This style guide establishes a standard form for articles about anime and manga series, franchises, and characters. It explains the agreed-on naming conventions for series, terminology, and characters in properties with and without official English translations. It offers guidance for the proper, top-down development of encyclopedic article sets on expansive Japanese media franchises. Finally, it gives links to other relevant policies and guidelines wherever helpful. This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable)For more general guidance on editing conventions, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For standardized translations and romanizations of some Japanese terms, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Translation note Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Film credits glossary Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Place names with unusual readingsFor discussion, help, and editing collaboration on anime and manga articles, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga. Use the most commonly known English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If that name includes special characters (such as ♥), do not include them in the article's title. If it is translated, this is usually the official English translation. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles. See also: WP:NAME: TV | Books | Films. If several articles share the same title, use the Wikipedia page naming conventions: Anime film article – title (film) Anime TV series article – title (TV series) Manga article – title (manga) Light novel article - title (novel) Video game articles, including visual novels – title (video game) Live action drama/tokusatsu – title (TV series) Musical article – title (musical)In cases where title disambiguation is necessary between several articles related to the same intellectual property, the article about the original format of the work is generally organized to act as the ""base"" page. For example, the article Yu-Gi-Oh! is about the manga series, with sub-sections and a disambiguation page leading to the other subjects with the same title. The preceding guidelines should address most instances relating to disambiguation, but please consult the WikiProject Anime and manga or Disambiguation talk pages if you have further questions. === Redirects === As per the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), always make redirects for alternate names and titles, especially if the title uses macrons or other characters which are difficult to type with a standard keyboard. Note that redirects can be made to specific sub-sections of a page if necessary. All material in an article should be verifiable and (usually) cited (preferably to reliable, secondary sources). Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long. Follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style when creating subarticles. Article structure should be flexible and responsive to the content and context of the individual subjects. The following structures are those that many editors find useful when developing an article, but alternatives to the outlined structures are acceptable on a per article bases. === Lead === This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a short article, providing a brief summary of the topic and touching on all the main points of the whole article. At the very least, this should describe the anime or manga, its premise and plot, its author or director, and the English language licensees (if any). Avoid needless trivia, and keep the recommendations of Wikipedia:Lead section in mind. Articles about series which have been adapted into other media should introduce the original format of a work rather than the format of the work most popular in English. For example: ""Bleach is a manga series which was later adapted into an anime series"", NOT ""Bleach is an anime series based on a manga of the same name."" === Infobox === Although this is not a section, the project infobox is a useful and attractive addition to an article. The infobox(es) should not impact other images in the article. For content which falls under the NFCC guidelines, only one image should be used to illustrate the work; please do not replace or change an existing image for regional or volume reasons. For visual novels and other video games, WP:VGBOX is applicable. === Plot === This should comprise a succinct description of the plot and major subplots, but please avoid excessive details of twists and turns in the story. Differences between the original versions and adaptations (whether Japanese or international) often fall within the scope of this section, usually warranting at most a distinct subsection. Also try to avoid specific terminology of anime and manga subculture, to assist readers unfamiliar with the subculture to understand the article. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines when including spoilers, and do not avoid inserting them where necessary to explain the series in an encyclopedic fashion. === Characters === The character section should consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. The length of each entry and inclusion of characters will vary with the character's importance to the story. The character section should include voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{Voiced by}} and {{Voiced by2}} ). There is no need to create a separate voice actor section. For shorter or simpler series, it is often possible to avoid the need for a character section by crafting the plot description such that it introduces all significant characters. Where possible, this is the preferred method, as prose reads more professionally than lists. Character sections should not be divided into numerous sub-sections, as this makes the table of contents unnecessarily long. Minor characters may be included here, but article length should be considered. If the majority of characters' descriptions consist of one or two sentences, a bullet list is most appropriate; if the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or more paragraphs, then a definition list is preferred; if a separate List of (series) characters exists (see below), prose is preferred. See also: Wikipedia:Summary style. If the character section grows long, please reconsider the amount of detail or number of characters included. Beyond that, a separate page, named List of (series) characters, may be appropriate. Separate articles for each character should be avoided unless there is enough verifiable, citable material to warrant a separate article. Regarding names: Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work). If there is no official title, Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. Character names should be given in western order and, in the case of a dictionary list, in boldface. === Production === This is a difficult section to define, and can, if appropriate, generate several sub-sections and even whole sections. Topics that can reasonably be included are: the origins or inspirations of the subject; homages to other works or artists; notable production staff (typically: directors, leading voice actors, and sometimes producers or other personnel); music; issues arising from the transition from one medium to another (e.g.: manga to anime, anime to film, etc.) or from one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication). Although this is an amorphous section, avoid making it a list of trivia. If tidbits of information cannot be cited or worked into a coherent discussion of the subject, reconsider including them. === Themes === This section is for the discussion and critical analysis of the works theme and ideology as seen by third party reviewers. This is may be distinct from the production section and allow for expansion on different themes, including spirituality, environmentalism or the creator's intention for the audience. Academic analysis of works should be included and comprise this section if possible. Susan J. Napier's Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke is one such work. === Media === This section can include, as appropriate, separate subsections for information on the original version of the work, as well as any related anime series/OVAs, manga, novels, films, video games, and other media (such as soundtracks and drama CDs). These sections should, in general, include the original release and broadcast information, and English license and release and broadcast information where applicable. For sections on anime series/OVAs, manga, and novels, include the appropriate list of episodes or volumes and chapters. If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out to a separate article titled List of (series) episodes, List of (series) chapters, List of (series) novels, or similar. When splitting an article, please follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It is preferable to spin out in this way only one format at a time, rather than grouping all media together in a single list. You may find the {{Graphic novel list}} and {{Episode list}} templates useful for formatting these lists. For shows that are broadcast on or after midnight in their country of origin, use the actual airdate instead of the advertised media date. For example, an episode advertised for April 2, 2015 at ""24:30"" or ""深夜00:30"" has an actual airdate of April 3, 2015 at 12:30am, so use ""April 3, 2015"". Add a footnote if the cited references cannot sufficiently explain the situation. When listing an English broadcast where applicable, the same actual airdate rule should be applied if necessary. If the country of origin running the English broadcast has multiple time zones, refer to the main advertised time zone to determine the actual airdate. In the United States and Canada, this is most commonly the Eastern Time Zone. When writing plot summaries for anime episode lists, follow the same length guidelines as you would for television series episode lists, which are approximately 100–200 words. For manga lists, the length of a single tankōbon volume's summary should generally be between 150 and 350 words, with longer lengths reserved for a series or volume with more complex plots or multiple self-contained stories. Remember, it should summarize the main plot points, not every minor detail and scene. Do not include statements such as The series was never released in the US. or The manga has not been translated to English., as these imply that Japanese and English are the only two languages, or that Japan and the US are the only two countries. Instead, use phrasing such as The anime was never released outside Japan. or In 2011, French and Italian translations of the manga were published. === Reception === This should concisely describe the opinions expressed about the subject by reviewers, critics, academics, and (if reliable, secondary sources exist) fan communities. Varying opinions, criticism kind and harsh, and controversies should be presented in a neutral tone. Although difficult to acquire, criticism and reactions from non-English sources (especially original Japanese responses!) are strongly desired. The anime and manga wikiproject keeps various reference libraries of reliable sources which can be consulted to improve this section. === Categorization === Series articles should be placed in one of the subcategories from Category:Anime debuts by date and Category:Manga debuts by date (as applicable). There should be only one anime and one manga release year category for each article unless there are multiple releases (e.g., a TV series, an OVA series, and a film). It is also helpful to include one or more of the subcategories from Category:Anime and manga by demographic, Category:Anime and manga by genre, and Category:Anime and manga by topic. Try to pick the most accurate categories, and avoid redundant genres. For example, action is a subcategory of drama, so if you include action as a genre it is not necessary to also include drama. In general, two or three genres should be sufficient for most articles. The demographic of a manga series is generally determined by the demographic of its magazine of publication, rather than by subjective criteria such as how its art looks. Note that the heading titles are not set in stone—adapt them as appropriate for your character and context. This is a guideline for the sorts of information to include and the general order. === Character lead === A one-to-three paragraph summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who they were created by, what works they appear in, their role in these works, and why they are notable. This is the usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material, and should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary. === Character infobox === Although this is not a section, the animanga character infobox is a useful and attractive addition to an article. See the template documentation for instructions. === Creation and conception/Development === Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the creators. Differences between adaptations, both between media and during translation, and between sequels would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here. Use a title appropriate for your section's actual contents. === Character outline === Information about the character revealed in the story goes in this section—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakable for a biography. This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in its various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them. Other aspects of the character can also be treated in a separate subsection if encyclopedic treatment suggests it is warranted, based on the amount of reliably sourced commentary. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines when including spoilers, and do not avoid inserting them where it is necessary to explain the character in an encyclopedic fashion. In order to not place undue weight on any one element it is necessary to list only the important elements of the character. Long lists like every named attack of the character gives more importance to less important attacks. Exhaustive backgrounds which chronicle blow-by-blow accounts of a character's history overwhelm the reader with trivial information, and are generally incomprehensible to people who are not already fans. === Voice actors or Actors === This is an optional section that can be included as a subsection of ""Development"", particularly if information about how actors approached the role is available. Character songs can also be listed here in a subsection. === Character reception === Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon others. Reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis are good sources; appearances in other works, poll results, merchandise (including, if possible, sales figures), statements by other creators that the character was an influence for them, etc. are also valid topics here. Per the guidelines for writing about fiction, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability. For articles on directors, manga artists, voice actors, etc., follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. Regarding the subject's name, use the English form used by the subject personally (e.g. Yoshitoshi ABe, not Abe Yoshitoshi or Yoshitoshi Abe), or if that is unknown, the form most commonly used in English. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Names and Japanese name#Japanese names in English. Include as much as possible of the following: Name in Kanji and literal transliteration if different from the usual English name, Years of birth and death (if applicable), Notable works, and Styles, inspirations, students, and subsequent influence. === Infobox - aliases === Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources, list only credited stage names and aliases that the person has acknowledged (e.g. on resume/blog), or what reliable sources have connected. Do not list derivatives of the person's name, spelling variants or typos. === Filmographies === For lists of works and roles, follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, and use a chronological order of broadcast/release. For extensive lists of works, you can opt to use tables per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables. Do not include ""voice of"" or ""(language) dub/version"" in the person's role or notes when it is obvious they are working on the localization, however a separate ""live action"" subsection may be useful to highlight non-voice-over works. Do not assume the person voiced in a show or a particular character based on your own hearing as that is original research. As these credits are highly contested, provide citations to reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information for basic guidelines. Include years of founding and dissolution (if applicable) and notable works attributable to the organization. (In practice, notable works is often given as a comprehensive list.) For anime publishers, add Category:Anime companies, Category:Animation studios, or both, as appropriate. The standard infobox for articles related to anime conventions is {{Infobox convention}}. It provides a brief set of statistics related to the convention. For usage details, including detailed information on the numerous optional parameters, refer to Template:Infobox convention. If you have any questions or problems with this infobox, you can discuss them on the template's talk page. Articles larger than stubs should display the standardized beginning and ending structure that is inline with the larger Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout page. A simple breakdown of an article not under distress should include infoboxes above the lead and the content body before appendices and footers. The breakdown for appendices is more regimented with the flow of See also -> Notes (if needed) -> References -> Further reading -> External links. See Also should not duplicate wikilinks to pages linked within the body or to pages in navigational templates. References can be formatted in various ways, but articles should conform to a single citation style. General references represent an issue to text–source integrity, but are an acceptable starting format for all but biographies of living persons. Further reading should not duplicate referenced material. External links can contain links to official sites and other useful unofficial sites. WP:Manual of Style/Television" 461 470 1037 WP:NOBODYCARES Wikipedia:Nobody cares 461 "Nobody cares relates to the civil idea that an issue that one person holds significant or special may not engender interest or a feeling of concern with other people. If you have been pursuing a complaint for a long time, and it has resulted in little or no support, and repeated requests to drop it and move on have been made to you, then you should consider the possibility that this is because ""nobody cares"", rather than believing that a vast sinister conspiracy exists in order to protect the user that you've decided has done something wrong. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Wikipedia:No personal attacks meta:Don't be a jerk Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads Warnock's dilemma Nobody cares article in Uncyclopedia" 462 471 1038 WP:LOVE Wikipedia:WikiLove 462 "WikiLove is a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users. It was actually coined over time on the mailing lists. Because people coming from substantially different perspectives work on Wikipedia together – religious fundamentalists and secular humanists, conservatives and liberals, etc. – it is easy for discussions to degenerate into flamewars. But we are all here for one reason: we love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form of an encyclopedia of unprecedented size. Wikipedia is not just another discussion forum, it is a project to describe and collect what we know. If we keep this common goal, this love of great knowledge, in mind, if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually ""understand"" what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of ""WikiLove"". If we fail to achieve WikiLove, this will only mean that the encyclopedia and its mission as a whole will suffer. Constant flamewars will scare contributors off, biased articles will drive readers away, and both will harm our reputation in the long term. There isn't a secret formula to achieve WikiLove, but here are some key components: Follow Wikiquette – respect other contributors. Love newcomers even more, and don't bite them – named or numeric. Follow our policies – they make it easier to work with one another. Assume good faith, and assume the premise of good faith. Aim for a neutral point of view – write articles that people from all sides can read and agree with. Stay cool – don't react hastily in anger. Instead, take some distance if you're feeling mad. Forgive and forget – remember, this is the Internet. Don't allow yourself to be hurt; do try to accommodate other people's views. Rather try to follow the spirit of Ahimsa: neither mentally, verbally, or physically do injury, whether by doing it oneself, getting it done by others, or approving it when done by others. Remember that your fellow editors are not part of your operating system, or 'genies in a lamp', etc., everyone likes to feel appreciated. When making a comment, it's often good to start with a thank you or something positive when there is a reason for it, and maybe end with a thank you if making a request. Some examples: ""Hi, thank you for your comments on my edit, which you reverted. I would appreciate it if you would please look at this version (...) Again, thank you for your time."" ""Hi, and thank you for contributing to the article on Bird migration. However, I believe you are mistaken about (...) I have edited it for factuality, would you mind reading it again when you can? Thanks again."" ""Cheers on your good work on Clothing! Since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, could you explain what you meant by (...) I read it, but the meaning wasn't clear from the context. Perhaps you could make it more understandable to the layman, or provide some links for further study? Thanks!""Happy editing, and spread WikiLove all over the Internet to users who deserve it! Some users are strictly against templated ""WikiLove"" messages. For those who seek to opt out of them, use either the {{Template:NoWikiLove}} or the userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. WikiLove extension (user documentation) WikiLove extension (admin/developer documentation) WikiLove from the press WikiCrime WikiHate WikiPeace WikiWar Charitableness No terms of endearment Category:WikiLove templates Welcoming committee – Welcome to Wikipedia" 463 472 1039 WP:CONTEXTUALISATION User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims 463 "== Contextualisation == Contextualisation is a complex skill requiring a synthesis of foreground and background concepts. The UMBC rubric defines an ideal contextualisation as, Applies prior and new knowledge to determine the historical setting of sources. Uses that setting to interpret the sources within the historical context, as opposed to a present-day mindset. In the context of Wikipedia, this is not an argument in favour of original research but rather to explicitly state the contexts that are already mentioned in the reliable sources. WP:SYNTH says that if you have source S1 making claim C1 and S2 saying C2, just state C1 and C2 instead of synthesising C1 and C2 to give C3 which is not explicitly stated in either S1 or S2. This essay fine tunes WP:SYNTH by dealing with an issue of faulty generalization of claims. Specifically, if a series of claims {C1,C2,C3,..} are made based on WP:RS, we would have to carefully observe the specific contexts {c1,c2,c3,..} of those claims and explicitly state those contexts. It is possible that though there might be overlapping of claims and contexts there should be no generalisation of CN, as an extension of non-statistical samples. == Examples == The examples mentioned herein are only cases and not necessarily extendable to all contexts. Feel free to add more appropriate examples. === Activism === Who is an activist? What is activism? There are a variety of definitions for activism, including from Merriam-Webster: ""a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue"" and Wiktionary: ""The practice of using action to achieve a result, such as political demonstration or a strike in support of or in opposition to an issue."" For activist, the Wiktionary definition includes ""One who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change,"" while Merriam-Webster states, ""one who advocates or practices activism : a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue."" Contextualization with the assistance of reliable sources may be necessary to determine whether and how to apply the term 'activist' or 'activism.' === Freedom(concept) === In the article Freedom, the concept is presented as a very western notion. If we were to superimpose that western notion onto other countries it would appear that the other countries were not free by some ""gold standard"". We would have to ask several questions in order to contextualise. How did the specific notions of freedom develop in each place? Were the countries having large slave populations? Were they totalitarian regimes? Were they under the rule of a foreign nation? When did the women of that place get voting rights? Is the freedom available to all sections of the population irrespective of class, caste, gender, economic conditions? Can the concept have varying and yet valid definitions? Thus, the notion of freedom would have to be contextualised. === History === Concepts, processes, events... === Law === In the Indian legal system, a set of abstract laws are drafted and promulgated into Acts. Due to conflicts, cases are filed which may eventually reach constitutional courts such as the High Court or Supreme Court for adjudication. Based on the arguments made by opposing parties and based upon a specific context, these courts carve out a niche in the case law. However, disputes around the same law may arise in other contexts and parties may argue why they fit or do not fit into a previous ruling and thus the Courts may further carve out newer interpretations. Thus, reporting of the context of the case while citing the relief is important. === Marxism-Leninism === There is a tendency to equate Marxism-Leninism to implementations by the erstwhile Soviet Union or other failed States while arguing against Marxism-Leninism. This is a logical fallacy attributable to biased generalisation. Marxism-Leninism is the term used by those who adhere to Marxism and Leninism, with different applications and interpretations being developed over time and place. An illustration to show that Marxism-Leninism is not a single solid block of theory might be the political disputes during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) that would eventually lead to an outcome, i.e., the reform and opening up (1978-today). What was described by Alessandro Russo as ""the 'final battle' between great adversaries"" was a dispute between ""Deng Xiaoping and his allies"" and the Maoists, that occurred during the ""decisive biennium"" of 1975-1976. Those who were allied with Mao as well as those who supported Deng Xiaoping were both Marxist-Leninists, although one interpretation of Marxism and Leninism was labeled Maoism, and the other Deng Xiaoping Theory, both Chinese varities of Marxism-Leninism. Different eponymous interpretations of Marxism and Leninism include, for example Xi Jinping Thought (China), Fidelism (Cuba), Guevarism (Cuba), Ho Chi Minh Thought (Vietnam), Stalinism (USSR), Khrushchevism (USSR), Brezhnevism (USSR), Hoxhaism (Albania), Titoism (Yugoslavia). There are several other interpretations of Marxism-Leninism that don't have a specific eponymous name. Another example to illustrate how political parties professing Marxism-Leninism widely interpret a context and identify solutions to the problems they collectively perceive may be observed from India. Parties such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are banned in India as they call for the overthrow of the Indian state by violent means while others such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have formed successive coalition governments in states of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura under the very same Constitution. These examples, while having certain overlapping ideas, developed in very specific conditions and hence are context critical. === Religion === Holy battles! === Statistics === The following discussion is taken from here. The explanations by Aquillion are illuminating: Problem: As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history. However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005. Question: Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Solutions/Explanations:You would state that there are contrary claims and cite both of them. Vikram Vincent 18:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC) This is sometimes the right answer, but I would be cautious about doing so with statistics unless there's a source specifically stating they contradict or the contradiction is extremely, extremely obvious. Statistics are complex and it's entirely possible for sources to differ due to eg. methodology or other details; outright framing a source as contradicted by another has to be done carefully. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) The provided World Bank website shows that the ""Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people)"" in Japan has been steadily declining: between 1960 and 2018, the birth rate was at its lowest in 2018. How exactly does this show that the sources are making false claims? — Newslinger talk 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC) There are several options. First, check to see if the source has issued a retraction or correction. Second, weigh the reputations of competing sources, as well as the date of publication and whether there are sources directly stating that another source is mistaken (I would be far more cautious about playing up a contradiction merely spotted by an editor; sometimes, especially with statistics, there are valid reasons why two sources could legitimately reach results that seem to differ.) Regardless, try to assemble the most recent highest-quality sources, and based around what the bulk of them says, decide if you're going to cover both, how you'll do so if you do, or if eg. there's just a single source out of line that can be dismissed as a simple error. In any case, generally speaking one error isn't enough to throw a source as a whole into doubt, especially if it's relatively minor and not part of a pattern. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) (Follow up from here) ideally it's best to cite secondary sources covering statistical studies (ones that can provide interpretation and analysis to say what the numbers mean, taking methodology, context, any limitations of the study, etc. into account) rather than citing primary sources of statistical data directly, for much the same reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC) == Identifying bias of secondary sources == Ask yourself the following questions: Parameters to accord WP:DUE Author bias and background Parameters to identify bias of author of secondary sources: Who wrote the text? Why? When? Where? Funding Affiliation Their publicly stated position on a topic Assumptions - explicit vs implicit Data == Further reading == The Decline of Historical Thinking Historical Thinking Standards Virginia Tech | Historical Inquiry | SCIM-C Historical Research Capabilities == See also == Historical thinking == References ==" 464 473 1041 WP:MUSTARD Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Standards 464 "Wikipedia has developed a large repertoire of articles about music. However, many music-related articles require significant improvement; MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs) is a project to develop guidelines for achieving high quality in music-related articles. These guidelines are a set of standards that WikiProject: Music uses as a benchmark for quality assurance. They are largely based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and common practice. Some abbreviations are always used in music articles. These forms are standard: Op. for opus (e.g. Op. 31) No. for number (e.g. Op. 31, No. 2) Opp. for the plural of Opus (e.g. Opp. 51, 82 and 93) Op. posth., or Op. posth. for opus posthumousNote: ♭, ♯ and ♮ signs should not be used in article titles or headings. The vast majority of music genres are not proper nouns, and thus should not be capitalized. The first letter in the first and last words in English song, album and other titles is capitalized. The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for short coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles (""short"" meaning those with fewer than five letters), as well as the word to in infinitives. More specifically: Capitalize the first and last word. Capitalize every noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. This includes all forms of the verb to be (e.g., be, been, am, is, was, were). Capitalize a short preposition if and only if it is the first or last word of the title; part of a phrasal verb (e.g., ""Call Off the Search"", ""Give Up the Ghost""); or the first word in a compound preposition (e.g., ""Time Out of Mind"", ""Get Off of My Cloud""). With compound hyphenated terms, capitalize each word-part separately, according to the applicable rule. Titles that include parentheses should be capitalized as follows: the part outside the parentheses should be capitalized as if the parenthetical words are not present; the part inside the parentheses should be capitalized as if there were no parentheses at all. ""(The Same Thing Happens with) The Birds and the Bees""—""with"" is lowercase, as if the title were ""The Same Thing Happens with the Birds and the Bees""; but ""The"" is uppercase, as if the title were just ""The Birds and the Bees"". Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:Proper names). Top-level categories, such as Category:Songs and Category:Guitarists, should not be populated. (Their category pages can be marked with the {{catdiffuse}} template.) Specific subcategories should be used such as Category:Jazz guitarists. Articles should not generally be in both a category and a subcategory of it. For example, do not put someone in both Category:Canadian musicians and Category:Canadian music, because the first is a subcategory of the latter. (For exceptions to this rule see SUBCAT.) All articles should be at natural titles, if possible. Do not disambiguate unless necessary. In general, terms that need to be disambiguated should involve the most simple, basic category possible; for example, do not use (70s concert promoter) when (concert promoter) is sufficient, or (Romantic concerto) when (concerto) will do. === Popular music === The most common disambiguators should be created using (band), (album), (musician), (record label), (song) or (composer). If further disambiguation is needed, use: Countries for performers: X (American band) and X (Australian band) (if this does not resolve the ambiguity, use genre or time period); and Performers for albums/songs/etc: Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) and Down to Earth (Stevie Wonder album). If this does not resolve the ambiguity, use the year as well. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Naming and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Bands, albums and songs for more detailed guidelines for article names. Others include: (EP), (concert promoter), (DJ), (manager), (record producer), (sound engineer), (songwriter), (talent scout). === Classical music === Musician disambiguators: (conductor), (pianist), (violinist), (ensemble), (orchestra), etc. Compositions: normally (composer's name), but sometimes (cantata), (concerto), (sonata), (symphony) etc. Others: (musicologist), (music critic) etc. === Operas === If the name of the opera has already been used (e.g. for an article on a mythological deity or a play etc), the word opera should be added to the title in parentheses. For example: Macbeth (opera) refers to the work by Verdi to distinguish it from Macbeth which is the play by Shakespeare. If there are two (or more) operas with the same title, subsequent articles on operas of the same name take the name(s) of the composer(s) in parentheses. For example: Otello is the opera by Verdi, and Otello (Rossini) is the one by Rossini. (Normally, the first article to be created is also on the opera that is more well-known.)An example combining both guidelines would be: Miss Julie, the play, Miss Julie (opera), the opera by Rorem, and Miss Julie (Alwyn), the opera by Alwyn. The various works should also be listed on any disambiguation page. === Opera biographies === Singer disambiguators are (soprano), (mezzo-soprano), (contralto), (tenor), (baritone), (bass-baritone), and (bass). Other disambiguators include (director) (for stage directors), (librettist), and (opera manager) (impresarios and administrators). Pages on artists, groups or works should have recording and discography sections as appropriate. These should be subdivided into albums and singles, audio and video recordings, or other simple systems as required. If the discography of an artist, group or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "" discography""). Do not use album, record or DVD covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not compatible with Wikipedia's fair use policy. External links should be used sparingly. Articles on performers should have a link to their homepage(s), or other official pages (e.g., the record company's page for that artist, if there is one, or an official fanclub) Articles on record labels should have a link to the company's official homepage. Anything used as a reference, preferably using Template:Cite web, from within the ""References"" section. External pages that include significant information that could not be placed on Wikipedia (e.g., copyrighted content that is not posted in violation of copyright law) should be linked to: External pages containing information that could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article (posted on the talk page); or Respected databases of relevant information, where there is a significant quantity of information that is inappropriate for incorporation into Wikipedia. This may include such pages as fansites, provided that they are an established organization or a recognized fan community and are clearly more informative and more useful than most fansites. For example: a fansite that includes an exhaustive database of tour dates and setlists; a rights holder-approved lyrics site; a large repository of relevant images; a large repository of other trivia that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia; and forums or other community pages, only if such pages are unusually established and recognized institutions with an important focus. Articles on music genres should not have links to the homepages of an individual artist, unless it otherwise meets a criterion for inclusion. Fansites and unofficial fan clubs (subject to the above), online stores, and similar sites should generally not be linked. Music of articles (e.g., Music of Maryland) may link to community-based music sites, provided that they are well-established and versatile. A page that lists local shows, for example, should be reasonably comprehensive, regularly and reliably updated, and specifically based around the topic place (e.g., Maryland). Local bands and other performers that do not have articles should not be linked to in any section unless their notability is established by a cited, reputable and independent source. Do not create external links to specific performers on music of articles, unless they are being cited or otherwise qualify. Some performers may be sufficiently ""notable"" to include in an article on the music of a time, place or genre, yet without enough verifiable information for an article. Pages on these performers can be merged and redirected to an article or list, and should not generally be linked unless the target contains significantly additional useful information (e.g., a List of minor California punk bands of the 1970s with properly cited information) It is reasonable to remove a link that does not obviously prove itself under these guidelines. For example, do not remove a link to a band's official page from the band's article, but any other external link that is not cited as a reference or justified on the talk page may be removed. In general, when linking to a fanclub, unofficial community page or other such website, it may be wise to provide a justification on the talk page. Names of songs and singles are in quotes, name of albums and EPs are in italics. The names of tours are not formatted beyond ordinary capitalization. Generic titles refer to those based on musical forms, such as the concerto or symphony as well as liturgical titles like Agnus Dei or Kyrie. These should not be formatted beyond simple capitalization; e.g., Piano Concerto No. 5, Sixth Symphony True titles are specific to a work, and are always italicized; e.g., From me flows what you call time or Pelléas and Mélisande Titles of songs, albums and other media that are not in English, or are in a non-standard variety of English, should follow ordinary rules of capitalization and punctuation for that variety. This guideline does not supersede other Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and only applies wherever foreign language titles appear. The title of an article should be in bold text on its first appearance in that article. The name should be in either quotes or italics as appropriate, but quotes surrounding a title should not be in bold text, e.g., use ""'''Hey Jude'''"" not '''""Hey Jude""'''. Important redirects should be in bold text on their first appearance, preferably in the lead section. Regarding the use-mention distinction, words should be italicized when they are referred to; e.g., ""They chose the name The Supremes"" or ""They called their style jelly rock"" rather than ""They became The Supremes"" or ""They play jelly rock"") Unless a word meets one of these criteria, or another standard English usage criterion, it should not be in italics or bold text. Use either Unicode flat (♭= ♭) and sharp (♯ = ♯) symbols, or the words ""flat"" and ""sharp"". Do not use ""b"" for ""flat"" or # (the number sign) for ""sharp"". The template {{music}} allows these and other symbols to be entered more easily with greater cross-browser support. Wikipedia needs to use free images. Fair use is usable only in certain circumstances. Copyrighted images, such as album covers, can be used in an article only if a fair use rationale, specific to that article, appears on the image page. The {{Non-free album cover}} template establishes fair use only in an article about the album in question. Fair use images cannot be used purely for decoration. Fair use images cannot be used in discography sections. Fair use images should be used sparingly. Each image must contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article. Images should be laid out in an unobtrusive manner. Start the article with a right-aligned image. When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: Platypus). Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. Images and the display of musical notation should follow the following guidelines: Graphics of musical examples should be large enough to be legible but not so large that they overwhelm the text of an article. They also should not contain inordinate space between the notes. When creating a graphic in a musical notation program keep the score as large as possible (through the layout or display setting in your notation program). If your example is short, three measure or less, you may increase its size on the page and decrease the page margins. That way the example will be as large as possible, but will not contain large spaces between the notes. Example of large image size with little space between notes: Save the file as type or extension .PNG. If .PNG is not an option in your notation program then save the score as another type of image file and convert that to .PNG (with Paint, for instance). Trim the image so that it only contains the example (no blank space or large margins!) and upload it to Wikipedia. When you display that image in an article, then you specify the desired size between pipes (""|""s) as follows: [[File:Example.png|550px|Example image]] Images larger than 550 pixels wide may not be conveniently displayed on 800x600 monitors, so keep images below that size where possible. Use {{Commons}} to link to images on Commons wherever possible. Use an informative and concise caption or alternative text for each image. The sharp (♯) and flat (♭) signs are ♯ and ♭, respectively. A natural (♮) can be entered with ♮. Superscript and subscript may be combined, as in figured bass, in math markup, C_6^4 = C 6 4 {\displaystyle C_{6}^{4}} , see Wikipedia:TeX markup or m:Help:Formula. A superscript circle, or degree sign, which indicates a diminished chord, that may not display correctly for everyone, ""°"", can be produced by typing °, °, or (on Windows PCs) Alt+0176. A superscript lower case ""o"" (o) may be used instead. The slashed o, ""ø"", which may not display correctly for all readers, is produced by superscripting the character produced by typing ø or ø, or by keying Alt+0248. For inversions and the degree sign superscript and subscript may be done thus: viio, I6. This looks like: viio, I6. In general, do not link to non-existent articles about recordings, e.g., songs and albums. See also: #Notability Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in 1963). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music). In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the 'year in music' articles. Generally avoid linking non-dated chronological items, such as ""1988"", ""1920s"" and ""20th century"". Do not link to self-titled albums like this: The New York Dolls released their debut in 1978. Instead, use some variation of ""The New York Dolls released their eponymic debut, New York Dolls, in 1978"". Songs that appeared in an album should be redirected (or disambiguated) to point to the album on which they were first released, unless the song itself has an article. (This may not apply to artists from the pre-LP era.) Short lists (of compositions, recordings etc.) may be useful in biographies and articles about works of music, however when they become disproportionately long in relation to the main article they should be split into dedicated subpages. Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers. A separate list page may be created. Lists should not generally include musicians who do not have an article. Copyrighted lyrics can only be used under the WP:FU provision. Thus, they should only be used to illustrate specific points, documented by relevant sources. Lists of quotes from songs or other compositions or recordings are inappropriate, as are any sections consisting entirely or primarily of quotes. Uncopyrighted lyrics can be used freely. However, they should be incorporated into an article only to illustrate specific points, and documented by relevant sources. An authoritative source will determine whether the word ""the"" is part of a band's name. In the case of the Velvet Underground, for example, it must be included, while in that of Black Sabbath, it must not. A redirect (or disambiguation) should be created for the alternate name (with or without ""the""). Mid-sentence, the word ""the"" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital ""The"" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground... The letters, accents and diacritics in the original language should be preserved when referring to works by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), e.g. Schöpfungsmesse, not Schopfungsmesse, nor Schoepfungsmesse; Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, not Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune, nor Prélude à l'Après-midi d'un Faune. The names of works, and other terms, should be marked up with the {{lang}} template, using the appropriate two-letter language code. For example, to link to the article for the work Deutschlandlied, use ''{{lang|de|[[Deutschlandlied]]}}'' which will appear as Deutschlandlied. The nationality of composers, historic singers etc. has sometimes been controversial. Here are three guidelines: Nationality should refer to national identity, in other words the national group with which the person identified, not the state of which the person was a citizen or subject. Nationality should not be anachronistic/retrospective, i.e. for historic figures it should not be defined by present-day borders and states, but by contemporary ones. If there is any doubt about the nationality of an individual, we should be inclusive and use a double designation (e.g. Anglo-German etc.) both in the introduction and in the categories. Opinions are desirable. However, they must be cited. If you want to mention whom a band or album sounds similar to, do so in a prose format (as in Operation Ivy has a ska punk sound similar to The Specials), not in a list. Making a list of ""related bands"" constitutes using your ideas and opinions, which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Do not link to 'similar performers' or 'related genres' in a 'see also' section. Claims such as popular, critically acclaimed and well-received should be cited to a reputable source. Articles on music-related topics should have all of the following qualities: content—significant and useful information; encyclopedic tone—written in an informative, precise and well organized fashion; historical awareness—informs the reader of the historical and cultural context of the topic; notability—exhibits, documents and explains encyclopedic significance; and objectivity—neutral in depth and breadth of coverage, in choice of content, and in presentation and phrasing. Articles on musicians, bands and other performers in the modern era should meet the criteria at WP:BAND. Albums and songs do not have any generally accepted specific criteria. This does not mean that all albums or songs are inherently notable, but rather that each should be decided on a case-by-case basis. See WP:NALBUMS for more. There may be discussion or proposals for record labels, albums and genres in the future. When putting titles in quotes or italics, put the punctuation outside the quotemark or italicization. For example, ""I listened to ""Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"", one of my favorite songs, from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, one of my favorite albums."" Sentences should end in periods. Exclamation marks are an example of unencyclopedic tone outside of direct, cited and described quotations. Question marks are also rarely appropriate in encyclopedic writing (e.g. do not write: What was grunge music? It was a youth subculture ...). This also applies to section headings. Things that are not sentences should not end with a period. If you make a list and it includes descriptions that are not complete sentences, do not use a period. If the list does use complete sentences, use periods. Be consistent. The chart positions should be organized into one table, and the table should be formatted using class=""wikitable sortable"". Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart. For more information about the guidelines for US Charts see WP:USCHART. Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used. In addition, unofficial charts from television-related countdown shows (such as MTV's TRL or BET's 106 & Park) should not be used as they are not derived from verifiable sales and/or airplay totals. Within the table, no chart positions should be boldfaced, as this violates Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. Albums and singles which appear on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the most recent year furthest down the table. Alternative versions, such as remixes or radio edits, of the same song should be indicated in the table as an additional line within the Chart name cell. A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's table or charts as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text. Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order. Chart positions should be attributed to a reliable, published source. Wikipedia needs to use music and video samples. Fair use is usable only in certain circumstances. Fair use music samples must be used sparingly. Each instance must contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article. The tag {{Music sample}} is not per se sufficient to establish fair use. Music samples should be integrated into the article rather than placed at the end of the article. Generally, reference to a sample should be made in the text; fair use is partly justified by the educational value of the sample, which can be reinforced by such reference. The use of spoiler tags before synopses (plot summaries) of musical works that tell a story (musicals, operas, concept albums, etc.) has often been regarded as unnecessary and distracting. Consensus should be obtained on relevant talk pages before using them. Tables are appropriate for lists with three or more fields. Sortable tables are appropriate for longer lists, that may be reordered according to title, genre, date, or place etc. Sorting should always ignore definite and indefinite articles, so sorting tags will usually be required. Only proper nouns (and the first letter) should be capitalized in article and section titles. Music genres are not proper nouns. Capitalization should follow standard practice for English capitalization, except for special cases in abundant evidence from multiple independent and reliable sources. This includes the use of all-upper-case or all-lower-case usage in album or song titles, stage or personal names, and the use of lower-case short prepositions, conjunctions and articles in the titles of albums, songs and other compositions or recordings. Bands whose names are in the format ""X and the As"" (e.g., Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Bob Marley & the Wailers) should use an ampersand and lowercase the. Redirects should be created for the forms Bob Marley And The Wailers, Bob Marley and the Wailers and Bob Marley & The Wailers. There should also be a redirect or disambiguator at The Wailers and Wailers. In most cases, backing bands do not need their own articles; there are exceptions, such as The Wailers and E Street Band. This may not apply in certain circumstances, such as when the lead performers and the band are not considered one unit. For example, if Eddie Vedder conducted a tour with The Temptations, they might be billed as Eddie Vedder and The Temptations. In these circumstances, do not use Eddie Vedder & the Temptations, but Eddie Vedder and The Temptations. The capitalization of 'true name' (as opposed to 'generic name' ) titles of classical music and operas should follow the style used in the leading reference works: New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Dictionary of Music, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide: For English works, and works well-known in translation under an English name, capitalize the first word and all major words e.g. The Wand of Youth, Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis, Ride of the Valkyries (music); The Barber of Seville, Summer of the Seventeenth Doll (opera). For titles in their original foreign language, the style used is ""sentence capitalization"". That is, the title is capitalized as it would be in a sentence in that language. This is the style used, not only by the major music reference works, but also by the Chicago Manual of Style. While there may be occasional exceptions, general rules can be given for various languages which hold true in the vast majority of instances: For Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese titles, capitalize only the first word and any proper nouns (names of particular people or places) in that language, e.g. Al gran sole carico d'amore, Cinque variazione, Quatuor pour la fin du temps, Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus, Le martyre de Saint Sébastien, El amor brujo (music); Ugo, conte di Parigi, Le nozze di Figaro, Les mamelles de Tirésias, Les contes d'Hoffmann, Margarita la tornera, La vida breve, Veinticinco de agosto, 1983 (opera). For German work titles capitalize the first word and all nouns, but (with a few exceptions such as ""Sie"") only the nouns, e.g. Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche, Ein deutsches Requiem (music); Die tote Stadt, Die ägyptische Helena (opera). Trivial information (anecdotes, unrelated cultural influences, and other peripheral content etc.) is not appropriate on Wikipedia. It should only be included if the information can be reasonably expected to be of interest to a typical reader of the article in question. If a particular fact is worthy of inclusion, it should be placed in a proper context, in the body of the article. Do not use the ==Trivia== (or an equivalent, such as ==Miscellany==) subheading except on a temporary basis. ==== Collectibles ==== Images of collectibles (coins, banknotes, postage stamps, souvenirs and similar items) in music articles should meet the following conditions: Images should be free of copyright, or have a valid fair use rationale that satisfies WP:NFCC, specifically 'Criteria 8' (Significance): ""Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."" Inclusion should contribute to information about the subject of the article, not be used to obtain credibility and value for the collectible by associating it with the subject. The information should be of interest to the average reader of the music article. It should not be trivia.Coins, notes, stamps etc. in general circulation are more likely to meet these criteria than 'collectors' issues. Some musical terms have multiple possible meanings. Unless a different meaning is obvious from the context (e.g., in a quote), use the same terminology as Wikipedia titles. Popular music is a broad category that is frequently compared to 'classical music' or folk music; it need not be particularly popular. Pop music is mainstream, commercial, chart-topping music. 'Classical music' is a broad term for mainstream Western tradition music dating from the Medieval period onwards. The term 'classical music' did not exist before about 1836, when it was used to refer to the music of the Classical era (of roughly 1750–1820). Many editors feel that it is inappropriate for music written since the end of the 19th century, hence apostrophes are commonly used as a short-hand for 'so-called'. (Unless it is clear from the context, do not refer to 'classical music' without qualifying it as 'Western', 'Indian', etc.) Folk music is orally transmitted and generally informal and non-commercial. Traditional music and roots music are assumed synonyms. Music such as that of Bob Dylan should be described as and linked to something more specific, such as roots revival. Hip hop music is a music genre. The act of rapping is performed by rappers. When referring to a genre, hip hop should be used, except in circumstances such as gangsta rap. The word hip hop is, like most music genres, not capitalized; it is also not hyphenated. The use of titles within articles should follow the same conventions as for titles; see #Titles and section headings. Template:Infobox musical artist Template:Navbox Musical artist" 465 474 1044 WP:DDH Wikipedia:Does deletion help? 465 On Wikipedia, deletion is used to remove articles which do not fit within our remit. There are a number of article types which can be deleted on sight, ranging from attack pages to nonsense (see WP:CSD for a complete list). Articles which do not meet those criteria are deleted through editorial consensus after listing at WP:AFD. The question to be debated is whether or not the article improves Wikipedia, so the argument is whether or not articles add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way. Where an article actually does add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. Where it is misleading or biased, it should be removed. Consider what the best way to inform our readers is. It may be better to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory than to leave our readers to search the web for the information: a well sourced article or section within an article can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine can. Merging information into parent articles may also cause problems. A few questions to ask are: will the information be accessible without having to read a huge amount of unrelated text beforehand, will a merger of information lead to less information because of the overview nature of parent articles, will the information on said topic in a parent article lead to less updates because of our undue weight policies? A large number of policies and guidelines sometimes conflict with the above approach. For example, the notability guideline states that we need multiple secondary sources to summarise. This can at times conflict with our purpose, which is to inform. The usual safety valve in this instance is WP:Ignore all rules: namely, that we should aim to improve the encyclopedia in whatever we do, as we are here to help our readers find information, not suppress it. Deletionism - meta.wikimedia.org Inclusionism - meta.wikimedia.org Mergism - meta.wikimedia.org Separatism - meta.wikimedia.org 466 475 1045 WP:WELL Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington 466 "Event page: Wellington Meetup for 18 March 2023 When: Wellington Meetup for 18 March 2023 , 10:00AM – 12:00PM Where: * Location: He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington Come to the main entrance of the National Library on Molesworth Street. === Wellington WikiCon 11 & 12 March 2023 === Event page: Wellington WikiCon 2023 When: Saturday 11, 10:30AM – 5:00PM & Sunday 12 March 2023, 09:30AM – 5:00PM Where: Home of Compassion conference rooms, Island Bay, Wellington Registration: Wellington WikiCon 2023 REGISTRATION (fully catered) registration fee is $10 or $25 / day ~ all welcome ~ program details and to ways to get involved see the event page Wikipedians in Wellington hold regular, informal meetups. At the meetup we usually have some experienced users available to provide advice with joining the Wikipedia platforms, learning editing and uploading new content to Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons, and generally improving skills. This is an informal and social meetup where the goal is to be accessible and friendly to all and to talk about what you are doing or want to do. Ask questions, get some help, or just get editing. The group is committed to providing a safe space. Children are welcome. When we meet in person we aim to meet at disabled-accessible locations that have free wifi, are near a public transport hub, and ideally have publicly accessible computer equipment. Complete beginners are welcome. If you are a complete beginner and you need some help on how to sign up and set up your account on Wikipedia before you get to the meetup, check out the first five minutes of this YouTube video. If you want to find out more about the meetup before attending check out the agenda for the next meet up page or leave messages on the talk pages of the Meet Up coordinators Einebillion (talk) or Ambrosia10 (talk) and we'll be happy to chat with you and answer your questions. At the meeting of 15 February 2020 the attendees discussed what could be improved to make these meetups more effective. The decision was more focus on tools, demonstrations of tools and how-to, and a focus on solving the issues attendees were having. The group is very welcoming to new editors and those interested in watching before diving into to editing or adding to any of the Wikiverse platforms. === Meetup Code of Conduct and Anonymity when Meeting Via Video Conference === All attendees are expected to understand and abide by Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. Video conferencing meetups are a replacement for in-person meetups. While attending and remaining anonymous is supported by the group, lurking is not supported and will be actively discouraged. All attendees are expected to use their User name as an identifier on the video conference call and to introduce themselves and their interest in joining the call on the chat channel of the call as a minimum. Participation using video and / or voice in addition to Chat is encouraged but not required. Some members of the group have been the target of cyber bullying in the past and these measures are intended to support creating a safe space for collaboration. If a new attendee joins the group with video and voice disabled, they will be encouraged to participate by the facilitator, using this script: Welcome new attendee. This group respects your right to remain anonymous. This group has a policy of discouraging lurking as it makes some of us uncomfortable. If you are happy to introduce yourself over voice, please let us know what you've been working on and if you need help with any editing issues.If you're not comfortable updating the group by voice, then that's okay. You have the option of introducing yourself and adding your user page link into the chat feature. The chat is deleted once the video conference finishes.If you want to remain completely anonymous and not chat, then this meetup is not for you. We make comprehensive and extensive notes of the meetup that will be included in the meetup page afterwards. That's the best way to catch up with what this meetup has been doing if you don't want to contribute during the video call.If you're not sure how to use the chat feature you can access it by clicking on the icon that looks like a speech bubble in the bottom left corner.If, after an appropriate length of time, the new attendee does not participate by video, voice, or chat, the facilitator of the group will remove the attendee from the video call. If the new attendee persists in logging in, the group will discuss abandoning the meet up. GLAMR Training including creating a Wiki Strategy, teaching new editors how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata === Wikipedia === The main English Wikipedia Help page is here. It has links on how to edit a page, contributing to Wikipedia, an introductory tutorial, and ""getting started""A useful introductory video on editing: YouTube video – How to Edit Wikipedia – a 2018 tutorial (47:44)This includes How to create and set up your account (00:00) Looking at an example page (04:07) including the Talk page (10:50) and View History (11:25) Drafting an article and using your Sandbox (13:00) including having a minimum of 50 to 100 words with three high quality, reliable, secondary sources (13:50), drafting content and editing tools in visual editor (16:25), adding citations (19:02), adding images from Wikimedia Commons (26:10), adding an info box (28:24), categories (30:35) Your own talk page (33:25) including adding a new editor badge Moving drafted content to Wikipedia's livespace (39:23) A timelapse of drafting and publishing a new article on Wikipedia (44:23)A shorter (20 min) introduction video on editing: YouTube video - Wikipedia Training in 20 minutes - April 2022 (22:29)The Wikipedia AdventureLearn to edit Wikipedia in under an hour!ToolsTemplate:Article templates - templates for common types of articlesThe Objective Revision Evaluation Service (ORES) tool predicts the quality of a wikipedia article and adds a indicator to each wikipedia page you view. It is a way of monitoring the quality of the Wikipedia articles you are starting and editing. To install this tool add the following line to your Special:MyPage/common.js page. Adding this little snippet of code enables the display the ORES article quality score and class (stub, start, C, B, etc.) at the top of each Wikipedia article you view. Add this line of code: importScript(""User:EpochFail/ArticleQuality-loader.js"");Wikipedia articles Clean up list for WikiProject New ZealandWiki statisticsWikipedia editors by country - monthly activity in two bands. Mouse-over country for pop-up. === Wikidata === Here are a number of useful introductory videos on Wikidata and why it's great. They are ranked by complexity and depth of information. YouTube video – Wikidata and Why You Should Care. (7 min 37 sec) YouTube video – How to manually edit Wikidata. (2 min 15 sec) YouTube video – An Introduction to Wikidata. (22 min 34 sec) and the slide deck from this presentation. YouTube video – A Gentle Introduction to Wikidata for Absolute Beginners [including non-techies! (3 hrs 4 min 32 sec)This last video is three hours long so use these time markers to skip to the sections you are interested in. What is Wikidata? (00:00) How to contribute new data to Wikidata (1:09:34) How to create an entirely new item on Wikidata (1:27:07) How to embed Wikidata into pages on other wikis (1:52:54) Tools like the Wikidata Game (1:39:20) Article Placeholder (2:01:01) Reasonator (2:54:15) Mix'n'Match (2:57:05) How to Query Wikidata (including SPARQL examples) (2:05:05)Videos and other content useful for experienced editors of Wikidata Mass edits on Wikidata – how to use Google spreadsheets and Quickstatements (9:42) Asaf Bartov's Beyond the Basics presentation to New Zealand wikidata editors Open Refine for beginners The Wikibook on SPARQL helps with learning how to query Wikidata via the Wikidata Query Service.Videos on Wikidata gadgets - Wikidata gadgets (11min onwards) === Wikidata Tools === ==== Toolforge ==== Software tools, including scripts and bots related to maintaining WMF projects, can be hosted on the Wikimedia Toolforge servers. Additional help for developers may be found at wikitech:Help:Toolforge. A complete listing of tools can be found at Toolforge:admin/tools, and a more detailed list of some of them at toolforge:hay/directory. see also https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toolforge_tools ==== List of Wikipedia Weekly Youtube episodes featuring different tools & workflows ==== ==== Mix'n'Match ==== Here's a useful video demonstrating how to use the Mix'n'Match tool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE9ZvwYCNnQ&t=446s To make all the other possible mix'n'match authority control id suggestions appear at the top of a Wikidata record Go to your Wikidata common.js page for example https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:[insert your user name and remove the square brackets]/common.js and add the codeimportScript( 'User:Magnus_Manske/mixnmatch_gadget.js' ); then Save. Then refresh the page or clear the cache of your browser. ==== The Wikidata Game ==== ==== TABernacle ==== ==== Quick statements ==== YouTube video - Mass edits on Wikidata - how to use Google spreadsheets and Quickstatements (10min) Slides at: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rKlescevw6RKoWxuefz7iJRrDeigU5i7ZtfJnr9V9C4/edit#slide=id.g224b8735b1_1_27 ==== Cradle ==== Tool to create items following certain templates ==== Open Refine ==== Add column based on wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine#/media/File:GIF_screencast_of_data_extension_on_OpenRefine_with_Wikidata.gif Compare columns - two suggested ways https://kb.refinepro.com/2011/07/compare-two-value-in-two-column.html Backing up or accessing your projects - see this GitHub page Quilt Phase (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Illinois Library LibGuide for OpenRefine 3.3 https://guides.library.illinois.edu/openrefine/home Useful recipes for achieving certain tasks in OpenRefine https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/wiki/Recipes Avoiding making duplicate statements by laundering OpenRefine output through Quick Statements before uploading to Wikidata. Also includes how to extract a URL from hyperlinked text in Excel using a macro Google doc DrThneed (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) making new wikidata items via OpenRefine https://addshore.com/2020/07/creating-new-wikidata-items-with-openrefine-and-quickstatements/ Extract the Wikidata Q-values from reconciled items: Edit column --> Add column based on this column"" and then using the GREL expression ""cell.recon.match.id"" to retrieve the Q-numbers https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1975 Einebillion's manual / how tos User:Einebillion/Manual Youtube video on how to take data from OpenRefine to Wikidata through QuickStatements ==== Tool to help add depicts wikidata statements to images see Youtube video ==== === Wikimedia Commons === YouTube Video – Adding Images to Wikimedia Commons (4:17) YouTube Video – Learn about Wikimedia Commons (16:26) YouTube Video – Creative Commons copyright licensing explained (5:32) Interactive Release Generator Tool to help add depicts wikidata statements to images see Youtube video Jon (talk) has been fiddling with maps a little bit and has learned a few things about using Open Street Map data. For a nifty zoomable Open Street Map, we can use the {{mapframe}} template. For a map in an infobox for towns, locations, buildings and the like (any infobox that has a map parameter), use the special {{infobox mapframe}} template. At their simplest, they take a coord parameter (use the {{coord}} template for the value), and a zoom parameter, which you can tweak to suit. For instance, the infobox in the article for the Harbour View suburb of Lower Hutt contains the following: map = {{infobox mapframe | coord = {{coord|41|12|07|S|174|53|56|E}} | zoom = 14}} But these two templates and their various siblings are very powerful - it's worth reading their documentation for more advanced use. For instance, instead of guessing an arbitrary zoom number, you can instead specify the object's size with length_km or area_km2 and it will figure it out for you. Instead of coordinates, you can specify a Wikidata item with id, as long as it has geodata properties (coordinates, geoshape, or OSM relation). For an example, see Transmission Gully Motorway. For articles about people with post-nominals (ONZM, QC etc.) there is a Template:post-nominals. For instance, Sir John Buck is produced with {{post-nominals | country = NZL | CNZM | OBE | size = 85%}} Wikidata properties for works If you enjoy improving the writing in articles, join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. There's a newsletter, IRC chatroom and a nifty copy-edit template to send in the cavalry: just add {{copy-edit}} to the top of the article. If you have and use IRC, join #wpwellington on freenode. Otherwise pop along to webchat.freenode.net and choose a username (you may need to tell it you're not a robot). Once in, at the bottom is the bit where you can type messages. Type this to join the #wpwellington chat room: /join #wpwellington 29 February 2020 – group meeting changed agenda as a result of the meeting retrospective at last weeks meeting. The agenda has changed from highlighting resources to demonstrating the tools individuals find useful when editing and working with data. 15 February 2020 – Library Carpentry, course information on tidying up messy data and has information on how to work with wikidata 1 February 2020 – Canterbury Stories, a digital repository. 23 November 2019 – LINZ digitised Surveyor Field books – 675,000 page images from the 1840s up to 1970s, released as CC BY 9 November 2019 – Figure New Zealand – data visualisation for New Zealand and We are here book – data visualisation in New Zealand 26 October 2019 – Photographers’ Identities Catalog 12 October 2019 – Culture Waitaki for heritage images with Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 copyright licensed images and Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa New Zealand Digitised Year Books 1893 – 2012 28 September 2019 – Tool made by User:Magnus_Manske to help add depicts wikidata statements to images see Youtube video 14 September 2019 – Europeana Collections, Hawke's Bay Digital Archives Trust 31 August 2019 – Biodiversity Heritage Library 17 August 2019 – Digital NZ 3 August 2019 – Gazette for New Zealand (1946 ~ 1992) 20 July 2019 – NZ Research Hub for peer-reviewed and other research from universities 7 July 2019 – Archives NZ catalogue 22 June 2019 – Whites Aviation Collection Marketing info on google doc" 467 476 1047 WP:ELEM Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements 467 "This WikiProject has managed to standardize the articles on the known chemical elements (see Guidelines page). Now it is aimed at the maintenance of these at an agreed upon format discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements and at the expansion and improvement of each article to featured article quality (check out our Goals below). See also WikiProject Isotopes. For a complete list of articles covered, including talk pages and templates, click here. To see all articles covered, but not talk pages and templates, see the periodic table by quality. TOC: Announcements – Achievements – Goals – Periodic table – Article alerts – Popular pages · view · watch · refresh · edit · history · Archive Current FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs, PRs, AIDs and similar activities Successful FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs, or milestones Terbium compounds became a good article on October 29, 2022. Aluminium became a good article on April 2, 2021. Hassium was today's featured article on October 9, 2020. Hassium became a featured article on August 31, 2020. Island of stability was today's featured article on March 21, 2020. Island of stability became a featured article on January 22, 2020. Island of stability went through a peer review on November 8, 2019. Beryllium-8 was featured in Did you know? on August 14, 2019. Polonium-210 was featured in Did you know? on July 30, 2019.Older achievements 27.1% List-Class 5.8% Stub-Class 15.5% Start-Class 19.3% C-Class 13.3% B-Class 14.4% GA-Class 4.6% FA-Class In the shorter(!) term: Bring all the element articles to GA-class or above (turn the ""Periodic Table by Quality"" completely dark green and blue.) (104/124 = 83.9% as of February 2023)and in the longer(!) term: Bring all element articles to FA standard (turn the ""Periodic Table by Quality"" completely dark blue.) (23/124 = 18.5% as of February 2023)In each case, the important supporting articles should be understood as included. However, we understand that some topics are either innately ill-defined or have too little known to ever develop to GA/FA. Did you know 09 Mar 2023 – Group 5 element (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussionTemplates for discussion 08 Feb 2023 – Template:List of aqueous ions (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussionGood article nominees 09 Mar 2023 – Holmium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion 03 Feb 2023 – Vanadium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion 11 Oct 2022 – Europium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussionFeatured article reviews 30 Jan 2023 – Uranium (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussionFeatured topic removal candidates 29 Jan 2023 – Noble gas (talk · edit · hist) FT removal nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c) was closed; see discussionGood article reassessments 04 Feb 2023 – Manganese (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Praseodymium-141 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 03 Feb 2023 – Tellurium (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Praseodymium-141 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 01 Feb 2023 – Antimony (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Praseodymium-141 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 01 Feb 2023 – Bismuth (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Praseodymium-141 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 21 Jan 2023 – Radon (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 21 Jan 2023 – Krypton (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 21 Jan 2023 – Argon (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussion 21 Jan 2023 – Neon (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Onegreatjoke (t · c) was closed; see discussionRequests for comments 07 Feb 2023 – Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by 123957a (t · c); see discussionPeer reviews 29 Oct 2022 – Samarium (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion" 468 477 1051 WP:SANDWICH Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images 468 "This page gives an overview of how images are used in Wikipedia; for more information, see Image use policy and see Help:Files on how to upload and include an image. === Pertinence and encyclopedic nature === Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons § Encyclopedic purpose (MOS:DECOR) on misuse of icons and other elements for decorative intent. Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated. Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. If an article on a military officer already shows its subject in uniform, then two more formal in-uniform portraits would add little interest or information, but a map of an important battle and an image of its aftermath would be more informative. Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available. Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this and this thread for the most recent consensus discussion on the topic. === Image quality === Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter. For example: An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky. A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people. A suitable picture of a hammerhead shark would show its distinctive hammer-like head, to distinguish it from other sharks. A map of Moldova should show its frontiers with Romania and Ukraine, so people may know where the country is located in relation to its neighbors. Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice. Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, two boars butting heads portrays aggression.Pages using seals, flags, banners, logos, or other symbols to represent governments, organizations, and institutions should use the version prescribed by that entity when available. These are preferable to amateur creations of similar quality, including photographs of physical representations of emblems. === Avoid presenting textual information as images === === Scale references === An image sometimes includes a familiar object to communicate scale. Such fiducial markers should be as culturally universal and standardized as possible: rulers, matches, batteries, pens/pencils, soda cans, footballs (soccer balls), people and their body parts, vehicles, and famous structures such as the Eiffel Tower are good choices, but many others are possible. Such objects as coins, banknotes, and sheets of paper are less satisfactory because they are specific to given locales, but may be better than none at all since at least the general scale is still communicated. Quantitative data, if available, should still be given in the caption or the article. === Offensive images === Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers; for example, photographs taken in a pornographic context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy. === Images for the lead === It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult. While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care (see § Offensive images, above). The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind. Advice on selecting a lead image includes: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. For example, using an image of deportees being subjected to selection as the lead image at this version of The Holocaust is far preferable to the appropriate images that appear later in the article that show the treatment of the prisoners or corpses from the camps. Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia. Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images. Per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, using photomontages or a gallery of images of group members should be avoided in articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations. This does not apply to articles about things such as body parts or haircuts. On some mobile platforms an article's first image may be displayed at the top of the article, even if it appears well into the article in the desktop view. When placing images consider whether this phenomenon may mislead or confuse readers using mobile devices. === Syntax === Basic example (producing the image at right): [[File:Siberian Husky pho.jpg|thumb|alt=A white dog in a harness playfully nuzzles a young boy |A [[Siberian Husky]] used as a pack animal]] File:Siberian Husky pho.jpg The file (image) name must be exact (including capitalization, punctuation and spacing) and must include .jpg, .png or other extension. (Image: and File: work the same.) If Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons both have an image with the specified name, the Wikipedia version is the one that will appear in the article. thumb is required in most cases alt=A white dog in a harness playfully nuzzles a young boy Alt text is meant for those who cannot see the image; unlike the caption, it summarizes the image's appearance. It should comport with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images and should name famous events, people and things. A [[Siberian Husky]] used as a pack animal The caption comes last, and gives the meaning or significance of the image.See WP:Extended image syntax for further features and options. If the image does not display after you have carefully checked the syntax, it may have been blacklisted. ==== VR photographs ==== To display VR photographs (aka 360-degree panoramas or photospheres), use {{PanoViewer}}. === Size === An image's size is controlled by changing its width – after which software automatically adjusts height in proportion. (Most references to an image's ""size"" really mean its width.) Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible. As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the smallest devices ""in common use"" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays). To convert a px value to upright, divide it by 220 and round the result as desired. For example, |150px is roughly equivalent to |upright=0.7 because 150 / 220 ≃ 0.682 . Cases where fixed sizes may be used include for standardization of size via templates (such as within infobox templates or the display of country flag icons), for displaying reduced images sizes where space is constrained (such as images used in the In the News and Did You Know sections on the WP:Main Page, or within larger tables such as List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates), or if it is necessary to align images in columns or rows. Templates like {{multiple image}} can automatically match the height or width of images with different aspect ratios, though this height or width must be hard coded to a set number of pixels because it cannot scale images to respect users' preferences.Each user has a ""base"" width, which applies to |thumb and |frameless images; for unregistered users (the vast majority of readers) this is always 220 pixels; for registered (logged-in) users, the base width is 220px when the user's account is created, but can be changed via Preferences. The Siberian Husky image above is displayed at whatever your base width is. Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width. For example: upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it ""30% larger than this user generally wants"". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 285px.) upright=0.6 might be used for an image with little detail (e.g. a simple drawing or flag) which can be adequately displayed ""40% smaller than this user generally wants"". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 130px.) Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater; tall, narrow images may look best with upright of 1 or less. When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text. Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable) may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text. Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most. Images within an article, especially those near one another and on the same side, may be more appealing if presented at the same width. Warning If upright is completely absent, that's equivalent to upright=1. But upright alone, with no =scaling factor (e.g. [[File:Dog.jpg|thumb|upright|A big dog]]) is equivalent to upright=0.75; this usage is confusing and therefore deprecated. To present images larger than the guidelines above (e.g. panoramas), use |thumb|center or |thumb|none, so that the image stands alone; or use {{wide image}} or {{tall image}} to present a very large image in a scrollable box. === Location === Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, specify |left in the image link: [[File:Siberian Husky pho.jpg|thumb|left|alt=A white dog in a harness playfully nuzzles a young boy |A [[Siberian Husky]] used as a pack animal]]. An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image ""too early"" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. The first image of a section should be placed below the ""Main article"" link usually displayed by using {{Main}}, {{Further}} and {{See also}} templates. Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices. An image causes a paragraph break (i.e. the current paragraph ends and a new one begins) so it is not possible to place an image within a paragraph. This applies to thumb images; small inline images are an exception (see Inline images). Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar. As an al­ter­na­tive, con­sid­er us­ing the {{multiple image}} tem­plate, which pla­ces two im­ag­es to­geth­er on the right (but which, how­ev­er, ig­nores logged-in us­ers' se­lect­ed im­age siz­es). See WP:GALLERY for in­form­ation on the u­se of multip­le im­ages. ==== Portrait ==== It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they ""look"" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.) ==== References from article text ==== Don't refer to image orientation such as left, right, above, or below. Image placement varies with platform and screen size, especially mobile platforms, and is meaningless to screen readers. Instead, use captions to identify images. === Inline images === Substituting frameless for thumb produces an ""inline"" image. For example,   This [[File:Flag of Japan.svg|frameless|x20px]] is an inline image.produces   This is an inline image. A one-pixel border may be added via |border. For example,   This [[File:Flag of Japan.svg|frameless|x20px|border]] is an inline image with a border.produces   This is an inline image with a border. Inline images do not have captions Note the syntax x20px: whereas 20px specifies a 20-pixel width, x20px specifies a 20-pixel height. Heights between x18px and x22px will usually match surrounding text well. (upright is not usually used with inline images.) All images used on Wikipedia must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself or Wikimedia Commons. That is, hotlinking is not supported. Images uploaded to Wikipedia are automatically placed into the File namespace (formerly known as the Image namespace), i.e., the names of image pages start with the prefix File:. === Obtaining images === All images must comply with Wikipedia's image use policy: in general, they must be free for reuse, including commercial use and use after alteration, though some ""fair use"" of non-free content is allowed in limited circumstances—see Wikipedia:Non-free content. ==== Finding images already uploaded ==== Search for existing files through: Special:Search – Use the ""Multimedia"" setting to search for images and other files uploaded to the English Wikipedia by keyword or title. Most fair-use images are located here. commons:Special:Search – Go to Wikimedia Commons to search for images and other media files by description, title, or category. If the article has interlanguage links to other Wikipedias, then click through to the non-English articles to see which images they are using. ==== Making images yourself ==== You may upload photographs, drawings, or other graphics created with a camera, scanner, graphics software, and so on. When photographing or scanning potentially copyrighted works, or creating depictions of persons other than yourself, be sure to respect copyright and privacy restrictions. For further information see Wikipedia:Non-free content. In order to maximize images' usefulness in all languages, avoid including text within them. Instead, add text, links, references, etc., to images using Template:Annotated image or Template:Annotated image 4, which can also be used to expand the area around an image or crop and enlarge part of an image—all without the need for uploading a new, modified image. ==== Finding images on the Internet ==== An extensive list of free image resources by topic can be found at: Public domain image resources. In addition to Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia Toolserver has a Free Image Search Tool (FIST), which automatically culls free images from the Wikimedia sister projects, Flickr and a few other sites. Several other useful, general purpose image search engines include: Google Image Search, Picsearch and Pixsta. Creative Commons licensed images with Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike as their license may be used on Wikipedia. Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia. The Creative Commons site has a search page that can be used as a starting point to find suitably licensed images; make sure you check both the checkboxes ""use for commercial purposes"" and ""modify, adapt, or build upon"". If you find an image on the Internet that is not available freely, you can email the copyright owner and ask for their permission to release it under a suitable license, adapting the boilerplate request for permission. If you cannot find a suitable image, you may also list your request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, so that another contributor may find or create a suitable image. ==== Requesting images from others ==== See === Editing images === An image's utility or quality may be improved by cropping (to focus on the relevant portion), cleaning up scanning artifacts, correcting color balance, removing red-eye effect, or other adjustments. The caption of an image should mention such edits (e.g. introduction of false color or pseudocolor) if a reader needs to know about them to properly interpret the image. Edits that improve the presentation without materially altering the content need not be mentioned in the caption e.g. rotation to correct a slightly crooked image, improvement to the contrast of a scan, or blurring a background to make the main subject more prominent. (However, all changes to images taken from outside sources should be noted on the image's description page. For images created by editors themselves, changes which could have been part of the image's original composition—such as rotation or minor cropping—need not be mentioned on the description page.) Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer. For example, images showing artworks, faces, identifiable places or buildings, or text should not be reversed (although those showing soap bubbles or bacteria might be). Do not change color integral to the subject, such as in images of animals. It is usually appropriate to de-speckle or remove scratches from images, though that might be inappropriate for historical photographs. For assistance in editing images, try WP:Graphics Lab. === Uploading images === Logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts (meaning at least four days old and at least ten edits at the English Wikipedia) can upload media to the English Wikipedia. Only free licensed media, not fair use media, may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Media on Wikimedia Commons can be linked to in the same way as media of the same name on Wikipedia. To upload media to the English Wikipedia, go to special:upload and for Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload. For preferred file formats, see: Preparing images for upload. ==== Image description pages ==== Each image has a corresponding description page, which documents the image's source, author and copyright status; descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) information; and technical (equipment, software, etc.) data useful to readers and later editors. To maximize the utility and educational value of an image, please describe its contents as fully as possible on the image's description page. For example, photographs of artwork benefit from documentation of the artist, title, location, dates, museum identification numbers, and so on. Images that are described only in vague terms (for example, ""a cuneiform tablet"" or ""a medieval manuscript"") are often less useful for Wikipedia and less informative to our readers. Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate. Description pages for images are rediscovered by editors using the search engine and the categories. To help editors find precise images, please remember to document the image description page accordingly. Well-categorized and well-described images are more likely to be used. === Consideration of image download size === Images can greatly increase the bandwidth cost of viewing an article – a consideration for readers on slow or expensive connections. Articles carry reduced-size thumbnails instead of full images (which the user can view by ""clicking through"" the thumbnail) but in some file types a thumbnail's reduced dimensions doesn't translate into a concomitant reduction in file size. (In most browsers you can see a thumbnail's size by right-clicking for its ""Properties"".) If one image's file size is disproportionate to those of others in the same article, you may want to reduce it by selecting a different file format: GIF images with a frame size larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) cannot currently be displayed in thumbnail form in Wikipedia articles. A thumbnail of a GIF image can be considerably larger in kilobytes than the original image file. The PNG format is useful for storing graphics that contain text, line art, or other images with sharp transitions. It can achieve the same graphical results as a GIF file, and in many cases do so with a higher rate of file compression. For this reason, PNG format files are usually preferred to the GIF format. For images with substantial editing, or for which further editing may be warranted, uploading a PNG as well as a JPEG is common (PNG is lossless compression, so repeatedly saving edits on a PNG will not result in loss of quality). Animated GIF images have a few additional restrictions. Images larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) currently will only show the first frame of the animation in a thumbnail. When not using a GIF animation at its original frame size, consider creating an Ogg Theora movie of the animation. Animated PNG images with a frame size larger than 12.5 million pixels cannot currently be displayed in thumbnail form in Wikipedia articles, a significantly lower limit than the GIF format, and is not fully supported on all browsers. A JPEG or other compressed image format can be much smaller than a comparable GIF or PNG format file. When there is no apparent difference in quality, such as with a photograph that has no sharp graphical transitions, a compressed image format such as JPEG may be preferable for reasons of download performance. Wikipedia is often able to achieve much better compression of JPEG photograph thumbnails than comparable PNG images, and with little perceptible loss of quality. Repeatedly loading and resaving an image as JPEG will result in loss of quality, however, as will using low settings for the JPEG; as such, if you've made edits, it can be helpful to save a PNG or TIFF copy before closing the image editor and upload that as well; this copy can then be used to generate a new JPEG after further editing. Where an image consists solely of line art, charts text and simple graphics, an SVG file can be significantly smaller than other graphics formats. This is because the data is encoded as a series of drawing commands, rather than as raster graphics. There are open source applications available for rendering graphics in SVG format. However, SVG thumbnails are rendered as PNGs. Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead." 469 478 1054 WP:GIANTDICK Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you 469 "As recently as two seconds ago, it has come to our attention that some people are being only slightly dickish, rather than either not being dicks at all, or being giant dicks (who can be banned). This is a request for members of the Wikipedia community to cease mild dickery: either desist with being a dick altogether, or become a gigantic dick so that immediate banning becomes possible. Each example states a form of mild dickery along with suggestions as to what to do if you choose the ""become a giant dick"" (BGD) or the ""cease all dickery"" (CAD) paths. Engage in veiled personal attacks.BGD: Start calling everyone Nazis! CAD: Apologize and try to avoid all personal remarks in the future.Delete images without removing the resulting redlinks, and then claim you're too busy deleting more images to go back to remove said redlinks.BGD: Keep deleting images randomly, creating a large number of redlinks. CAD: Follow the ""what links here"" button and remove all links to the image you're deleting.Revert only three times a day against your opponents in an edit war.BGD: Revert 180 times a day against your opponents in an edit war (ew!). CAD: Try to compromise, or at least use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.Fail to source information properly and clearly.BGD: Begin sourcing extensively, using ""reliable"" founts of knowledge such as Stormfront, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or even (gasp) other Wikipedia articles as references. CAD: Begin sourcing extensively, using reliable founts of knowledge such as academic journals, works published by field experts, and reputable media as references.Lightly haze newbies.BGD: Report any new editor to a controversial article on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, regardless of the fact that they were (accurately) correcting spelling errors. Make sure, when reverting, to use edit summaries like ""Reverting vandalism"". CAD: Try to be friendly to newbies, and help them avoid common pitfalls.Squeeze a few choice words into your edits.BGD: Whenever editing, use highly offensive profanity or language. CAD: Always be sure to use appropriate language, and try not to offend anyone.Start a single-purpose account to push your particular point-of-view, while carefully adhering to the letter of all Wikipedia policies and making a few token edits to other articles to muddy the issue.BGD: Within 24 hours of creating your account, revert on the same article at least twenty times, and when you inevitably get blocked, continue to abuse the unblock template until you lose access to your user talk page. CAD: Get some Wiki-experience editing articles you don't feel passionately about first, and only return to the hot button articles once you feel comfortable with the consensus-building process.Fail to keep Wikipedia neutral.BGD: Keep an article one-sided and make sure it states only one point of view. Don't forget the profanity. CAD: When editing, make sure that the article shows all sides of the issue while giving them due weight.Fail to fix double redirects when moving pages.BGD: Keep moving pages around randomly, creating long chains of redirects in the process. CAD: Whenever you move a page, use the What links here feature to find any double redirects and fix them.Engage in highly offensive vandalism, but only do it once a week, and make sure to blank the warnings on your Talk page so that your pattern of vandalism goes unnoticed for months.BGD: Replace as many pages as possible with racial slurs/homophobic slurs/phallic references/scatological references. CAD: Um... don't vandalize?Ignore or erase concerns about your edits or other actions.BGD: Tell anybody who questions your actions “Because I said so”, or even to ""go fuck themselves"". CAD: Be willing to justify and civilly discuss your actions.Post unnecessarily verbose comments and responses, partially consisting of only tenuously relevant issues, in discussions.BGD: Respond to every single comment by repeatedly flooding pages with enormous reams of text without paragraphing while ensuring you not only discuss the original topic but also touch on the article subject and attack everyone around you, and when asked to truncate your comments respond with equally impenetrable screeds. CAD: Ensure contributions to discussions are clear, concise, and address the matter at hand while allowing others to make their points as well.Fail to fill in the edit summary.BGD: Use the edit summary to make personal attacks on other editors, laced with plenty of profanity, and include some links to malware and shock sites for good measure. CAD: Use the edit summary to describe accurately, concisely and civilly what changes you are making. In all seriousness, being a dick on a small scale can be more damaging over the long term – to both yourself, and others – than being a large scale one, for the simple reason that it is easier to recognise that calling people ""NAZIS"", for example, is a personal attack, than it is to recognise that saying that a person's ""opinion can probably be discounted, as he appears to support Wikipedia attack sites"" is also a personal attack. Therefore, it is harder to discover and to handle.The damage to the individual by behaving like a dick is quite real, by the way. By being a dick, they will tend to make more enemies, and alienate their friends and allies. Furthermore, even moderate ""dickery"" may lead them to ultimately getting themselves blocked, and even banned, if it goes on long enough. Extreme dickery just has a shorter lifespan. Userbox Wikipedia:Assume bad faith Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize! Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves Wikipedia:You must feed the trolls Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls m:Don't be a jerk Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance Goofus and Gallant" 470 479 1061 WP:WPC Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries 470 "This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where ""x"" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc. === To do list === This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries. === Navigation === This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics (""Cities of"", ""Cuisine of"", ""Religion in"", ""Prostitution in"", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages. === Categories === === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page. === Formatting === Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type (""Geography of"", ""Government of"", ""Politics of"", ""Wildlife of"", etc.). We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course). Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project. Create, expand and cleanup related articles. Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Rwanda.) === Lead section === ==== Opening paragraphs ==== The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section. Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the body of the article. See Canada with no random examples, stats or names other than in the infobox - or Japan with no random examples or names and mininual stats in lead that are not covered in infobox. ===== Lead map ===== There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC). === Facts table === Next, there is a table with quick facts about the country. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page. Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page. The contents are as follows: The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages. The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article. A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of , linked to via the ""In Detail"" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers. A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width. Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary). The official language(s) of the country. The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory. The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands). If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country. Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%). Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available. GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head. HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list). Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]]. Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it. Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country. Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country. === Sections === A section should be written in WP:Summary style, containing just the important facts. If it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. The link should be shown as below: (WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE) == Politics == {{main|Politics of the Netherlands}} Articles may consist of the following sections: Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available. History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: ""History of X"" Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: ""Politics of X"" Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available. The CIA World Factbook Maps can be used as a basis for the map, but plenty of other sources are available. Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Sub-article: ""Geography of X"" Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: ""Economy of X"" Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Sub-article: ""Demographics of X"" Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Sub-article: ""Culture of X"". Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names. Good example Canada#Sports. See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also"" sections of country articles normally only contain links to ""Index of country"" and ""Outline of country"" articles, alongside the main portal(s)). References – Sums up ""Notes"", ""References"", and all ""Further Reading"" or ""Bibliography"" External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links === Charts === As prose text is preferred overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. === Galleries === Galleries or clusters of images are generaly discouraged as they cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems(?) . See WP:GALLERY for more information. === Footers === As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as ""Economy of..."" and ""Foreign relations of..."" Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use. === Transclusions === Transclusions are generaly discouraged as changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. {{excerpt}} and related templates may require using , and markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained. Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for section title changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. Transcluded text may cause repeated links and no-text cite errors and have different established reference styles, varieties of English or date formats than the target page. Transclusions do not reflect protection levels, resulting in transcluded text perhaps having a different level of protection than the target page. Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers. === Sisterlinks === === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Former countries WikiProject Micronations WikiProject Limited recognition === Popular pages === Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages" 471 480 1065 WP:CHU Wikipedia:Changing username 471 "Before requesting a username change (rename), please read through the Must Read section to know the limitations and alternatives. If the username change is simple and you have a confirmed email address, use Global user account rename request. For other cases, use the appropriate request page listed below. Usernames are global, and are the same on all Wikimedia projects―Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc. Requests to change a username are processed by users enabled to do so (global renamers and stewards) in accordance with the global rename policy. Requests for usernames which are offensive, promotional, disruptive, misleading, or confusing are not accepted. A rename moves your contributions and userspace pages to a new name, and preserves your account preferences. If the job queue is very busy, it might take a number of hours before the software re-assigns all your contributions to your new name. Using your real name as a username may put you at risk of harassment. === Limitations and restrictions === Accounts cannot be merged or deleted. They can only be renamed. It is not possible to re-assign edits identified with an IP address (made while not logged in). Usernames are subject to technical restrictions. Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename. Renames appear in the user rename log and global rename log and requests are moved to the archives. This is done in the interest of transparency. === Please consider the following alternatives to a rename === Although your username cannot begin with a lowercase letter, try placing {{lowercase}} on your userpage in order to display it that way. If you simply want to change your ""public appearance"" on talk pages, you can change your signature. Note that this is not an acceptable alternative to changing your username if the name is in breach of the username policy. If you want to retire from Wikipedia, place {{retired}} or a similar declaration on your userpage. A request for a rename to something like RetiredUser123 will be declined. Users in good standing wishing to vanish completely, perhaps by way of a rename to a random character string, are an exception to this rule. === Other things to consider === Recreation of previously used usernames is prevented by the anti-spoof check to prevent impersonation. Users can request to register old names at Wikipedia:Request an account. You may wish to inform others of previous username(s) via a simple statement on your user page, or use of {{user previous account}}. If you have customised your signature you will need to alter it to use your new username, otherwise it will remain linked to your old user pages. If you are certain you want to change your username, use the appropriate request page to avoid any delay or rejection. Simple renames (confirmed email address required): use the Global user account rename request form.Note: to confirm an email address, see Wikipedia:Enabling email and Help:Email confirmation.Simple renames (no confirmed email address required): use the Simple account rename request page.This page is for renames to usernames that are not already taken. Check the global account information page to see whether the username you want is available. If it is already taken on any Wikimedia project, it is not available for use.Renames to taken usernames (with no significant activity): use the Username usurpation request page.This page is for renames to usernames that are already taken and have no significant edits or log actions and for which there are no significant attached accounts on other Wikimedia projects.Renames to taken usernames (with significant project attachments): use the Steward requests page.This page is for usernames that have no significant edits or log actions, but have significant attachments on other Wikimedia projects." 472 481 1066 WP:NK Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/North Korea 472 Welcome to WikiProject North Korea! Some Wikipedians have formed a Project to improve and organise articles which relate to North Korea. We are dedicated to improving these articles and if you would like to help, please add your name to the participants! === Active participants === To join WikiProject North Korea, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of participants. Participants should also place participant identification on their user page. Visviva 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC) JonCatalan 01:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Mthibault (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Spongie555 26 May 2010 James Brian Ellis (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) North KoreaPowerMexicoNorth Korea (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Gamnamu (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 2Q (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC) PBJT (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Chongjin3 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC) ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Leeheonjin (talk) 1:50 , 29 October 2012 (UTC) Coinmanj (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Soffredo (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Seelowe33 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC) ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Cjeongbis (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Ceosad (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) HerrGeisterhuhnmann (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Jackninja5 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC) TF92 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Maoowwuuurunwuuuzhe 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC) TheFallenOneGOTH (Talk) 01:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Yilangren (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Lp031 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Gemvoice Gemvoice (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Al83tito (talk) 01:50, 06 September 2017 (UTC) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Jordie8323 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Burnedfaceless (talk · contribs) 19:37:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Astrcast125 (talk · contribs) 00:54:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Nilzko (talk · contribs) 15:14:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC) OliverEastwood (talk · contribs) 05:57:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Jeff6045 (talk · contribs) 12:30:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC) The Account 1 (talk · contribs) 09:34:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Carlos Wallace S. (talk · contribs) 22:49:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Ray2556 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Areas of interest: Music Culture; Moranbong, Chongbong, State merited orchestra etc. Ericgyuminchoi (talk · contribs) 19:53:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ruling party (talk · contribs) --Ruling party (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC) ★ Mr. Schnellerklärt (talk · contribs) --Mr. Schnellerklärt (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Dunutubble (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Irojyo (talk · contribs) 21:42:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) (North Korean history) Yue (talk · contribs) 08:46:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) 波斯波莉斯 (talk · contribs) 14:38:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Areas of interest: WPK and history of DPRK LordCrazyOfLife (talk · contribs) 16:09:06, 04 February 2021 (UTC) === Former participants === Thank you for your help! Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again. Buaidh (talk · contribs) 15:05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Reuben 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Orthuberra 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Jsw663 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Superzohar Talk 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Kim976 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Icactus 18:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC) extrueded polysterene foam manufactured July 1994 in Seoul (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Aerowikipedian 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC) SimplicityDesign (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) SayItRight1 (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) DJC PDX (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC) InTheRevolution2 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC) walterkem (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC) === Participant identification === WikiProject North Korea participants should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject North Korea participants. For other North Korea user templates see Category:North Korea user templates. Notes:Sangwon redirects to Korean name, why? Tokchon redirects to Sungri Motor Plant, which is inside the city. Redirect should be removed to make way for main article. I've tried to stay consistent with Visviva's scheme for naming and disambiguation, except that I follow the current title for existing articles. There may be more existing articles I've missed, because different naming schemes are used. If you find any, please change the wikilinks in this table. I haven't checked for duplicate names between NK provinces. More disambig may be needed. Helpful map of all second-level divs here [1].North Korea / Template:Regions and administrative divisions of North Korea P'yŏngyang Directly Governed City19 wards (guyŏk) - do they need articles? 4 counties (kun): Kangnam, Chunghwa, Sangwŏn, KangdongRasŏn Directly Governed City1 ward (guyŏk): Rajin 1 county (kun): SŏnbongKaesŏng Industrial RegionUnknown: possibly Panmun county (kun)?Kŭmgangsan Tourist RegionUnknownSinŭiju Special Administrative Region - defunct Chagang Province / Template:Chagang3 cities (si): Kanggye, Hŭich'ŏn, Manp'o 15 counties (kun): Changgang, Chasŏng, Chŏnch'ŏn, Ch'osan, Chunggang, Hwap'yŏng, Kop'ung, Rangrim, Ryongrim, Sijung, Sŏnggan, Songwŏn, Usi, Wiwŏn, TongsinNorth Hamgyŏng Province / Template:North Hamgyong3 cities (si): Ch'ŏngjin, Hoeryŏng, Kimch'aek 12 counties (kun): Hwasŏng, Hwadae, Kilchu, Kyŏngsŏng, Musan, Myŏngch'ŏn, Onsŏng, Ŏrang, Puryŏng, Saebyŏl, Ŭndŏk, YŏnsaSouth Hamgyŏng Province / Template:South Hamgyong4 cities (si): Hamhŭng, Hŭngnam, Sinp'o, Tanch'on 1 district (ku): Sudong 1 district (chigu): Kŭmho 15 counties (kun): Changjin, Ch'ŏngp'yŏng, Hamju, Hŏch'ŏn, Hongwŏn, Kowŏn, Kŭmya, Pujŏn, Pukch'ŏng, Ragwŏn, Riwŏn, Sinhŭng, Tŏksŏng, Yŏnggwang, YodŏkNorth Hwanghae Province / Template:North Hwanghae3 cities (si): Sariwŏn, Kaesŏng, Songrim 16 counties (kun): Changp'ung, Hwangju, Kaep'ung, Koksan, Kŭmch'ŏn, Pongsan, P'yŏngsan, Rinsan, Sin'gye, Sinp'yŏng, Sŏhŭng, Suan, T'osan, Ŭnp'a, Yŏnsan, YŏntanSouth Hwanghae Province / Template:South Hwanghae1 city (si): Haeju 19 counties (kun): Anak, Chaeryŏng, Changyŏn, Ch'ŏngdan, Kangryŏng, Kwail, Ongjin, Paekch'ŏn, Pongch'ŏn, Pyŏksŏng, Ryŏngyŏn, Samch'ŏn, Sinch'ŏn, Sinwŏn, Songhwa, T'aet'an, Ŭnryul, Ŭnch'ŏn, YŏnanKangwŏn Province / Template:Kangwon2 cities (si): Munch'ŏn, Wŏnsan 15 counties (kun): Anbyŏn, Ch'angdo, Ch'ŏrwŏn, Ch'ŏnnae, Hoeyang, Ich'ŏn, Kimhwa, Kosan, Kosŏng, Kŭmgang, P'an'gyo, Pŏptong, P'yŏnggang, Sep'o, T'ongch'ŏnNorth P'yŏngan / Template:North Pyongan3 cities (si): Sinŭiju, Chŏngju, Kusŏng 22 counties (kun): Ch'angsŏng, Ch'ŏlsan, Ch'ŏnma, Hyangsan, Kujang, Kwaksan, Nyŏngbyŏn, Pakch'ŏn, P'ihyŏn, Pyŏktong, Ryongch'ŏn, Sakchu, Sindo, Sŏnch'ŏn, T'aech'ŏn, Taegwan, Tongch'ang, Tongrim, Ŭiju, Unjŏn, Unsan, YŏmjuSouth P'yŏngan / Template:South Pyongan1 special city (tŭkkŭpsi): Namp'o 5 cities (si): P'yŏngsŏng, Anju, Kaech'ŏn, Sunch'ŏn, Tŏkch'ŏn 1 district (ku): Ch'ŏngnam 2 districts (chigu): Tŭkchang, Un'gok 19 counties (kun): Chungsan, Hoech'ang, Maengsan, Mundŏk, Onch'ŏn, Pukch'ang, P'yŏngwŏn, Sinyang, Sŏngch'ŏn, Sukch'ŏn, Taehŭng, Taedong, Ŭnsan, YangdŏkRyanggang Province / Template:Ryanggang1 city (si): Hyesan 11 counties (kun): Kapsan, Kimjŏngsuk, Kimhyŏnggwŏn, Kimhyŏngjik, Paegam, Poch'ŏn, P'ungsŏ, Samjiyŏn, Samsu, Taehongdan, Unhŭng North Korea portal Category:WikiProject Korea North Korea working group 473 482 1072 WP:VPI Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) 473 "In the news has an issue in that the selection process for articles is almost entirely on the basis of editors personal preferences and biases - current editors, in the case of non-recurring stories, and past editors in the case of recurring stories. This has resulted in a systematic bias issue that prioritizes topics of relevance and concern to Wikipedia editors, rather than to the world in general. This can be prominently seen at ITNR. Defined very broadly, 73 of the listed events cover international topics. Of the rest: 23 European (11 British, 1 German, 1 Spanish, 8 generally; 1 per 32 million people) 16 North American (13 American, 2 Canadian, 1 generally; 1 per 36 million people) 6 Asian (3 Indian, 2 Japanese, 1 generally; 1 per 760 million people) 5 Oceanic (4 Australia, 1 New Zealand; 1 per 9 million people) 2 South American (2 generally; 1 per 211 million people) 1 African (1 generally; 1 per 1216 million people)It also violates the core policies of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. By deciding which events are significant enough to publish ITN through our personal criteria we are engaging in original research and placing undue weight on those events that are included based solely on those personal preferences. To fix this we need a more objective criteria for inclusion at ITN, and my initial proposal is for one of the following: The event has received significant original (not syndicated or from a wire service) coverage in a wide variety of reliable international news sources. The event has received significant original (not syndicated or from a wire service) coverage in a majority of 21 selected reliable international news sources.The second proposal would involve selecting those sources; I expect these would include Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, BBC, Deutsche Welle, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Times of India, while the others would be the subject of considerable discussion. It has the advantage of being more objective and better suited to reducing systematic bias by forcing editors to consider coverage in a wider range of sources, particularly if the list includes non-English language sources, but it may also be harder to get an initial consensus for due to difficulty in creating the list of sources. The current criteria requiring that the article has been updated and that it meets a minimum standard of quality would remain unchanged. Please provide both any thoughts you have on the two proposals listed, and any alternative proposals that you may have. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I think is a very minor concern. Most of what doesn't get through ITN or gets through ITN is mostly determined by the quality of the article update. Which is as it should be, the purpose of the main page is to tell people about Wikipedia articles that are of a high quality. Everything else is irrelevant. ITN is not ""Tell the world what Wikipedia thinks is important"", that's a terrible way to think about it. Instead, it is ""What is something recent that Wikipedia readers may appreciate reading a high quality Wikipedia article about"" with an emphasis on the high quality. I'm far less concerned with playing cultural gatekeeper and making sure that the main page is not sullied by things from certain geographic areas, and I'm pretty much only concerned that Wikipedia articles are improved, and that we let readers know what those articles are. --Jayron32 15:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC) ITN is not ""Tell the world what Wikipedia thinks is important"" – The problem is that this is exactly what it's become. Most people !voting on blurbs don't even mention article quality. It's just the personal opinions of editors as to whether they feel it's an important news story or not. If you want ITN to be centered around article quality, then it's going to need considerable reform. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC) +1, this is my impression of it, too. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC) +1, One article that I worked up to GA borderline passed ITN despite it winning the video game equivalent of an Oscar, with the event attracting tens of millions of viewers. If it was based upon article quality, it would have been accepted much more readily, but the main opposition was centered around video games being ""not important enough for ITN"". The Night Watch (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC) “It's just the personal opinions of editors as to whether they feel it's an important news story or not.” That’s typically how consensus works, and from skimming this discussion it seems to be a lot of the usual suspects on ITN who disagree with the mere idea of consensus because it usually goes against their opinions. The Kip (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC) That's not how it is supposed to work at Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, we ignore commentary that is not based in a sound footing of Wikipedia policy and guidance. If people are commenting with rationales that don't align with established principles at Wikipedia, we're supposed to ignore those comments when assessing consensus. From WP:CONSENSUS, and I quote, ""Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."" (bold mine). ITN has written standards; if people ignore those written standards in their commentary, then their opinion should not be taken into account. So know, we should not let consensus discussions be overwhelmed by people whose opinions run counter to long-established Wikipedia principles. --Jayron32 13:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) The problem of late is that we have stories that bring a lot of ""drive by"" !votes (editors that are maybe at ITN the first or second time in their history) and vote, such as in death blurbs ""very important person"" without further explanation. When that happens en masse, the ITN admins in charge of posting seem to not consider the ""views through a WP policy lens"" and are more or less !vote counting. (The posting of Betty White's death and Carrie Fisher's were examples of that). That also applies to general stories too. Not so much that the recent one on LeBron breaking the scoring record being flooded with such but there were definitely drive-bys that were basically ""Support - a key record was broken"" without any further explanation. And that was briefly posted before pulled as the posting admin seems to take those !votes into account when they should have been discounted. That's getting away from this point on importance based on RSes, but it is also tied to it, since I've seen frequent calls on stories that get !votes like ""All over front pages"" or ""leading story on (key sties)"", which may indicate importance to news media, but not to an encyclopedia per NOTNEWS (eg the whole mess with the US House's Speaker election). I do believe there are some objective standards that incorporate frequency and type of coverage by RSes to evaluate relative importance to the world body of sources, but it should definitely not be the sole driver (in addition to quality) for consideration. Masem (t) 13:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC) ""Not a news ticker"" means it isn't our job to tell people what is important, it is our job to highlight quality content only. It doesn't really matter much whether or not we think something should or shouldn't be ""important"", we should be showing people quality article content, period. Any decision making that attempts to assess worthiness is making ITN a news ticker. Instead, it should be a tool to direct people to high quality articles about current events. --Jayron32 14:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Disagree, as the more blindly include topics based on quality followed by news prevalence without any further consider, the more we mirror what news media believes important, and we become a news ticker to them. It should be obvious that not every story that gets huge promotion on the news makes for a reasonable topic (first and foremost we rely on enduring coverage and not bursts, which us what the typical story in the news is), so we clearly need a filter to eliminate burst-news coverage. Then we need to add the issue if systematic bias that even with a good selection of worldwide press, we will still find ourselves favoring Western topic, and hence the need to increase the visibility of events in less covered places that our significant (eg the Turkey/Syria quake has been getting less coverage than all the 2024 campaign hijinks or even the Ohio rr srory). That's why blindly following news media makes us more like a news ticker. Masem (t) 14:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC) You can disagree, but your rant about bias is irrelevant here. You fix bias by making articles about underrepresented topics better. The idea that we should eliminate bias by making Wikipedia articles on Western topics worse seems like a bad idea. --Jayron32 15:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Far be it from me, a clueless non-admin, to make a judgment about how admin work usually goes at ITN, but I've found that Masem's observations are more or less correct, that the significance of a story is based on who shows up to vote and in what quantity. So any story that provokes an emotional reaction from editors will likely sway the balance because we weigh all of these ""significant/not significant"" votes equally. This comes down to us not having a clear objective criterion for significance on WP:ITNCRIT, instead going based off of a subjective consensus. I expect that when The Boat Race is nominated for 2023, despite the article being a FA year-after-year (the quality that Jayron32 is looking for), there will be a visceral outpouring of opposition, more than we'd see for any other sporting event, based on the fervor that was accumulated during the discussion calling for its removal from WP:ITN/R. In regards to bias, the difficulty with nominating underrepresented topics is that we are still stuck in a precedent-based mindset of ""well, we never posted this before, we shouldn't post it now"" or ""it's not disastrous enough"" or ""I've never heard of it"". That's the sort of acts that perpetuate systemic bias. Indeed, it's present across all of ITN. These sorts of arguments would never fly in an AfD, so it's a real shame that they can be effectively weaponized in this setting. Moreover, newer contributors who are nominating something for ITN for the first time tend to be driven off by petulant line-towing semi-regulars who scream at them ""Of course this isn't notable, SNOW close, why the fuck did you nominate this?"" which is most discouraging. It's a big part of why people complain about ITN's atmosphere. I don't agree with Masem on a lot of things. I think during the start of the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War, he took an incredibly skeptical line in challenging just about everything the reliable sources stated about events such as massacres or missile strikes. But I think he's right on this one. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Are you disagreeing with me that we should make articles on underrepresented topics better? --Jayron32 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I disagree with you that our job is to only highlight quality content, because even if that might be our mission, that's not what the criteria states and that's not consistent with our established consensus which calls for identifying a story's significance. I agree with you on making articles on underrepresented topics better, but if our goal is to get it onto ITN and onto the Main Page, I don't believe that improving it to even an FA will be enough to get it posted to ITN. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Let me also hasten to add that I want our job to be highlighting only quality content, just like you do, but I don't think we'll get everybody to drink from that cup. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC) The larger problem is that I think we (WP overall) have lost sight of why NOTNEWS exist. Newspapers serve one function - to report information as fast and broadly as possible - while an encyclopedia serves a different one - to summarize a topic for posterity. If we put those functions into a Venn Diagram, there would definitely be an overlap in that there are topics that started as news that become clearly important for enduring knowledge. And with covering current events, we generally had been pretty good about being predictive that an event is going to have the long tail that makes for a good encyclopedic topic. But we getting a lot of new current event articles that may be well-backed from newspapers as part of their function, but fail to prove out as long-term events of significance. In other words, we have editors trying to write like a newspaper and thus we get a lot of noise at ITN, particularly from overrepresented areas. I think we do need to tweak how editors approach NOTNEWS and NEVENT, understanding that just a mere burst of coverage is not necessarily quality sourcing for an encyclopedic article. Whereas news stories from underrepresented areas that fit into encyclopedic content, there may be the long-tail of coverage but the number of works covering it will be low, and that's why I think any type of ""counting"" of story coverage is a problem that feeds, not fights, systematic bias. I'm willing to hear about any system to help improve objectivity and reduce the drive-by voting, and there may be something in source counting, but I don't see an obvious solution that still creates a systematic bias problem. Masem (t) 15:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC) The change proposed runs counter to the stated goal, but that doesn't matter because the premise here is ridiculous. ITN/C aggressively combats bias and engages in affirmative action by applying lower standards to quality and significance for under-represented regions. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)I'd support trying either of these proposals, or pretty much anything that will make ITNC more objective and less subjective. It's always felt bizarre to me that widespread media coverage does not count as ""significance"" at ITNC, and instead, ""significance"" is just the sum of subjective opinions of participating editors. As between these two proposals, I'm split; I can see both the upsides and downsides of specifying a number. Other reform ideas: eliminate blurbs altogether and just post the links to articles (so everything would look like ongoing or RD, and we could use the extra space for more pictures, so we could have, e.g. three picture slots and no blurbs); replace ITN with a ""most-edited articles"" or ""most-viewed articles"" list; eliminate ITN altogether and rearrange the main page with the remaining elements (FA/FL/FP, DYK, OTD). Levivich (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and ITN is not a news ticker. We're there on the front page to feature quality articles about recent events that happen to be in the news, not to feature news stories that have quality articles. That's why significance and quality are the key determinants in ITNC discussions. Following the news does not give us the broad range of topics that we want ITN on the Main Page to be. I do think that the ""significance"" factor has been watered down and/or weakened which started with the whole issue of mass shootings in the US, and there's lots of bitter feelings on that that which has made objective evaluation of significant far more difficult to come to on other topics. Masem (t) 03:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)I have for a long time thought that this section has departed from its encyclopedic purpose, which is to highlight Wikipedia articles about subjects that are in the news, rather than specially created articles about the news events themselves, which should usually be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS rather than highlighted on our front page. People are given the impression that this is a news site rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC) ITN was established on the basis of how fast the community worked to produce a quality article on 9/11, and type of effort been repeated multiple times since. Now part of the problem is that NOTNEWS and NEVENT ofter go disregarded because nearly every event is claimed to be notable because of a burst of coverage (notable requires more enduring coverage). We really need to be more enforcing on NOTNEWS which should with some of the topic noise at OTN (currently exemplified by the UFO shhotdowns) Masem (t) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I know I'm not with general consensus here, but we should really only be covering topics that are covered by secondary sources. Most articles about news events are primary sources. Of course newspapers sometime publish secondary sources, such as reviews of a situation, but the general opinion here seems to be that we should accept lots of primary sources, with some geographical distrubution, as the basis for an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Good idea. I want ITN to reflect what's actually in the news, not what some of us wish got attention. Maybe 21 sources is too high an estimate for a practical mainstream core, but the seven offered above are certainly a good start. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) And yeah, even a perfect score in the coverage department won't allow a crap article posting, quality still matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Will not oppose. Well, we could try one of these, but I don't know what's going to happen. Many of the folks on ITN think it'll just heavily prioritize celebrity news or gossip. But who knows, it might work. I don't think we should do away with our current ITN/R items wholesale based on this new proposal. Just continue to nominate those for addition or removal on a case-by-case basis. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Support something along these lines. I would add a stipulation that topics be in the ""world"" or ""national"" news sections of each publication to prevent NOTNEWS pop culture/sports/etc. creeping in. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I think I agree with that, but the wording is a little ambiguous; I assume you mean any event that is classified as either international, related to a country, or related to a continent? BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah, news articles that are classified under those sections of the newspaper. Like The Times of India homepage has a ticker menu at the top with ""India"" and ""World"", and articles map their directory path back to the parent category (e.g. here where it says NEWS / WORLD NEWS / CHINA NEWS / [article title]). JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC) @JoelleJay, how do you expect your criteria to work for something like the Nobel Prize in Literature, which should be in the Culture section? What about the election of a pope or patriarch, which should be listed in the Religion section of a newspaper? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) If we're going to be using some set number of sources, editors would have to come to a consensus on which sections of each paper qualify for assessing significance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) I don't really expect this model to work. In addition to the problem of choosing which wire services/newspapers count (nothing from Pakistan, home to 100 million English speakers? nothing from Nigeria, the third-largest population of native English speakers on Earth?), I think editors will be unhappy with the results. We'll want the culture section when the Nobel Prize in Literature is announced but not when the next Harry Potter-equivalent is released. there is a significant fraction of editors who want Wikipedia to feel ""serious"", and relying on external sources that don't have a bias towards ""serious"" will not achieve their goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC) I would suggest that it is better to collect evidence without changing the process first. It should be possible to, given an ITNC nomination, how many times it appears in the selected list of sources. Or alternatively, figure out a means to determine the top 5 stories of each work each day and count repetition across sources. With, say, a good two weeks or a month of data, it would be far easier to understand the impacts on ITNC without actually changing it. My gut remains that this type of a approach will overwhelm ITNC with Western and English topic per WP:BIAS, but it would be best to prove that wrong before making any change. --Masem (t) 03:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I don't think such a test will work as I don't know what sources the community will chose and the result of this change will depend heavily on that. My overall position is that something has to be done; we can try this, and if after trying it for a few months we discover it doesn't work we can try something else. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Then the first thing is to determine the ""jury"" of news sources, first and foremost, before even applying that. This has far too many working parts to implement without evidence and other testing beforehand, and could fundamentally break ITN if its not thought out well. Masem (t) 13:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC) My preference would be to start with a limited number of sources and then expand it over time. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)We should mainly use English-language sources as this is our working language and it's the international lingua franca. But there are lots of news sites and channels now which present their content in English even if it's not their domestic language. For example, see 22 English-language news outlets in Europe to follow and Top European newspapers in English. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC) However, there are times when key news happens first in foreign language sources (particularly SE Asia and South America) that using the known RSes from those regions are fine as well. That's another flaw in this system is that not all news breaks first in English. Masem (t) 13:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)This is a terrible idea. Firstly, because ITN is not, and should not be, purely a news ticker. Secondly because far from avoiding systemic bias, having a special list of 'blessed' sources that determine what is worthy of ITN will deeply entrench that bias. I also don't think we should be reliant on English-language sources, which will also drastically skew our coverage. If a Hindi, or Chinese, or Brazilian Portuguese source is the main source for a significant story, we should reflect that. We had great trouble in this respect with trying to build consensus on the Nagorno-Karabakh blockade story - very few of the sources were even in the Latin alphabet, but that did not mean we should not attempt good, unbiased coverage of it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)""Our criteria are too subjective, so let's post less stuff."" Yeah, that will work. 2603:3005:42DF:4000:C512:B59A:D574:391A (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I think the last thing we should do is have any sort of minimum source requirement. That really isn't the issue we are currently facing. Most are concerned about not enough items being posted. I think a minimum source threshold will only exacerbate preexisting balance issues at ITN, as quite frankly most media coverage nowadays is about what generates more clicks. For example, many nations in Africa suffer from power instability and are subject to military coups, but usually this is just a passing news story for many Western publications. However, a transfer of power (especially one done by force) is clearly more noteworthy and impactful than some of the events we have and will post, such as the Ohio train derailment, which may not get posted but is on the cusp as of right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Somebody has to ask… Given WP:NOTNEWS, why do we even HAVE an “In the news” section on the main page? Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC) One, WP:NOTNEWS does not mean we do not cover current events. Two, per WP:ITN, the purpose of the section is: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC) As such, it seems that citing WP:NOTNEWS at WP:ITNC is misguided, when the MP section is literally titled ""In the news"".—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC) On the contrary, it's probably the most important place to remind editors of that policy. ""In the news"" exists to showcase Wikipedia articles about topics that are in the news, not to provide a news service. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I think the difficulty is that ""In the news"" doesn't make it obvious what the missing word is (""[Wikipedia articles] in the news""), and so most readers see the section as just the news section of Wikipedia, rather than ""Articles in the news."" :3 F4U (they/it) 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) One of the reforms we should do is to get rid of the ""showcase"" purpose, as pretty much no article about current events is worth showcasing; there's not enough time to bring them up to GA or FA quality. We flatter ourselves with ""showcase"". The purpose of ITN is (and should be) to help readers find articles about topics that are in the news. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) The minimum standard is WP:ITNQUALITY, which does not claim to be GA/FA. —Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Exactly. ITNQUALITY isn't good enough to be worth ""showcasing"", thus ITN doesn't fulfill the purpose of showcasing quality content, thus we should remove this purported purpose (not to be confused with a purported porpoise) from the list of purposes (not to be confused with the list of porpoises). Levivich (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Unless you are proposing the same pruning of article quality that DYK has, this is unworkable. We recognize many articles about news topics that do have encyclopedic purpose can get up to a perceived quality within a day or so, but the process to get through GA or FA is far longer than that, so we'll accept something that we can tell is likely to be of high quality in the short term. Masem (t) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) The Main Page of WP is to showcase quality articles in their relevant sections. We can't remove that. We are not expecting GA/FA quality (though clearly will accept them), just as DYK doesn't expect those. The purpose of ITN is to help readers find encyclopedic articles about topics in the news, which means that not all topics in the news will necessarily be featured. Wikinews is better suited for the latter function where there is no encyclopedic requirement. Masem (t) 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Sometimes I think if I said ""we should turn the light on"" you would respond with a paragraph explaining that it is dark here. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) You keep introducing a meaning of ITN that is not based on the actual meaning of ITN, instead wanting to turn it into a news ticker. Masem (t) 16:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Hahaha yes that's called ""change"". I keep suggesting change, you keep explaining how things are as if I don't know. But seriously: please stop, it's annoying af. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Things are as they are for a reason. The changes you want to make would turn Wikipedia into something it is not meant to be. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Oh man, you're not seriously pulling out the ""things are as they are for a reason"" line? Trust me: that line is a weak argument wherever it's deployed; it's akin to rhetorical surrender, because ""a reason"" is not necessarily a good reason. Sometimes things are as they are for a bad reason, like in this case: editor vanity, wanting to ""showcase"" average work. Levivich (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I do think we need some change to ITN, because looking through the candidates often makes me often wonder what does ""significance"" mean? Some sport news are considered significant, some are not. Some mass shootings are significant, some are not. Some deaths are notable, some are not. We need some more clearly defined criteria, otherwise it just becomes heavily subjective. My question about the first proposal is what does ""wide variety"" mean? Does that mean 5 sources, 10, 15? Natg 19 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) You're pretty much on the mark. Although people have their own individual standards for what constitutes a significant story, in the end, overall significance is based on a headcount. That's the dirty word that people around here don't like to say, but I feel it's true in the case of ITN. A !vote that says ""it's notable"" has just as much weight as one that says ""it's not notable"". ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC) ITNC is the only page on Wikipedia I can think of where closers seem to never weigh votes; it's pure headcount. Even a vote that says ""only significant in one country"" gets weighed, despite being against the instructions on the very page. IMO, pretty much all the problems with ITN would be fixed if closers applied our WP:PAGs and weighed votes when closing discussions. If they explicitly stated the kinds of votes that they weren't considering (the kind that are contra PAGs, contra WP:ITN), editors would eventually stop making those kind of votes, and the whole enterprise would improve. But, alas, easier said than done. I'd do it myself if it didn't require running for RFA. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Ditto on the RFA bit. Can't see myself as having ""a need for the tools"" if it's just to administer to one area of Wikipedia. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Oh I disagree there; there are many examples of successful RFA candidates who ran specifically to work in just one area (e.g. SPI, DYK, CCI), and I think ""main page admin"" or ""ITN admin"" is a perfectly valid reason for someone to run for RFA. I'd never encourage anyone to run for RFA because I think the process is awful, but Walt if you're inclined to do so, I'd say go for it. Unlike me, I think you'd actually pass and ITN could use more admins. (ERRORS, too.) Levivich (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC) I'd only run if three people nominate me in good faith, one of them preferably being another admin. I've long bemoaned the gauntlet, and I also have a ton of skeletons in my closet that would be dredged up from my early editing days. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) As a further note, the only ""guidelines"" ITN has are the article has to be of sufficient quality (WP:ITNQUALITY), have ""updated content"" and the significance section, which itself states ultimately, there are no rules or guidance beyond two: (1)The event can be described as ""current"", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. (2)There is consensus to post the event. There is a lot of explainer text following these two ""rules"", but unfortunately, this process is way too subjective to determine what is significant, so we need something to clarify ""significance"". Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) My WP:HOWITNWORKS essay tries to clarify it, although honestly it explains the problem more than it tries to solve it. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC) We have worked to address the issue of deaths, in that as long as the person has an article, it qualifies for the RD line once quality has been assessed. That might still leave debates over whether the person should get a blurb about their death, but that's not core to this concern. ITNR is also there to make sure a wide variety of recurring world events get covered (again, barring quality issues). One thing that gets us, and why using any type of source based counting causes problems, is that per NOTNEWS, we shouldn't be covering topics that have a burst if coverage but no long tail as its own story. We frequently have the heaviest discussions on such ""burst"" news coverage, and we need to adherents NOTNEWS better by focusing on topics with long coverage of events. --Masem (t) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)I disagree with ensuring our news story choices are proportional to the population of the continents, and also whether that is evidence of systemic bias within Wikipedia; our stories are based upon the major news sources in English, if there is bias it's the sources. But regardless of what we do someone will criticise us (whilst not being prepare to volunteer), so let the editors choose based on thier whim, becuase we often have a far wider range of stories than elsewhere. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) === Alternative - quality only === The issue is that our current assessment of significance is subjective. The alternative to using a less subjective method of determining significance is to remove the significance requirement entirely; change ""In the news"" to ""Good articles on recent events"" and have the requirements be that the article meets the good article criteria (with some leeway for stability given the event was recent) and that the event covered is more recent than the oldest currently listed. This does open the possibility of abuse by paid editors to increase the profile of their product so articles likely to be of interest to paid editors would also need to be excluded. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC) A less stringent requirement than good article class would be B class, but there have been past objections to using the class system for ITN on the grounds that it is too subjective below good article class. BilledMammal (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I'll go over the reasons why this won't work. First, it'll make the systemic bias issue worse than it is now, since topics from underrepresented regions will be harmed by the lack of extensive sources and the lack of people working on those articles to bring them up to the lofty requirements of the B or GA criteria. Second, having the lack of a significance standard will hyper-prioritize minuscule developments in those areas of Wikipedia which are well-developed, such as American politics, sports, celebrity news, business news, gaming, etc., and while that might not sound so bad in theory, you will have a very hard time getting ITN users to buy into that. Finally, it runs contrary to the goal of ""[emphasizing] Wikipedia as a dynamic resource"", since the increased quality standards would result in a stagnant article base. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I'll second Walt Clip's comments here. And, in the end, do we really have such a colossal issue here that we need to make such a massive change that a lot of editors aren't going to buy into. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I don't think we'll have enough GAs to fill the pipeline. However, drop that, and it could just be ""new articles"" or ""recently-updated articles"" that meet the minimum ITN requirements (like DYK). There's also the possibility of somehow combining DYK and ITN. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC) As in, all articles, regardless of significance, as long as they meet the quality requirements? I would support that, so long as we include appropriate protections about it being abused by UPE's. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)BilledMammal I think quality-only is the way to go, but I don't think it needs to be restricted to good articles. Any event article that meets basic criteria on quality should be included. WP:Notability (events) should be the ""significance"" standard. If it doesn't have its own article, then it's probably not worth putting on the main page. And if there's a recent event that you think should be included, just create a high quality article about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC) === Trending Topics === I believe supplanting with a ""trending topics"" of some kind is long over-due. We had posted this idea and got some amount of interest, but that thread as with many other ideas died because we did not know where to take it. In some sense the iOS app already does this. Repeating the posting from here Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_96#Trending_Topics Background: We often get comments tying stories and nominations to their potential popularity particularly as measured by page views. However, we all broadly agree that we should not be conflating WP:ITN significance with WP:PAGEVIEWS. Also, we agree that WP:ITN is not a news ticker.Suggestion: I think this might be time to introduce a trending topics section either as a part of the WP:ITN box or outside of that. It does reflect quite poor if our mainpage after all these years is still fairly static in its content refresh capability and is not dynamic i.e. tailored either based on audience interest (trending topics), geographic interest (trending near you), or personalized reccos (tailored for you). Trending topics reflects the lowest level of personalization but is still dynamic, whereas tailored for you is the highest level of personalization, while trending near you is in between. This can either be text-based links or better still, images. Requires some amount of creative thinking and might not be in the remit of this group which is largely in a maintenance and operations mode.Complexity: This is not an easy problem to solve since it requires a technical solution, which might or might not exist within the Wikipedia realm. Furthermore, there will have to be new sets of processes including of reviews and such that might need to be baked in.Next Steps: Would love to get this group's input on the interest for such an idea. More importantly who would be the right group to take this idea forward, if at all.Some good ideas came up there. But, we could not take it further. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I like this idea (trending topics), and I especially like it if it can be more than ""just"" WP:PAGEVIEWS (call it ""general trending""), such as the examples you gave, ""trending near you"" (geographic) or ""tailored for you"" (personalized). Here are my concerns about it: I'm no expert in these things, but I don't think there is a technical impediment, I believe a bot could use Pageviews API to grab page views and then write them to a Wikipedia page, which could be updated periodically (not sure what frequency is possible/desirable). I could be very wrong about this, as I've never tried to do it before. I have no idea if the Pageviews API lets you break it down geographically. I don't think MediaWiki has the capability to deliver personalized suggestions (for logged-in or logged-out users), but I might be wrong about that, too. In theory this is doable, though, as many other websites do it. I'm concerned about ""false positives"", which could be exploited. See [1]. This happened in January with topviews reporting Index (statistics) (don't know why) and Cleopatra (see [2]). However, we could account for this issue by allowing human editors (admins) to override the bot algorithm and exclude certain pages when appropriate. Human editors could also override the bot to pull listings based on poor quality, if we wanted to do that. It's possible to do this and not have it automated at all, but it would slow down the rate of update. Still, I think it's an idea worth exploring, mostly because it takes the ""significance"" requirement of ITN out of the subjective hands of editor opinion and puts it into the objective hands of readership statistics. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Pageviews API is heavily rate limited; I don't think that is a viable solution. However, the WMF does do (daily?) dumps of pageviews, so pulling that file could work as well. Unfortunately, the WMF does not provide view localization, although I am certain that they do have this information and might provide it if requested? MediaWiki does support content localization; we already see this with banners. It will take some work to make it work for page content but I believe this is something we can do and don't require the WMF for. I would generally support a solution like this; we could also use weighted pageviews, to give extra weight to articles whose content has recently been updated. On the topic of false positives, does anyone know why the pageviews of Cat might have spiked by a factor of ten yesterday? BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC) It's probably getting recommended by a virtual assistant, same as Cleopatra. Curbon7 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC) My cat told me to stop asking questions. Levivich (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Question. Who can take this idea forward to see if it has some merit toward implementation? Should I be posting this in some specific group? Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @Ktin: My 2c: a mock-up is what's needed. Levivich (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks @Levivich. I wish I knew of a way to share a mockup here. I can draw on powerpoint or a piece of paper and share that as an image. Would that help? Alternately, just replicating what the iOS app has by way of top read articles would be a win. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Ktin: I think that looks really good. But my guess is that what'll get people really engaging with the idea is to see a picture of what the main page would look like with ""trending topics"" (or ""top read"" or whatever you call it) on it. My guess is an image (as opposed to a coded, functional mock-up) would be fine for discussion purposes. Unfortunately I lack the graphic design skills to create one myself. Levivich (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Have you tried to chat with openAI bot ChatGDP? It is amazing, breathtaking to say the least. But what are the implications for WP? As I realize, ChatGDP has a ""training data pool"", with info retrieved from WP, among other sites. Whilst I think OpenAI is a great tool for enhancing education and research, I think there are potential dangers. I would like to suggest, we, the WP, suggest to openAI to only include reviewed articles ie Good articles or better. Have you guys discussed OpenAI issues anywhere else in WP? I 'd like to read others perspectives on the issue. Cinadon36 11:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) There is some discussions going on in the talk page of Wikipedia:Large language models if you are interested. Vpab15 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I think it is actually better for LLMs to include “junk” in their training input, especially if low-quality articles are clearly distinguished from the Good articles, as this allows the AI to learn what good looks like and what bad looks like. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Large language models are good at reproducing coherent language, and bad at writing properly referenced encyclopedia articles. They produce something that at first glance looks like a really good Wikipedia article, but don't (for example) actually read, cite, synthesize, and create coherent articles from source texts. They can give something that has all of the trappings of a really good Wikipedia article on the surface, but is actually nonsense once you scratch it away. --Jayron32 20:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) I feel you are a little harsh here @Jayron32. You are placing the bar too up high. We are at the beginnings here. I have asked chatGDP a couple of questions in my field of expertise and the replies I got were moderate to good. Which is astonishing, especially if you keep in mind that this is a new technology. Yes, I have also noticed the problem with references. Also, I feel there is an element of vagueness and cliches? Maybe, I am not sure. But, it is a project that is still developing. Cinadon36 08:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I too can search for common text strings and copy and paste the information in a way that shows no understanding on my end, but I know enough basic English to reproduce reasonable text. I can even search and replace synonyms and alter sentence structure so that it isn't readily obvious where I got the information from. It's a more efficient version of that. --Jayron32 11:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Cinadon36 It's impressive in many ways but, at least as of now, it generates fake sources and doubles down on them, including fake ISBN numbers and Google Books links if you keep pushing, even though the information it provides appears factual. Which is to say, it can answer even complex question with correct data (eg. what were some of the main economic reforms of Reagan's presidency?), but if you ask for where the information came from (eg. cite actual sources) the result will be made up. It can even use actual names of scholars and existing publishers to create a veneer of authenticity. So really dangerous for review process at this point. I have found it to be most useful for creating outlines and organizing existing thoughts into a clear format. Ppt91talk 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, @Ppt91, I remember my frustration when I asked bot for references and handed me a couple of fake sources. But that was not my point. My suggestion was that we, WP, tell OpenAi to include only good articles of WP or above- just as an advice. As far as I can tell, current version of bot is not adequate to create context for article.Cinadon36 08:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Cinadon36 Thank you for clarifying and I see your point now. I think that this is something worth discussing as OpenAi develops the project. Consider me involved as this conversation is moving forward. :) Ppt91talk 16:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I think we need to make template to disclose when ChatGPT or similar tools are used to write an article. Similar to automated machine transition, people need to be warn that they need to check the work before they post it and use that template to allow others to double check. we need to embrace it, similar to how scientific journals do it, see [https://www.infodocket.com/2023/03/09/journal-article-transparency-in-conducting-and-reporting-research-a-survey-of-authors-reviewers-and-editors-across-scholarly-disciplines/] AI is not an author it is a tool similar to Grammarly or MATLAB. 139.143.95.115 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC) on ""I would like to suggest, we, the WP, suggest to openAI to only include reviewed articles ie Good articles or better. "" specifically, It's an interesting suggestion, but I think there's a risk this encourages gaming the system. It's really not something that's within our control anyway, they can use any/all of the articles as they see fit. JeffUK 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) In an RfC, when there are two choices and no consensus can be reached, we are left with no decision. If no consensus generally means we stay with what we had before, then at least we have something, but sometimes there is no established rule to fall back on and we are left with mixed usage. In that case, Wikipedia is inconsistent, looks sloppy, and nobody's happy. However, at that point we could ask another question to see if there is a consensus that either option is better than no decision, then a coin could be flipped or the closer could make a decision based on a majority rather than a consensus. I proposed this in one case and the answer was that we don't do that here. I've been involved in several such RfCs on matters of style and Wikipedia remains inconsistent. I think either choice is often better than no choice. What think you? Has this been suggested before? Any other ideas? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) No. --Jayron32 13:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I cannot imagine why choosing a result that is not supported by consensus makes sense. A perfectly consistent Wikipedia is a mirage that will never exist. Forcing agreement won't help anyone. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Ixtal: No hope of forcing agreement or becoming perfectly consistent. Right you are. But we could hope to stop endless arguments between pedants who seem to prefer to argue rather than solve a problem. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) It is fine for Wikipedia to be inconsistent, because the real world is. WP:ENGVAR is a great example of Wikipedia choosing to be inconsistent over one of the several options. This is a feature, not a bug, as it helps Wikipedia align with the real world. —Kusma (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Could you give 2-3 examples of RFCs where you think this would have been a better outcome? It would help to understand what you are wanting to see. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @ONUnicorn: Two I've been involved in were: Should Wikipedia say ""the Gambia"" or ""The Gambia"" midsentence. There are good arguments for both. A recent RfC closed as ""No consensus"", so we have usage in articles and in article titles that goes both ways. For some people, especially some Gambians, this is a very important issue. It's been a low-key edit war for years. Several books worth of writing and editor time has been spent trying to reach agreement on the capitalization of universe in an astronomical context. Again, reasonable arguments can be made both ways and no consensus has been reached. Flipping a coin or picking an odd or even number in some lottery would resolve these and people would stop yammering about them for a while. Maybe people shouldn't care so much, but they do. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I found the RFC for (T/t)he Gambia, but I'm not finding the one for (U/u)niverse. I can see Gambia being quite contentious. For (U/u)niverse, however, I would think it would be more context dependent. For example ""There are billions of galaxies in the Universe"" seems like it's being used as a proper name, thus should be capitalized, whereas in, ""Imagine a universe where the laws of physics were different..."" it is not being used as a proper name, thus should be lower case. I think your proposal might help provide clarity in a situation like (T/t)he Gambia, but it could also end up inflaming the situation, especially if Gambians feel strongly about it and do not feel their voices are being heard in whatever decision gets made. I do not think your proposal would be appropriate for something as context dependent as (U/u)niverse, but I could be misunderstanding the debate there as I have not found the actual RFC. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @ONUnicorn: The last one I tried for universe was at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 16#Capitalization of universe - request for comment, eight years ago. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive index lists six more. The details you mention were covered and there was general understanding that if universe was to be capitalized, it would only be capitalized in some contexts.A common idea is that a rule is needed if there is disagreement among editors and editor time is being spent arguing about it. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) The obvious question is, what happens if there is, in turn, no consensus for either option being better than no decision? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Gnomingstuff: Then we are no worse off than we were before, but if there is a consensus that either option is better than continued inconsistency, it's a problem solved and Wikipedia is better, more consistent, more credible. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Solution in search of a problem. Papers have actually been written about how our epistemically conservative consensus system is uniquely well-suited to resolving the presentation of conflicts. signed, Rosguill talk 16:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Rosguill: As an example, imagine Wikipedia as a new country with a new transportation system. I doubt we could reach consensus that we should only drive on either the left or the right; would we continue to let people drive as they please with the resulting accidents and inefficiency? Neither right nor left is inherently better. I'm wondering if people are interested in finding a new way to solve long-standing problems that have not been solved by our consensus system, even if that system usually works. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The obvious solution is for everyone to slow down enough that it does not matter which side they are driving on… sure it takes longer to get where you want to go, but there are no accidents. Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC) The roads analogy is hyperbolic and doesn't really correspond to any situation on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Of course it's hyperbolic, but the examples I give above of The Gambia and universe correspond closely. We let people edit as they please resulting in argument and inefficiency. It makes Wikipedia look less professional, less consistent and less credible and it wastes our time. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) It is a waste of time to attempt to enforce uniformity in stylistic matters that have no real importance. Given how poor our sourcing is in many areas, our credibility is arguably too high already. Note also that WP:ENGVAR, our deliberate inconsistency in using all kinds of different spelling systems does not seem to have caused any real world issues that I am aware of. Making decisions that go one way and possibly violate WP:NPOV is much worse than inconsistency. —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Kusma: Yes we have several deliberate inconsistencies (ENGVAR, DATEVAR, ERA and SERIAL come to mind) and yes those do make English Wikipedia stronger. But we have also set standards in thousands of ways, that's largely what the policies and guidelines are, and those also make Wikipedia stronger. I can't see how having both History of the Gambia and Military history of The Gambia makes us better. (Unless it's good that it keeps people from taking what we write seriously.) SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)There are times when it would be preferable to settle a dispute rather than continue it via no consensus, but they're few and far between. The recent WP:ACAS is a good example, and in that case the closers did basically as you suggest: reduce one of the questions to a pure headcount. My [well-documented at this point] position is that the headcount question was the wrong one -- that we should've come out of that slog with at least a definition of what we mean when we call about ""mass creation"" or the like instead of a strange, arguably redundant rule applying to an ill-defined concept. What makes it hard in a case like that are the entrenched camps and drama carried over from specific cases/people, coloring an important policy debate. There are specific cases when I feel like it would be a net positive to the community to either grant the closers slightly more leeway than usual to glean important conclusions from an otherwise messy discussion, or to find some other approach like you're describing. I certainly wouldn't support and policy/proposal that included relying on coin flips or headcounts, but there are other possibilities. For example (I tossed this out at the arb motions board), run the same RfC again but don't allow anyone who participated in the first RfC to !vote (talk page only). I think that would be worth a try sometime, despite the inevitable complaints. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: There are plenty of problem solving methods we haven't tried yet. What I'm suggesting is that if there is a consensus that people are willing to accept the results of some method besides consensus, we should specifically allow that. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Adopt some form of Speaker Denison's rule: when you have no consensus, preserve status quo as much as possible. dwadieff ✉ 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Yes, we have a set of rules, which generally do amount to that. This would apply when there is no status quo. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [3]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)I've notified Wikipedia talk:Consensus and Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions of this discussion. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC) === Conclusion === I thought this was a good idea, but it has not gained support here and that's ok. I did find a similar discussion that went nowhere 17 years ago at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 24#Consistency. I still want to explore the idea and I'm considering opening an RfC at the Manual of Style talk page for capitalization asking something like: Given that we've been unable to reach consensus on the capitalization of universe in many discussions [which I will list], is there a consensus that the results of a coin flip (or similar random choice) would be better than what we have now? Would I be acting in bad faith or forum shopping if I made that proposal there? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I think continue the discussion here, but change the title/create a new topic similar to- What should we do when Consensus cannot be reached when there are strong opinions on small changes? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) In that sort of example, it depends on the question! ""Do we capitalise [u/U]niverse in all cases"", may get 'no consensus'. ""Should we have a consistent capitalization for Universe"" may get a strong consensus for 'Yes'. You can then build on the conversation to define /how/ we determine which to use (i.e. ""having agreed we should be consistent, let's use whatever the BBC uses""), and finally let that discussion determine the answer. If the consensus is 'No' or 'Use the local consensus', 'Use whatever the sources use' etc. then you also have a consensus. Ultimately, it sounds like a lot of effort, and we don't require absolute consistency in matters of style anyway! JeffUK 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Hi! Curious if y'all think there are any aspects of editing where new editors may need more guidance/advice than what our current PAGs and explanatory essays provide, such as RFCs. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I'll suggest the opposite: there's too much guidance, and the way it's organized makes it really difficult for new editors to know where to start. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Thebiguglyalien, that's also very useful insight. How do you think we can improve the organization of the guidance? Any particular areas of concern? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I'll second Thebiguglyalien's comment: too much ""stuff"", poorly organized. We can expect editors to go through Help:Introduction. But practically no one reads Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or any of those pages (I certainly didn't). They're both too basic and too verbose, making them pointless, while far less prominent pages, like MILHIST's Academy or userspace essays, are more useful by a mile. Nobody reads a manual before driving their new car; our help pages shouldn't try to address everything, they should focus on frequently asked questions, like how to copy edit (with specific guidance and examples), and how to find high-quality sources (too bad we can't just link out to LibGen/Sci-Hub, but people can still find tons of books/papers for free on the web or archive.org, yet most don't know how to). DFlhb (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) DFlhb, I personally found the MILHIST academy very useful. Have there been proposals to model the site-wide guides after the MILHIST academy? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Ixtal, I had the exact same thought, but never acted on it. Feel free to run with it. I added further thoughts on that page I just linked. DFlhb (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @DFlhb Maybe we need a new space called history/archive that we move all the old/duplicate stuff to. (I didn't know that the milhist academy exisited. Wow. ) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team has been providing very brief bits of information. The Editing team's new WP:Edit check will do more of the same, but right inside the visual editor, based on what the editor has typed. One thing I haven't seen during the last decade is someone sitting down with Special:RecentChanges and figuring out what kinds of edits brand-new registered editors are making. Are people creating accounts to add paragraphs or to fix typos? The last time this was done, brand-new accounts could create articles in the mainspace (the Draft: space didn't exist then), and creating a new article was the first edit made by a quarter of accounts. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)I'll third Thebiguglyalien's comment and add to and expand on it. ""Too much"" ""not organized"" ""unvetted"" ""with no navigation (which for a newbie means ""hidden"")"". One suggestion: add a ""Getting started at editing"" link lower down on the main page and have it land at a highly vetted / lots of eyes main navigation page for newbies. And direct links from it only to highly vetted pages. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC) This is an idea related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A plea: Propose a better solution, and before I actually propose it I'd like to workshop it a bit here first to see if it actually has legs and if there is anything obvious I'm missing. I think a small improvement we can make to the community processes around CT/GS, both at AN/ANI and in content discussions is give uninvolved administrators the tools to enforce a formalized discussion structure when they see a need. This could be a benefit in long, drawn out ANI threads that may have been better suited to AE, but have grown too large to move to that venue, or in RFCs and content discussions which are clearly generating heat to prevent them from igniting. Tools to step in and prevent bludgeoning, unconstructive back and forths, and sprawling, unreadable clusterfucks will make it easier to attract uninvolved closers, keep heated discussions focused and on-topic, and keep editors from crossing lines that may lead to sanctions. Hat tip to Tamzin for writing up most of the following legalese, although I've made some changes. Any uninvolved administrator may take reasonable actions to structure a discussion in any area designated as a contentious topic or under community general sanctions, included but not limited to requiring section based (rather than threaded) discussion, imposing maximum word limits, and closing a discussion that has become unconstructive pending uninvolved closure. Administrators may enforce such restrictions using admin tools if necessary. Decisions can be appealed to the administrators' noticeboard. The administrator could pick and choose how to structure the discussion, and not every remedy would be needed for every discussion. Sometimes just limiting those taking part to 500 or 1000 words would be enough, and there are other times when strictly enforcing sectioned discussion with word limits would help the situation. For an RFC or topic ban discussion, enforcing a structure where only !votes of up to 200 words are allowed under Option A, Option B, and Option C, and discussion may be threaded, but editors are restricted to 500 words may be enough to keep a dumpster fire from flaring up. Hopefully this would also serve to encourage editors to think carefully about their response, and have their supporting evidence ready at hand when responding. There's also a large benefit in seeing that a discussion is over-cooked, and stopping it at that point, even if you don't have the time to close it yourself at that point. Generally, the longer a discussion is open after it's well done the more acrimonious it becomes, which only serves to harm the community. This is not a large change, and it won't solve all of the problems with CT/GS discussions or ANI, but small changes are easier to implement, and any improvement is an improvement. Any input on this would be appreciated, and if it seems well received I'll make an actual proposal at WP:VPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, please. Questions that would need to be answered: User:NoWords4U implements a 200 word / 10 diff limit on a given conversation. User:IHave11Diffs wants to post 11 diffs. Would any admin or just NoWords4U be able to grant said request (i.e., would granting extensions count as modifying a sanction)? Also to be considered: how would !votes on resolutions work? At AE, there is a section for patrolling admin comments; would there be something like this for everyone? For only uninvolved editors? Any of the above, depending on what an admin decides? HouseBlastertalk 15:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) As far as granting extensions, I don't see a reason why any uninvolved admin wouldn't be able to do so. As far as closing, it would depend on the specific structure implemented by the uninvolved admin, but I don't see most of the discussions needing specific admin closure. The aim isn't to make it exactly like AE, it's to enforce enough structure to keep the discussions constructive and on point. An admin enforcing a structure could say that those responding to the discussion must declare in their section header if they are previously involved. The hope is that it would be a broad toolset so an admin could enforce the structure that best fits the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I dislike the idea of implementing word or diff limits; sometimes editors need more space for their statement, and the issue resolves itself because the longer a statement is the more likely it is to be ignored. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Is the idea to propose these as general sanctions so that there would be a presumption against overturning once implemented or to be resolved through the normal ANI/AN method of actions that sometimes get undone (and redone)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I'm a bit up in the air about that, but I think it would be more effective as a general sanction, so that if there is an issue with the structure it has to be discussed at AN rather than changing the discussion parameters another time, possibly unnecessarily. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I think a change like this should be a community-approved addition to the standard set of page restrictions, and so appealing would require following Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments. (From an implementation point of view, I think it would be simplest to modify the contentious topic page directly to include this, but if for some reason the arbitration committee objected, it could be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions as a community-approved supplement.) isaacl (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) It would take an ArbCom motion for the the Contentious Topic standard set of page restrictions to be modified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Even if the community places a general sanction that applies to any topics on the CT list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Even if, as the community cannot directly modify the Contentious Topic procedures. So someone could either ask the Committee to do it or it could be done as a community General Sanction. If you're going to ask the Committee to do it after an RfC, I would recommend (and this is me speaking only for myself) making sure that's noted when people participate in the RfC. Historically the committee has been reluctant to take something the community has passed over without some reason for doing so (such as part of a larger case). This reluctance is why the committee has tried to provide the community a way of aligning its GS with the Contentious Topics procedures so that the community could use AE for its GS. But ultimately that remains an option and the community can decide it doesn't want to align with the GS it passes (and so far hasn't chosen to re-align any existing GS). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) There are enough other big conversations in which editors want to engage that I suspect the current status quo (where a clerk already modified the General sanctions page to say ""... when the community designates a topic as a contentious topic"") will be considered good enough for the near term. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I think SFR is proposing it be done as a general sanction. That is, we ""make a rule"" that says something to the effect of ""Admins may do [the things outlined in this proposal] to discussions related to topics that are listed here"" I believe this would be within the purview of the community, though I definitely agree it would be much easier if ArbCom passed a motion affirming the result of the RfC if it is successful. HouseBlastertalk 23:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I know and I agree. I feel the arbitration committee would see benefits in keeping the standard set of page restrictions in one place, rather than having them split across the Contentious Topics page and the General sanctions page, and thus would be willing to pass a motion, but if it disagrees, then it can be split up. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I think @ScottishFinnishRadish hit the nail on the head: small changes are easier to implement, and any improvement is an improvement. I am strongly in favor of introducing a more efficient structure, even if it's through trial and error, because the issue is urgent. I've said this in the original thread and I feel strongly about WP:WALLOFTEXT editors at ANI who often don't even edit in GENSEX. We're technically not a bureaucracy but somehow it's precisely the shortcomings and endless complications of certain bureaucratic processes that makes this entire process more challenging for many editors who work on some of the most emotionally and intellectually taxing areas of en-wiki (and many of whom already feel very disenfranchised in the real world). Ppt91talk 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) The administrator could pick and choose how to structure the discussion not a fan of this, also not necessarily a fan in general - I feel this is a bit of a last resort thing. Controlling a discussion aggressively is often equivalent to controlling its outcome. Would far prefer a canned set of solutions chosen to limit this effect, and less invasive constraints like ""we won't talk about this for a while"". Also do we know what works? And are we sure the community actually needs coercion rather than a good model? Talpedia (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Personally, I don't feel choosing a discussion format is equivalent to aggressively controlling a discussion. I appreciate some formats may be less appropriate for certain types of disputes, thus I think it's good that the proposal is providing flexibility for an administrator to decide upon a suitable format. I'm not sure that a canned set of solutions is less invasive than setting a format for discussion, and in particular, a single person deciding that the community won't talk about something for a while feels like a very controlling approach. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Not equivalent... more potentially enables in the absense of limits. Not talking at least doesn't reach a *conclusion*. I might read up / summarize some literature on influence in meetings for clarity. Talpedia (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) IMO probably only about 2% of Wikipedians and 5% of admins could successfully execute that role than you describe. IMO unless you could identify the 5% I think this would do more harm than good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) This feels to offer quite a lot of control to any individual admin and could be a somewhat de facto change to ANI format for CT topics if used with a significant level of frequency. What would be the mechanism should admin A decide to bring in said rules for a discussion and others (editors or admins) disagree with them? Other qs - the proposal suggests that this will be used for complex/scrawling discussions - would they only apply to comments made post-addition? That could potentially be imbalanced. However, something like rate limitation I could see being of more used than word/diff-count or, more drastically, sectioning. I'd also have zero issue with an obligation to disclose involved status - I think that last one would be a good general AN/ANI rule. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC) section based (rather than threaded) discussion Ugh, no. Have you ever tried to go back and read a ""discussion"" that was held that way? It's nearly impossible to get any idea of what the actual discussion was. It only works for Arb cases because mostly everyone is talking to the Arbs, and the Arbs have their own threaded discussion on private mailing lists, and because few ever read those ""discussions"" after the fact (the final decision is the important part). imposing maximum word limits Seems like another measure to shut down discussion rather than to encourage better discussion. Which side has more editors, to have a higher word limit? Will we have people going back to delete their old comments to be able to make new ones, further hiding the actual discussion from anyone who hasn't been following it in real time? Anomie⚔ 13:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Just on the word count limit thing, and I express no opinion about any other aspect of this proposal -- word counts are meant to keep the matter readable and to ensure that one or two passionate editors don't drown out everyone else with long conversations. I get that. But they're a significant barrier for uninvolved people to participate. My admittedly limited experience with Arbcom is that I don't know how many bloody words I'm going to need and I always want to have some in reserve in case I need to answer other editors anyway. I find word count and diff limits a significant stressor. A much better rule would say ""be as succinct as possible"" and enforce that with clerking by uninvolved sysops.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I realize this may sound snarky, but how would clerks enforce succinctness without word count limits? Donald Albury 19:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Well, you'd have to read what they typed and form a judgment call. Isn't that what sysops do?—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't recall that my access to the tools gives me the power to officially determine who is being succinct and who isn't. (And now, I am being snarky.) Donald Albury 01:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Sysops routinely officially determine who's being disruptive and who isn't. Sysops routinely officially decide when someone's engaged in undisclosed paid editing, and block them despite their denials. You can find the consensus in an unstructured and undisciplined discussion. You read text and decide what's fair and what's out of line, and thereby keep the encyclopaedia running smoothly. If you say to me that you can't read a textual conversation and tell who's being succinct and who isn't, then okay, I believe you. But *I* can and I don't think it's a difficult thing to do.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I don't know, I feel like making it a judgement call would allow too much bias to creep in. This whole discussion was triggered by dysfunction in the GENSEX area, which is an area rife with all kinds of different biases. In the last few ANI cases from that topic area I saw several people go after the accused editor for ""bludgeoning their own ANI case"". Whether you think that's the truth or not, I strongly believe that's exactly the kind of situation we need to avoid, because it is both an accusation that is really hard to fight back against once you've received it and entirely subjective. A word limit with limited extensions would avoid that pitfall a little more efficiently. Preferably, those extensions would have to be granted based on something other admins can verify. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Well, we're writing an encyclopaedia. So our job is to read the sources and summarize them. We explain complex and difficult matters in simple, clear words. That's an academic discipline, called precis, that I and many other editors my age were taught as part of our English studies in grammar school. And with all due respect, it's easy to know what's brief, simple and clear and what isn't. Any fool can tell when people are repeating themselves, and the other aspects of ""brief, simple and clear"" are objectively measurable with Flesch-Kincaid tests. There are websites where you can paste disputed text and get the Flesch-Kincaid score as a number.My favourite example of horrible prolixity and slack precis skills in text is our Wikipedia article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Its Flesch-Kincaid score suggests an audience of professionals educated to at least college degree level who are fluent at reading technical language. It's like they designed it to be incomprehensible to ADHD sufferers.Anyway, being brief, simple and clear is a core skill for anyone who edits text and it shouldn't be hard for any encyclopaedist to construct a brief, simple and clear explanation of their position.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I think the main skill in arguments is having been in enough discussions to know when arguing more doesn't help your case... unfortunately that can depend on who you are talking. Talpedia (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I've only skimmed this proposal, but I'd like point out one advantage of word limits vs clerking; they can't be construed as favoring one side or the other. In a heated debate, it's good to have strict rules, uniformly applied. Otherwise, you risk somebody saying, ""You let the other guy say more, why won't you let me say more?"", and then you're down that rabbit hole. What arbcom does seems to work: you start with a fixed limit and if you run into that, you can ask a clerk for more. That still brings human clerking into play, but at least the first barrier is a fixed number. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I think it's unavoidable that people will (inaccurately) construe CT-enforcing sysops as favouring one side or the other.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I think a system like this would need clear rules around when and how it is being/able to be enforced. for example, different tiers of enforcement depending on topic area or subject matter. (e.g. ""random vandalist IP #2989 active again"" probably doesn't need the same level of structured discussion as a highly controversial topic in the GENSEX area does.), ranging from none at all to the AE like format Billedmammal proposed here. I think under those conditions, this would form a massive improvement to the way things currently work at ANI. I don't think it's a way of shutting people up, I think of it more as enforcing WP:COAL by force. That doesn't sound too bad to me. As for word limits: I think they're fine as long as people get an extension they can use. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC) This was my first thought as well. Any reforms or measures that we consider can't be one-size-fits-all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I can generally support this, as it doesn't propose diff limits. That would be a major failure point. Much of the back-story of this proposal is that the earlier proposal was to force all GENSEX ANI reports to AE, but AE is poor for establishing long-term patterns of abuse because of AE's diff limits and AE admins' general hostility to evidence that is not brand new (AE is only good for evidencing and stopping recent ""flare ups"").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I think one discussion format that may be helpful in some cases is a round-robin discussion phase, where each contributor can make one comment until a moderator decides the next round of comments should start. The moderator would also decide when the round-robin phase ends. This would help prevent rapid escalation of contentious statements, and give everyone a chance to weigh in before the next round of responses. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) The complaint that AN/I is awful, unworkable, untenable, dysfunctional and a terrible stinking mess is one that I've been hearing pretty much the entire 18+ years I've been editing here, and yet AN/I goes right on sanctioning those who need to be sanctioned, not sanctioning those who don't, warning people when they need to be warned, and -- in general -- getting the job done pretty well. True, it's messy, it's sometimes hit-or-miss, things slip through, and there are aspects of it which are as annoying as all get out, but the same can be said of any semi-democratic process which involves large numbers of people. It really doesn't need a lot of ""fixing"", and it certainly doesn't need to be ""fixed"" in a way that makes it work like AE or any other process. AE works because -- although anyone can comment -- it's pretty much functionally limited to a smaller population of edits, the admin corps, and in actual fact, to a much smaller group of admins who bother to participate there. I would oppose any change to AN/I which would involve forcing structured discussion of any kind. That doesn't mean that I think that there's nothing that can be done to improve AN/I, just that an attempt to force it to be something it isn't seems to be to be a bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC) The intent isn't to change ANI entirely. For the most part ANI does a find job of handling actual incidents. The intent is to, when the need arises in any discussion, implement some structure to keep a discussion productive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks SFR for splitting this out to discuss. I've gone back and forth on this, but I think ultimately it doesn't really successfully address the issues with ANI, or rather introduces a bunch of unwanted additional issues. Randomly empowering random admins to reformat or structure discussions the way they see fit is going to feel even more arbitrary or random than discretionary sanctions/general sanctions feel now, especially to newer users. I think for it to work, there'd need to be a much clearer and documented process, or something that kicks in automatically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) I thought about triggers, so that it would kick in in certain circumstances, but that's exceedingly difficult to try and nail down. It's a lot easier to recognize that something has become, or is in the process of becoming, a quagmire, or dumpster fire and trying to head off the likely escalations. All in all, it's a tough situation to deal with because the arbitrary nature is a problem, but so is trying to write up a bunch of if statements to meet the threshold for deciding that unlimited threaded discussion isn't the way to handle a discussion that is quickly going off the rails. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC) No. This is basically to enable Admin-rule on discussions where they have a significant conflict of interest or such a strong point of view they will effectively be given licence to suppress opposition they dont like. Pretty it up how you like, but this conversation (and the discussion at AN) has come about because the ""wrong person"" ended up sanctioned and some people dont like it. Which is a terrible basis for a change in procedure, a change explicitly to prevent the same thing happening again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Oppose. For the exact reason given by Only in death. The ANI that inspired the idea proposed here is an ANI where an editor considered to be ""fighting the good fight"" in favor of transgender causes had violated Wikipedia policies and community guidelines more than once, had received warnings, but continued to push the envelope until it could no longer be tolerated. If you read some of the comments in that ANI, editors who supported a topic ban based on the diffs provided, including editors who had a history of dealing with said editor, were accused in general of being ""out to get"" that editor by some who were comrades of said editor, and the ANI was a weapon being used to prevent this person from contributing to transgender-related articles — because of course, in their eyes this editor was a warrior who could do no wrong. Gensex articles are going to draw contentious editors and contentious editing because they attract too many activist editors with personal agendas. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I support this and furthermore think it's probably a better solution than the previous two suggestions. I think that being able to ""cool down"" a discussion like this will do a lot to cool down bad drama-based ANI bans while not having much effect on good ones. Loki (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I feel Wikipedia's gotten far too conservative, and there's far too much inertia for anyone trying to make any improvements. Why not try this, or try the suggestion below, for a single CTOP and for a limited duration (a few months), and then reflect? When did we get so risk-averse? We need to restore a culture of experimentation: run trials, analyze, iterate. DFlhb (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This, 110%. Our ""if it ain't broke..."" culture is detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. We do not protect FAs because they are ""ain't broke"" to prevent them from being ""fixed"". Sure, FAs may be small-g good articles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them even better. Same thing with our PGs/norms/practices: experiment, and see what happens. Things that are commonplace and (I believe) widely seen as Good Things had ""there is no problem"" opposes. Then the change happened, and Wikipedia was made better. To name a few, in no particular order: de-mopping inactive admins (e.g. opposes 2, 6, 8, 16), introducing rollback (e.g. opposes 79, 88, 115, 120), letting 'crats remove the mop (e.g. opposes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, most of the others), and ACTRIAL (e.g. the 101 people who supported the linked proposal by Ironholds).Heck, from WP:5P5, ""Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time"". Can we please let them evolve? HouseBlastertalk 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) === 5Day Limit at ANI === User:Tamzin has asked us for ideas (back at WP:AN) on how to deal with reports at WP:ANI. I have a proposal that does not involve ANI reform in the usual sense. I suggest that any thread at ANI that involves a contentious topic that is still being discussed after 5 days should be closed and transferred to Arbitration Enforcement. The ArbCom is intended to adjudicate disputes that the community cannot resolve, because the dispute divides the community. A contentious topic dispute that is still being discussed (argued about) after nearly a week is a recurrence of disputes that divide the community and have been delegated by ArbCom to Arbitration Enforcement. This doesn't involve reform of WP:ANI in general, and doesn't prevent the community from dealing with trolls, flamers, or other editors in contentious topic areas who are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It would identify cases that have been misfiled and are known to be Arbitration Enforcement cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Given that a siteban proposal takes 72 hours (except in SNOW cases), and it usually takes a bit of time to get to the siteban proposal, do you think that this would effectively hinder the ability of the community to siteban bad actors as a community sanction? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC) User:Red-tailed hawk - That's an interesting valid concern, and illustrates why brainstorming here is useful. Perhaps the proposal should be for any thread at ANI that is still being discussed and is not considering a siteban. After all, my stated intention was not to prevent the community from dealing with trolls, flamers, and similar bad actors, and trolls and flamers are often banned. The objective is to identify ANI threads that are going nowhere and send them to AE, as opposed to those that the community can handle. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 5-day limit? No. Sometimes it takes a few days for an editor to find out there's a discussion at ANI about a problematic editor. Limiting ANI discussions to 5 days will become a way to keep editors who aren't attached at the hip to ANI from participating in discussions they would have otherwise become involved in. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 14:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Making ANI into arbom-light could be a good idea. Some of the same methods used at arbcom could be translated into an ANI version, that is less restrictive. arbcom has time limits, but 5 days is actually more restrictive than arbcom. -- GreenC 14:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC) While I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a time limit, I think it'd need to be a lot longer than five days. ANI is sort of a double-edge sword: it overreacts to drama stuff without a clear policy violation, but it also is noticeably better at dealing with cases of long term bad behavior without a clear policy violation (like civil POV pushing)... unless the person in question is just randomly popular, in which case AE is a lot better. The TL;DR of all that is that time or contentiousness alone is not really the concern here. Loki (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Again, Oppose any transferring to AE as an means of cutting out community involvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I may not have been clear that I was only proposing an ANI time limit on discussions that involve a contentious topic. I was not proposing to close down discussions after 5 days if there is no other forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)I would support such a proposal, although with a longer limit. I'd say 7 days seems a bit less restrictive, and interested editors can still comment at AE. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Opposed - I don’t have a problem with an admin closing an ANI thread they think is just going in circles or is otherwise unproductive, but I don’t think we need to put a firm time limit on the discussions. Sometimes it just takes longer for an issue to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Support. Five days is enough. This does not put a time limit on a discussion. Editors are able to comment at AE. And support modification that there should be no referral to AE if a cban has been proposed during this period; but if the cban discussion resulted in no consensus (not consensus not to ban): yes, refer automatically to AE. —Alalch E. 11:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The idea of a ""minor edit"" in Mediawiki (the software that runs Wikipedia) is a design mistake. Mediawiki should remove it entirely so that all traces of it are gone except for historical purposes. The problems with ""minor edit"" are manifold: the distinction between a minor and a non-minor edit is arbitrary and up to the user to decide the user is often unsure themselves how they'd classify their own edit other editors might (and would) often disagree obvious minor edits are often forgotten to be marked as such bigger edits are occasionally marked as minor (eg when an editor initially made a small edit but then went bigger) bigger edits might intentionally be marked as minor eg by vandals it's a bit rude to make people who like to copyedit constantly call their efforts ""minor""The idea that users can self-report edits that don't require review is outlandish. If anything, it'd be much smarter to allow users to flag edits that they think require review. But I think that all edits require review so the benefits of simplification of the editing process outweigh the pros of adding such flags. Of course there should be a ""bot"" flag and possibility others. I'm not saying flags are not needed at all. Just that our current usage of ""minor edit"" is pointless and needs major reconsideration. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC) For reference, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 177 § RfC: Disable minor edits on English Wikipedia is I believe the last large discussion on a similar proposal, where it was suggested that only rollbackers, admins, and bots should be able to flag an edit as minor, and by policy only when reverting vandalism. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I tend to agree with the editors in that RfC who pointed out that, while the minor flag is a weak signal when applied by a new user, it is more helpful when coming from an editor you know and trust. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for bring that past RfC to my attention. I have to say that RfC appears to have been poorly made. Literally no rationale was given leaving some to oppose with (meritorious!) ""why?"" comments. Plus in the absence of an argument to set the focus, many people brought an array of views that perhaps missed the point. It was also perhaps not the best idea to have two somewhat orthogonal concepts mixed together. A dissatisfying RfC for me. And kind of disheartening because it will affects and anchor future discussions like this one forever. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) As per RfC standards, the proposer started it with a neutral question. They then placed the rationale in their support statement. I wouldn't worry too much about long-term after-effects. Editors were commenting on how useful they found the minor edit flag; I think a discussion now or in the future will continue to be based on their experiences up to the point of discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Some editors find it convenient to filter out long strings of humdrum edits (e.g. dash fixing with AWB) from contribution histories. Additionally at a recentish discussion about disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from marking edits as minor there was significant pushback because some participants felt it made vandals/spammers easier to identify as they often mark all their edits as minor. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I agree with that last part. Maybe even making it an extended confirmed-only function ... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) There should be ways to filter out bot edits. I don't buy the experienced vs inexperienced editor arguments. I've been using the minor edit checkbox now for almost 20 years. I think it does cause editors to skip reviewing some of my edits. But I'd rather they did. My editing is not infallible and I too introduce occasional errors by mistake. I wish more eyeballs would review my edits. Maybe it's best if I don't mark my edits as minor anymore. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @Jason Quinn both recent changes and watchlist have a built-in hide-bots option already. — xaosflux Talk 14:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Hi, xaos. I know. My comment was intended to suggest that some kinds of filtering are valuable and we need to remain able to do it even if we remove the minor edit flag. I didn't mean to imply by ""should be"" that no such filtering currently exists. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I would support its removal. I don't find it useful to screen out minor edits from my watchlist because it's too frequently misapplied. If it wasn't available, it would do away with user talk page and drama board kerfuffles about its misuse. From the viewpoint of a new editor, I would think ""minor"" meant I wasn't making a ""major edit"", which is the wp-wrong way to interpret it, so that's confusing. I think any perceived benefit to watchlist screening is negated by both unintentional and intentional misuse. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC) It took until I first ventured out of mainspace for me to realize that ""watch page"" wasn't the inverse of ""minor edit"". I also had no confidence in my contributions. So for 10 years I dutifully marked ""watch page"" for every edit that wasn't trivial c/e in the belief I was alerting ""admins"" to additions that needed reviewing. I found out even more embarrassingly recently that the star symbol wasn't a ""like button"". When I finally discovered my watchlist it already had like 800 articles... JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I never mark an edit minor for reasons stated. Marking an edit minor is to discourage the need to verify, which contradicts how Wikipedia operates. -- GreenC 14:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC) @GreenC never say never? I'm assuming you didn't manually click minor - but that is the type of ""minor"" edit that I think is still useful to filter. — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I ceased marking edits as minor after being informed I wasn't following the ""guidelines"". Ah, okay. Why bother? Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)I find it a useless feature, but apparently others do not. Useless to me, harmless across the board, and useful to somebody means there's no good reason to get rid of it. --Jayron32 15:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) My thoughts are in agreement w/ Jayron. I do mark some edits as minor (e.g. removing unnecessary line breaks), tho. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) There will always be people who think something is useful given a decent size user base. So ""'Useful to somebody' implies a feature should be kept"" is a very poor standard for software maintenance and development. It would effectively never removes anything and just allows cruft to accumulate. Instead software developers should constantly be asking, ""Is this the way it it should be?"". Plus, you are neglecting the negative effects of cruft on the rest of users. If a feature is useless to most but useful to a few, that does not mean it is harmless. Every UI element or every step/option in workflow adds complexity and that very complexity affects the usability of software. The minor edit option is something encountered upon first edits and adds yet another reason why a first time editor might get the ""I don't know what's going on here"" feeling and abandon their try. Plus it takes up space, and clutter is bad. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I support it being removed. I don't bother ticking the box myself because I don't see any value. Likewise, I ignore it when looking at other people's edits. From my experience at WP:SPI, I see it mostly used by miscreants as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Perhaps instead the Pareto principle should be applied and we have check boxes for the top 3-4 edit categories? For example: fix spelling/grammar, add/repair link(s), warning tag(s), citation change(s). Praemonitus (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC) This exists on the mobile app: they have ""fixed typo, fixed grammar, added links"" as buttons. Natg 19 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Misuse seems like something that would be easy to make backfire, at least sometimes. Couldn't we have a bot or somesuch that highlights edits that have a large byte difference but which are flagged as minor? That seems like a red flag for vandalism. Obviously that won't help when someone flags subtle date vandalism as minor, but it'd still be useful as far as it goes. EDIT: Blueboar has elaborated on this below; but we could automate it to an extent by somehow highlighting large edits that are flagged as minor, since that's a contradiction that bears further scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I find it useful - but for reasons that are exactly the opposite of the tags intended use. So many vandals and SPA editors check it (in an attempt to hide their nefarious/problematic edits) that I have learned to pay extra scrutiny to anything tagged as “minor”. In short the tag is a great way to identify nefarious/problematic edits. I would hate to lose that. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)I'll skip over minor edits (by editors I trust) when reviewing a page history or on my watchlist, it saves me time. I flag my own minor edits as minor for the same reason. The list of problems can be summarized as sometimes people make mistakes with minor edits, or sometimes they don't use them as intended, or sometimes these edits start arguments. This is also true for non-minor edits. I don't think we should get rid of either. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) The flag is useful but its name may be confusing. The definition of minor edit, whilst useful and correct, is not the obvious meaning of that term. For example, per WP:ME, ""reversion of obvious vandalism"" is a ""minor edit"", but I wouldn't class unblanking a page as minor.All registered editors can mark their edits as minor. Should this be a revocable privilege, issued by default to all (or [auto]confirmed only) but removed from those who abuse it? Certes (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC) That's an interesting idea, about making it a permission. Also, maybe rename it to ""routine edit""? Levivich (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I would support it being removed. It confuses me when I put in a new edit. And if I am making a lot of minor edits for cleanup purposes, I have to remember to check the box every time, which I don't because it's just another check box I have to check. Born25121642 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I think of the ""minor edit"" feature as something like an easily accessible edit summary and just as reliable as edit summaries in general. I would support removing all ""hide minor edits"" features from the default view, as whether an edit is marked as minor says nothing about whether it is minor. Better to rely on software detection than on user self reporting. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I think this hits the key point. If we don't automatically hide minor edits, then none of the concerns of 'people using it to hide vandalism' will apply. Is there anywhere that we do hide 'minor' edits automatically? JeffUK 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Agree, It's really pointless other than filtering. (which should really be an automatic thing like if its (+5) or (-5) or done by something like HotCat) It CAN be used for vandalism purposes, most of the time I forget to even flag it. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)I don't think that it serves any purpose. Since you can't trust it, it needs to be reviewed, which removes it's reason for existence. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I perform a lot of AWB runs in which I make edits that are really minor (e.g., adding missing spaces after commas or ref tags). I mark these minor by default. I would like to think the software will eventually get to the point where it can natively recognize that an edit is ""minor"" in this sense without any human choice being involved at all. BD2412 T 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I'd support removing it. If it were consistently used honestly, it would work, but it is not. I do not double check on editors I trust if they mark an edit as minor, but I don't check a trusted editor even if it not marked as minor. I don't think it provides the information it is intended to provide. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Agreed, it's pointless. Its only use is the inverse of what was intended: some people attempt to hide bad edits by calling them minor, so minor deserve extra scrutiny. It also misleads novice editors who are nervous of claiming they're making a big contribution to Wikipedia when all they're doing is adding a new supporting reference, or a single sentence highlighting a new development in their field. They believe these edits are 'minor', which they are in terms of global authorship, but they're factual changes so they're major in Wikipediaworld. And then novice gets cautioned for misusing 'minor', which is scary and off-putting. Elemimele (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I agree it's more trouble than it's worth among the general editor population. There are a few valid use cases, though, e.g. allowing people to hide AWB edits in their watchlist and letting bots edit user talk pages without leaving a notification. Certes's permission idea is a good one, although I might make it available on request rather than a default. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC) ""The idea that users can self-report edits that don't require review is outlandish"" this statement is only true if you fail to assume good faith. In most cases, edits marked as minor ARE minor, and can be safely skipped over if trying to understand the content changes brought about by a series of good-faith edits by most editors. Conversely, a 3,000 byte edit marked as 'minor' is an excellent indicator of something that is more likely to need attention! JeffUK 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Assuming good faith does not mean that we should assume that every edit is equally beneficial to the encyclopedia. An editor can have all good intentions and still make mistakes, or not be aware of one or another point in our policies and guidelines. And we know from painful experience that some editors do not always edit in good faith. So, assume that an editor is editing in good faith until and unless the evidence shows otherwise, but do not assume that any edit is error-free and does not need to be reviewed. If I had the time, I would review every edit that shows up in my watchlist (I actually did do that for a while), but, as it is, with over 5,000 pages on my watchlist, I tend to skip over edits in mainspace made by editors I recognize. Donald Albury 18:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I'm the same, and for those editors who either I recognise, or see making good edits, I tend to trust that their 'minor' tags are appropriate and relevant; making the tag a useful indication of whether or not an edit has added content that may be likely to be challenged. JeffUK 18:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) But, I think all my edits should be reviewed. I am terrible at proofreading my own work, and it has taken me up to six years to discover errors I have made.[4] Donald Albury 18:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) And a few minutes ago I saw that an IP had just corrected a couple of capitalization errors I had made eleven years ago. Donald Albury 19:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I don't understand how removing the 'Minor' flag, as is proposed here, either helps or hinders that happening in the future. JeffUK 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I oppose the general removal of the “minor edit” button. Maybe I am in the minority but I do use it for routine correcting of typos (often my own) and others should have that option if they so choose. I do like the idea of revoking this button from those who abuse it. Frank Anchor 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia talk page discussions could be in a discord conversation format. So that you don't get a long thread of replies and it's hard to track who has replied to whom. So it could appear to be more like a linear chat. Of course you could still reply to someone with an @. Born25121642 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Why would we want it to be harder to track who replied to whom? Anomie⚔ 12:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) oh, my bad. i meant that it is hard to track right now, and the discord idea could help fix that Born25121642 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I find it often difficult to understand who is replying to what in a flat Discord conversation from reading it, while Wikipedia's indent levels at least provide some degree of information. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Understood. Here is a wikipedia discussion I am in right now: Talk:Man#What_is_a_man? And you see how it is hard to track the replies. Born25121642 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think this is a particularly difficult example to track replies, compared with much more convoluted cases I've seen. In any case, though, a linear set of posts would be worse for the purposes of tracking replies, requiring the reader to manually backtrack and thread conversations together. (I have in the past pointed out how a linear format makes it easy to catch up on discussions, since all you have to do is find the last post you read and continue from there, which is why it's so popular in places like online bulletin boards. But tracking replies is not one of its selling points over threaded conversations.) isaacl (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Personally when I want to catch up on an on-wiki discussion I use the diff view. Anomie⚔ 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) I do most (*) of my viewing of changes in either wikitext view or the beta feature visual diff view, but they have their drawbacks. Wikitext diff view requires you to interpret the source in your mind and has relatively narrow columns. Visual diff view is more friendly for many types of changes. In talk page threads, though, often someone will change one of the list types (that is, change a * to a : or vice versa), and then visual diff view will flag the entire list as having been removed and replaced with the new type. Also, for numbered lists, it always shows the entire list (presumably as a way to preserve item numbering), which can add a lot of unchanged text to scroll through as the list gets longer. With both modes, you're relying on enough context being shown by default to understand the diff (it's generally not a problem with visual diff view; getting more context than needed is more frequently an issue). While of course bulletin boards offer no context by default, since the commenters know this, they will provide quoted context to help understand their response. (This of course leads to a lot of text being quoted repeatedly, and sometimes way more text than necessary.) isaacl (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) (*) Using diffs to view changes is simplest for pages on my watchlist, since then Wikipedia will track the last seen revision for me. As I don't have high-traffic pages on my watchlist, for those I'll resort to scrolling through the thread, or subscribing to it, which very handily lets you view the current conversation with the new changes highlighted (though you still have to scroll through to find any after the first one). isaacl (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Although I'm not a fan of this idea, I do think the fact that the basic structure of talk pages hasn't changed in almost 20 years (wow) is indicative that something might need to be done. (The WMF's various attempts haven't been liked by really anyone, unfortunately.) casualdejekyll 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Based on the 2019 talk page consultation, the talk pages project was started, which has produced the reply tool, section-based subscription, and the new discussion tool, all of which have been well-received by those who use them (and are easily avoided by those who don't want to use them). For better or worse, there are a lot of editors who are vested in the current format, and so layering tools on top of it seems like the best compromise approach for now. (There are Phabricator tickets open such as phab:T230683 for making wikitext syntax more expressive when writing nested responses, but it wouldn't alter the commenting workflow. It would just enable more types of content to be nested at the desired list level, or make it easier for someone to specify the desired nesting level.) isaacl (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I love the reply tool. I also just found out about deindenting. I would support a set of features that optionally make conversations more like on reddit desktop, where vertical lines are shown next to each comment, and if you click the line, it collapses the comment. I believe this makes a threaded conversation overall easier to navigate. Born25121642 (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) You might like the system of blue lines that the French Wikipedia uses. You can see an example at this link. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Oh my god-- I'm not the biggest fan as that could be designed better, but that is definitely an improvement :3 F4U (they/it) 19:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Born25121642, I think CD can do this. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC) very cool. Born25121642 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I think the blue lines feature might be useful as mentioned above, also Wikipedia should have like a live updating chat page, which would be useful for coordination or very rapid discussions. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Hello, I think Wikimedia maps (commonly used in Template:Maplink) could benefit from the inclusion of names for some large/notable parks, rivers, etc... Without context, a lot of these areas blur into one color when in fact, there are multiple different parts to them (especially the green color for parks and protected areas). It might look a little like how Google Maps makes their map but with far less named areas and no pinpoints. Thank you for your time and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I recently noticed the link List of student newspapers in the United States of America in an article's see also section. On clicking it, it redirected to List of student newspapers in the United States, so I fixed it, but I suspect that there are many examples of this phenomenon. There might be a few instances in which the redirect is used intentionally/preferred, but in most I'd think we'd want to correct it. Would someone be interested in creating a semi-automated tool that'd allow you to quickly go through redirects in see also sections and bypass them if needed? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) An AWB regexp to replace links by {{subst:Target of|$1}} might do the trick. Certes (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) @Sdkb, have you ever read WP:NOTBROKEN? (Hint: It's not a shortcut for Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing, this task would seem to me to be compliant with the advice there. It talks about e.g. not changing e.g. [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]], which would be a cosmetic task. But changing links in see also sections is not a cosmetic task because they're fully written out. Redirects there seem most analogous to redirects in navigation boxes or on disambiguation pages, which WP:NOTBROKEN specifically lists as instances where it's okay to bypass. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, NOTBROKEN is important and we must not replace redirects indiscriminately. (One LTA I deal with gets blocked for that regularly) However, See also does seem like a good place to clarify the target article's actual title, assuming that the redirect being bypassed is a near-synonym rather than a subtopic with possibilities. Certes (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Why is the ==See also== section ""a good place to clarify the target article's actual title""? How does that comply with NOTBROKEN, which says There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects? Maybe the ==See also== section is a good place to link to Lorry instead of Truck, especially if the article that the link is being written in uses British English. Or maybe the redirect in question has potential for expansion, and bypassing the redirect would eventually end up sending people to the wrong article. The powers that be have rearranged a couple of rare cancers, and the result for us will be that one article needs a new name, and one existing redirect will be repointed to the new name, instead of to its present target (which has been declared to be unrelated). If you bypass the redirects, people will end up in the wrong place. This feels like the kind of help that isn't actually helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Those sorts of examples are why I'm thinking of this as a semi-automated task with a human in the loop rather than a fully-automated bot task. If I saw a link to Lorry, I'd check the article's ENGVAR before changing it. I'd also use my judgement in the broader sense — if it turns out that 9/10 instances are straightforward fixes, great, but if every other instance requires more careful examination or is clearly a valid use of a redirect, I'd drop the task. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I suspect every other instance would require more careful examination. They're also going to be hard to find. In theory, Quarry etc. could list the millions of links to redirects, but 95% of those links will be outwith See also and should be left alone. Some redirects should be bypassed and some should not, with a large grey area in between where good editors will politely disagree, but that's no longer relevant if we can't easily find them. Certes (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Honestly just a tool that highlights links that don't match their title in general could be useful in a variety of circumstances outside of See also. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Certes, that seems like it'd work to do the fixes, but I'm not sure how I'd generate the initial list. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I am confused about your question, as both of these two links you mention are redirects (both List of student newspapers in the United States of America and List of student newspapers in the United States - the article's actual title is List of college and university student newspapers in the United States). Do you mean that you want to link to direct articles instead of using redirects? Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, sorry for the confusion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC) @Sdkb, Navpopups can do this; just add window.popupFixRedirs = true; with Navpopups installed. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Ah, cool! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC) === Tool for highlighting links that don't match their title === Ooh, Freedom4U, I really like your idea here. Splitting that out into its own subsection so we can give it full consideration. Would anyone be interested in building this as a script? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) As in, possible WP:EASTEREGG finder? There's something like that already, for non-matching interlanguage-links, which generates a report somewhere; I'd have to go look. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, exactly that! :3 F4U (they/it) 22:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Does ""links that don't match their title"" mean links to redirects? Certes (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I'm talking about redirects and piped links-- maybe they should be highlighted in different colors.... I can think of countless examples where something like that would have helped me out when cleaning up an article. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) @Freedom4U, it won't help with piped links, but you can use the .css for your skin to change the color of redirect links; see User:Schazjmd/vector.css for an example. (The last line in that file turns external URLs in the body hot-pink, which makes it super easy to clean them up.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Most of the 60 million links to redirects shouldn't be changed, as they are not broken. Piped links are a different issue. Clicking the ""Random article"" link ten times and checking the wikitext revealed 71 explicit piped links, plus an unknown number via various templates. If those articles are typical, we have about 40 million links that don't match their title. The good news is that the vast majority of them will already be either better than or at least as good as an unpiped link. Certes (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC) There are a lot that can be fixed wrt redirects from my experience. Just recently I found a link to grilled beef that redirected to carne asada. There's lots of other instances I've seen this too-- I think one of the biggest things it'll help point out is when links aren't capitalized correctly. For example, I recently found an article where Front homosexuel d'action révolutionnaire was miscapitalized as Front Homosexuel d'Action Révolutionnaire. Nothing deal-breaking, just slight improvements. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Front Homosexuel d'Action Révolutionnaire is an {{R from other capitalisation}}. If that capitalisation is really incorrect, rather than a valid alternative, it should instead be an {{R from miscapitalisation}}. That will add its incoming links to the daily Linked miscapitalizations report, which is watched and acted upon regularly. (I don't help with that task myself, but do follow the similar Linked misspellings report.) Certes (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Not a miscapitalization as in outright wrong, but rather its a capitalization in title case, and Wikipedia uses sentence case. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Topice Was Problem : Problems/Constraints are not specified before ideas We should agree on the importance of problems by creating a problem list which we can then refer to on ideas/proposals. Many editors suggest changes/ideas/proposal or are frustrated with various problems. Part of the problem maybe that we jump to ideas and proposals, and then get stuck on discussing whether it is a problem or pointing out constraints. If we had a list of priorised problems, then we could focus on evaluating ideas/proposals with the knowledge that there is consensus that the problem needs fixing. If there are constraints that are causing us to stop fixing the problem (resources, WMF policy, WP policy, etc), then these can be looked at in the same way. For the non IT peoples, In most organisations systems , there is a a set process that all changes goes through (except for emergency system changes or CEO whims) .We skip most of it. Problems typically go through a process, something like this Discover - gathered/elict processes Analyse - the problems using lots of different methods Five_whys to find the causes ... What is the extent? What is the evidence of the problems? What are the benefits? What are the constraints? Can we solve part of the problem? Prioritise. Is the problem worth fixing? Is there agreement? Is the problem within our control, or can we make it in our control?19/03/2023 Reworded, added an explanation, and changed title. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) This is a good idea. For example, the pending-changes protection for FAs seems to have worked, but no one has RfC'd it, something that imo is a solution that has just been forgotten. At the same time, I am also worried that this would create extra bureaucracy and creep, such as criteria for putting a problem on the list, preventing canvassing of solutions to those problems, and extra bots to manage the page(s). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article, people decided they wanted semiprotection instead. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Maybe it would help to do an example using the FA pending changes protection Problem : Should FA articles have pending changes BUT its best to have an issue stated as an issue, so ""Reducing vandalism on FA articles"" Criteria for putting a problem on the list - Its probably better to have a bug/issue reported than not. But if the issue already exists then merge /redirect it Importance Editors: Number of readers that click on FA account, Number of reverts on FA account, editor health (# of editors harassed after reverts), evidence provided Strength of evidence - Query # of reverts Priority :Number of editors voting for it, number of proposals/solutions created, Importance Canvassing of solutions - is already covered with current canvassing rules I think. But I think off wiki discussion and brainstorming as long as it is reported would be fine and needed Bots - if we could just ping a page eg (at)problem12345 it would just add a comment to that problem. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Bugzilla as an issue repository You mentioned maintenance issues - to avoid them I looked for existing open source issue systems that were linked to media wiki. There are Bugzilla extensions that write to mediawiki software such as (all descriptions below are from the link). BugSquish Mediawiki Extension This extension checks your Bugzilla installation and adds a strikethrough to interwiki links for closed bugs. Mediawiki Bugzilla Extension This extension allows you to list bugs from Bugzilla in a Wiki page using Bugzilla's REST API. Bugzilla Reports MediaWiki Extension (website) - Generates great looking sliced and diced reports from your Bugzilla instance which you can embed in your MediaWiki pages or any PHP application. Makes reporting on your bugs much easier than through the standard Bugzilla search UI. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC) While it isn't clear whether the close of the Vector2022 RfC will stand, I believe it is still beneficial to determine what modifications we want to make to the skin. This would include both modifications that we can make by editing MediaWiki:Vector-2022.css and MediaWiki:Vector-2022.js, and modifications that we would need to ask the WMF to make. I'm opening this discussion to determine the format of that discussion, and to determine which changes should be discussed as part of it. For format I believe a multi-part RfC would be best, with each proposed change a separate question. For the questions I have created an initial list of those I consider worthy of discussion; I have included questions that I would support and questions that I would oppose but expect to have some support among the broader community. Main menu: Should the main menu be visible by default? Should the choice to expand or collapse the main menu be persistent? Header: Should the mystery meat buttons be replaced with text buttons? Should readers be able to disable the sticky header? Should the sticky header be disabled by default? Which, if any, of the following should be moved out the right hand drop down menu and moved into the header bar?: A: ""User talk"" B: ""User sandbox"" C: ""User preferences"" D: ""Beta"" E: ""User contributions"" F: ""Log out"" Table of contents: Should pages include a table of contents at the top of the article, similar to Vector2010, in addition to the sticky table of contents? Should sub-headings in the floating table of contents start expanded (Collapsed sub-headings, expanded sub-headings)? Other: Should the previous state of the article title bar be restored (Previous state, current state)? This would involve: Moving coordinates to be inline with the slogan ""From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"" Moving icons denoting page protection, featured status, etc for featured article, to be inline with the article title Moving the language selector to the main menu When a user selects ""expanded width"", the content only expands to use the white space on the left of the page, not the right. Should the white space on the right also be used? (This question may have already been asked, depending on the interpretation of ""full width by default"")BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Main menu: 1. yes; 2. no. Header: 1. neutral; 2. yes; 3. yes; 4. C, D, F. Table of contents: 1. yes; 2. yes. Other: 1. yes; 2. the page should be expanded by default as it was in V10. Æo (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I'd bet almost everyone uses Google here to try and find various sources. For those who haven't noticed, Google has become increasingly unreliable and there seems to be large amounts of information being hidden, whether it's intentional or unintentional For instance, let's say I perform a search on ""oranges"". A non-political, non hot-topic issue. The search says it has found 16 quadrillion results, but when you start scrolling down the page, it limits the search to 247 results and gives this message (In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 247 already displayed.If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included). While you can repeat the search, you are not going to get anywhere near the 16 quadrillion results you are told exist. And as you go further down into the original 247 result search, you start getting news reports about Orange County. This isn't a one-off either as every search is like this and as it gets into political issues, the results clearly become more swayed in various directions. This is a really big problem when it comes to research and resource gathering on this site. While you can deal with the results about oranges being hidden, searches on less known or less popular things are severely impacted. The information is still there, somewhere, but you really have to have to know what you are looking for in order to find it. The issue is not just with google either, as other search engines like Bing are doing this as well.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Google limits the results displayed to 1000 and then eliminates duplicates, so you will never see more than 1000 results displayed, and for most subjects a few hundred. As far as I am aware it has always done this. Other search engines behave similarly. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC) You can cast a wider net by searching for phrases. If ""oranges"" doesn't find enough interesting links, try ""orange fruit"", ""orange tree"", ""orange color"", etc. Searching Google Scholar, Google Books, or Google News will give you results that don't turn up in a plain Google search, and which are often more useful for sourcing WP articles than what you find with a plain Google search. Donald Albury 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Not to mention that there are other search engines. And most libraries have their catalogs on-line. Plus a wide variety of commercial databases and archiving services available through WP:LIBRARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Google used to have options to limit searches, but over time they have become increasingly less functional. Someone more cynical than me might guess that degradation to be due to their business model. Perhaps it's time for an ""open search project"" that was more concerned with accurate hit lists than with selling eyeballs? I miss Deja News. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This isn't a reliability or censorship issue. Unless there are good quality sources that Google absolutely will not return results for (like, if they suppressed links from the NYTimes), this seems like a standard approach in search engines to keep the most relevant results for you. Masem (t) 18:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I think it is well-known that Google tailors results to what it thinks the person wants to see. BD2412 T 22:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I hope it's equally well known that you can get around this by running your searches in an incognito window. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC) To a certain extent, but this doesn't help with the throttling of search results to 1000 or so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Is throttling search results to 1000 a problem, though? I doubt many people would be looking past the 1000th search result even if it were available, and I suspect the proportion of relevant reliable sources coming up at that point would be pretty low. Editors would be better off developing their search engine skills to effectively find sources than worrying about whether Google will cut them off after 1000 results! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Impossible to know really, just wanted to make the slight correction. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) yes and no. It still knows your location if you search like that and will tailor your results to your location and language. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Using search engines is a skill that can be learned. What you need is not to go through more than 1,000 results, you need better search terms instead. For most Wikipedia research, just build a query that goes: site:nytimes.com OR site:... and include all the sites listed at WP:RSP that are relevant to your area (whether culture, technology, video games...), or rely on WikiProject-specific reliable source lists (WP:TV and WP:VG have those, I believe). You wouldn't believe how many results you can surface with this method, that would never come up with ""casual"" search queries. Remember Google Search is built for the use cases of the masses, not for us. It'll rarely surface old articles, for example. Use your search engine's ""date"" tool (for example, all results before 2005) for that. DFlhb (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) If you want to search the NY Times, go to nytimes.com and use their search tool rather than relying on a third-party search engine. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC) The point is to be able to search 30+ sites at once; here's an example that I found helpful. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Agree with others. If you need to look at > 100 search results, you need more specific search terms, or there are problems with your topic not being notable. Regardless this is not a Wikipedia issue that users here need to deal with. Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC) This SEO type site states that less than 0.63 % of searchers ever look past page 2. Are there better search engines that might be suitable for edits ? With more operators? Or where you can save searches? (The film project has a custom search engine, which I think is based on this [| google tool]. I used to like clusty which did clustered search but it seems to have gone, and I couldn't find any search engine result comparison tools Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) As a follow up to my other proposal for improving/reducing discussions on edits... (really hope that first proposal will be picked up someday as it would help SO much) Why don't we show the number of thanks an edit has received in the edit history? It might help show ""consensus"" with other editors when editing certain pages and avoid edit wars. A user might be less inclined to just revert an edit if he notices that others support it but might be more inclined to start a discussion. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think we currently reveal which edits received thanks, only who thanked whom and when. Certes (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Do we have the ability to reveal that? - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Signbook) - 22:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks log documentation suggests not: the information is not stored in logging. Certes (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Okay, thanks (no pun intended) for letting me know. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Sign) - 22:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I think that if implemented this would pretty soon be gamed by spammers to such an extent that it would be meaningless. I get what seems to me to be a lot of thanks from other editors, and I also give some out. Let's all take private satisfaction in that rather than make this public. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Now that I think of it, yeah, it would be abused by spammers and people acting in bad faith. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Sign) - 23:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Would it be abused? Thanks are pretty rare at the moment (or is it just me? :-P). If you could see who gave the ""thanks"" you could then evaluate it. In any case I think @Certes is saying this feature would not be technically doable? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Looking at the code (I'm not a coder so forgive me if I'm wrong), it would suggest that Certes is correct in saying that it would not be technically possible at the moment. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Sign) - 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I'm saying that the data stored in the obvious place only has thanker, thankee and time; no indication of which edit or even which page was edited. That information may be stored elsewhere, but I doubt it. There's a sample extract here. Certes (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Actually this can't be right: when I get a notification of a ""Thanks"" it does show which specific edit received it. So that information is available somewhere. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) When you send a thank, you do send it for a specific edit or action (e.g. Special:Thanks/1146124820) - that could pass on to notification system and not actually ""store"" that part though, I haven't read all the code on this. — xaosflux Talk 00:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) See also phab:T51087 (from 2014) and phab:T324134 for related topics about this. — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I wasn't involved in that project, but I remember hearing that this was a deliberate decision. There are privacy implications in publicly revealing that Alice thanked Bob for a particular edit, because that means that Alice was reading a particular page or agreed with a particular contribution, which Alice might not wish to be public information. The Echo/Notifications separately stores all of this information (thanker, thankee, timestamp, and diff). However, that is temporary (two years or 2,000 notifications, whichever comes first). The permanent log stores only the thanker, thankee, and the timestamp. This combination allows admins to check for certain kinds of problems (e.g., interaction bans) but doesn't publicize certain other kinds of problems (e.g., how many times someone got thanked for being rude). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Since you are thinking about Thanks, this might be interesting: This week, the Growth team completed a quick analysis of Thanks usage. In early January, the Comumity Wishlist proposal to Enable Thanks Button by default in Watchlists and Recent Changes was fulfilled. Since the Growth team has been working on a Positive Reinforcement project, we were curious to see if this change increased the number edits that were thanked. As is often the case, the answer isn't totally clear and seems to vary by wiki. But perhaps more interesting is to see that the ratio of edits Thanked varies considerably by wiki, and seeing the low percentage of newcomer edits that receive Thanks. I'm not necessarily surprised by either finding, but I'm always thinking about ways to ensure newcomers receive the support and encouragement they need to continue to contribute, so feel free to chime in here or on the Positive Reinforcement talk page if you have any ideas. :) KStoller-WMF (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @KStoller-WMF I think the consensus here is that we shouldn't rely on thanks for content disputes. Which I think is a good point. However I think it's great that you are making it easier to give thanks to other users. Another great place would be right here in the discussion page. I have a quick ""reply"" button but I don't have a quick way to send ""Thanks"" for your message. I wanted to do that for some of the messages received in this discussion such as yours and I would need to find them in the history log! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I can see how Thanks could get problematic in content disputes if publicly connected to an edit. I would love to see Thanks added to discussion pages! I know the Editing team was considering that work as part of the DiscussionTools work: T249893. My understanding is that the Editing team is hoping to shift to another project soon, so I'm not sure if that work will move forward. KStoller-WMF (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Is there a way to ""vote"" this feature or provide support? It would be very helpful I think. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I am happy that thanks are low-key. If we try to use them to resolve content disputes, I expect the collegiate informal nature of them would be lost, and we would start to see things like gaming the system, or creating an expectation/duty to “vote” on edits. It might also encourage users to eschew discussion in favour of just bumping the thank count. We already weigh edit count too highly when judging other editors; we don’t need another high score or anything approaching social media upvote/downvote buttons. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I totally agree on you there. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Sign) - 22:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I agree that's a legitimate concern. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I think not. At best this will just be interesting trivia, at worst it could encourage WP:NOTVOTING on edits, ""You can't revert my edit because 100 people liked it..."" JeffUK 21:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) This has been touched on at the Village Pump over the last couple months, but I want to present a specific example for comment this time. 2001 has been updated with the intention of making it more encyclopedic (before and after). Given how much of a massive change it is, I want to get as much input as possible before similar edits take place on other year articles. I'm particularly looking at WP:LAYOUT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:SUMMARY, but any criticism is helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Looks solid on all three counts, I'm impressed. I expected WP:PROSELINE to be inevitable, but that article avoids it skillfully. Shame that I missed the prose RfC; this article is a great showcase for the benefits of prose in Year articles. Cleaner, more readable, better organized. DFlhb (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I do think the list element is visible in a few spots. The ""accidents"" section is basically ""this happened on this day and killed this many people"" repeated several times (and overall the ""disasters"" section is the one I'm least happy with). It's one of the things I'm hoping to get worked out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I almost changed skilfully to mostly, but couldn't come up with any specific improvements to make. It'll be a fun challenge anyhow. DFlhb (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Looks great! The only criticism I have is the imagemap (is that what it's called?) at the top is a little too US-centric. I don't have specific suggestions, and it is a year where events in the US had massive repercussions around the world. So maybe it makes sense for 2001? But for other years, I hope it's a little more global. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Those imagemaps have been the subject of huge disagreements. No one can agree what should go in them or whether they should even be on year articles at all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Thebiguglyalien, this is awesome. I really like what you've done. I think it makes sense to have a ==Section== for each of the main ""2001 in..."" articles (e.g., ==Sports== for 2001 in sports). On possible improvements, I offer two ideas: I think it would be a good idea to merge the ==Nobel Prizes== section at the end up into the relevant areas (e.g., culture for the literature prize, etc.) instead of keeping it as a separate section. The births/deaths section, which is empty, could have some simple statistics about world population change, like number of births, number of deaths, and the estimated population at the beginning and end of the year. Years with unusual mortality (e.g., 1918 influenza pandemic, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the world wars) could have a sentence about that. I really like this, and I feel like it gives me a better picture of the year overall, rather than a laundry list of individual items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC) WhatamIdoing, births/deaths and Nobel Prizes (along with the events timeline) are the remnants of what the article looked like before, so now they kind of exist in a limbo. There's a ""health and society"" section near the top that kind of touches on population and such, but that's one of the sections that I'm not sure what exactly it should look like or what should go in it (especially since there's no 2001 in health or anything like that). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This is a very nice format. If there isn't prose you could probably move the births/deaths links to the See also, but I agree with WhatamIdoing that putting it in demographics might be good for some years. Perhaps don't use a 2010 flag for the African Union being mentioned in 2001! CMD (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) === Should the ""Events"" timeline remain on year articles after they're destubbed? === Related topic, so I'm adding this as a subsection instead of making a new post. Currently, most year articles are dominated by a timeline that lists a bunch of events from that year. But with 2001, the first half is an article and the second half is a timeline. The way I see it, there are three ways to handle this: Keep the article and the timeline on the same page. A bit clunky and some redundancy, but all the info is in one place. Allow year articles to develop and then WP:SIZESPLIT the timeline from developed year articles (so an article would be written at 2002 and then the timeline would be moved to Timeline of 2002 or Events of 2002). Going forward, WP:MOVE the timeline to a separate page and then create a new article under the old title. This would have the same end result as the previous approach, with the advantage of preserving the timeline's history.Pinging those that commented above (DFlhb, Sativa Inflorescence, WhatamIdoing, Chipmunkdavis) and those that commented the last time this was discussed at WikiProject Years (Barnards.tar.gz, InvadingInvader, JeffUK, GoodDay) because splits/moves of this scale do not feel like something that should be done without input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep a timeline on a main year article, but it shouldn't be the only part. Not every important event in a year fits neatly into a prose paragraph, and some people are a bit ""data-crunchy"" in their reading style. Keeping a timeline in addition to prose on the same article hits two birds with one stone. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep both prose and timeline on same article - It will minimize the confusion of the general public, and will kill two birds with one stone. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Sign) - 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I won't be of much help, going forward. I was quite content with how the Year pages were. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) It totally depends on the article. If we remove everything from the timeline that's not mentioned in the prose and we're left with a bunch of trivia, then the timeline doesn't really serve any purpose. So I think remove them if they don't add anything of value, leave them if they do, per article based on consensus as usual JeffUK 21:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Depends on the article and the timeline. It's okay to have embedded lists. CMD (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I prefer the idea of (eventually) splitting them out, and having the resulting Timeline of 2001 be fairly complete (i.e., not just the things that weren't worth mentioning in prose). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC) See WP:AFTAGS and Special:Tags for what I'm talking about. ""LLM"" refers to large language models, aka ""AI chatbots"". Here are three ideas: Add a tag for LLM-assisted edits. This makes LLM usage disclosure far more consistent, systematic, and easily searchable than requiring such disclosure in the edit summary. Add a checkbox to the ""Publish box"" so users can voluntarily apply that tag (in addition to the current checkboxes, ""This is a minor edit"", and ""Watch this page"", add something like ""This is an LLM-assisted edit""). This can only be proposed on Phabricator, but it needs discussion first. For users that fail to voluntarily tag, the WMF could add an edit filter based on an LLM-detection algorithm, and tags these edits with a second tag: ""potentially LLM-assisted"". Such detectors aren't great (low sensitivity, but good specificity), but they'll help with RC patrol.DFlhb (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Are we solving an actual problem, a very incidental problem or a theoretical problem ? Put in another way... Why do we not have the same checkbox for ""This is edit is a copyright violation"", ""This is just me storytelling"" etc etc... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Do you believe LLM use should be disclosed in the edit summary, or do you also think that's pointless? The tag is intended as a better alternative to edit summaries, but if it's pointless in edit summaries, then indeed it's pointless as a tag too. DFlhb (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) From an edit filters perspective, detecting language models' outputs using regular expressions would be an impossible job. It would have to be done by a bot (Like how ClueBot NG is run). From an editor's perspective, it might just be not worth it to hunt for these kinds of edits. I myself have used ChatGPT to rewrite a section of an article and I don't think it would be a big difference. So I think that LLM use doesn't need to be disclosed, and that doesn't mean we can't catch problematic edits. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) True on regex vs bot. And after thinking about it, I agree that the practical benefits of disclosure are minimal, even in edit summaries. At the WT:LLM draft proposal, we came to a weak consensus (low participation, nothing formal) in favor of disclosure, but come to think of it, we've likely overreacted and thrown everything but the kitchen sink into that draft; ChatGPT's been out of months, and the LLMpocalypse hasn't happened. And after checking the long WP:VPP discussion on LLMs, I'm not even sure where we got that ""mandatory disclosure"" idea from, because I'm not seeing any community consensus for it. DFlhb (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I say that disclosure is an unachievable goal. It's like asking people to not raise their kids with the iPad/Youtube, a lofty goal but pointless. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) A few years ago, there was an ad where a cute little girl said, I'm going to make this photo better, then clicked a button and said, there's, it's better. I think as more sophisticated technology gets deployed more widely into writing assistant tools (and it's already in many photo processing tools), users won't know if specific technology X was used. Plus I don't think it's a scalable approach to have a checkbox for technology X, then Y, then Z, and so forth as new methods are developed. We need to instill a culture in authors of reviewing changes carefully, no matter what tools they used in the process of creating them, and not relying on tools to have automatically created text suitable for Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This is an interesting idea. EpicPupper (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)This would be pointless because nobody is going to use it. See the #Completely remove the idea of a ""minor edit"" thread a few sections up. If people aren't putting the ""minor edit"" tag to good use, what makes you think they'll do anything useful with a LLM tag? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)I don’t think we care that much whether an LLM was used, as much as whether edits comply with policies and guidelines. If an LLM manages to assist an editor in producing good edits, great. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)It looks like there isn't going to be a consensus to require disclosing LLM-assisted edits either via edit summary or tag. —Alalch E. 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I think it's too early to assume what consensus would be at this point. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I think much support isn't of mandatory, but of voluntary disclosure. EpicPupper (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I am opposed to Idea #2. This has a good chance of backfiring, as a checkbox saying ""Was this written by ChatGPT/similar"" is only going to make people think using ChatGPT to edit Wikipedia is encouraged. That's the opposite of what we want, which is somewhere between ""Use LLMs responsibly and manually check everything you write"" and ""Dont use them at all/Avoid using them"". Until we get overwhelming consensus that LLM use for editing should be encouraged, a checkbox like this will be a bad idea. Soni (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I agree, highly likely to backfire. It would make people aware of the opportunity to use LLMs on Wikipedia even if the idea hadn't crossed their mind. This would, guaranteed, increase usage of LLMs on Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 22:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Has there ever been any discussion of the possibility of enabling pending changes for article talk pages? I've noticed an uptick in purely disruptive edits on some talk pages, especially those dealing with contentious subjects where the article is already protected. Currently pending changes is not an option for talk page protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC) @Ad Orientem This actually sounds like something I'd support, but maybe at a different level. I know the Abuse Filter can tag edits for further review, but can it hold edits for review? i.e. the edits are not published until an admin/PCR approves them? That might be a good solution for disruptive edits to talk pages. Some forums like Reddit actually allow for this. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Awesome Aasim no, there is no where for the abuse filter to put something pending review, regarding an edit it can TAG an action, it can interrupt an action with a warning, and it can prevent an action. — xaosflux Talk 20:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Ad Orientem One of my interests is analyzing reasons/location/processes for abuse, and trying to find causes to solve and prevent it. Most of disruptive/abuse edits I have seen have been on user talk Can you provide some examples of some contentious topics where this is happening? ( I looked at you user page and your stated interests don't spring to mind as inspiring conflict). And what type of editorWikipedia:IP_users, experienced , SPA, very new troll, .... etc @Xaosflux Do some abusive/disruptive edits get removed from history? And would the abuse filter tag/stop an issue that is only to do with the edit summary? I ask because I went through a dump of a day's edit summaries, and there weren't as many offensive ones as the comments on village pump and by WMF concerning the toxic culture indicate Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Wakelamp disruptive edits may be deleted or oversighted. The abuse filter actions can happen alone, or in combination. Abuse filters can trigger on action summaries. An abuse rule that makes a ""log"" or ""tag"" does not stop an edit unless it also is set to warn and/or disallow. If an abuse filter is set to private, and it stops an edit it won't be publicly reviewable. You can see all public abuse entries here:Special:Abuselog. — xaosflux Talk 09:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Wakelamp The incidents I typically encounter are a result of reports that show up at WP:AIV as auto-reported by the edit filter. As an admin I try to keep an eye on AIV when I can. IPs are the most common, but sometimes we get newly created accounts that are in most cases socks of already blocked users. In a few cases I've seen some that I was pretty sure were some specie or other of LTA trying to get around the protection on the main article page. Good old-fashioned trolls also pop up now and then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I would prefer not to extend pending-changes to talk pages for two reasons. Talk pages are already much less visible than Article space, so the harm of leaving disruptive content there is far more minimal. And my second reason is user-interface wise, I find pending changes incredibly confusing when there are multiple edits in a row. I never quite fully understand what accepting a change means, if there's disruptive content followed by productive content. An edge case question, do we have Article talk pages that are protected? (I only found User talk pages that were protected), and if so, how are editors supposed to request edits to said Article talk page? {{Edit fully-protected}} can only be transcluded on a talk page for example. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) do we have Article talk pages that are protected? 129 are semi-protected (see cat, but it includes archives, FAQs, and Wikipedia: namespace pages too), 0 full-protected (cat); mostly happens in WP:CTOPs, mostly very temporary, and: how are editors supposed to request edits, they're not! DFlhb (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Relevant bill(s): Text - S.686 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): RESTRICT Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress and BILLS-118HR1153ih.pdf (house.gov) Relevant analysis by civil liberties organizations: Government Hasn't Justified a TikTok Ban | Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) ACLU Strongly Opposes House Bill that Would Ban TikTok and Threaten First Amendment Rights | American Civil Liberties Union In short: these bills would allow for US to shut down platforms that it deems to be a risk to national security. There is a lot of coverage about this in the news about a possible ban of TikTok; however, the way the bill is worded can be very very arbitrary, goes beyond TikTok, and can result in serious infringement on the same First Amendment rights that allow Wikipedia to exist in the first place. Wikipedia successfully was able to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act back in 2011, but this may actually be something even bigger. I want to raise this in idea lab before an RfC is made about this. Of course, any RfC to organize a blackout in the United States would require a very strong consensus. We would need to come to consensus on how long the blackout should be and what the blackout message should be. This is relevant because Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and is subjected to US laws, and Wikipedia is committed to rights to freedom of speech. More than 150 million Americans use TikTok, which means that more than 150 million Americans could have their rights to freedom of speech restricted if such a ban was implemented, as well as dozens of small American businesses. As a project, Wikipedia is committed to uncensored, free, open speech. And as such, I believe it is crucial that that right remains open, and that social network platforms used for free speech, even those that may be considered ""adverse"", are not taken down. That said, I want to figure out what the structure of such hypothetical RfC should be. A blackout should be considered a last measure, but it would be a very effective tool at getting a large number of Americans to understand what is at stake with this legislation. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC) If you want any hope of an RFC getting support, you need to laser focus on how the law would be an existential threat to Wikipedia, written with the same care and sourcing you might bring to a featured article. You're not going to be able to get enough support based on a general ""Wikipedia is committed to uncensored, free, open speech"" argument to overcome the ""no politics ever"" faction. Anomie⚔ 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) As a project, Wikipedia is committed to uncensored, free, open speech. - this is... not exactly true. I agree that Wikipedia doesn't care much about ""national security"", but we certainly exercise censorship of other kinds, for our own reasons. Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive talks about it a bit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Free speech is another example of how we don't consider ""free speech"" when making decisions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I recommend you all take a look at ""EC. 3. ADDRESSING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT POSE UNDUE OR UNACCEPTABLE RISK."" in https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idfbf26f984311432c8fea2c897ba0c6ba and https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#ida5b4cba33bf94543966620a1c4b88d23 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#ida350534aa5104ba8af5353289a4eff43 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idfbf26f984311432c8fea2c897ba0c6ba. IANAL, but what I am hearing from TikTok is that this bill, going beyond TikTok, allows for the ban of communications platform that the United States government believes is a risk to national security. This may affect Wikipedia since it (from what I am reading) gives US government power to unilaterally ban Wikipedia if they deem it a threat to national security. I think a lawyer and/or WMF legal should give a proper analysis of this Act to determine whether this actually is a problem for Wikipedia. Even if it isn't, if it could permanently change the notion of freedom of speech in the US, as said in Verge, then it is something that WP should absolutely protest with a blackout. I generally stay out of politics on Wikipedia because Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, but I do wonder if we should follow precedent from the SOPA protest back in 2012 to determine whether we should stage a blackout or not. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC) You should also see What experts say a TikTok ban would look like for U.S. users (nbcnews.com) - namely the US has never issued a blanket ban on any app. This does seem like government overreach that is quite concerning. This is going to be a difficult proposal to write, if it is proposed, but it might be something to consider. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Thebiguglyalien are you talking about this? Right to free speech just means government can't do anything to block the free flow of information. Private entities like WMF can choose who can speak or not to speak; that is them exercising their right to freedom of speech by letting who they will listen to. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm talking about the fact that Wikipedia's mission is not to babysit free speech in the United States. It is to build an encyclopedia. Unless you have incredibly strong evidence that Wikipedia is going to be imminently banned, I'm going to assume that this is an attempt to disrupt the entire website over a political issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Any blackout on its own will be disruptive at some level to readers. The consensus last time there was such a government overreaching potentially free speech violating law (SOPA) was that a blackout would be appropriate. I do think any measure done to protest RESTRICT should be done in a manner that is as least disruptive to the project as possible. That could mean having a full or partial blackout, having a full page banner (which a user could click dismiss to), or running a banner campaign on users in the United States to get people to tell their representatives that RESTRICT can permanently fracture the open Internet. That can certainly be raised in the proposal. As Anomie said, any such proposal has a high chance of success when written with the same rigor as featured articles, otherwise it would be considered a waste of time to most. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 12:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I support your proposal to protest the banning of online platforms, including TikTok. Even though I detest the despotic regime in China, I think there are other methods to deal with spying than banning foreign media. It's incredible that Congress is considering such authoritarian step, copying behavior of the Soviet Union and Eastern Germany. Thinker78 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I support such a blackout, but freedom of speech really isn't the issue here though. It is still a massive issue for the internet though. It's how this affects the freedom of international communications on the internet. Under this law the US could theoretically enact bans on any internet services affiliated with a country deemed adversarial. While this shouldn't apply to Wikipedia in the most strict reading, neither would SOPA. This law could easily be manipulated by the US government to restrict practically any internet service that it chooses to. It has an incredibly broad scope that could easily affect Wikipedia and the entire internet as a whole. This act is just as big a threat, if not bigger (due to its severe restrictions on foreign communications), to Wikipedia as SOPA was, and I believe that Wikipedia should take similar actions to protest the act as it did with SOPA. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I also endorse such a blackout, for as long as consensus feels is necessary. Loki (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC) There is a discussion taking place at WT:Stand-alone lists regarding whether we should create minimum inclusion criteria for lists involving subjective categorization, to avoid WP:NPOV violations. If interested in contributing, please see the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please see the ongoing discussion here]]. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)" 474 483 1073 WP:GACN Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not 474 "The Good article criteria are the requirements that an article should meet in order to be listed as a Good article (GA). Any articles that have been reviewed, and meet these criteria, should be listed as GAs. Good articles are ""satisfactory"" or ""decent"" articles, not great articles. The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria. Importantly, the GA criteria are a standard, not the opinion of individual reviewers. This essay is intended to help reviewers make their decisions based on whether an article meets the criteria or not, rather than personal preferences. Article editors and reviewers should have as a common goal the ideal to make the article as good as it can be. However, the decision to list or not list an article should be based on the GA criteria alone. Reviewers are encouraged to differentiate clearly between those improvements that are necessary for the article to meet the criteria, and suggestions to improve the article beyond the actual criteria. As a rule of thumb, if none of the six criteria plainly apply to a suggested improvement, it should be labeled as such or considered optional. Regular editors of a nominated article should likewise assume and act in accordance with good faith and the goal of article improvement. The reviewer may have less expertise in the subject matter. If they make impractical or inappropriate suggestions (e.g., for the inclusion of information that isn't known, or images that simply don't exist), explain politely why this is impractical or inappropriate. Regular reviewers often have good suggestions for improvements that go beyond the GA criteria. These suggestions are optional with respect to GA status, but implementing them may result in an even better article, which may help it reach Featured article quality. If editors and reviewers reach an impasse, Community reassessment is available to resolve disagreements, but all are encouraged to resolve as many outstanding problems as possible first. A good article is— === (1) Well-written === Point (a) means: The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently. The spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you prefer a different variety of English.Point (b) means: The five particular pages listed (out of about 50) of the Manual of Style are complied with. (The ""Fiction"" and ""List incorporation"" guidelines do not apply to many articles.) Note that the main Manual of Style page is not in the list of required MoS pages. It may, however, be a useful page to look at if you have questions about spelling and grammar for point (a). For the purpose of a GA review, all other parts of the MoS are optional except captions and image relevance, which are discussed in part (6) of the GA criteria.Mistakes to avoid Imposing your own stylistic preferences or national variety of English on the article text. Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages. Requiring the elimination of all bulleted lists, even if they are acceptable under WP:EMBED#Appropriate use of lists. Requiring the resolution of links to disambiguation pages. The fact that the toolbox provides a handy tool for checking these things doesn't mean that the links are prohibited by the GA criteria. Requiring the removal of red links. (Even FA and FL permit red links.) Requiring common sections (like cast lists) to follow a particular format or to look like similar sections in other articles. === (2) Factually accurate and verifiable === Point (a) means that there must be at least one section with a ==Level 2== header, containing a list of sources used in the article. That section heading should have a title that identifies the contents that the reader will find there, e.g., ==Notes== or ==References== or ==Sources cited== or ==Footnotes== or anything with a similar meaning. It is extraordinarily unusual for a nominated article to not pass the 2(a) criteria, and if you think you have encountered one, then you should seek assistance at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Point (b) names five types of statements for which the good article criteria require some form of inline citation: direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.This standard is higher than the absolute minimum standard set by policy, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences. If an article contains none of these five types of statements, then Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references may be used. If the article contains any of these five types of statements, then some sort of inline citation system must be used for those specific statements. (All other article text may still be supported by general references.) Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations. Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail). Point (c) means that all facts, opinions and synthesis in a good article should be based on reliable sources with no original research. Statements made in the article should reflect the material in the sources. Point (d) means that none of the text is copied from another work without proper attribution. All of the text is either properly paraphrased or quoted and is sourced accordingly. If the entire article is copied from a non-free source, not only does it fail this criterion, it makes it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G12. Mistakes to avoidImposing personal preference on reference section headings. Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for ""more"" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any ""one citation per sentence"" or ""one citation per paragraph"" rules.) Not checking at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be ""accepted in good faith"": for example, nominators may themselves have left material added by prior editors unchecked.) Requiring page numbers where these are not essential. Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF Requiring the use (or non-use) of citation templates. Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA. Requiring consistent date formatting. Requiring that footnotes be listed in numeric order, if multiple citations are named after a sentence. Rejecting reliable sources because they are in a language you don't happen to read. See Wikipedia:Translators available for potential assistance. Not checking if the article is committing plagiarism or violating copyright. === (3) Broad in its coverage === Point (a) means that the ""main aspects"" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be ""addressed"" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. For particular types of article, WikiProjects often provide helpful advice on what the main aspects are likely to be. (Do not, however, require compliance with any advice pages written by WikiProjects; only compliance with the policies and guidelines specifically named in the six Good article criteria themselves are required.) For an article on a work of fiction, a summary of the plot and a discussion of the reception are usually required. For an article on a disease, the causes, symptoms and treatments are usually significant. Point (b) raises two issues. First, the article should avoid undue emphasis on tangents, such as coatracks, and trivia. The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. Second, the level of detail of each aspect of the topic should be appropriate to the article and kept in balance: where an aspect of the topic involves information which is or could be covered in more detail by another article, the article itself should summarize this information with suitable links, such as {{Main|(the background article)}}, where appropriate. Taken together, these criteria mean that no obviously important information should be entirely absent from the article, and the level of detail should be appropriate to the significance of the information. It is better to have an article that covers the essentials well, based on reliable sources, than a diffuse article relying on trivia or unreliable sources to flesh it out. These criteria do not impose arbitrary size restrictions (in terms of kilobytes, characters or readable prose). Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion. However, size issues may be indicative of genuine GA problems with coverage (3a), concision and focus (1a and 3b), or the use of summary style. Mistakes to avoidRequiring lengthy sections, especially if the same information can be adequately presented in a concise form. Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. Not noticing that a major aspect is completely omitted from the article, despite being discussed significantly in reliable sources. Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style. === (4) Neutral === This point requires that the article is presented from Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The subject should be discussed in encyclopedic language, based on reliable sources, with due weight given to all significant viewpoints. For articles on uncontroversial topics (such as a species of plant or animal), this is likely already covered by criteria 1, 2 and 3, especially if you watch out for word choice issues (1b). For controversial subjects (biographical, political, religious and health articles require particular care), you need to be sure that significant viewpoints are fairly and accurately represented, based on the diversity of reliable sources available (not just those favoring one viewpoint), and that the article does not endorse or favor a particular view through word choice, sentence structure, section titles, or article organisation. An article written from the neutral point of view provides the reader with information, allowing them to form their own conclusions. Mistakes to avoidRequiring excessive representation of minor or insignificant viewpoints. Requiring that all viewpoints be presented as equally valid. Listing as GA a controversial article written from a particular viewpoint, or which leads the reader to a particular conclusion. === (5) Stable === The footnote here is important: ""Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply."" Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing. An article is unstable if there is a significant edit war underway, if editors are directly telling you that you shouldn't review the article because they're in the middle of major changes, or if the article is changing so dramatically and so rapidly that you can't figure out what you're supposed to be reviewing. Mistakes to avoidDiscouraging normal editing activity for the convenience of the review. Confusing normal talk page discussions, incremental improvements to the article, or vandalism, with a real content dispute or an edit war. === (6) Appropriately illustrated === Most GAs contain at least one image (or other media: video, sound clip, etc.), but suitable images may not be available. If images have not been included, and if suitable images are not readily available (checking Commons for images is a good idea), then this criterion is automatically satisfied. If you think that free or fair-use images should be readily available, then please either find and add the images yourself, or recommend specific sources or images to editors. If images have been included: Point (a) requires reviewers to click every image (sound clip, etc.) to check its copyright status. If it is a free image (i.e., is in the public domain, or is released under a free license such as GFDL or Creative Commons) then Point (a) is satisfied. If it's a non-free image, then it must have a valid fair use rationale that specifically justifies its use in the article under review. Point (b) says that every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed. WP:ALT text, although easy to provide, is not required. Mistakes to avoidFailing the article because no free images or other media currently exist. Making vague requests for ""more"" or ""better"" images. Accepting or requiring images which are decorative but irrelevant. Requiring compliance with all of MOS:IMAGES (as opposed to just the sections linked in the GA criteria). The good article criteria and good article processes are designed to address article content quality. Although there are overlaps, the following issues are beyond the scope of the criteria. Notability issues, such as whether the subject merits its own article: questions related to notability and deletion are discussed at Articles for Deletion. Content forking and merging issues are also not within the remit of good article processes. Article titles are not addressed by the good article criteria. These are discussed at Requested Moves. Legal issues (other than copyright violations), such as those associated with biographies of living persons. These should be raised at a relevant forum, such as the BLP noticeboard. Content disputes. Although the good article criteria require article stability, good article processes should not be used to further content disputes, nor are the criteria designed for dispute resolution. Use the article talk page instead, and seek mediation if necessary. Compliance with the External links guideline is not required. Feel free to tag a {{linkfarm}} whenever you see one, but it is not usually appropriate to consider the contents of the External links, Further reading, or See also sections when deciding whether the article meets the GA criteria, because these sections are not mentioned in the GA criteria. Infoboxes and navigation templates. The GA criteria neither require nor prohibit the inclusion of these, so their presence or absence should not, in itself, affect the review. However, as with all material in an article, the information in an infobox (such as titles, definitions, or statistics) is required to meet the GA criteria. Since information in an infobox is usually repeated in the body of the article, this is rarely a concern. Article assessments by WikiProjects for the WP:1.0 team. The assessments at the top of article talk pages are frequently reviewed less than once a year. They should be assumed to be out of date. At the end of your review, you have no obligation to update the WikiProjects' ratings if an article is listed as GA, but it is helpful (just change |class= from whatever it was to |class=GA). The previous rating should not influence your evaluation of the article at all. Tedious style nit-picks, beyond the points in the specific MoS pages incorporated into the GA criteria. There are many MoS pages on various things. A GA needs only to comply with the basics, though fuller compliance will be expected for featured article candidacy. It can help to do an MoS-compliance editing pass before a GA nomination, just to avoid any doubt (and avoid a GA review becoming bogged down in stylistic quibbles). WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors will probably be willing to help, especially if you tell them this is in preparation for GA. It will usually take less time and effort to just do an MoS cleanup, than to list out a bunch of desired cleanup and an explanation for each point in a GA (or later FA) review." 475 484 1075 WP:DEADLINENOW Wikipedia:The deadline is now 475 Wikipedia is one of the first sources many people check when doing research. As a result, any misinformation found here could quickly spread, and should be immediately corrected before any damage is done. As a corollary, when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible. Google any word, and there is a good chance a Wikipedia article will be the first or second search result. Moreover, many of the results lower down the rankings are likely to be sites that mirror Wikipedia. Wikipedia is unavoidable. For this reason Wikipedia is frequently the first thing people read when, for example, they wish to find out about a political party or candidate during an election. Although it ought not be the final stop for someone seeking information of this kind, its ease of access frequently does make it the first and last source of information for many people. Some people will tell you there is no deadline, because all errors will be corrected in the long run. That may or may not be true, but most people won't keep revisiting an article every week as it gradually improves. They will read only one version of an article: the one that is available right now. Therefore if an article contains false or unverifiable content, please correct it yourself immediately. Misinformation can trickle from a Wikipedia article to a published secondary source. If that source matches Wikipedia's guideline on selecting reliable sources, the misinformed source can now be used as a citation to back up the inaccurate Wikipedia article, and to give it still more false credibility. A vicious circle emerges: false information in Wikipedia article is included in a published source, that source is cited in a journal article, and then that journal article is cited again on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's focus on 'verifiability over truth' means that Wikipedia policies are now powerless to discredit this untrue but apparently well-sourced claim. Wikipedia policy notes this danger in WP:CIRCULAR. This way falsehoods grow on Wikipedia like weeds, and it requires a great effort with many reliable (really!) sources to uproot them. In 2012, the authors of the Leveson report were taken in by a Wikipedia editor who named a fellow student as a co-founder of The Independent newspaper. The Leveson report easily met Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source, and would likely have been used to support the original claim had the prank not been discovered. Fortunately this error was corrected, but how many times have similar mistakes happened and never been detected? Rather than let this happen, it is far better to remove manifestly false content from an article, now. We can disagree over whether this or that article is about something important. Importance is highly subjective. But whatever your views, a great many Wikipedia articles are about something important to you. There are articles about everything under the sun, the sun itself, and everything beyond it. If an article has been written at all, then its subject is important to somebody. If an article survives deletion proposals, or is never nominated for deletion, then it presumably satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and its subject is important enough to deserve accurate treatment. Wikipedia has a massive effect on what people think. There wouldn't be any point to Wikipedia if it didn't. When a corporation uses Wikipedia to unfairly disparage a competitor, or a government to smear an enemy, it will succeed for as long as it remains unchallenged. Wikipedia:There is a deadline, which talks about the loss of knowledge m:Immediatism, the philosophy behind this essay Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem 476 485 1076 WP:DUPCITE Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes 476 "General fixes is a set of semi-automated edits that are enabled by default in AutoWikiBrowser. They are intended to be uncontroversial and require minimal human oversight; many are cosmetic and improve wikitext readability but do not affect display to readers. This page lists the general fixes, although it may not be exhaustive. General fixes are optimised for en-wiki with some variation for other language wikis. Not all general fixes are suitable for all languages. Some general fixes are disabled on pages containing or . Fixes date format errors per WP:DATE: Removes comma between day and year for International-format dates. Inserts missing comma between day and year for American-format dates. Sets en-dashes for date, month or year ranges (from hyphen). Replaces first occurrence of unlinked floruit with linked version (zeroth section only, not within templates) per WP:MOSBD. Fixes some formatting errors Replaces
and

HTML tags with ...>. Bypasses template redirects using those listed on Template redirects rule page, per WP:Redirect#Template redirects. Keeps first letter case of the redirect in the new template name, except for acronym templates (first three letters uppercase) where the template is forced to uppercase. Handles nested templates Applies fixes to {{Multiple issues}} (formerly {{Article issues}}), en-wiki only removes template if it has no parameters. (old format templates) converts it to the original template if it has only one parameter (e.g. diff). (old format templates) removes invalid parameters such as |date= merges other supported tags into it (old format templates) Corrects casing of exiting parameters Adds 2 or more single tags into new {{Multiple issues}} Templates are added within {{Multiple issues}} on separate lines When not in zeroth section, includes |section=yes parameter Removes blank lines (new format templates) converts to original template if only one template in {{Multiple issues}} Does not operate if an article level-2 section has more than one {{Multiple issues}} Cleans and merges multiple DABLinks per WP:DISAMBIG. Called by Conversions function. Removes about as first word of the first parameter of {{About}} e.g. {{about|about foo}} to {{about|foo}} Merges multiple {{About}} {{about|foo|a|b}}{{about|foo|c|d}} → {{about|foo|a|b|c|d}} {{about|foo|a|b}}{{about||c|d}} → {{about|foo|a|b|c|d}} {{about|foo||a}}{{about|foo||b}} → {{about|foo||a|and|b}} Merges multiple {{For}} into {{About}} {{about|foo|a|b}}{{for|c|d}}{{for|e|f}} → {{about|foo|a|b|c|d|e|f}}. {{about|foo|a}}{{for|b|c}} → {{about|foo|a||b|c}} Merges multiple {{For}} {{for|a|b}}{{for|c|d}} → {{about||a|b|c|d}} {{for|a|b|}}{{for|c|d|e}} → {{about||a|b|c|d|and|e}} Merges multiple {{Distinguish}} {{distinguish|a}}{{distinguish|b}} → {{distinguish|a|b}} Changes are not applied if the page has or or {{{1}}} in the page text Trims whitespace, removes any pipe at start. Fixes comma spacing If article is about a person uses Surname, Name format per WP:SUR. Exceptions on common Arabic names included to use Full Name format per WP:SUR. Pages with a Surname Clarification Template from Category:Hatnote templates for names use Full Name format per WP:SUR. {{DEFAULTSORT: McDoe, John}} to {{DEFAULTSORT: Macdoe, John}} per WP:MCSTJR. (Check this. WP:MCSTJR contradicts: ""Surnames beginning with Mac or Mc are sorted as they are spelled."") ""Person of Place"" generates sort key of ""Person Of Place""; also ""Person II of Place"" generates ""Person 02 Of Place"" per WP:PEERS and WP:COP. Adds a DEFAULTSORT where the article title does not match the rules above. DEFAULTSORTs are not added or changed when the only difference is letter casing. NOTE: AWB does not meet all of the (various) rules on DEFAULTSORT on en-wiki; it may not meet all of the rules on other wikis either. It may never be possible to meet all of the rules. An option is provided under the Options menu to turn off all changes/insertion of DEFAULTSORT. Adds [[Category:XXXX births]], [[Category:XXXX deaths]] etc. to articles about people where available (English Wikipedia only) Skips pages with 20 or more references and no births/deaths categories to avoid false positives. Skips pages with 15,000 characters or more that do not already have Category:Living people or a birth or death year/century category. Changes {{Uncategorised}} to {{Cat improve}} if categories added. Removes Category:Year of birth missing or Category:Year of birth missing (living people) Adds [[Category:Living people]] if page has [[Category:XXXX births]] and no living people/deaths category, taking sortkey from births category if present Skips if the person is dead, or thought to be dead. Skips if person was born > 115 years ago per Category:Living people and WP:BDP. If full DOB in {{birth date and age}} removes Category:Date of birth missing or Category:Date of birth missing (living people) (T150632) Performs various syntax fixes: Removes empty ,

,
, or tags, including tags with properties Fixes incorrect tags. Fixes incorrect closing tags for
, , , etc. For example,
. Replaces HTML markup with wiki syntax (e.g. italics and bold). Replaces old HTML markup with Removes appearance of multiple line break. Removes break line tags after maintenance tags. Fixes double piped links e.g. [[foo||bar]] to [[foo|bar]]. Removes unnecessary namespace (e.g. Template:). Removes
from lists. Fixes most uneven bracketing on wikilinks/categories/templates/interwikis/external links/files (FixUnbalancedBrackets). (Partially) fixes wikilinked/external linked URL in cite template. Fixes incorrect
tags. For example, , <\br> and Replaces obsolete
tag attributes per Wikipedia:HTML5#Other_obsolete_attributes. Example Fixes incorrectly formatted ISBNs such as ISBN: ..., ISBN-10: ... Removes ""ISBN"" from start of |isbn= parameter in infoboxes Removes tags from ordinal numbers per WP:ORDINAL. Removes tags inside , , tags and image captions (per MOS:CAPTIONS) (not applied when article has unclosed tags). Moves {{dead link}} inside references per its documentation. Does various syntax fixes for external links/cited URLs. Fixes external links starting with http://http://. Fixes external links starting with http:://. Fixes external links starting without double slash. Removes unneeded pipes from simple external links. Fixes spacing before and after external links. Removes break from the end of Image/File descriptions. Simple closing bracket fixing to {{R...}} templates Simplifies links like [[Dog|Dog]] to [[Dog]] per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Piped links. Simplifies links like [[Dog|Dogs]] to [[Dog]]s per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Piped links. Simplifies links like [[Dog|'''Dog''']] to '''[[Dog]]''' Simplifies links like [[dog|(dog)]] to ([[dog]]) Performs various fixes to citation templates (en only): Renames invalid |pg= to |page= (e.g. diff). Removes empty fields where the field has already been specified elsewhere. Corrects common typos in |accessdate=, |format=, |language= and |publisher= field names (e.g. diff). Removes excess pipes. Removes the unneeded |format=HTML field Removes |language= when it is English per citation templates manuals Removes |format= field with null value when URL is HTML page Removes italics for |work= field for book/periodical, but not website (auto italicised by template) Removes quotes around |title= field since they are automatically added by template markup Converts curly quotes to straight quotes per MOS:PUNCT and MOS:QUOTE Removes p. or pp. from |page= and |pages= fields when nopp not set Renames |year= to |date= if the field contains an American, International or ISO date. Changes {{cite web}} references to Google Books to use {{cite book}} Removes duplicated fields. Removes |accessyear= where |accessdate= is present and contains said year Renames deprecated parameter names, per WP:AWB/RTP Removes ordinals from dates per WP:MOSDATE Adds http:// to start of www URL when missing. {{Dead link}} moved from |format= field to after citation per Template:Dead link. Converts newlines to spaces in citation titles when URL is present (otherwise display is incorrect). Renames |authors= to |author= in {{cite web}}. For {{cite journal}} only: extracts issue/number information from |volume= and moves to |issue= Converts |id=ISSN 1234-5678 or |ID=ISSN 1234-5678 to |ISSN=1234-5678 provided |ISSN= and |issn= not already populated and |id= contains valid ISSN Formats |ISSN=12345678 or |ISSN=1234 5678 to |ISSN=1234-5678 provided |ISSN= is 8 digits (supported for |issn= as well) Tags redirects, where appropriate, with one of Note: The method is in compliance with WP:REDCAT Removes carriage returns inside redirects. Removes unnecessary namespace (e.g. Template:). Checks for a missing '/' to correct (e.g. diff). Adds {{Reflist}} if it's needed (i.e. article has references) but missing (English Wikipedia only). If page does not have a References section, it adds one to the appropriate place. Where an article uses named references (see WP:REFNAME), duplicate copies of the same reference are condensed to the abbreviated format of . The change is subject to a minimum reference length. References using the same name and same reference value are condensed (this does not change the appearance of the page to the reader). Unnamed references with the same reference value are condensed. Leading and trailing whitespace is ignored when deciding if two references are the same. Named references are not condensed if the first declaration is in a template call, because we cannot be sure the template will display all of its parameters (and hence the reference) and do not want to create an undefined reference error Note: This change is fully compatible with the Harvard referencing style. Duplicate copies of the same reference are condensed by setting the references as named references (see WP:REFNAME), and condensing per Duplicate Named References logic. The references must be identical except for any leading or trailing whitespace. The change is subject to a minimum reference length. The references cannot be of the ibid type. The references cannot have a {{page needed}} template. The article must already have at least one named reference (to avoid a 'change in citation style' in the article per WP:CITEVAR). This means at least one named ref in short format () as a full named ref by itself does not cause any references to display as combined. The reference name is derived by use of the author name, year & page where available, otherwise title, otherwise publisher, otherwise website of URL, otherwise fields from the Harvard family of templates, otherwise full reference if short, otherwise a generic reference name of 'ReferenceA' etc. Note: This change is fully compatible with the Harvard referencing style. This is a MOS and minor fix Performs various fixes in compliance with WP:DATE, but not on text in quotes, templates, wikilinks, etc.: Removes ordinals from full dates per WP:DATESNO; does not alter on the 3rd November 2008 (i.e. the plus ordinal) to avoid introducing bad grammar. Removes 'of' between a month and a year per WP:DATESNO. Removes leading zeros from the day in full dates per WP:DATESNO. Adds a comma if missing to full American-format dates per WP:DATEFORMAT. Note: This function can be disabled by disabling WP:MOS fixes under the Options menu (Option designed for third-party wikis/other language wikis that are not en-wiki). Sets first alphabetical character in category name to be upper case. Removes diacritics and trailing whitespace from category sortkeys per WP:SORTKEY. Removes unnecessary whitespace around category call. Removes the (unneeded) sort key from categories if a {{DEFAULTSORT}} entry is present with the same sort key. Note: The use of a single space as a category sortkey is supported. Removes empty wikilinks, category links, and template calls: e.g. empty [[]], [[Category:]], and {{}}. Condenses reference tags in the form with . Fix common spacing/capitalisation errors in images Fix whitespace around Image/File call Canonicalises images titles (underscore to space, URL encoding converted to Unicode etc.). This is a MOS fix Changes See also: xxx to use {{See also|xxx}} Changes Main Page: xxx to use {{Main|xxx}} This is a MOS fix Inserts non-breaking spaces between amount and unit for common units, but not on text in quotes, templates, wikilinks, references, etc. per WP:NBSP. The units supported include cd (candela), cm, km, miles, feet, inches (but not ""in""), grammes, hp, Hz, GHz, kHz, MHz, kg, µg, mL, dB mol, °C, °F (see also WP:UNITS for these), and page abbreviations p. and pp. (see also MOS:NDASH for these) Non-breaking spaces are added only before abbreviated units. Unspaced mm are specifically excluded, as firearms use mm when it does not refer exactly to a dimension. ""m"" is excluded due to its use as an abbreviation for million, except when it is immediately followed by a measurement in ft Changes ""invisible non-breaking spaces"" given by Unicode characters with ""visible non-breaking spaces"" given by html entities per WP:NBSP. Inserts a non-breaking space between 12-clock number and a.m. or p.m. per MOS:TIME. Removes space and/or non-breaking space between number and percent symbol per WP:PERCENT. Removes space and/or non-breaking space between nonalphabetic currency symbol and number per WP:CURRENCY. Note: This function can be disabled by disabling WP:MOS fixes under the Options menu (Option designed for third-party wikis/other language wikis that are not en-wiki). Converts the old ""references-2column"" style to use {{reflist}}. Fixes temperatures – corrects numerous incorrect degrees symbols. Removes all unnecessary leading and trailing whitespace from wikilinks and Image/File links. Converts double spaces to single spaces in wikilinks and Image/File links. Corrects [[page# section]] to [[page#section]]. Performs whitespace fixes to references per WP:REFPUNC and WP:CITEFOOT: Remove any spaces between consecutive references. Ensure a space between a reference and text (reference within a paragraph). Remove spaces between punctuation and references ( tags) per WP:CITEFOOT. Performs syntax fixes to named references: Incomplete quotes, extra quotes, curly quotes, missing quotes. Missing/Double equals in ref name syntax. Named ref with no name given. This is a MOS fix (see WP:DASH) Replaces hyphens with endashes: Time/common unit ranges. Dollar amount ranges. Age ranges. Text same as the title where title uses an endash. Two consecutive hyphens within a sentence (excluding ""xn--""). Replaces hyphen with Unicode minus in superscripted negative numbers. Note: This function can be disabled by disabling WP:MOS fixes under the Options menu (Option designed for third-party wikis/other language wikis that are not en-wiki). Removes HTML comments with no content other than whitespace. This feature is disactivated as a general fix at the moment but the function is still available for use. Reorders consecutive named references such that they appear in numerical order e.g. [1][2][3] instead of [2][1][3]. Applies only to consecutive references (i.e. does not affect multiple references spread out over clauses in a sentence). Supports the {{Rp}} template. Does not affect the use of reference groups. Note: This change is fully compatible with the Harvard referencing style and ""list-defined references"". Condenses very short named references to the format (e.g. diff). It is designed to catch short reference with a trivial entry such as a number or alphabetical ordering reference that is unneeded, or simply whitespace. It operates subject to these conditions: The reference is very short The reference is named and another full reference is present with the same name. The reference is not to a page number. Corrects named references where the reference is the same but the reference name is different (e.g. diff) Not applied if the reference is an 'ibid' reference or similar. The longer reference name is used provided it is not in 'autogenerated1' or 'ReferenceA' format Puts references after punctuation (comma, full stop, colon, semi-colon) per WP:CITEFOOT and WP:PAIC, subject to: Applies to en-wiki and simple-wiki only Requires >= 75% refs after punctuation to convert the rest. Whitespace before ref is cleaned when punctuation moved. Puts many inline templates (such as {{citation needed}}) after punctuation (comma, full stop, colon, semi-colon). Puts categories after page body, followed by stub templates and interwiki links per WP:FOOTER. Recognizes the common cat and interwiki header comments. Puts stub templates above navboxes (ru-wiki only). Moves {{Ibid}} to the references section (en-wiki only). Moves {{Wikipedia books}} to See also section per WP:SEEALSO. Removes commented out interwiki links (en-wiki only). Puts two blank lines before stubs per Wikipedia:IDEALSTUB (one blank line for ru and sl-wiki). Puts a single blank line between headers per WP:BODY and WP:HEAD. Moves the most common maintenance templates above infoboxes etc. (zeroth section only) Keeps {{Short pages monitor}} at the very end of article if present per its documentation Removes newlines inside unordered lists per WP:LISTGAP === Interwikis (Interwikis) === Removes duplicate interwikis. Unicodifies interwiki links. Sorts interwiki links alphabetically (individually selectable in menu) per Help:Interlanguage links. Moves interwikis at the bottom of the page after stub templates per WP:FOOTER. Removes self interwikis (does not remove current language links for monolingual projects such as Commons). Removes double colon in interwikis. For example, it changes [[es::foo]] to [[es:foo]]. Supports multiple interwiki links to same language and comments beside interwiki links. === Categories (RemoveCats) === Removes duplicate categories. Moves categories to correct position in article per WP:ORDER. Moves any {{DEFAULTSORT}} to be just above categories per WP:ORDER. On sl-wiki only, moves {{Lifetime}} to be just above categories. === Maintenance Tags (MoveMaintenanceTags) === Moves maintenance tags to appropriate place per WP:ORDER Deduplicates tags, uses earliest |date= if multiple tags with different |date= values. === Deletion/Protection Tags === Moves deletion/protection tags to appropriate place, above maintenance tags, per WP:ORDER === Featured list/article tags === Moves {{Link FA}}/{{Link GA}} immediately above interwikis per template's documentation. === DABlinks (MoveDablinks) === Moves DABLinks at the very top of the page per WP:HNP. (en-only) Only moves DABLinks in the zeroth section of the article. Removes unneeded colon before dablink. === Portal templates (MovePortalTemplates) === Moves any {{Portal}} templates to the top of the ""See also"" section per WP:SEEALSO. (en-only) Removes duplicate portals found outside of ""See also"" section. (en-only) === See also (MoveSeeAlso) === Moves the ""See also"" section to be above the ""References"" section, per WP:FOOTERS. (en-only) Subject to the limitation that the ""See also"" section cannot be the last level-2 section === External links (MoveExternalLinks) === Ensures the ""External links"" section of an article is after the ""References"" section per WP:FOOTERS. Operates subject to the limitation that there is another section following the ""References"" section. === Sister links (MoveSisterLinks) === Moves sister links such as {{wiktionary}} and {{Sister project links}} to the ""External links"" section, if there is such a section per WP:LAYOUT. (en-only) Add bullet points to external links after ""external links"" header per Wikipedia:External links#External links section. Performs a number of fixes to date fields within citation templates. (en-wiki only) Converts invalid date formats like DD-MM-YYYY, MM-DD-YYYY, YYYY-D-M, YYYY-DD-MM, YYYY_MM_DD etc. to ISO format of YYYY-MM-DD Removes time from citation date fields. Note: Not applied to {{cite podcast}} due to its non-standard use of date fields. Emboldens the first occurrence of the article title, if not already bold per WP:BOLDTITLE. Check for any self links and no bold title, if found just convert first link to bold. Don't apply if bold in lead section already or some noinclude transclusion. Ignore date articles (date in American or international format) and articles containing {{year article header}} If title in bold already exists in article, or page starts with something in bold, do not change anything. Ignore articles with some bold in first 5% of article. Check that the bold added is the first bit in bold in the main body of the article. Not applied if page has an imagemap on the page or noinclude transclusion Performs fixes to wikilinks: Removes piped self-links leaving pipe. Delinks simple self-links per WP:OVERLINK. Replaces unnecessary pipe template inside wikilinks with pipe. Cleans up wikilinks: replace underscores, percentages and URL encoded accents/diacritics etc. (with underscore exceptions for mod_perl and size_t) Reformats self interwikis to be standard links. Only applies to self interwikis before other interwikis (i.e. those in body of article). Converts [[foo|'''foo''']] to '''[[foo|foo]]''' for bold, italics or bold and italics. ==== Interwiki conversions (InterwikiConversions) ==== Performs some interwiki conversions fixing typos: ""da"" instead of ""dk"", ""no"" instead of ""nb"", ""zh"" instead of ""zh-tw"". === English-language fixes === ==== Template conversions (Conversions) ==== Replaces templates such as PAGENAME,PAGENAMEE, BASEPAGENAME, BASEPAGENAMEE, etc. with magic word Adds dates (in 'Month YYYY' format) to undated tags/templates requiring such dates, such as {{Citation needed}}. Changes {{No footnotes}} to {{More footnotes}} if article has at least 1 inline citation. Changes {{Unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}} if article has Category:Living people. Changes {{Unreferenced section}} to {{BLP unsourced section}} if article has Category:Living people. Changes {{Refimprove}} to {{BLP sources}} if article has Category:Living people. Changes {{Refimprove section}} to {{BLP sources section}} if article has Category:Living people. Changes {{Primary sources}} to {{BLP primary sources}} if article has Category:Living people. Changes {{Self-published}} to {{BLP self-published}} if article has Category:Living people. Cleans up underscores in infobox template names. Changes {{Template|section|...}} to {{Template section|...}} for the templates: ""unreferenced"", ""wikify"", ""refimprove"", ""BLP sources"", ""expand"", ""BLP unsourced"". Removes deprecated parameter |auto=yes from {{Unreferenced}}. ==== Fix People life date ranges (FixLivingThingsRelatedDates) ==== Replaces ""John Doe (b. 1978)"" with ""John Doe (born 1978)"" and ""John Doe (d. 1978)"" with ""John Doe (died 1978)"" in the lead section of articles per MOS:DOB. Replaces ""John Doe (born: 1978)"" with ""John Doe (born 1978)"" in the lead section of articles per MOS:DOB. Replaces ""John Doe (born on February 3, 1978)"" with ""John Doe (born February 3, 1978)"" in the lead section of articles per MOS:DOB. Replaces ""John Doe (1978-)"" with ""John Doe (born 1978)"" per MOS:DOB (not applied within infoboxes). Sets endash in born/died date range per WP:ENDASH. ==== Fix headings (FixHeadings) ==== Delinks wikilinks in headings per WP:HEAD (where article has < 6 wikilinks in headings) Corrects case of ""References"" section per WP:HEAD. Fixes common naming errors of ""See also"" and ""External links"" sections. For instance it renames ""External link"" to ""External links"" per WP:ELCITE and ""Also see"" to ""See also"" per WP:SEEALSO. Changes ""Reference"" to ""References"" and ""Source"" to ""Sources"" per WP:FNNR. Removes colon from end of heading names Removes
from headings If no level 2 heading in article, remove a level from all headings per WP:HEAD. Doesn't consider the ""References"", ""See also"", or ""External links"" level 2 headings when counting level two headings. Only apply if all level 3 headings and lower are before the first of ""References""/""External links""/""See also"". Removes bold from headers per WP:HEAD as it makes a visible difference only in the article's table of contents. Removes bad headings from start of article such as ""About"", ""Description"", ""Overview"", ""Definition"", ""Profile"", ""Background"", ""Intro"", ""Introduction"", ""Summary"" etc. Removes heading at start of page if heading matches article title (heading not removed if not first heading) Fixes unbalanced levels to ""See also"", ""External links"" and ""References"" sections (e.g. ==External links= becomes ==External links==) Note: Does not alter optional spacing at start and end of heading (i.e. no conversion between == Heading == and ==Heading==) Sets one blank line before each heading per MOS:HEAD, NOT for subheadings immediately after a heading Merges multiple {{see also}} templates into one. Same for {{see also2}}. En-wiki only. Called by Conversions. Merges multiple {{portal}} templates into a single one. En-wiki only. Called by Conversions. Does not merge portal templates with additional named arguments (see {{portal}} documentation). Does not process any portal templates if portal template within {{stack}} template. When merging removes duplicate portals. The {{portal}} templates must be in the same section of the article, or the article must not have any headings. = Mainspace tagger = Mainspace tagger skips redirects and soft redirects to wiktionary. Removes {{stub}} if article has more than 500 words (comments, categories, defaultsort and persondata are excluded from word count). Words in bulleted text are divided by 2 to avoid destubbing pages with big lists and little text. Appends {{Orphan}} if article (or its redirects) has fewer than 3 incoming links (excluding redirects) and the article is not a disambiguation one or has a set index template. Read WP:ORPHAN for more details about orphan articles. Orphan tagging can be limited to articles with 0 incoming links (excluding redirects) from the Options Menu. There is an option called ""Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages"". Removes {{Orphan}} if article has more than 2 incoming links. Per this request, {{Orphan}} is not removed if |few= is set. Appends {{Underlinked}} if article has 1–3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise (comments, categories, defaultsort, Persondata, infoboxes, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} are excluded from wikilink and size count). Appends {{stub}} if article has at most 300 characters (comments, categories, persondata, infoboxes and {{Drugbox}} are excluded from character count). Pages that start with ""Lists of..."" and ""List of..."" are not tagged as stubs per Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 14#Can lists be stubs? Appends {{Uncategorized stub}} if article has no categories and is a stub. Appends {{Uncategorised}} if article has no categories, has more than 6 words outside of templates/tables/comments, and is not a stub (or renames {{improve categories}}). It removes the tag in case article has at least 1 category. Appends {{Dead end}} if article has no wikilinks (API call used to count mainspace links, blue and redlinks, so transcluded links are counted). Removes the tag otherwise. Pages with {{Centuryinbox}} are excluded from tagging Adds {{Ibid}} if article has references containing constructs such as ibid, op. cit. or loc. cit (per WP:IBID). (en-wiki only) Tags empty level-2 sections with {{Empty section}}. (en-wiki only) Changes {{Unreferenced}} to {{More citations needed}} if article has existing references. Adds |date=Month YYYY to some of the most common by-date cleanup or maintenance templates (see Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month) Takes list from dated templates. Converts first letter of |date= to uppercase e.g. |date=may to |date=May. Corrects upper case month name e.g. |date=MAY to |date=May. Corrects mixed case month name e.g. |date=MAy to |date=May. (e.g. diff) Corrects |Date=, |dates= parameter typos. Adds |date= when missing for Month YYYY argument. Removes day in International date in |date=. Removes comma between month and year. (e.g. diff) = Talk page general fixes = Note: When making fixes to talk pages, it is helpful to also use the custom module User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects for template redirects. Moves {{skip to talk}}, {{talk header}} and {{GA nominee}} on the top per WP:TPL. Moves warning, guidelines and article history banners, etc. to their place per WP:TPL. Moves {{Image requested}} after WikiProjectBannerShell per WP:TPL. Remove Template: from template calls (zeroth section only). Adds {{WikiProject banner shell}} if 3 or more WikiProject templates are found(Currently works only with WikiProject templates named ""WikiProject foo"" and not with their redirects)Fixes to WikiProjectBannerShellIf WikiProjectBannerShells or one of its redirects is found, it does the following: Removes any duplicated parameters if they have the same value. Removes |blp=no, |activepol=no, |collapsed=no Bypasses redirects Adds explicit call to first unnamed parameter |1= if missing. If WikiProject Biography exists inside the shell: with |living=no then removes |blp=yes if exists with |living=yes then adds |blp=yes with |activepol=yes then adds |actipol=yes with |blpo=yes then adds |blpo=yes If {{blp}} found then removes it and adds |blp=yesMoves any other WikiProjects into WikiProjectBannerShell(Currently works only with WikiProject templates named ""WikiProject foo"" and not with their redirects)Note: This function is applied to en.wiki only Adds ==Untitled== to the first comment if it has no section header per WP:TPL. Fixes first comment's header level to 2 per WP:TPL. Remove diacritics from |listas= Converts {{activepol}} to {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes}} Removes {{blp}} from talk page if {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} Moves {{WikiProject Biography}} above any WikiProject templates if it has |living=yes per WP:TPL(Currently works only with WikiProject templates named ""WikiProject foo"" and not with their redirects)Note: This function is applied to en.wiki only Converts {{sir}} to {{WikiProject Songs|needs-infobox=yes}} Removes unsupported |importance= from {{WikiProject Songs}} Removes |needs-infobox=no Note: This function is applied to en.wiki only If {{WikiProject Songs}} (or any of its redirects) then add |song=yes to {{WikiProject Jazz}} If {{WikiProject Albums}} (or any of its redirects) then add |album=yes to {{WikiProject Jazz}} Removes |needs-infobox=no Note: This function is applied to en.wiki only Replaces the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template with the same magic word. Moves the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word to the top. = Helper functions = This section documents some of the AWB functions that are used by the general fixes, but do not form part of the general fixes themselves. Text hiding is a feature in AWB that allows syntax within articles to be hidden so that other changes are not applied to the text within that area e.g. typo fixing should not apply to image filenames, otherwise links to images could be broken. AWB has two levels of text hiding: Hide and HideMore. These two functions exist in the WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText class. === Hide === Items hidden are: , , , 
, ,  tags. HTML comments. (If option set) External links. (If option set) Image/File links including those in infobox fields on en-wiki,  tags, |title=, |trans_title= within citation templates.   === HideMore === Items hidden are:  All those in Hide. Templates, including nested templates. 
, , ,  tags. Headings. (If option set) wikilinks. Text indented with a colon.  and  tags. Untemplated quotes: text in straight quotes (and equivalent smart/curly quotes) (If option set) text in italics. 
 tags. Determines whether the article is a biography page (and for people with multiple pages on their career/history/publications etc., that the page is their main page) Criteria that return false: Page has category of Multiple people/Married couples/Fictional.../YYYY animal.../Fictional character/Military careers/Presidencies/...characters/... noble families Page is a disambiguation page Page contains ""List of…"", ""Murder of…"", ""Deaths…"", ""discography"", ""murders"", ""…musical groups"", ""People from…"", etc. Page begins with a two or more digit number Page is tagged {{in universe}} Page has {{Infobox musical artist}} where |background= is group_or_band/classical_ensemble/temporary/cover_band Page has {{Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor}} with |currentmembers= or |pastmembers= set ...and more Zeroth section has a {{Main}} or {{See also}} link Zeroth section infobox is not a person infobox Multiple {{Birth date}} templates (or similar) with different dates Page has more than one of the common person infoboxes Wikilink within bold text in zeroth section and not within a template Page is in Category:Internet memes Page is in Category:Military animals If no criteria to return false, criteria that return true: Page contains {{Persondata}} Page has birth/death year or living people category Page has one of the common person infoboxes Page is a {{…-bio-stub}} Page is a {{…-politician-stub}} Page is a {{…-writer-stub}} One {{Birth date}} or {{Death date}} template in zeroth section Page has {{BLP sources}} or {{Refimprove BLP}} Note: This function is applied to en.wiki only Determines the predominant date format in the article text as either: American, International, YMD (YYYY-MM-DD) or undetermined. Follows any {{use dmy dates}}/{{use mdy dates}} template. If no such template, counts the number of American, International, YMD dates in article. If input arguments allow YMD to be considered, returns YMD if there are more YMD dates than any other. Otherwise, returns American or International if at least 4 of those dates and that format used at least 2:1 over the other. Otherwise, follows any use of |df=y or |mf=y (or yes) in the {{birth date}} family of templates. If none of the above criteria allow a derivation, the date format is undetermined.  Note Persondata is now removed.This is not called by general fixes  Inserts or updates Persondata only based on existing data in the article (e.g. diff) The Persondata template is inserted for all mainspace people biography articles without existing persondata. Existing persondata can be updated, but any existing field values are not overwritten. DATE OF BIRTH and DATE OF DEATH Uses birth/death fields (and aliases) from people infoboxes and/or birth/death date templates such as {{death date and age}} to derive birth & death dates. Sets persondata dates using the predominant date locale used in the article. NAME Sets persondata name using the article's existing {{DEFAULTSORT}}. PLACE OF BIRTH and PLACE OF DEATH Sets persondata locations based on |placeofbirth= and |placeofdeath= fields (and aliases) from people infoboxes. ALTERNATIVE NAMES and SHORT DESCRIPTION fields are not automatically populated."
477	486	1077	WP:STRAW	Wikipedia:Straw polls	477	"=== Definitions: polling and voting === Wikipedia uses the words ""vote"" and ""poll"" as quick shorthand for what we are actually doing. It doesn't help that votes and polls actually look similar, so when many people first encounter a poll, they believe they are being asked to vote. This causes many misunderstandings, and is in fact not the case.  Vote, by ""voting"" we mean a process by which people reach decisions in a majority based democratic system.  Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a system of government, however, so we do not use voting as a process on en.Wikipedia itself, although there are very rare experiments.Decisions are normally made by consensus: an agreement to a certain course of action by editors. Consensus is not quite the same as unanimity. Especially when working with ""rough consensus"" (which is necessary to get past minor issues somewhat more expeditiously), the differences are rather marked.  Consensus is normally reached through negotiation. Rarely, but often enough to be noticeable, negotiators might use polls as part of their toolkit.  A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.In the same way that a ruler does not change the length of your finger or make a new finger (it merely measures it), a poll does not change or make consensus.  What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue. Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:  Early or in the middle of a discussion, to determine where people stand, and who needs to negotiate with whom. When we think consensus has already been reached, but we want to make sure we haven't accidentally missed any important opinions.At one point in time, certain processes were also set up to use poll structured discussions. We still use these processes:  When we would like to make fairly simple decisions at a centralised location in a short amount of time.Poll structured discussions may not be an optimal way to handle particular topics, and people are making efforts to slowly deprecate them. Unfortunately they have become somewhat deeply ingrained, so this will take quite some time. Especially based on current insights on simplification and scaling, we don't recommend designing any new poll structured discussions at this moment in time.   === Polling discourages consensus === Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wikipedia has allowed. This is a strength, not a failing, and is one of the most important things that make Wikipedia special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.  Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made. Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.  While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus. Straw polls have been used on Wikipedia for such purposes almost since the beginning of the project. Straw polls typically don't have opening and closing times. Instead, they give editors a chance to chip in with an indication of their opinion, together with a short summary of the reasoning that corresponds to that opinion. It's a good idea to keep a more detailed reasoning in mind given the likelihood that your opinon will be challenged. A call for a straw poll may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what the poll set out to determine in the first place. Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding. Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the ""outcome"". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!   === Straw poll survey guidelines === Editors considering an article-related straw poll must remember that polling should be used with care, and should not invoke straw polls prematurely.  Note that straw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes. Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious.  In order to have a chance of being productive, editors must appreciate the following:  The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. For that reason, article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority.  Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus. For the same reason, article straw polls should not be used prematurely.  If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming. Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was unfair, the poll and its results should simply be ignored. Once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing of the poll are likely to result in an all out battle over whether the poll itself was fair.  Consider proposing straw poll language several days prior to opening the actual poll to responses, and beginning the poll only once you have consensus on the precise question to be asked. Essentially, article content is  not subject to straw polling. People have been known to ""vote"" on a fact, which is ultimately pointless. The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus.  Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise.  In this context, a few well reasoned opinions may affect a debate much more than several unexplained mere votes for a different course. It's the opinions we're looking for, not a show of hands. In the context of Wikipedia articles, straw polls are most helpful, if ever, in evaluating whether a consensus exists or in ""testing the waters"" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices such as two choices for an article's name.  Even in these cases, straw polls may never be understood as creating a consensus, but merely as one tool to measure where consensus stands. Straw polls should not be used excessively.  If a straw poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly.  If you disagree with the ""majority"" opinion, simply remember that the straw poll is not binding and continue discussions. Of course, this is subject to consensus. (A quick poll as per ""changed mind"", ""haven't changed"" mind, might occasionally be helpful when you're working on a negotiated consensus... to make sure you're not forgetting people!) The words ""vote"" and ""voting"" have a variety of connotations, but on Wikipedia they are defined as ballot-casting or majority voting, especially by older Wikipedians.  For that reason, the use of the words ""vote"" and ""voting"" are considered incorrect when describing Wikipedia processes. Surveying and commenting are words closer to what we do on Wikipedia in the English language. The actual shorthand for straw poll serveying used on Wikipedia is simply ""Polling"". A number of formal processes, such as WP:AFD rely upon polling and help streamline the functioning of the project. In general issues are almost never resolved with a poll, merely where individuals stand on the issues is clarified.  Content issues are almost never subject to polling. Out of our 1.7 million articles, fewer than 0.1% were ever polled upon. Deletion issues can be subject to polls on {{Deletion debates}}, but in most cases they are resolved through other processes, such as WP:PROD and WP:CSD. Guidelines are never created through polling on them, only consensus about aspects of guidelines are gauged. Gauging whether policy should be enacted happens but not frequently. Novice users sometimes think they should make a ""motion"" and ""call for votes"", but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Feature requests are not subject to polling, simply because the developers have more important issues to consider than popular demand, such as server load. The developers, of course, do not function in a vacuum, so while a poll is not going to affect whether or not a feature request is implemented or not, the discussion and comments made during a poll likely will. Editor conduct used to be subject to polling in the past, via a system called Quickpolls, but this has been deprecated years ago because it generated more heat than light. Admins, Bureaucrats and Arbiters are, in most but not all cases, given corresponding tools after a poll to gauge community approval. These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way.  Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most. Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. In general, surveys are to help gauge the degree of consensus on an issue, such as whether a particular article version appears to be POV or NPOV. Surveys should not be used for the purposes of ""fact finding"". A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner. Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly. If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible. Multiple Support or Oppose sections in a survey  make navigation difficult, and edit summaries which read (→ Support - this option is best)make it difficult to observe on watchlists. Consider using unique headers, such as parenthetical headers used in the massive Admin accountability poll.   === Survey etiquette === If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.  Good: ""Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion?  I think your input could help."" Bad: ""Yet another attempt to push POV-- please help!"" Note that this is purely a sample of one way to organise such a survey—different circumstances may call for different approaches. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked ""Discussion"", though brief commentary can be interspersed.  Use BCE and CE for years Alice Springs EfferVescent Use AD and BC for years FictionalName Fred Bloggs -- but redirect from BCE and CE (first choice) This is always how we did it in school. -- MadeUp Why go against the (main)stream? user:Zanimum Control-alt-delete Allow both as equally acceptable alternatives It's the wiki way! OnTheFence Fred Bloggs (second choice)   === Discussion === Discussion resulting from the survey would go here.  If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.   This is a sort of semi-sandbox, where points that are yet to be integrated in the main text can be kept  Polls on article content should generally be avoided. They can lead to (accusations of)  wikiality. Polls on policy proposals are likewise a bad idea Polls on feature requests are totally ignored by the developers. They are essentially a different community, and they frankly have no time to try to figure out what precicely goes on day to day on the pages of en.Wikipedia or any of the other 700 wikis run by the Wikimedia foundation. That and polls can't overrule the laws of physics.  ;-) Developers do what is possible in the real world. This doesn't mean that developers aren't willing to help though! If you have a problem or a decent idea, try approaching them directly! Polls are non-binding. (see under Consensus - no binding decisions) As anywhere else, your opinion on a poll may be challenged. Be prepared to explain your opinion further, and be prepared to explain your logic. If you think someone is holding an illogical view, feel free to engage them in good faith, and let them explain their views. It is fair game to try to change a persons' opinion on a poll (but there are certain standards of politeness and decorum... can we describe them?) Wikipedia is not a democracy Retroactively making a poll binding (e.g. ""it's not binding but we'll do what the majority wants"") is a hazard to be avoided AFD et al. are not infrequently decided in favor of a minority with better and policy/guideline based arguments. (because logically worded arguments will advance consensus further. ) RFA/ArbElect are subject to interpretation by the closer Some pages (RFA, *FD) use variants on polling, and also introduce the concept of Rough consensus. This means that instead of unanimous support or ""I don't care"", people make do with only say 80% support. This does not quite make these processes a vote, however (see above). and you can be caught by surprise if suddenly the whole poll morph into a discussion, or if you find yourself ""badgered"" about a valuable oppose position that you are holding. (It's an artifact: if there's an 80% cutoff, and you are currently opposing, and your opinion is reasoned and clear, your opinion can suddenly be worth as much as that of 3 or 4 other people! It's almost WP:BEANS to suggest it, but this is in fact your best bet at negotiating an improvement in conditions (improved behavior by candidate on RFA, or changes to a page that you feel are essential on *FD) . :-)  Of course, you are not invincible, and you should beware of overplaying your hand, lest you be labeled a troll! Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Voting is not evil Template:Poll Voting is good, Voting is evil (courtesy MeatballWiki) A survey of previous notable (on the project) polls related to Wikipedia policiesWikipedia:Three-revert rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Attribution Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Arbitration policy Wikipedia:Wheel war Wikipedia:Editing policy pages#Poll Wikipedia:Quickpolls Wikipedia:Adminship poll - a seriesA survey of polls related to feature requests on MediaWiki functionalityWikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll Wikipedia:Blocking policyA survey of polls that  larger than typical numbers of Wikipedians participated in.Wikipedia:Times that 400 Wikipedians voted support for something. Wikipedia:Times that 300 Wikipedians voted support for something, generally RFA and Arbcom. Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians voted support for something, generally RFA and ArbCom. Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something."
478	487	1078	WP:WPGLOSSARY	Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries	478	"Welcome to the Glossary WikiProject.  The goal here is to create glossaries on various subjects for inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:Manual of Style/Glossaries).  Glossaries are a type of list, which in turn is a type of article (or article section) on Wikipedia.  Goals:  Check and establish the proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) Maintain and improve Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries (and all its transcluded subpages:) Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Culture and the arts Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Geography and places Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Health and fitness Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/History and events Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Intro Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Mathematics and logic Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Natural and physical sciences Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/People and self Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Philosophy and thinking Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Reference Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Religion and belief systems Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Society and social sciences Wikipedia:Contents/List of glossaries/Technology and applied sciences Coordinate the relevant policy/guideline pages (where relevant): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists Keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/ListsScope:  This project applies to glossaries, but not to word lists. (Needs expansion) Please enter your name below, followed by the glossary or glossaries you are most interested in (existing yet or otherwise).  The Transhumanist -- Glossary of philosophy SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) – principal author of WP:Manual of Style/Glossaries, and {{Glossary}} and the rest of the template-structured glossary system. The actual glossary I've spent the most time on is Glossary of cue sports terms, the one used as the model for developing most of that. Quiddity -- all Jordantrew (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Glossary of cue sports terms PKM (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Started Glossary of sewing terminology (working on references); expanding Glossary of textile manufacturing Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs -- Glossary of scientific terms related to sleep and dreams--correogsk (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Brad7777 -- Category:Glossaries on mathematics Brad7777 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Currently: Glossary of areas of mathematics Brad7777 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) User:Pbsouthwood -- Glossary of underwater diving terminology and any others that may fall under the scope of Portal:Underwater diving or ••• Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Chursaner -- Glossary of probability and statistics Jenniferz -- Glossary of cooking terms Timothy -- Glossary of terms associated with historiography Afkirby -- General maintenance and utilisation of glossaries. Glossary pages {{glossary}} a.k.a. {{glossary start}} or {{glossary begin}} – Half of a template pair; uses 
 with a class to open the structured glossary definition list that {{glossary end}} closes. {{glossary end}} – The other half of this template pair; uses 
 to close the definition list that {{glossary}} opens. {{term}} – The glossary term to which the {{defn}} definition applies; a customized 
 with a class and an embedded . {{defn}} – The definition that applies to the {{term}}; uses 
 with a class {{ghat}} – a hatnote template properly formatted for the top of a {{defn}} definition {{gbq}} a.k.a. {{gquote}} – a block quotation template properly formatted for inclusion in a {{defn}} definition {{glossary link}} – meta-template for creating shortcut templates for linking to definitions in specific glossaries Wikipedia:Manual of Style/GlossariesMeta{{WikiProject Glossaries}} - talkpage banner {{Glossaries}} - this project's navigation template (see top-right) This month's (May's) collaboration is: Glossary of communication disorders  Unfortunately, there are large gaps in the coverage of Wikipedia's glossaries.  Below is a list of major topics that do not yet have complete glossaries.  Those in blue have been started, but not yet completed.  Those in red represent completely missing glossaries -- to create one, click on the redlink.  There are many more major topics that lack glossaries, but the following list has so many gaps that it's a big enough list to keep us busy for quite a long time.  The Transhumanist    00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Caveat:  if a new glossary has only a few definitions, or it only lists terms without definitions, then it will likely be nominated for deletion.  To prevent this from happening, build up the number of defined terms quickly, and either develop it initially as an embedded list in the topic's main article, or make it a subpage of your user page until, it has enough terms to be a stand-alone glossary that won't be a target of deletion.  (The number is entirely subjective, but 30 or more terms is probably a good start for a stand-alone glossary).    === Art and culture === See also: Cultures of present-day nations and statesCulture • Classical studies • Cooking • Critical theory • Hobby • Literature  Art and Entertainment • Fiction • PoetryPerforming arts • Dance •Film/Motion pictures • Music • Opera • TheatreVisual arts • Architecture • Crafts • Drawing • Film • Painting • Photography • SculptureSports and games • Cue sports • Poker • Darts   === Geography and places === Geography   === Health and fitness === Health • Exercise • Health science •  Nutrition • Medicine • Sports is under ""Art & Culture"", above   === History and events === History • Classical antiquity • Medieval history (Middle Ages) • Renaissance   === Mathematics and abstractions === Mathematics • Areas of mathematics • Arithmetic • Algebra • Calculus • Discrete mathematics • Geometry • Trigonometry • Logic • Statistics   === Natural sciences and nature === Main list: Glossary of science topicsBiology • Animals • Biochemistry • Botany • Ecology • Health and fitness • Zoology Physical sciences • Astronomy • Chemistry • Meteorology • Earth sciences • Physics   === People and self === People and Self • Biology • Psychology • Relationships   === Philosophy and thinking === Philosophy • Philosophical theories  (with summary)•  Philosophical theories •  Humanism • Logic • Thinking • Transhumanism   === Religion and spirituality === Religion   === Social sciences and society === Main list: Glossary of science topicsSocial sciences • Archaeology • Critical theory • Economics •  Geography •  History •  Linguistics • Law •  Political science •  Psychology •  Sociology •  Relationships  Society • Community • Criminal justice • Education • Firefighting • Law • Politics • Public affairs  Business • Economics • Finance • Management • Marketing   === Technology and applied sciences === Main lists: Glossary of science topics and Glossary of technology topics.Aerospace engineering • Artificial intelligence • Agriculture • Architecture • Big Science • Biotechnology • Civil engineering • Communication • Computer science • (Information technology, Internet, Programming, Software engineering) • Electrical and electronics engineering • Energy development • Engineering • Firefighting • Health science •  Industry •  Library and information science •  Machines •  Management • Manufacturing • Mechanical engineering • Military • Nutrition • Robotics • Space exploration • Structural engineering • Telecommunication (Internet) • Transport • Underwater diving • Vehicles    === Userboxes ===  {{User:TimothyBlue/Userboxes/Wikipedia Glossary Userbox}}   === Related projects === WP:WikiProject Bibliographies WP:WikiProject Contents WP:WikiProject Indexes"
479	488	1079	WP:NHC	Wikipedia:Closing discussions	479	"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.  Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change to a page content, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.  Editors begin discussions to resolve disagreements that cannot be easily resolved through the normal wiki-editing process.  Many community discussions and decisions happen on project pages that are specifically designed for that purpose.  If discussions involve several individuals, the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine.  After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on. This page offers guidance on how and when discussions should be closed. There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion.  These information documents the customary practices that have evolved at Wikipedia in the years since it was started.  These customs are grounded in the core principles of Wikipedia etiquette such as assuming good faith, creating consensus, and maintaining civility. Closers may wish to read Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions for guidance on actually determining consensus and writing closes.  Many informal discussions do not need closing.  Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.  Disagreements in articles are often solved by further edits.  For example, two or more individuals may disagree about how a section of text in an article is written and start a discussion on the talk page.  An uninvolved party might come up with a creative solution that addresses the concerns raised in the discussion.  If it is a good solution, nothing needs to happen.  There will be nothing more that is said, and everyone moves on.  When this is the case, it often helps to leave a comment that the issue was resolved and perhaps link the edit that resolved the issue.  On some pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, the {{resolved}} template is used to note that an issue has been resolved.  The template is added to the beginning of the section, with notes that indicate what action was taken.  This helps shorten the reading needed to scan the page. Similarly, the {{unresolved}} template may be used to indicate that a dispute about an important issue has not found its solution, inviting more people to weigh in their ideas and opinions. When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion.  This is always the case in discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD) and the other XfDs.  Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying.  Here, adding the {{unresolved}} template may be a better option or informing all parties about the possibility of requesting mediation. It may be useful to close some Requests for comments; see that page for criteria to consider.    === Closing vs archiving === Closing discourages people from continuing to post comments, while leaving the discussion on the page, so that editors can read it.  This may be accomplished by placing templates such as {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} or {{Closed rfc top}} and {{Closed rfc bottom}} around a discussion.  In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive.  This practice is used quite often on pages that attract heated dispute, although there are no rules in place governing its use, and there are times when closing a discussion can create even more strife than had existed before. Summarizing documents the outcome of the discussion (e.g. ""The result was to keep the page"").  Outside of the various deletion processes, most discussions are neither closed nor summarized. Archiving is when the discussion is moved into an archive area.  This is usually done automatically by a bot, when no new comments have been added for a defined length of time.  Most discussions go into Talk page archives with no need for a summary. However, sometimes an active issue will be archived while waiting for an uninvolved editor to write a summary statement. The recommended procedure at WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE is to copy-paste the discussion back onto the original page and delete the discussion from the Talk archive. The discussion may then be summarized as normal. This enures that the summary of the discussion's outcome will be visible to the editors watching that page.  Not too soon or too late:  Some processes, especially deletion-oriented pages, have a specified minimum length, typically of 7 full days.  Other processes, especially Requests for Comments (RfCs), have typical lengths but no mandatory minimum.  It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week. Similarly, if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion unless the process (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) requires formal closure for other reasons. When the discussion is stable:  The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take.  Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing. When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful:  If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation.  Most conversations do not need to be closed.  On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later.  In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.   === Consensus ===  Many closures are based upon consensus.  Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is.  To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented.  The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus.  Please also note that closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and complies with the project's goals. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached.  Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. If you believe that it is necessary to make an explicit statement about whether consensus was reached, it may be helpful to consider three broad categories for summarizing the result of a discussion:  Consensus in favor of (something) No consensus for or against (something) Consensus against (something)If you write only ""There was no consensus"", then editors may be confused about whether you meant that no general agreement was reached or if you were trying to find a gentle way to indicate that an idea was rejected.  They may also disagree later about what, exactly, wasn't agreed to.   === Policy === Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy.  As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.  Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, as well as legal policies that require articles not violate copyright or be defamatory, are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.  Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.  Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear.   === Requesting a close === If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question.   === Marking a closed discussion ===  Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion.  Please do not close a discussion if you believe that further contributions (rather than starting a fresh discussion on the same subject) would be appropriate. To close a discussion, use the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates (although some particular types of discussion, such as those which concern whether to delete or rename a page, have their own specialized templates).  For example:  {{archive top}} Discussion text... {{archive bottom}} The closed discussion will then look like this:  The closed discussion can also be collapsed to save space. This is achieved by using the templates {{hidden archive top}} and {{hidden archive bottom}}. Because of the short name of the first of those templates – {{hat}} – performing such a closure is referred to as hatting.   === Writing a summary === Sometimes, it is helpful for an editor to provide a summary statement of the outcome, if any, when closing the discussion.  This optional statement may include both points of consensus and points that are not yet resolved.  {{Archive top |result = I've decided my idea needs some work.  Thanks to everyone for the advice.  ~~~~ |status = withdrawn}} {{lorem ipsum}} {{Archive bottom}}  which will look like this:  All discussion closures are subject to review. Usually, reviews are initiated because someone disputes the outcome stated by the closing editor (e.g., a summary statement that some editors find confusing or incorrect), rather than the decision to discourage further discussion. Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment) are discussed at WP:AN. Specific instructions about each case are described in the subsections below. Any editor may participate in a discussion reviewing a close. Remember that most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement, and that closers undertake to assess consensus to the best of their abilities.   === Challenging a deletion === For reviewing a closure of a deletion discussion, the Deletion review process is used.   === Challenging a move === For reviewing a closure of a page move discussions, the Move review process is used.   === Challenging other closures ===  For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.  After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. Create a new section by clicking on the ""new section"" tab. Include a link to the closed discussion, a link to the discussion with the closing editor, links to any previous discussions pertinent to the discussion, and a neutral explanation of the rationale for review of the closure. For example, open a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard (AN) that begins with ""This is a request to review the close at [[(name and link to close)]] to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer [[Here]]."" followed by a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. ""underlying policy/guideline"" and 2. ""strength of argument"". (See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS) For example, continue your AN request opening with something like, ""The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X not ever intended to apply to issues such as this."" Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive – a self-reported index of past AN reviews of closed discussion Wikipedia:Dashboard, for ongoing discussions and current requests Wikipedia:Guide to deletion Wikipedia:Just drop it Wikipedia:Non-admin closure Wikipedia:Not now Wikipedia:Snowball clause Wikipedia:Voting – pages on the role of voting in and out of Wikipedia"
480	489	1080	WP:RES	Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia	480	"Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased. Many of the general rules of thumb for conducting research apply to Wikipedia, including:  Always be wary of any one single source (in any medium—web, print, television or radio), or of multiple works that derive from a single source. Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says. In most academic institutions, Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper. Some encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica have notable authors working for them and may be cited as a secondary source in some cases; institutional policies will vary. For example,  Cornell University's online guide to APA style uses citations from Britannica in some of its examples.However, because of Wikipedia's unique nature, there are also some rules for conducting research that are special to Wikipedia, and some general rules that do not apply to Wikipedia.  Potential researchers and other serious users are strongly encouraged to read About Wikipedia for a summary overview and understanding of Wikipedia.   === A slightly longer ""nutshell"" summary === For the most part, Wikipedia has similar strengths and weaknesses to any other encyclopedia. Major additional strengths: Keeps up to date well. You can ask questions. The history of an article and the process around how it was written are transparent. Major additional weaknesses: Articles vary wildly in quality and comprehensiveness. At any given moment, an article may be in a vandalized state (rare, but not negligible). Biases are unpredictable.   === Overview of Wikipedia === In a wiki, articles are never ""finished"". They are continually edited and (usually) improved over time. In general this results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over a fair and balanced representation of information. Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start. Indeed, many articles start out by giving one—perhaps not particularly evenhanded—view of the subject, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument that they gradually take on a consensus form. Others may become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint and can take some time—months perhaps—to regain a better-balanced consensus. In part, this is because Wikipedia operates mainly on an informal process to resolve such issues. When editors cannot agree on content and approach, it is likely to take a bit of time before more experienced editors enter the picture. Even then, on inherently controversial topics, those more experienced editors may have their own axes to grind. The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing notable verifiable knowledge. Over time, an increasing number of articles have reached this standard. However, this process can take months or years, as each user contributes in turn. Some articles contain statements and claims that have not yet been fully cited. Others will later have entire new sections added. Some information now in the article may be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded and may be removed or expanded. While the overall trend is generally upward, it is not uniformly upward. It is important to use Wikipedia carefully if it is intended to be used as a research source. Individual articles will, by the very nature of Wikipedia, vary in standard and maturity. This page is intended to help users and researchers do this effectively. See also the article Reliability of Wikipedia, which summarizes third-party studies and assessments of Wikipedia.   === Notable strengths of Wikipedia ===  Wikipedia has certain advantages over other reference works. Being web-based and having a very large number of active writers and editors, it provides fast coverage of many topics and provides hyperlinking, unavailable in traditional media. Also, it often provides access to subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible in non-native languages. Since English Wikipedia editors come from all around the world, the relative lack of non-Western topics found in many Western publications is significantly less noticeable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia often produces excellent articles about newsworthy events within days of their occurrence, such as the 2007 Wimbledon Championships, Lal Masjid siege, kidnapping of Alan Johnston, or the Benoit family tragedy. Similarly, it is one of the few sites on the web even attempting neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of popular culture, including television series or science fiction. It is also developing across-the-board global coverage of subject areas where for one reason or another existing sources are highly fragmented, including sports such as football/soccer and golf. In comparison with most other web-based resources, Wikipedia's open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be promptly corrected. As Wikipedia is a collaborative, ongoing project, one may also ask questions of an article's authors. And thanks to its extensive use of hyperlinks and external links, Wikipedia can be an excellent guide to other related material, both on and off Wiki.   === Notable weaknesses of Wikipedia ===  Wikipedia's most dramatic weaknesses are closely associated with its greatest strengths. Wikipedia's radical openness means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example, it could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is certainly more subject to subtle vandalism and deliberate factual errors than a typical reference work. Also, much as Wikipedia can rapidly produce articles on timely topics, it is also subject to remarkable oversights and omissions. There is no systematic process to make sure that ""obviously important"" topics are written about, so at any given time Wikipedia may be wildly out of balance in the relative attention paid to two different topics. For example, it is far more likely that the English-language Wikipedia will have at least some material about any given small U.S. village than about a given moderately-sized city in sub-Saharan Africa. Another closely related issue is that particular Wikipedia articles (or series of related articles) are liable to be incomplete in ways that would be unusual in a more tightly-controlled reference work. Sometimes this is obvious (as with a stub article) but other times it may be subtle: one side of a controversial issue may be excellently presented, while the other is barely mentioned; a portion of someone's life (not always the most notable portion) may be covered in detail, while other aspects may be presented only sketchily or not at all; coverage of a country's history may focus on the incidents that drew international attention, or may simply reflect the interest and expertise of some individual writer. Another problem with a lot of content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources—something that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written. As of 2010, this problem has almost certainly been diminishing over the last several years, but it has not gone away.   === Article quality in Wikipedia ===  Wikipedia is a wiki—a collaborative, open-source medium. Just as human knowledge evolves, so does our wiki coverage of it. Wiki articles are continually edited and improved over time, and in general this results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over a fair balanced representation of information. It will tend to gain citations, new sections, and so forth. Dubious statements tend to be removed over time, but they may have a long life before they are removed. However, few articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start. Indeed, many articles commence their lives as partisan drafts, and it may take a long process of discussion, debate, and argument to yield a consensus form. Other articles may, for a while, become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint, and it can take some time to restore a balanced consensus. Wikipedia has various processes to reach consensus about an article, including mechanisms to bring in broader participation to controversial articles. The ideal Wikipedia article is neutral, referenced, and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time. Because this is an open wiki, there is no guarantee that a featured article retains its quality over time, and of course an older featured article does not magically improve as Wikipedia's standards generally rise. As of August 2006,  19% of one-time feature articles degraded, or failed to rise with the general standards, to the point of losing their featured status. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia is intended to be a starting point for serious research, not an endpoint.  Though many casual inquiries will be satisfied merely by referring to Wikipedia, you will learn more by accessing the print and online resources we reference.  We encourage you to verify our content by using independent sources.  We also invite you to contribute back by fixing any errors you may find and adding relevant material that will be of interest to future researchers.   === Editorial administration, oversight and management ===  The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role they may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialized tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, or watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the Wikipedia community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles. This approval process helps to create and maintain a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. Administrative and other similar roles are achieved only after a nomination process and a poll that shows at least 75-80% approval, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia. A variety of software assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editor conduct disputes, and its members are elected by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate.   === Use multiple independent sources === Because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, its content is often reproduced, especially online. Researchers should be especially careful of the FUTON bias (""Full Text On the Net"" bias) and ensure that a second article appearing to confirm a Wikipedia article is not (for example) simply a copy of an earlier version. One place to look for additional sources to use in assessing the quality of a Wikipedia article is to look at the sources it cites. An article that faithfully reflects the information and intent of a large number of high quality sources is likely to be a very reliable indicator of the current state of knowledge on a subject. An article with fewer or no sources listed or sources of lower quality may not reflect a researcher's desired high quality.  The only way to ensure the article faithfully reflects the information in high quality sources is to read and understand the cited sources and perhaps others. Often at the least a Wikipedia article will be an excellent overview of a given subject, making it easier to understand the cited sources and know what type of information to look for.   === Examine an article's history ===  The process of creating Wikipedia is radically open. As a result, unlike most reference works, it is possible that, even for a generally excellent and stable article, the latest version at any given moment may have been subject to recent edits which are not of the same quality as the rest of the article. However, unlike most reference works, you can access the history of the article (previous versions and change comments) and the discussion between the editors who created it. Often, if you have questions about an article or are looking to do in-depth research on a subject, reading the history and talk pages gives you further insight into why the article says what it says and which points of the article (if any) are in dispute and may particularly merit further research.   === Internal links === Wikipedia breathes new life into one of the initial dreams of the World Wide Web: hyperlinks. Hyperlinks allow Wikipedia authors to link any word or phrase to another Wikipedia article, often providing annotations of great value. Background information to an  article no longer needs to be limited or even produced by the author of the article. This method has proved to have major limitations on the Internet as a whole, because for a variety of reasons links are prone to quickly become obsolete. However, internal links within Wikipedia can be made with confidence, and so Wikipedia serves a web of mutually supporting information. Some articles are probably over-linked with important links liable to be lost like needles in a haystack. Also, someone may have linked a word without looking to see whether it leads to anything useful: you may follow up a link and find nothing more than what you just read, or even find an article on an unrelated meaning of the same word. In general, this problem is less common in the English-language Wikipedia than in Wikipedias in some other languages.   === Categories === Wikipedia has had its own user defined category system (folksonomy) since the beginning of 2004. The category system is a collaborative categorization system using freely chosen keywords by all contributors to Wikipedia. This feature allows researchers to navigate Wikipedia via categories, which can be very useful. Virtually all articles now have some form of categorization; however, the quality of this can be highly variable. In many topic areas contributors have created detailed and well-organized categorization; in other topic areas, categorization has occurred in a more ad hoc fashion and is sometimes poorly done. In all categorized articles, you should be able to find a list of categories at the very bottom of that article.   === Take advantage of ""what links here"" === One of the lesser known, but extremely useful, techniques for researching with Wikipedia is the effective use of the ""What links here"" link which appears on the left side of the screen, as the first item in the box marked ""toolbox"".  This will give you a complete list of other Wikipedia articles which link to the current article. Even if the article you are looking at is a stub—or, more remarkably, if it is a blank article that has not yet been started—numerous related articles may be easily accessible through this feature. Sometimes these backward links will show you ways in which the article you started from is incomplete in one area or another.   === Take advantage of ""printable version"" === Another feature of the ""toolbox"" is the ""Printable version"". Use it whenever you want to print articles for a printer-friendly version of the article. Browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox, that recognize the media print  will automatically apply the printable version when printing with the default Monobook stylesheet.   === Understand Wikipedia's biases === No good scholar expects any given reference work to be truly unbiased. Instead, one comes to understand the expected bias of a particular work. For example, in looking at the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, one expects to find some Anglocentric perspectives and attitudes about race, ethnicity, sex, and sexuality that by today's standards seem prudish and perhaps bigoted. In using Collier's Encyclopedia, one should expect a rather Americentric perspective (and probably a lesser degree of scholarship than in Britannica, but a more easily readable style). Unlike some reference works, Wikipedia's biases are inconsistent.  Wikipedians come from all over the world and all walks of life.  While we strive to have articles fit a neutral point of view, many articles are not yet there.  In fact, two articles on related subjects may have been written by different people and reflect different biases.  Even within a single article radically different or conflicting biases may be found.  It is also a matter of contention whether certain views are described in a neutral manner. In this respect, Wikipedia is more like a library (or like the World Wide Web itself) than like a typical reference work. The mere fact that a book is in the library is no guarantee against bias or misinformation. The same can be said of Wikipedia articles. This does not make them useless, it just means that they should be approached differently than one approaches a typical reference work.   === Use Wikipedia's social process ===  Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia—it is also an immense community of active contributors, or Wikipedians.  In the history section of each article, you can find out which users contributed what material to an article.  In addition, each article has a talk page.  If you have questions about the article, asking on its talk page or the talk page of the users who contributed the text will often get your question answered.  Then you and the contributor may update the article to make it clearer for the next researcher. Probably the most general approach to this is to first put your question on the talk page of the appropriate article, then put a note on the talk page of the relevant contributor or contributors calling their attention to your question. Questions like this are often very useful to the refinement of articles. If you have a relevant question that was not answered by the article, there is a fair chance that others will need this information also, and it should be added to the article. In general, you should not expect Wikipedians to contact you by email. Instead, check back to the talk page periodically to see if your question has been answered. We strongly recommend that if you want to participate in the Wikipedia community you create a Wikipedia account (it's free, you don't need to provide any personal or contact information, and there won't be any spam). If you log in, and if you sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, that will be saved on the talk page as an account signature and a timestamp.  Posting to talk pages with an account is not only a local social norm, but it makes it possible for you to retain your identity across multiple editing sessions and avoid being confused with others.   === Look for comprehensive review === A small number of English-language Wikipedia articles—most notably, featured articles—have had broad, systematic review.  These articles usually remain at a high level of quality, but it is possible (although unlikely) that a previously reviewed article may have deteriorated since the time it received that level of attention. Wikipedia:WikiReader discusses one of the more ambitious schemes to bring a comparable level of scrutiny to a large number of articles. As of November 2004, there have been no English-language WikiReaders published, although at least two have been issued in German, and a number of English-language WikiReaders are in progress. Another proposed approach to formally reviewing more articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check; however, this project is still in its infancy, as is Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Despite this shortage of formal review, many articles have had enormous scrutiny. Again, this can often be identified informally by browsing the history and discussion associated with the article.  First you should question the appropriateness of citing any encyclopedia as a source or reference. This is not simply a Wikipedia-specific issue, as most secondary schools and institutions of higher learning do not consider encyclopedias, in general, a proper citable source. Citation of Wikipedia in research papers has been known to result in a failing grade.This does not mean Wikipedia is not useful: Wikipedia articles contain many links to newspaper articles, books (often with ISBN numbers), radio programming, television shows, Web-based sources, and the like. It will usually be more acceptable to cite those original sources rather than Wikipedia since it is, by nature, a secondary or tertiary source. At the same time, simple academic ethics require that you should actually read the work that you cite: if you do not actually have your hands on a book, you should not misleadingly cite it as your source. There are cases where contributions to Wikipedia are considered original and important enough on topics not covered in other works, so as to be considered a citeable (secondary) source. (For example, according to the New York Times' website, ""The Supreme Court of Iowa cite[d] Wikipedia to explain that ""jungle juice"" is 'the name given to a mix of liquor that is usually served for the sole purpose of becoming intoxicated.'"") Owing to the radical openness of Wikipedia, decisions about referencing articles must be made on an article-by-article basis. If one does choose to cite a Wikipedia article, references should identify a specific version of an article by providing the date and time it was created. This can be found in the edit history of the article. Similarly, because Wikipedia's content is only valuable in relation to its sources, it helps to preserve on the Internet Archive all the sources of any article you choose to cite. Open access sources are usually easier to preserve in the long-term (including at Internet Archive Scholar and similar services); if an article predominantly relies on closed sources, it might get harder in the future to understand its references. If you decide to cite Wikipedia, remember that its articles are constantly changing: cite exact time, date, and version of the article version you are using. Page history and toolbox features ""cite this article"" and ""permanent link"" are very useful for finding that information.  For example, the link en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia&oldid=101425275 is for a specific version of this page created at 22:13 on 17 January 2007; 101425275 is the article version number.   The link will display the article as it existed at that time; no later revisions will be included in the text. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source pages contains examples of academic publications that used Wikipedia as a source.   === Frequently asked questions (FAQ) ===  FAQ index: Index of all Wikipedia FAQ pages   === Other help and feedback === There is an established escalation and dispute process within Wikipedia, as well as pages designed for raising questions, feedback, suggestions and comments, and community discussion. (See About Wikipedia). Facilities for help for users researching specific topics can be found at:  Wikipedia:Requested articles—to suggest or request articles for future. Wikipedia:Reference desk—to ask for help with any questions, or in finding specific facts. Wikipedia:Help desk—Wikipedia's general help desk, if other pages haven't answered your query.Because of the nature of Wikipedia, it's encouraged that people looking for information should try to find it themselves in the first instance. If, however, you come across valid information missing from Wikipedia, be bold and add it yourself so others can gain from your research, too!  Wikipedia:A researcher's guide to discussion pages Wikipedia:Academic resources – collection of useful resources (links to journals, etc.) Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia – list of studies Wikipedia:Academic use – considerations for using Wikipedia as a source for academic work (including a mention that some schools object to citing encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular). Wikipedia:Content disclaimer – Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable; it also contains spoilers Wikipedia:Edit war – At any given time, a Wikipedia article may be involved in an ""edit war"". Wikipedia:General disclaimer Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer – Wikipedia does not give legal opinions Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer – Wikipedia does not give medical advice Wikipedia:No original research/Wikipedia:Verifiability – Wikipedia is not the place to publish new, original research or find research which has not yet been recognized by credible sources Wikipedia:Patent nonsense – At any given time, a Wikipedia article may contain nonsense. Wikipedia:Point of view – At any given time, a Wikipedia article may not have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Reference desk – our help desk, feel free to ask any questions Wikipedia:Replies to common objections Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia – academic research about Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia – a related project Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer – Use Wikipedia at your own risk. Wikipedia:Student assignments – Wikipedia as a teaching tool Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Criticisms list some additional issues about Wikipedia (and what we try to do to mitigate them) Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source – list of cited uses  Brochure on how to evaluate a Wikipedia article and pdf version How to Evaluate a Wikipedia Article – A one-page PDF with similar recommendations to this page. Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask from the University of California, Berkeley Critically Analyzing Information Sources from Cornell University Roy Rosenzweig, Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past, Center for History and New Media. Originally published in The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117–46. Rob Weir, Does Wikipedia Suck? Inside Higher Ed. March 26, 2010. A discussion of teaching critical evaluation of Wikipedia and other online sources in a classroom setting. ""What's Wrong with Wikipedia?"". Harvard guide to using sources. 2016. ""Citing Wikipedia Articles in Writing or Not?"". UCLA Library. 2016. Crash Course (February 5, 2019). ""Using Wikipedia"". Crash Course Navigating Digital Information. Episode 5."
481	490	1081	WP:CUE	Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports	481	"Welcome to WikiProject Cue sports.  Some Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of cue sports (pool, snooker and billiards) and the organization of information and articles on this topic.  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic.  If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below.  GoalsClean organization of all relevant articles and categories, including their relationships to each other Fostering of cue sports article creation and improvement Promotion of spelling conventions (within articles) Promotion of notability guidelines for cue sports articles Creation of useful Wikipedia templates for use in cue sports articles - navigation boxes, stub tags, infoboxes, etc. Promulgation of base article layouts that are consistent and clean, with formatting conventions, for all cue sports articles (via article ""templates"")ScopeThe scope of this WikiProject may be relatively hands-off in the case of cue sports subtopics that already have their own ""child"" WikiProjects (e.g., WikiProject Snooker), whom this WikiProject will work closely with.  Pocket billiards (pool) games, such as straight pool, eight-ball, nine-ball and one-pocket Snooker and English billiards Carom billiards games, such as cushion caroms, straight rail and five-pins Obscure or historical billiards-family games such as bagatelle and bar billiards Recently invented billiards-family games such as bumper pool Related non-billiards cue games, such as bocce pool Related non-cue billiards games, such as finger pool/hand billiards and boccette Tabletop non-ball (puck-based) cue games, such as novuss, descended from cueless disk-flicking boardgames like carrom Possibly also non-billiards, non-cue games that are ancestrally related and which are not (unlike golf) already covered by an extant WikiProject. Examples could include croquet, lawn bowling, bocce and other non-team lawn games, and their indoor progeny, such as shuffleboard, curling, bowling, pachinko, non-cued variants of carrom, etc.  Definitely lowest-priority, however.  Cue sports portal Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Quality operations: A bot-generated detail log for ""Cue sports"" articles. All WP:CUE project participants should watchlist this alerts page. Today's featured article requests  01 May 2023 – 2022 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Lee Vilenski (t · c); see discussionRedirects for discussion  25 Mar 2023 – Pool (sports) (talk · edit · hist) →Pool (cue sports) was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussion 25 Mar 2023 – Pool (sport) (talk · edit · hist) →Pool (cue sports) was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussionFeatured article candidates  12 Mar 2023 – 2007 World Cup of Pool (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); see discussion   === Authoring & editing ===   ==== Style and naming conventions ==== All articles and categories within the scope of this WikiProject should adhere to WP:Manual of Style (cue sports) style and naming convention guideline. The super-short version:  The game is ""nine-ball"" (likewise eight-ball, one-pocket, etc.) — not ""9-ball"". (Exception: ""blackball"" is fully compounded, almost universally)Non-compound-noun game names are not hyphenated (bank pool, carom billiards, English billiards, straight rail)The ball is ""the 9 ball"" (likewise the 15 ball, the cue ball, the solid balls, etc.) — not ""the 9-ball"" or ""the nine ball"". Scores and rankings are given as numbers, per long-standing sports statistics tradition — ""1st place"", ""3–2 victory"", ""ranked number 45"". Other numbers should be spelled out: ""a six ball game-ending run on the 9 ball in the fourth round of the match, to finish for a 5th place finish"", or ""the number twelve shakebottle pill was right next to the 9 ball, and I don't know why it was there because we were playing nine-ball; maybe it's because we'd already had seven beers each and had been playing for four hours"".Don't use (gramatically optional) compound adjective hyphenation with numbers, as it is too easily confused with a game name — not ""a nine-ball run"", even if you would write ""a highly-skilled player"".Please see the actual guideline for more details and the rationale for this level of consistency control; it genuinely is important for article intelligibility, especially for non-native English speakers.   ==== Notability ==== Please read and follow the WikiProject Cue sports notability recommendations and advice on compliance with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines (This is not an Official Wikipedia Notability Guideline, but following it may well save your article from deletion.)  The super-short version:  If he/she/it isn't important, don't make an article (or section) on that topic. Don't pollute articles with games you and your friends made up, rules variants peculiar to your home town, novelty games, gimmick equipment, spam or non-neutral statements. There's no need to split out into an article everything that possibly could be an article; no one needs a four sentence ""article"" about cue tip chalk.   ==== Use the Glossary to make links ==== Articles within the scope of this Wikiproject will inevitably be using terms of art specific to the cue sports. A good resource for making links to words that are not self-explanatory for the uninitiated is the Glossary of cue sports terms. In order to make such links, a special template is used, as follows: {{Cuegloss|Word or phrase you are linking, exactly as its heading appears in glossary|word or phrase you want to display}} Thus, if one wanted to wikify ""apex ball"", the following markup would be employed: {{Cuegloss|Apex|apex ball}} (because the entry for ""apex ball"" in the Glossary is ""Apex""), which when saved would look like this:  apex ball.   Using the glossary to define terms will greatly reduce redundant ""definitionitis"" in article after article, enable newcomers to the topic to find consensus-edited definitions in a central location, and keep old hands from becoming bored to tears reading things they already know.  However, try to avoid overloading articles with specialized terms; people should not have to use the glossary several times per paragraph to understand an article.   ==== Naming and disambiguation conventions ====  When it is necessary to disambiguate player names, use ""John Q. Public (pool player)"" or ""John Q. Public (snooker player)"" for either of those particular disciplines, or ""John Q. Public (billiards player)"" for all others. If the player is notable for more than one discipline, use ""John Q. Public (billiards player)"", unless the player was mostly notable for either pool or snooker.  If the person was notable both as a player and for some other role in the field, use the ""player"" disambiguation unless the subject was most notable for a non-player role, e.g. ""John Q. Public (pool referee)"" or ""John Q. Public (billiards promoter)"".  If the subject was more notable for something else than a cue sport but was also at least marginally notable as a cue sports personage, use the field he or she was more notable for, e.g. John Hennigan (poker player). Regardless, do not use truncated forms such as ""John Q. Public (billiards)"", ""John Q. Public (pool)"" or ""John Q. Public (snooker)""; per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), a player is a person (a player) not a billiard, a pool or a snooker. For non-biographical articles, use ""(billiards)"" (e.g. Pocket (billiards)), as a disambiguator unless something more specific is warranted, in which case use ""(snooker)"" or ""(pool)"". There will be no need to disambiguate further, as in ""(carom billiards)"", except under the most unusual of circumstances, which should probably be revisited for some other solution anyway, such as an article merge. Prefer natural disambiguation when practical, e.g. Cue stick, not Cue (billiards), though the latter redirects to the former.   ==== Article ""templates"" ==== To the extent possible, all cue sports articles should be based on the WikiProject Cue sports basic article template or a more specific one [forthcoming]  (That said, these templates are only suggestions, not an official Wikipedia Guidelines.  The templates are [will be] here to help you focus and to get you going, especially if you aren't yet certain what to write or in what order, or where to begin. But mainly, we just want you to write articles!)   === Cue sports conceptual hierarchy === Cue sports articles and categories are arranged in relation to each other by way of the following hierarchy.  This hierarchy is not perfect in every way for every conceptual purpose, but is entirely adequate for our purposes here.  Note that some items appear more than once; see in-section footnotes for explanations.  See ""Major articles"" and ""Major categories"" for extant actual major articles and categories.  Key: [Bracketed] items show relationships to other sports probably not within the scope of this WikiProject. Italics indicate a relationship that may be relevant to articles (e.g., History sections), but are not be represented in categoryspace. Bold indicates the five main divisions of cue sports for Wikipedia article & category purposes (plus a bolded entry for the overarching topic itself).  [Ancient non-team lawn games][Modern non-team lawn games (lawn bowling, horseshoes, golf, bocce, croquet, etc.)][Non-cued indoor adaptations of non-team lawn games (bowling, shuffleboard, curling, etc.)]*1Cue sports (i.e. cued indoor adaptations of non-team lawn games)Ancestral early variants using a mace instead of a modern cue*2Obstacle billiardsBar billiards Bumper pool Bagatelle (other variants) Carom (carambole, pocketless) billiards*3 Pocket billiards*4 [Non-cue tabletop ball(s)-and-obstacles games (pachinko, pinball, etc.)]Carom (carambole, pocketless) billiards*3Straight railBalkline gamesThree-cushion English billiards*5 (other variants)Pocket billiards*4Pool*6Nine-ballSeven-ball Ten-ballEight-ballBlackballOne-pocket Bank pool Finger pool*1 (?? or is this actually a carom game ??) (other variants)English billiards*5 Snooker*7 (other variants)Snooker*7[Ancient board games][Non-cued disk-flicking games]Table-top cue gamesCarrom (cued variants) Novuss Crokinole (cued variants)*1 Finger pool, though technically a non-cue game is a direct descendant of billiards, and uses otherwise identical equipment.*2  To be covered in Cue sports#History; not enough can be said (and cited) about this to warrant a separate article.  On the slim chance that this does spawn enough articles for a category, that category should be at the same level as carom, obstacle, pocket and snooker under cue sports.*3 Carambole games evolved from pre-bagatelle, croquet-like tabletop obstacle games.  Within categoryspace and for most purposes in articlespace it is treated as one of the four main divisions of cuesports.*4 Pocket billiards began as a variant of obstacle billiards.*5 English billiards is a hybrid carom/pocket game, and we treat it as a variant of both equally. Same goes for Cowboy (billiards) and Bottle pool.*6 Though not one of the four main subcategorizations of cue sports for our purposes, pool is obviously one of the top subjects and will likely represent the bulk of the articles in the cue sports articlespace.  It is not ranked with snooker at the top level under cue sports, because it does not have the consistency and monolithic subculture that snooker does, it is a blanket term for a class of games played with pool equipment (eight-ball, nine-ball, etc.), and the terms ""pocket billiards"" and ""pool"" are used as synonyms in the industry.*7 Historically and technically, snooker is a variant of pocket billiards.  However, as an organized sport and subculture it has a life of its own and does not significantly overlap with any other form of cuesports, even the closely-related pool and English billiards.   === Avoid creating unnecessary articles === For instance, unless someone has a wealth of reliably sourced information about the composition, history, importance, differences between different kinds, alternatives to, etc., etc., of cue chalk, then we almost certainly do not need to create a Chalk (cue sports) article.   === Do split articles that are getting unwieldy === The entire topic of cue sports aside from snooker was once represented mostly by a single long article at Billiards (now Cue sports).  It was sensibly broken up into sub-articles and that work is still ongoing.  So, for example if the eight-ball article becomes unwieldy and there is enough sourced material available about blackball, consider splitting the article into two.  Note: This was actually done in March 2007, making the example particularly salient.   === Don't unnecessarily duplicate lots of informaton === Articles about games or specific classes of games, for example, do not need to reiterate the entire history of cue sports, just the history of that particular variant.  Likewise, we do not need wholesale reiterations of basic concepts, such as racking, lagging, etc.  Use the {{Cuegloss}} template as much as possible (without creating redundant wikilinks in the same article; only the original introduction of a term needs such a wikilink in most cases.)  See ""Cue sports conceptual hierarchy"", above, for organizing principles.  ‡ = Principally the work of someone not connected with the project, usually someone from WikiProject Snooker more specifically.   === Major articles === These are the largest of the cue sports ""master"" articles, from which many other articles descend. Not surprisingly, the list bears a strong resemblance to the organization of the cue sports categories.  Cue sportsCarom billiardsArtistic billiards Balkline (and straight rail) One-cushion billiards (cushion caroms) Five-pin billiards Three-cushion billiardsPool (cue sports) (pocket billiards)Bank pool Blackball (pool) Eight-ball English billiards Nine-ball One-pocket Straight poolSnooker‡Important supporting articles  Glossary of cue sports terms Cue sports techniques Billiard ball Billiard table Pool hall Cue stick World Pool-Billiard Association Billiard Congress of America Women's Professional Billiard Association International Pool Tour Union Mondiale de Billard   === ""Featured Article"" status ===   ==== Main Page ""Today's Featured Articles"" ==== Masako Katsura (2011-01-31)   ==== Featured Articles (current) ==== Masako Katsura (nom) 2018 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2019 Champion of Champions (nom) 2019 Tour Championship (nom) 2019 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2017 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1985 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2020 Masters (snooker) (nom) 1986 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2020 Tour Championship (nom) 2020 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1984 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1985 World Snooker Championship final (nom) 2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship (nom) 2021 Masters (snooker) (nom) 1987 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1989 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2014 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1983 World Snooker Championship (nom) Snooker (nom) 2021 Tour Championship (nom) 1988 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2015 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2002 World Snooker Championship (nom) Walter Donaldson (snooker player) (nom) 2021 World Snooker Championship (nom) 1982 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2016 World Snooker Championship (nom) 2022 Welsh Open (snooker) (nom) Ray Reardon (nom) 2022 Masters (snooker) (nom) 2021 British Open (nom) 2022 World Snooker Championship (nom)   ==== Featured Lists ==== 2018 in cue sports 2019 in cue sports 2020 in cue sports List of snooker Triple Crown finals List of World Snooker Championship winners List of world number one snooker players Snooker world rankings 1976/1977 Snooker world rankings 1977/1978 Snooker world rankings 2018/2019 Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 2020–21 snooker world rankings Women's Professional Billiards Championship   ==== Assessed/Peer-reviewed articles for Featured candidacy ==== Rudolf Wanderone   === Wikipedia Release Version articles ===   ==== Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles ==== Carom billiards   ==== Wikipedia Release Version (0.8) articles ====  All were previously included in Ver. 0.7 unless otherwise noted.  Cue sports Carom billiards Eight-ball Nine-ball Snooker‡ Steve Davis‡ Paul Hunter‡♣ Jimmy White‡♣ The Hustler (film)‡ ""Adopted"" by this project for their historical connections: Croquet‡♣ and Carrom‡♣♣First included in Ver. 0.8.   === Assessed/Peer-reviewed A-Class articles ===   === ""Good Article"" status ===   ==== Good Articles (current) ==== Check Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Billiards, pool, and snooker periodically to ensure we're in sync.   === Assessed/Peer-reviewed B-Class articles === Walter Lindrum‡   ==== ""In the News"" recurring items ====  WPA World Nine-ball Championship starting 2012 (i.e. 2012 WPA World Nine-ball Championship, etc.) World Snooker Championship‡ starting 2009 (i.e. 2011 World Snooker Championship, 2012 World Snooker Championship, etc.)   === ""Did You Know?"" articles === Artistic billiards 2006-12-06 ⇒ Balkline and straight rail (illustrated) 2007-01-01 ⇒ Baseball pocket billiards 2007-03-03 ⇒ Bottle pool 2007-12-26 ⇒ Carom billiards 2007-01-08 ⇒ Cowboy pool 2006-12-20 ⇒ Cribbage (pool) (top, illustrated) 2007-03-20 ⇒ Cushion caroms 2007-01-07 ⇒ Golden Cue 2010-06-02 ⇒ Honolulu (pool) 2006-12-04 ⇒ Irving Crane 2006-11-27 ⇒ Jean Balukas (illustrated) 2007-05-11 ⇒ Jimmy Moore 2008-01-24 ⇒ Kelly pool 2007-02-25 ⇒ Marcus Chamat 2019-02-08 Tom Jennings (pool player) 2007-10-02 ⇒ William A. Spinks (top, illustrated) 2007-03-02 ⇒ World Cup of Pool 2006-08-31 ⇒   === New articles === Please feel free to list your new cue sports-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Listings will be removed as they age, unless they still need serious cleanup. Any articles created (or existing and expanded at least five-fold) within the previous seven days that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, tables etc.), don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. Note that articles developed in a subpage and later moved to the mainspace are considered new as of the date of the move. This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project. Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2023-03-27 20:16 (UTC) Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.  List of Gran Hermano (Argentine TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by MrE (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-27, score: 20 Draft:Tropical Storm Bopha (2006) 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by 112.206.201.247 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-27, score: 20 List of Indonesia's Next Top Model episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Anthonyleonard1 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-26, score: 20 Bawbee Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Garuda3 (talk · contribs · new pages (14)) started on 2023-03-26, score: 20 Draft:Tropical Bopha (2006) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by 124.106.195.79 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-25, score: 20 Draft:Buzurgo Ka Humsafar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (450)) started on 2023-03-24, score: 20 Template:NPP redirect backlog/descriptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · new pages (35)) started on 2023-03-23, score: 20 Draft:KitFennec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Gigimayor (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-20, score: 20 Draft:Michael Collumb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Hildreth gazzard (talk · contribs · new pages (77)) started on 2023-03-18, score: 20 Draft:Dinesh Verma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · new pages (28)) started on 2023-03-17, score: 20 Draft:2023-24 snooker season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by LesPuzz (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2023-03-16, score: 20 Template:NPP redirect backlog/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · new pages (35)) started on 2023-03-16, score: 20 Template:NPP redirect backlog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · new pages (35)) started on 2023-03-16, score: 20 Meads Reach Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Garuda3 (talk · contribs · new pages (14)) started on 2023-03-14, score: 20 2002 LG Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Certes (talk · contribs · new pages (106)) started on 2023-03-14, score: 20 List of Magnum, P.I. (2018 TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by HungNguyen19181945 (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2023-03-13, score: 20   === Unsourced bios of living people, subject to deletion === It is the highest priority to add at least two reliable, independent non-trivial sources to any articles that appear here (updated daily by a bot): There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Cue sports. There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Snooker.   === Other unsourced stubs and articles in danger of deletion ===  Consider it a high priority to add at least one reliable source to each of these articles (properly – use {{Cite web| DETAILS HERE}} to provide source details and provide references for specific facts, inline in the article) and then remove it from the list. See ""Newly discovered articles"" list above for more.  Bowlliards – stub; unreliable source Chinese eight-ball – start-class article, but probable made up one day material as to much of its detail; needs to be replaced with Reverse pool or Chinese billiards, and documented with {{Shamos 1999}} Cue stick – B-class article in scope, but mostly WP:OR and WP:NOT#HOWTO! IPT World Open Eight-ball Championship – stub John Roberts, Jr. (billiards player) – article is fine, but needs redirects from "", Jr."", ""Jr"", "", Jr"", ""Junior"", "", Junior"", ""Jnr"", "", Jnr"", ""Jnr."" and "", Jnr."" Killer (pool) – stub List of UMB World Three-cushion Champions – Start-class list Longoni – stub; cites only company's own materials as sources Moori – stub Pan Xiaoting – micro-stub Pedro Piedrabuena – micro-stub Russian pyramid – start-class article Skins Billiards Championship – stub Sudden Death Seven-ball – start-class article Takeshi Okumura – stub, no English-language sources Texas Hold 'Em Billiards Championship – start-class article World Eight-ball Pool Federation – stub   === Bot-generated lists of articles needing cleanup  and general article alerts ===  Cleanup listing results (long and detailed)  See cue sports conceptual hierarchy for organizing principles. See categorization map for an overview of all the categories.   === Major categories === These are the largest of the cue sports ""master"" categories, from which many other categories descend. Not surprisingly, it bears a strong resemblance to the organization of the hierarchy.    Category:Cue sportsCategory:Pool (cue sports) – many subcategories Category:Snooker – many subcategories Category:Carom billiards – several subcategories Category:English billiards Category:Obstacle billiards Category:Ground billiards Category:Tabletop cue games Category:Trick shots Category:Cue sports organizations – with a leagues subcategory, and also divided into pool, snooker, and carom subcategories Category:Cue sports people – subdivided into pool and snooker subcategories, with more specific ones for coaches/managers/promoters, cuemakers, inventors/innovators, referees/officials, writers/broadcastersCategory:Cue sports players – divided into pool, snooker, carom, English billiards, and trick shot artist subcategoriesCategory:Cue sports competitions – divided into pool, snooker, carom, English billiards subcategories Category:Cue sports equipment Category:Cue sports equipment manufacturers Category:Cue sports event promotion companies Category:Cue sports mass media – with subcategories for films & TV, literature, and video games Cue sports article spelling conventions (draft guideline) List of wanted cue sports game articles List of wanted cue sports bios — the biggest task on the To-do list. List of wanted cue sports organi[z|s]ation articles — needs to be fleshed out more fully. List of wanted cue sports tournaments and other events — needs to be fleshed out more fully. List of wanted cue sports miscellaneous articles — equipment, movies, etc.   === Fill-in-the-blanks default articles === Cue sports article template [forthcoming]   === Talk page banners === The project banner, {{WikiProject Cue sports}}, should be placed above any less specific ones (e.g. for WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Japan, etc.). The best way to use it is to just copy-paste the appropriate code block below, and modify the parts in italics.   === Stubs === Put stub tags at very end of page, after categories and language transwikis, with two blank lines before them; this will prevent them running up against the nav box when the page renders.   === Navigation ===   === Infoboxes ===   === Userbox === You might like to add a userbox to your userpage:   === Barnstar === Awarded to users who've significantly improved Cue sports-related articles.   === Inline in article text ===   ==== Convenient time-savers ==== {{Cuegloss|Entry to link to|text to link from}} – Used for convenient wikilinking of a term in an article to the appropriate #-linkable entry in the Glossary of cue sports terms without having to type such a long wikilink name.  Please do not ""subst:"" this template.  Example usage: {{Cuegloss|Break|break shot}} is the equivalent of [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Break|break shot]].=={{subst:Cue sports heading}}== – Used to quickly create section headings for cue sports in the ""year in sports"" articles (e.g. 1965 in sports).  This template should be subst'd.Flag templates (with and without country names/abbreviations) for tournament results tables, champions lists, etc., are available from WikiProject Flag Template, and are much easier to use than [[image:Filename.svg|size|etc.]] [[Country Name]] manual coding. Please review MOS:FLAGS about avoiding overuse and abuse of these templates.   ==== Reference citation shortcuts ==== {{Shamos 1999}} – used inside  to cite Mike Shamos's The New Illustrated Billiards Encyclopedia without having to manually fill in {{Cite book}}; takes page numbers (with ""p."" or ""pp."") as semi-optional parameter.  Example: Blah blah blah.{{Shamos1999|access-date=2023-03-29|pp. 123–125}} There are a bunch more, for Stein & Rubino's encyclopedia, and for various pool/billiards periodicals, at Category:Cue sports source templates.   === Tournament charts ===   ==== Brackets ==== {{Round4}} or {{4TeamBracket}} – 4 players {{Round8}} or {{8TeamBracket}} – 8 players {{Round16}} or {{16TeamBracket}} – 16 players {{32TeamBracket}} – 32 players {{WPADoubleElimBracket}} – Double elimination tournament brackets for WPA and other events.   ==== Results charts ==== See 2005 Mosconi Cup for code that can be copied and modified.   ==== Current events ==== These warn readers that article may be updated frequently as results come in:  {{Current sport|sport=cue sports|event=three-cushion tournament}} – a hatnote for the article on an ongoing tournaments or the like, using ""three-cushion tournament"" as an example: {{Current sport-related|sport=cue sports|2023 WPA World Nine-ball Championship}} – a message box for other articles (e.g. competitor bios) that may be affected by what happens at the ongoing event; second parameter is the name of the event article, using 2023 WPA World Nine-ball Championship as an example: As the links in these templates suggest, any such event should be added to Portal:Current events/Sports.   === Admin === {{Category redirect}} – put at top of categories slated for rename, deletion or merging (subst and edit as needed, if target category does not exist yet). To sign on as a project member, simply add your name to the list below, and feel free to tell us about your relevant interests, focus, editing so far, etc.  You can see who's been active lately at this auto-generated report.   === Getting started === As a member of WikiProject Cue sports, it is requested that you watchlist at least the following pages:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports - if the project members do not pay attention to changes at the project page, especially its talk page, effective collaboration will be nearly impossible and the project would eventually fail. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/to do - the project's to-do list, one of our most vital pages Cue sport - our main article, frequently subject to vandalism and nonsense edits that (historically) have sometimes taken hours or even an entire day to be fixed One or more of the core sub-articles, such as Pocket billiards, Carom billiards, Billiard balls, Billiards table, Glossary of cue sports terms, etc. - these are sometimes subject to vandalism and vanity edits One or more specific game articles, such as Nine-ball, Eight-ball, Three-cushion billiards, etc. (see list toward end of Cue sport) - unsourced junk edits are often made to these articles One or more player articles of your choice that you'd like to ""adopt"" as a guardian against vandalism, PoV-pushing, etc.Keeping in touch with the rest of the team via the project pages, and keeping an occasional eye on core articles will go a long way to strengthening the project and protecting the articles.  Thank you for your collaboration! You may place {{User WikiProject Cue sports}} on your user page to display the following userbox:  This template will add your user page to:  Category:WikiProject Cue sports participantsIf you feel like creating a new, sourced article, please see our lists of needed articles: WP:CUEGAMES, WP:CUEBIOS, WP:CUEEVENTS, WP:CUEORGS and WP:CUEMISC. PS: You can save typing time and get to this project page via a shortcut, WP:CUE, and to the talk page here via another one, WT:CUE.   === List of participants === Active or semi-activeSMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ — originator of this WikiProject and one of its principal coordinators; a league eight-ball and nine-ball player Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) -- Professional pool player (generally retired for a real career). Dabbler in three cushion (high run 13). Expert ""Pool Teacher"" at allexperts (Q&A column). Main contributor/creator of Carom billiards, Balkline and straight rail, Cushion caroms, Billiards, Rack (billiards) Glossary of cue sports terms (forked from billiards), Artistic billiards, Irving Crane, George Balabushka, Jean Balukas, Straight pool, cue sports techniques, cowboy pool, Honolulu (billiards), Kelly pool, Baseball pocket billiards and Bottle pool. I have quite a billiard library and can provide resources upon request. ChaChaFut (talk · contribs) 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- cue sports enthusiast, some time ago winner of a couple of amateur rotation tournaments, and particularly attracted to 3-cushion carom. Frequent contributor of many sports-related Wikipedia articles. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - I've contributed quite a few of the Mosconi Cup bits and pieces and stubbed bios of players involved therein.  The Rambling Man 08:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) I always enjaoy being wikiprojects and i enjoy pool so them mixed is great. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 12:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) FoxLad (talk · contribs) Practitioner in pool. Also a fanatic in some sports and animation. Samasnookerfan (talk · contribs) A big snooker fan, and I create and try to improve many snooker player and snooker related articles. 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Armbrust (talk · contribs) I create and try to improve many snooker tournament, rankings and season articles. I'm also interested in the Mosconi Cup, Cue sports at the World Games, the World Professional Billiards Championship and the Artistic Billiards World Championship. Howard the Duck (talk · contribs) — creating/updating tournament articles. 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Alexfromm44 (talk · contribs) - Avid Billiards Player and looking to help out in any way I can as a college student. 13:48, 8 February 2012 eengner (talk · contribs) - Billiards player who competes in pro-am leagues and who's wife is also an avid billiards player (and recent Amateur National Championship Finalist).  I was a Division Representative for APA and an official referee at the 2013 APA National Team Championships in Las Vegas, NV.  I am an engineer in the U.S. who uses a physics based approach to billiards and life. Created the page American rotation and am looking forward to contributing and advancing the sport. (Eengner (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) AbsconditumEtIncognitum (talk · contribs) - Amateur pool player and amateur Wikipedia contributor. At the moment I'm working/gathering sources for the eventual creation of the Fifteen-ball pool page. I hope to be a useful contributor to this project. AbsconditumEtIncognitum (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) - I edit all the cue sports up to GA/FA. Feel free to join me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Countakeshi (talk · contribs) - A member of the board and table games project with interest in cue sports, especially its history. I've recently sorted out the Wikimedia Commons categories on billiards.   === Active WikiProject Editors ===   === Active Subject-Area Editors ===   === Parent WikiProjects === WikiProject Sports WikiProject Games   === Descendant WikiProjects === WikiProject Snooker WikiProject Carrom (only with regard to the variants played with cues)See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Sports#Cue sports   === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Golf (golf is distantly related to the cue sports) WikiProject Bowling (bowling is distantly related to the cue sports) WikiProject Pinball (pinball ultimately derives from cue games like bagatelle and bar billiards) WikiProject Board and table games (for games played on tables rather than in them) WikiProject Flag Template (maintains flag icon templates for use in tournament charts, etc.) WikiProject Biography (provides guidance on bio articles, including of sportspeople)  Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Cue sports"
482	491	1082	WP:WEBSITES	Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites	482	Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to Websites.  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list here. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.   === Title === WikiProject on Websites
483	492	1084	WP:WIAFL	Wikipedia:Featured list criteria	483	A featured list exemplifies our very best work. It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see MOS:LIST) and, in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not) a featured list has the following attributes:   Prose. It features professional standards of writing.  Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.  Comprehensiveness.   (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.  (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.   (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.    Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.  Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.   (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.    (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.    Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.  Featured criteria: featured articles featured pictures featured topics
484	493	1086	WP:IMPORTANCE	Wikipedia:Importance	484	"In Wikipedia, ""importance"" may refer to:  Speedy deletion criteria A7, A9 and A11 discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance How we determine if a topic has sufficient Wikipedia:Notability to merit its own article.  (See also, this guideline's historical predecssor) Ratings of an article's importance within the scope of a WP:WikiProject. Long-term importance or significance, one of the considerations in determining a term's primary topic."
485	494	1087	WP:SCIRS	Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)	485	"See also:  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely used resource.  Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks and handbooks written by experts in a field, expert-curated databases and reference material, or high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones. The scope of this page includes the natural, social and formal sciences. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). For queries about the reliability of specific sources for a given purpose, use the reliable sources noticeboard or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.  A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles. An appropriate primary source is one that was peer reviewed and published by a reputable publisher. A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity). A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Encyclopedias, general textbooks, popular science books, and tables of values are tertiary sources.   === Respect secondary sources === In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources. Sources that are robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers are preferred. Especially for surprising or extraordinary results, the description should adhere closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by reliable secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research). Primary sources may be used when discussing recent research directions or a particular result. When citing a primary source, be especially mindful of the policy on undue weight, as primary sources are more prone to misuse than secondary or tertiary sources. An individual primary source should never be cited or juxtaposed so as to ""debunk"" or contradict the conclusions of a reliable secondary source, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:Synthesis of published material that advances a position). Primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field. If a reliable and comprehensive review article cites a study, result, or idea, the review should usually be cited in preference to the primary source. If a primary source is cited by few or no reliable sources outside the originating lab, the primary source may be removed as not reporting an important result. Wikipedia does not apply any special emphasis to breaking news, but seeks an overall survey of the literature as it has been synthesized by the experts in a field. Tertiary sources can provide a valuable overview of a topic, but often oversimplify complex material. It is usually better to cite the secondary or primary literature directly. Although popular-press news articles and press releases may tout the latest experiments, they often exaggerate or speak of ""revolutionary"" results where the researchers refer to the context of the gradual progress of the field. Including an accessibility link to such a source may aid in reader comprehension, but the language of the actual study should be used; more detailed and less sensational lay sources are preferred. In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field. Using high-quality sources ensures that our articles reflect the current state of knowledge and proportionately represent the aspects and controversies considered most important by the experts in a field.   === Respect primary sources === A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy. However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.   === Summarize scientific consensus ===  The prevailing scientific consensus should be presented as the dominant view and articles should be framed accordingly. Scientific consensus can be found in e.g. recent, authoritative review articles, high quality journal articles, or widely used postsecondary textbooks. Significant minority views should be accorded due weight and presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. If mainstream secondary sources in a field do not consider a detail or opinion relevant, it may not be appropriate to cover it at that article; such details and opinions may be desirable at an article on a sub-topic or at a separate article, with linking governed by WP:SPINOUT and WP:ONEWAY. The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair). There is an informal hierarchy of journals, abetted by the publish or perish culture of academia. Preference should be given to citing articles in top tier journals wherever possible. Similarly, if you find dubious unreferenced or poorly referenced text in an article, your first question should be does including this material add to the full and accurate summary of the topic rather than can I track down a source somewhere that supports this. The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should receive limited weight according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. Very new papers should be used sparingly until enough time has passed to make this assessment - there is no deadline. Additionally, material that is appropriate for a highly focused article on one specific part of a field may not be appropriate for a higher level article about the field as a whole. Make readers aware of legitimate uncertainty or controversy within the particular field of study. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. Wikipedia neither accepts nor rejects any particular position - describe any disputes and their place in the scientific discourse, but do not engage in them. Many values, such as the masses of transuranian elements or the isotopic composition of the solar system, have an associated uncertainty, and even up-to-date highly reliable sources may report slightly different values. Where there is no clear reason to report solely one of several values, discussion on the article's talkpage or the appropriate Wikiproject can help determine which value(s) to use. For values or classes of values affecting many articles, consistency across articles and Wikiproject-level discussion should be preferred. Political, social, and historical context and impact and public perceptions are important when deciding whether to cover an idea at an article, but should not be considered when assessing scientific consensus.   === Assess evidence quality ===  Editors should be careful to avoid engaging in original research, but the quality of available evidence should be kept in mind when assessing whether a particular idea or viewpoint is well-accepted by the relevant academic community. Such evidence should include reviews of the literature including the work of several different research groups. Individual papers often disagree with each other, but there are several indicators that may be assessed even without specialist knowledge to differentiate high quality papers from low, including:  The paper has been appropriately reviewed through formal or informal peer review. Any serious scientific journal is formally peer-reviewed, though white and gray literature may be less transparent in their review methodology. Experimental and mathematical methods are clearly explained and are appropriate to the experiment. Model fitting and statistical analysis are meaningful and appropriate. Uncertainty and the paper's place in the wider scientific discourse are acknowledged. Funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. The authors and the paper itself are widely cited by other researchers in the paper's field. In most scientific fields, the order of the author list usually indicates importance of each researcher's contribution to the article, except that the final author is commonly the senior researcher in charge of the laboratory or research group where the work was done. These conventions may vary by field, journal, and paper. Recognized experts in the field have commented or offered informal opinion.Cutting edge science is built on the foundation of previous research, and paradigms almost always change only slowly. Preliminary results, whether reported in the popular press, a conference abstract, or a peer-reviewed journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable science sources. Exceptional or surprising claims should not be presented as authoritative, nor should the description of a broad consensus view be presented as less well-founded until such exceptional claims are replicated or widely cited. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed, especially if reporting material in a different field (see Marty Rimm and the Sokal affair). Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited in ways that suggest wide acceptance. For example, ideas and results that have been reported only in conference proceedings or on a researcher's website are unlikely to be appropriate for inclusion except when reported as such in the author's biography. A secondary source reporting on preliminary results might be appropriate as part of a well-documented section on research directions in a field. To prevent misunderstandings, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited. If a result does not accurately indicate its place in the scientific discourse, it is unlikely to be reliable. For example, every year, people propose modifications to general relativity or publish results that call some aspect of the theory into question. Usually these ideas are proposed by serious researchers who pose a question as part of an endeavor to understand the results more deeply: how can these results be understood in terms of the theory they seem to contradict? Such nuances are often missed in popular press reports, but should be included in articles if the proposed modification is cited. Sometimes ""revolutionary"" ideas are proposed by cranks or are otherwise ignored by researchers; such ideas should be presented only in the context of the broader field and only in articles devoted to the proponent(s) or specific to the idea. Until a significant fraction of the astrophysics community indicates doubt as to the general validity of the theory, the articles treating general relativity should not imply any such doubt.   === Use up-to-date evidence === While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid recentism, focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community. Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more important goal of reliably reflecting the current state of a field of research. These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and they may need to be relaxed for mature fields or in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published.  Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. Within this range, things can be tricky. Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently. The prominence of the publishing journal, the quality and comprehensiveness of the review, and the respectability of the authors should also be taken into account. Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source or result, the older source is dubious. For example, the articles superconductivity and List of superconductors might mention the hot-off-the-presses latest material or model found to undergo the transition, but such observations should be treated as tentative until confirmed by another research group or affirmed by a broad review of the field. More detail should be devoted to discussion supported by recent reviews.These are just rules of thumb. There are exceptions:  History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons. An older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews is notable in its own right and can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. Consider scope and focus: articles on broader topics and more mature fields should contain less primary research than articles on narrow, actively researched topics. Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making exceptional claims until the relevant community has evaluated the evidence. If a result is cited only by the research group originating the claim and ignored by the rest of the field, it should probably not be included even if present in a review authored by the group. Blogs by relevant subject matter experts may be useful in talk page evaluation of the relevance of very new results, though they should rarely be cited themselves (see below). Sometimes scientific results have or are taken to have political or social relevance. Wikipedia articles should avoid sensationalism, and should follow the relevant research community in according weight to such results. Reporting on political and social impacts and controversies is often done in separate article sections, and sometimes separate articles. Sourcing for political and social aspects and controversies is beyond the scope of this guideline, but is governed by the reliable sources content guideline.   === Use independent sources === Many scientific claims lack independent replication or confirmation of the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources can often be more readily available. Especially when writing about ideas not supported by or contradicted by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the only independent sources discussing a subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion. For example, coverage of individual perpetual motion machines should focus on their importance to the creator's biography (if notable) or actual impact (did a large company invest in the inventor? did an eminent scientist comment on the device?) rather than a detailed recapitulation of the supposed principles involved.  No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source.   === Scientific journals === Articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals are preferred for up-to-date reliable information. Scientific literature contains two major types of sources: primary publications that describe novel research for the first time, and review articles that summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall view. Journals generally publish a mix of primary and secondary sources, though some may concentrate on particular types. The line between primary and secondary sources is not always clear. In general, primary sources include descriptions of an individual experiment or a series of experiments by the same research group; secondary sources include independent review articles summarizing a line of research or rectifying apparently discordant results. It is usually best to use review articles where possible, as these give a more balanced and general perspective of a topic, and can be easier to understand. Many journals serve their community by also publishing less technical material such as biographies and obituaries. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source, not all the material is equally useful. Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies. Original research papers are primary sources; although they normally contain a review of previous works that functions as a secondary source, these sections are typically less reliable and comprehensive than reviews. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field makes a good secondary source that can be used to cover various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Such reviews typically contain no original data but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do. A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary studies meeting explicit criteria in order to answer a specific question. Such reviews should be more reliable, accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. However, systematic reviews focus on answering one or a few specific questions, so that complementing with other sources may be necessary to more broadly cover a topic. Core basic science journals include such publications as Science, Nature, and subject-specific journals published by professional associations. A listing of academic journals can be found in Category:Academic journals and its subcategories.   === Books === When using a book as a source, books should be chosen that are up-to-date and published by experts in the field. Postsecondary science textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources, though they may need to be supplemented with more recent research. If a book has students as its declared target audience, it may not be as complete as a monograph or chapter in a book intended for professionals or postgraduates. Major academic publishers and university presses publish specialized book series with good editorial oversight. Volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized encyclopedias published by such established publishers are often of good quality, but may be too terse for detailed articles. Some monographs may overemphasize the importance of the researchers or laboratory groups who authored them, without fully reflecting the views of other experts. If monographs are used as sources, they should therefore be accorded appropriate weight and checked against prevailing viewpoints in the relevant field. Popular science books can be useful tertiary sources, though information may be oversimplified or lacking in nuance or the full range of opinion in a field may not be adequately represented. Even in such cases, it may be useful to seek them out as an example of the material being presented in a fashion accessible to non-scientists. Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources.   === White and grey literature === Many organizations research, produce, and publish white papers and grey papers discussing or summarizing various aspects of a field. These papers are typically not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but may nonetheless provide accurate and accessible information. When assessing the suitability of such a source, consider the reputation of the publishing organization, the reliability and proper use of the sources cited, and how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community. The various national societies, such as the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, or the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, occasionally produce formal scientific reports, which can be as reliable as the best traditional journal papers. Public guides and service announcements have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying literature. Such organizations often contain working groups and subcommittees, which cannot be presumed to speak for the society as a whole. Government agencies and non-governmental organizations often produce reports that are internally vetted and reviewed. When using such a report as a source, consider the purpose of the organization, its reputation in the desired context, and the reception of the specific report. Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position. If such statements are necessary to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear.   === Popular press === The popular press is readily accessible and can contain valuable supplemental information of a social, biographical, current-affairs, or historical nature. However, news articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the uncertainty range of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context needed to judge experimental results. Be particularly wary of any result reported as surprising or revolutionary, which may be an indication of exaggeration or worse. Popular press articles tend to overemphasize the certainty and importance of any result, for instance presenting a new theory as overturning previous knowledge or a new technology as just around the corner. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may rely uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory. News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk or uncertainty in meaningful terms. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example with the |laysummary= parameter of {{Cite journal}}. On the other hand, the high-quality popular press can be a good resource for presenting science to a non-technical audience, and often as a source in its own right to supplement (but not supplant) the peer-reviewed literature. For example, while popular science magazines such as Scientific American, Discover, and Popular Science are not peer-reviewed, they sometimes feature articles written by experts that explain scientific subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of science ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and the general reliable sources guideline.   === Curated databases === Some scientific databases can be used as sources in their own right. Such databases need to have evidence of being A) manually curated/reviewed, i.e. not fully automated; B) by more than one expert, i.e. not a pet project of a single individual; and C) well-established, i.e. cited by others. This is separate from whether inclusion in such a database is sufficient to support notability.   === Other sources === Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources offer a broad spectrum of scientific information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. As much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the literature directly, and editors should bear in mind that a particular source may introduce a spin not present in the original paper or present a result not supported by the research. Conference abstracts are often incomplete and preliminary, and may be contradicted if and when the data are published; they should be avoided. Patents and patent applications likewise do not receive the critical review necessary for reliability in this context, and should be avoided except when the patent itself is under discussion; the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted perpetual motion patents as recently as this decade. Personal or group blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and Discover blogs host many such experts, as do more specific portals such as the public outreach and service blogs at the Large Hadron Collider blogs or the more STEM policy oriented blog hosted by the American Physical Society.  Search engines and academic databases are often used to find sources. When searching for sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available (including abstracts of papers you cannot fully access) to get a feel for expert opinion on the most important aspects of a topic. Each system has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages. It typically takes experience to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if you find useful sources, you may have missed other sources that would have been more useful, or you may find large amounts of less-than-useful material. A good strategy for avoiding sole reliance on search engines is to find a few recent high-quality sources and follow the citations backwards and forwards to see what your search engine may have missed. Limiting a general search using the key words (usually listed under a paper's abstract), or using a semantic search engine may help focus results to the relevant topic. Some resources, such as Google Scholar and Physical Review, also list the papers citing a particular paper; these results may not be comprehensive, especially tending to miss citations that are not well-formed, but the results can be useful both in finding additional sources and as a rough metric of the impact of a particular paper on the field in general. It can also be helpful to perform a plain web search rather than one of scholarly articles only.  Other useful search engines include Web of Science InfoTrac Scopus PubMed Google Scholar Google Books often offers readers a few sentences even when full access is not granted, and can help editors find reliable sources quickly, either by looking at the book's references or by citing the book itself. Check that a particular book is published by a reliable academic publishing house. arXiv is a preprint server; near-final versions of many physics and astronomy papers may be read freely, but these papers have not yet undergone peer review, and any citation should be checked against the final version. Astrophysics Data System covers astronomy and physics papers. University librarians are often aware of specialized resources, and can be exceedingly helpful when approached in a friendly and open fashion. Journals occasionally devote all or most of an issue to a particular topic or sub-field. Such issues can provide a valuable snapshot of the current state and research directions of a field.Approaching the problem from the other end, many large research organizations and funding agencies publish research highlights. These summaries can be helpful in recognizing the most important result of a piece of research or in ascertaining current research directions, though press releases should generally not be used directly.  Sometimes a paper or series of papers will be summarized by an expert in the field, usually in a research journal with a target audience of other researchers in the field. Such articles provide context for the impact of a result or relative importance of a line of research. If you have access to both the original source(s) and the summary and you find the summary helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see Formatting citations for details).   === Accessibility ===  Try to avoid citing a source having read only its abstract, as the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding what the source says. You may need to visit a university library to access the full text, or ask somebody at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or at a relevant WikiProject either to provide you with a copy or to read the source for you and summarize what it says. If neither is possible you may need to settle for using a lower-impact source or even just an abstract, with an eye to updating or replacing the text when a better or more complete source becomes available. The requirement for a fee or a subscription does not affect the reliability of a source. However, when all else is equal it is preferable to cite a source whose full text is freely readable so that readers can more easily follow the link to the source and editors can double check the content. Journals more likely to be available at a reader's local university library should also be preferred. Although most high-quality journals require a payment or subscription for access, some, such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and similarly all National Research Council reports are freely-available. Others, such as Physical Review, publish a few freely-readable articles even though most are not free; still others use delayed open access. There is a growing movement towards allowing the public ""open access"" to scientific research, particularly since much of the research is publicly-funded. Even for journals where there is no open access, the vast majority of journals allow for self-archiving of either preprints or postprints. Google Scholar can often aid in finding pre-and-postprints. Editors should always cite to the version which they actually read; if the editor can only access the preprint of a published paper, the preprint can be cited (with reliability similar to grey literature) with the citation to be eventually replaced with the final version later by someone who has it available double-checks.  A citation should document precisely how to access a source. Normally, citations should contain a digital object identifier (DOI) if available. A common practice is to supply a URL to a source if and only if full text is freely readable. Check that the URL given does not depend on a cookie on your machine or IP-based subscription access. Some journals offer free access for only a limited period after publication, so check for linkrot when updating references. WP:CHECKLINKS semi-automates this process. If the {{Cite journal}} template is used, all this information can be supplied with the |doi=, and |url= parameters, respectively. If you are citing a source along with an expert summary, it is helpful to list them together, with the main source first to indicate that it is more authoritative. For example:  Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V (2007). ""Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults"". J Dent Res. 86 (5): 410–5. doi:10.1177/154405910708600504. PMID 17452559. Summary: Yeung CA (2007). ""Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages"". Evid Based Dent. 8 (3): 72–3. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506. PMID 17891121.If a source is available in both HTML and some other form, normally the HTML form should be linked, as it is more likely to work on a wider variety of browsers. If the full text of a source is found in a location other than at the publisher's website, check that the copy does not violate copyright before linking it and be aware that the text may have been altered from the original version.  Wikipedia:Advanced source searching Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine. The Wikipedia Signpost (2008-06-30) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides § Topical academic style guides (essay) Reliable source examples in physical sciences and medicine Scientific citation guidelines Scientific standards {{SCICN}} – adds:  {{SCIRS}} – adds:  WP:UPSD, a user script which highlights potentially unreliable citations."
486	495	1091	WP:HOT	Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot	486	"Visiting this page because you have seen ""WP:HOTlist redirect"" in an edit summary? Click here for an explanation.  This is the Hot List of Encyclopedia Articles which may be missing or incomplete in Wikipedia. It was created using several encyclopedias as sources, but all decisions about what to include were made by Wikipedians. For general help and tips please see the project guidelines, blue links can be removed after they are verified, many red links may just need to be redirected. Red links for articles that are unencyclopedic and can't be satisfactorily redirected can simply be moved to the ""Unencyclopedic articles"" section at the bottom of each list.  Numbers remaining exclude items moved to the ""Suggestions for non-inclusion"" category, and are correct as of at least July 9, 2016.  Do not copy any material from linked websites (or any website): doing so would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Instead, do use the linked websites as references and for verifying blue links. The following sources were used when creating this list:  Encarta Encyclopedia Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Columbia Encyclopedia Hutchinson's Encyclopedia Weisstein's Encyclopedias of Science McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology The Computer Language Company Encyclopedia The Encyclopedia of the Orient Encyclopedia of Modern Jewish Culture . . .and othersNo single source was used in toto."
487	496	1092	WP:POVFORM	Wikipedia:Be neutral in form	487	"Articles on Wikipedia must conform to a neutral point of view, being neutral in both content and in form. Editors have had many successes in dealing with non-neutral content, by verifying facts to confirm that they are supported by reliable sources, ensuring that one viewpoint is not given undue weight and removing (or properly attributing) opinions. However, Wikipedia has greater difficulty with achieving neutrality in form, as it is not always obvious how the structure of an article can favor undue weight on a single perspective. Some forms and structures, such as the use of ""Criticism of..."" or ""Controversies regarding..."" article titles or section headings often lead to disputes over point of view (POV). This essay suggests better practices to use in their place.  The structure of an article can result in emphasizing some information more than others, which has implications for due weight. For example, information that is placed at the beginning of an article (the lead) is inherently being emphasized more than information that is placed later. The same is true for placement of information within a sentence, paragraph, or section. On the other hand, placement at the end of a paragraph or section may be interpreted as a conclusion or the ""last word"", and readers may be more likely to remember it. Information in the middle of a paragraph or section is emphasized the least, especially when the paragraph or section is long, and may even be skipped entirely by some of the readers. Since most people do not read the entire article, information earlier in the article is also more likely to be read, so earlier placement carries more weight for this reason as well. In fact, many people only read the lead, making the lead especially important for ensuring neutrality, and editors should make sure that the lead follows WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Similarly, the order of sections in an article may hold implications for the relative importance of topics. In general, placing a section earlier may imply that it is more central to the overall subject of the article. Starting with ""Definition"" or ""History"" as the first section (after the lead) is usually neutral, but starting with ""Criticism"" is usually not. Different choices of ordering within a section or paragraph may also frame certain parts as rebuttals to other parts, and any such implications should be justified by the sources. Additional forms of emphasis (which may or may not be warranted, as determined by due weight) include placing information in shorter paragraphs or image captions, where readers are more likely to notice it.   Even if the text of an article follows the NPOV guidelines, it is possible to introduce POV and bias into the headings. In some cases, articles about a famous singer or actor will have subheadings such as ""Rise to fame"", ""Increasing acclaim"" and ""International superstardom"". When one sees a sequence of subtitles like this, one wonders what is next–""Ascent to supreme glory""! In the case of the three subtitles presented previously, a neutral way of subtitling the sections of this singer or actor's article could be ""1970s"", ""1980s"" and ""1990s"". Another option could be to use neutral words that reference major structural points in the individual's life, such as ""Early career"", ""London years"" and ""Move to Los Angeles"". POV in subheadings can also be negative in tone. For example, a rock singer's article would have POV in the subheadings if they read ""Early career"", ""Criticism from music journalists"" and ""Fan backlash"".   === History sections === Organizations, governments, corporations, religions and living notable individuals are all constantly evolving and changing. When writing about a phenomenon that has changed over time, use a ""History"" section with chronological headings to present information in a neutral form. Writing about an evolving concept in sections will allow readers to understand its evolution. This includes the initial intentions and reactions to the concept, how the concept changed as it impacted the world, and the current status of the concept. This also allows periods of extreme success or failure to be presented in a historic context.  Beware of editors who are opposed to writing about an evolving concept in a chronological structure. Some may intentionally do this so that one part of history can gain undue weight over another, to present that topic in its most negative or positive light. Even if done unintentionally, failing to distinguish between historic facts and current facts will make it difficult for readers to understand how a concept has changed over time. In some cases, however, an article may be structured in a non-chronological structure for reasons that are not related to POV. For example, in the case of a celebrity who has worked professionally as a singer, actor and model, the article might have sections entitled ""Singing"", ""Acting"" and ""Modeling."" In this case, the use of a non-chronological structure is used to present the three different sides to the individual's career.  The following is a list of red flags that may help identify reasons why an article suffers from constant debate and POV-pushing. Not all red flags are indicative of a problem. This list should be taken as a way to begin a discussion, and find ways to change the fundamental form of an article to ensure a more neutral point of view.   === ""Criticism of..."" articles === ""Criticism of..."" articles inherently focus on the negative aspects of a phenomenon. By virtue of its title, praise for that same phenomenon is out of place. One man's trash is another man's treasure, but the article is inherently designed to focus on the first man's opinion to the exclusion of the other man. It makes it difficult to represent ""fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views"", in accordance with the policy on neutral point of view. ""Criticism of..."" articles may be considered to be a WP:POV fork. This is less of a problem for ""criticism of..."" sections within articles, but these may still lead to undue weight on the negative aspects of a phenomenon. Likewise, ""praise of..."" articles and sections may run into the same issues. The best way to provide context is to re-frame the article, beginning with the topic. ""Reception of..."" allows praise and criticism to be provided in context with each other. Creating an article or section about a phenomenon's reception is not meant to be a complete list of all praise and criticism, but to provide readers with a representative sample of how that phenomenon has been received.  It is typically better to add context to criticism articles than to delete them. Consider revising ""criticism"" with a proportional amount of ""praise"", or up-merging the ""criticism"" back into the main article. A related type of article or section is ones titled ""Controversies regarding..."". Where there is already an article on XYZ, creating a new article entitled ""Controversies regarding XYZ"" may be viewed as a POV fork. That said, there are some articles with this type of title, such as List of Wikipedia controversies. Creating a subsection within the article on XYZ entitled ""Controversies"" is also a potential problem, because it may still lead to undue weight on the negative aspects of the topic. In many cases, if there are noteworthy controversies that received significant and sustained media coverage during in a biographical figure's life or a company's history, these can briefly summarized in the biography or history as part of the general text.   === Articles named after loaded terminology === One way to control a debate is to control the use of language. In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the repressive government promotes ""newspeak"" as a language to control how its subjects talk about the world. In real-world politics, different parties use language to frame the parameters of the debate. This tactic of using ""loaded language"" has risen with the growing power of marketeers. A notable example of this tactic is the debate over the legalization of abortion. Supporters of legal abortion describe themselves as ""pro choice"", thus allowing them to describe their opponents as being against choice. Critics of legal abortion describe themselves as ""pro life"", thus allowing them to describe their opponents as being against life. This difficulty can be avoided by side-stepping these labels, and writing articles about ""support for the legalization of abortion"" and ""opposition to the legalization of abortion"". Wikipedia makes it a policy to avoid writing articles about neologisms and other terms invented recently. This is seldom an issue for new scientific terminology. It is more problematic for terminology popularized in the political arena, or around other public figures.  One solution would be to rename the article to a scientific term, or to use a short description to unpack the term. Another option is to merge the article about the term into a section of an article about the larger topic. If the term is sufficiently popular to write a full article about it from reliable sources, it is preferable to balance perspectives from sources that talk about the term, and avoid giving weight to sources that merely use the term.   === Sections about a short-lived controversy ===  Wikipedia articles cover controversies. However, not all controversies are covered equally, and some not at all. It is sensible to cover a controversy when someone is accused of a crime and they are convicted. It is typically reasonable to cover criminal disputes even if someone is found to be innocent, if the trial became notable to reliable journalists and scholars. But in instances where a criminal accusation is found to be completely without merit, writing about it in Wikipedia may only give undue weight to a frivolous complaint.  This is even more difficult for writing about accusations that someone notable lied or behaved inappropriately. Journalists may spend several weeks examining a debate over whether someone lied, which inevitably leads to a discussion about the magnitude of that lie, and whether they should apologize. Ten different columns in newspapers does not mean that the incident should be covered in its own section, or at all.  When writing about a topic, only write about controversies that had a lasting impact.  meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Wikipedia:Criticism Wikipedia:Don't teach the controversy (that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means) Wikipedia:List of controversial issues Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Accusations Wikipedia:Pro and con lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch Help:Talkspace draft"
488	497	1095	WP:TDYK	Template talk:Did you know	488	"This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the ""Did you know"" section on the Main Page with a ""hook"" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page,  it.   === Frequently asked questions === How do I write an interesting hook? Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook. When will my nomination be reviewed? This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below). Where is my hook? If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas,  promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page. If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.  Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide. To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:  Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on. Click the ""Review or comment"" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage. The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria. To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :*  showing you where you should put the comment. Save the page. After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.   === How to promote an accepted hook ===  Handy copy sources: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]   === How to remove a rejected hook === Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.) In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.   === How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue === Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it. Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section). View the edit history for that page Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again. Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue. Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page. If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.   === How to move a nomination subpage to a new name === Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.   = Nominations =   === Articles created/expanded on January 3 ===   ==== Buchanan's Station ====  ALT0 ... that an overloaded blunderbuss that exploded when fired was mistaken for a canon and scared the 300+ Indian attackers at Buchanan's Station (pictured), into retreat? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022 ALT1: ... that 15-20 sharpshooters at Buchanan's Station (pictured), withstood an attack by a Native American confederation of over 300 warriors, including Tecumseh? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Loophonium Comment: QPQ  DoneCreated by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC).  Proposing new ALT hooks: ALT2: ... that 15 gunmen repelled an attack by hundreds of Chickamauga Cherokee, Creek, and Shawnee warriors during the Battle of Buchanan’s Station? ALT3: ... that Sally Buchanan was called “the greatest heroine of the West” for distributing ammunition during the Battle of Buchanan’s Station? ALT4: ... that Sally Buchanan was said to have carried bullets in her apron and distributed whiskey while singing during the Battle of Buchanan's Station? ALT4a: ... that heavily pregnant Sally Buchanan was said to have carried bullets in her apron and distributed whiskey while singing during the Battle of Buchanan's Station? Needs a full review in light of significant changes to the article, plus new ALT hooks. Hooks might need workshopping, etc., but article itself is now in much better shape. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)I'll take on the re-review here.  Skimmed the article content, which looks fine (although I'd recommend avoiding the use of ""Indian"" and going with ""Native American"" instead).  Hooks look fine from a first glance. QPQ is done.  My primary concern at the moment is that HMDB is not a reliable source.  A bit more to follow - will perform some basic source-text and copyvio checks this evening. Hog Farm  Talk 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Thanks Hog Farm. I am the one who swapped in HMDB, mainly to swap this blogspot photo as a source, which seemed far worse. The point is that the historical marker itself was being referenced as a source, and as we all know, they aren't always correct, so I'll search for a better source and replace it. I think I've now mostly removed the few instances of Indian but left Northwest Indian Wars. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @GenQuest and Hog Farm: I have now removed the entire section referring to the Buchanan Log House, which had nothing to do with Buchanan's Station. The Buchanan Log House, referred to in the historical marker, was built by James Buchanan, son of Archibald and Agnes Buchanan of Clover Bottom – not Major John Buchanan of Buchanan's Station. See the Buchanan Log House website under ""Myths & Mysteries"". Cielquiparle (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @GenQuest and Cielquiparle: - I'm having some trouble figuring out how the citations align. ""John Buchanan first came to the Washington District in early 1780, settling in the vicinity of Fort Nashboro. Buchanan left Fort Nashboro with a large party in the spring of 1784 [...] . It was situated between Mill Creek and what later became the Buchanan Mill Road"" is apparently sourced to ""Buchanan’s Station and Cemetery; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022"", but I'm not finding any reference to the Washington District, Fort Nashboro, or Buchanan Mill Road on that webpage?  I'm not entirely for sure what DYK's stance on source-text integrity is, but after WP:DCGAR I've been trying to spot-check everything I review. Pinging Theleekycauldron as the resident rules expert. Hog Farm  Talk 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Hog Farm: all of the facts mentioned in the hook need to be sourced at the end of the sentence in their respective places in (at least one if there are multiple) the bolded article – that sourcing needs to be checked and verified to make sure the hook is accurate. By all means, please get any discrepancies cleared up :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I will fix it. I was trying not to rewrite the entire article, so I focused on the Battle section and added ""Early hostilities"" which already seemed like a lot, but given all the issues, I can fix the rest too. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 4 ===   ==== Northeastern Army ====  ... that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) to convince him to join the Second United Front? Source: Pages 150-169 in Itoh, Mayumi (3 October 2016). The Making of China's War with Japan: Zhou Enlai and Zhang Xueliang. Springer. ISBN 978-981-10-0494-0. Reviewed:5x expanded by SilverStar54 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC).  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - n Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YOverall:  @SilverStar54: Good article. However  ""In early 1927, the forces of the NPA engaged the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) in Henan and Jiangsu."" Needs a citation ""and on 17 October, Yu Zhishan surrendered Eastern Liaoning to the Japanese."" Needs a citation Other notable commanders list should probably be cited.If you can fix that then I'll pass. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)  Hopefully this is the right spot to respond (first time in the DYK process), but thank you for the quick review. I've revised the article to add sources (or remove unsourced material) where you requested. Let me know if there's any further steps I should take. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)  Forgot to promote. Hope to see more expansions about the warlord era. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC) @SilverStar54:  could you point as to where in the article we're going with ""kidnapping"", rather than detainment? Also, where could I find the bit about convincing him to join the second united front? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: I feel that either term could be used to describe the events, I chose ""kidnapping"" just because it's more eye-catching for a hook. Do you feel like that's too much of a creative liberty? About the Second United Front, thank you for pointing that out. I describe it, but I never actually included a link to the Second United Front in that section (fixed now). It's what I'm describing in these two sentences: ""By the end of the negotiations, Chiang had verbally promised to end the civil war, to resist the Japanese together, and to invite Zhou to Nanjing for further talks. Although he publicly renounced his promises after being released, he quietly followed through on them over the following months."" I think that more detail about the Second United Front would be tangential to the article, but I could add more about the negotiations. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC) @SilverStar54: I'd say that ""kidnapping"" probably has connotations we couldn't back up, but I could be wrong. When you say ""join the Second United Front"", you don't mean as a card-carrying member? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: I guess I feel that ""kidnapping"" connotates illegally seizing a person, whereas ""detaining"" implies a legal or official action, such as by the police. This was done by an army, but their actions were perceived as illegal (at least by the Nanjing government). Perhaps ""took hostage"" works better? I'm a bit confused by what you mean by ""as a card-carrying member"". The Second United Front wasn't a political party that you could be a member of, it was just an alliance between the CCP and the KMT to resist the Japanese. Chiang  denied that he was bound by his verbal promise to create such an alliance after he was released, but gradually eased hostilities and eventually did sign an official alliance with the Communists after six months of continued negotiations. For political reasons the KMT framed this as a ""surrender"" by the CCP, but in reality it was an alliance. I'll try to rewrite that section to make it more clear. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Any updates on this one? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Not sure if they want any changes or not. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC) @SilverStar54: the clarifying changes for that section would be welcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Just made some more edits. Please take a look at my most recent revision and let me know what parts still need more detail or clarification. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) @SilverStar54: forgive me, my head's been swimming recently – could you point me to the sentences in the article that support the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: The section on the Xi'an Incident, specifically the second paragraph: ""In November 1936, Zhang asked Chiang to come to Xi'an to raise the morale of troops unwilling to fight the Communists. When he arrived, Northeastern soldiers overwhelmed his bodyguard and placed him under house arrest. A faction of the army led by Yang Hucheng and the radical young officers of the ""Anti-Japanese Comrade Society"" wanted to execute Chiang, but Zhang and the Communists insisted that he be kept alive and convinced to change his policy towards Japan and the Communists. They argued that an alliance with Chiang was their best chance to combat the Japanese, while killing him would only provoke retaliation from the Nanjing Government. The Northeastern Army attempted to broadcast 8 demands to the Chinese public explaining why they arrested Chiang and the conditions for his release, but Nationalist censorship prevented their publication outside the Communist-held areas. Nonetheless, Chiang eventually agreed to negotiate with CCP diplomats Zhou Enlai and Lin Boqu. By late December Chiang had given a verbal promise that he would end the civil war and resist Japanese aggression."" As explained in the following paragraph, the alliance between the Communists and Nationalists against the Japanese became known as the Second United Front. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Hmm, okay. What about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ALT0a: ... that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army captured Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) to convince him to help them fight the Japanese? (edited) At first this looked good to me but I didn't realize you had also edited the second part of the sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but ""...to help them fight the Japanese"" is both misleading and missing a big part of the story. It's misleading because ""help"" implies that the Northeastern Army is Chiang's ally, when in fact they were part of his army (is the head of state ""helping"" part of his army fight a war by declaring it?). It's also missing the critical demand that Chiang fight the Japanese by working with the Communists.SilverStar54 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Fair enough, but where in the paragraph does it actually say that they wanted to convince Chiang to join the Second United Front? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) As I mentioned, the words ""Second United Front"" don't appear until the following paragraph: ""Chiang was released on 26 December and returned to Nanjing with Zhang Xueliang. [...] Chiang did eventually keep his promise to the CCP. After six months of continued negotiations, he signed a formal agreement creating the Second United Front, a military alliance of the Communists and Nationalists against Japan."" SilverStar54 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Gotcha, so is the originally hook accurate if the Second United Front didn't exist yet? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC) How about ""that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army took Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) hostage to convince him to form the Second United Front?"" SilverStar54 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 15 ===   ==== Sujudi ====  ... that in 1996, Indonesian health minister Sujudi called the government's campaign to promote condom use as ""culturally unacceptable""? Source: Indonesia 'risks huge surge in Aids orphans' Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Volin Comment: Special thanks to Juxlos for suggesting this hook off-wiki.Moved to mainspace by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 06:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC).   The article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found in spotchecks (most are non-English anyway). QPQ is done. However, the hook as it stands will not work, it attributes a direct quote that is both a different wording to the one in the source, and which the source does not note as a direct quote. CMD (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) @Chipmunkdavis: how about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC) ALT0a: ... that Indonesian health minister Sujudi objected to the government's campaign to promote condom use? ""rejected"" a ""proposed plan"" might work. CMD (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Jeromi Mikhael? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) I think ALT0a is ok. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC) CMD, are there any more issues? Is this ready? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Alt0a is as written incorrect. A reformulation may work but I don't think I should do that myself as the reviewer. CMD (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC) @Chipmunkdavis: I'm not sure what you mean; nothing I can see in the Guardian piece explicitly says that Sujudi used his government authority to kill the plan. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The way I interpret the Guardian article aligns with the article text, ""There were suggestions to initiate a government campaign of condom usage"", rather than there being a plan. I did a bit of digging, the information seems quite vague, but this source says that while there was a official position on condoms as early as 1996 among the health department it was not something that was really implemented. CMD (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 17 ===   ==== Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma ====  ... that in 2001, six University of Indonesia students successfully sued rector Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma after they were suspended for leading a protest against the rector's tuition fee policy? Source: UI students sue rector over suspensions, Court annuls rector's suspension decision Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Noble MaillardCreated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC).  @Jeromi Mikhael: I've struck ALT0, as I believe it falls afoul of DYK's rule on articles and hooks covering living persons. I think another hook will need to be proposed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Any explanation on which clause do I violate with this hook? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) From WP:DYK#gen4a: Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) @Jeromi Mikhael: can another hook be provided, so that a reviewer can chime in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC) ALT1: ... that former rector Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would sometimes use train to commute the campus in order to listen in  criticisms about the campus? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: How about this? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Jeromi Mikhael, QPQs must be provided no later than 7 days after submitting a nomination; it's been 25 days. Please complete your QPQ right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC) @BlueMoonset: I've added a QPQ for the nomination. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)  ALT1 looks passable; article will need a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC) @Jeromi Mikhael and Theleekycauldron: ALT1 seems a bit redundant since it mentions ""campus"" twice. How about this alternative wording?ALT2 ... that when he was rector of the University of Indonesia, Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would commute via public transportation to the campus to listen to criticisms about the school? I changed ""train"" to ""public transportation"" as the article doesn't specifically mention trains. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Review coming.  New enough, long enough, neutral and appears well cited (mostly in Indonesian). Copyedited as I read, but a few minor remaining questions for @Jeromi Mikhael: Is it appropriate to link ""undergraduate medical degree"" to Medical degree? Should ""academician"" (3x) be changed to ""administrator""? What happened after the suspension saga - it seems unresolved? Added back the mention of train, so my preference for hook (also restoring ""sometimes"") would be: ALT2a ... that when he was the rector of the University of Indonesia, Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would sometimes take the train to the campus to overhear criticism of the school? Very close to approval. AGF on the since-deleted QPQ. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 20 ===   ==== Star Control ====  ... that Paul Reiche and Fred Ford created the 1990 space game Star Control by adapting the action-strategy gameplay from Reiche's 1983 game Archon into a science fiction setting? Source: ""I wanna mention that, and it was obvious to us, because we intended it that way, but ""Starchon"" is really ""Archon"" with an S-T in front of it. ""Archon"" being a strategy game on top of a one-on-one combat game and that's what ""Star Control I"" was.""[1]""The first Star Control is actually somewhat similar in concept to one of Reiche III and Ford’s earlier games, Archon, in that it’s a strategy game where conflict is resolved via action-based one-on-one combat. (It could even be termed a spiritual successor, given that it’s even in the title – “StAR CONtrol”.)""[2]  Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cherry ValentineImproved to Good Article status by Shooterwalker (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC).  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: ?Overall:  Excellent work improving the article to GA status. QPQ done. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is the ALT, which is not immediately enticing to somebody unfamiliar with the subject or its creators. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)  I'm open minded. I've done a few of these and I was starting to feel a little repetitive with ""did you know that this was considered one of the best games because...?"" I figured I would try to link it to another historic game, but I can see how that might be inaccessible to someone who isn't into games. Let me know what you think, and I'll come up with something either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Giving @CurryTime7-24: a ping. I'm good to keep working on this, depending on your feedback. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Very sorry for leaving you hanging, my friend. Let me jump back into this DYK tomorrow. Been slammed with work, but things are lightening up again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)@Shooterwalker: The article itself is tip-top. I just think the hook is a little staid and wouldn't be rewarding for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I would offer my own ALTs, but don't want to disqualify myself as reviewer by doing so. That said, there is a lot of material in this article that could be mined for appealing ALTs. For example, this passage alone seems like it could generate two very effective ALTs: ""When they saw that the Syreen ship resembled a cross between a rocket ship and a ribbed condom, Fred Ford suggested calling it the Syreen Penetrator, which coincidentally happened moments before the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake.""  —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)ALT1: ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before an earthquake? I liked your suggestion, and I wanted to get the phrasing right. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Sorry for being MIA again. Was out of town, then got caught up in other articles I've been working on. Your revised ALT is better, but it still needs a bit of work. I would trim down the overlinking of well-known things and maybe remove the reference to the Loma Prieta quake. Ideally the ALT would focus either on the unusual appearance of the starship or the timing of its naming, but not both as it might be a bit much. Feel free to ping me. I'll be able to respond in a timelier fashion now that I have more time. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC) ALT2 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom? ALT3 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control named a starship the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake? @CurryTime7-24: Having trouble deciding so I gave each one a try. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)  @Shooterwalker: Both ALTs are wonderful! Thank you for your patience with me and for your excellent work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)  This needs more work, as I've checked the sources cited in the article, and they do not exactly verify the specific claims made in ALT2 and ALT3 (and in the sentences where they are cited in the article). Pinging CurryTime7-24. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 25 ===   ==== Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra ====  ... that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra was founded at İzmir in 2015 after an example in Venezuela to educate music for children with limited opportunities and to keep them away from crime? Source: ""İzmir'de dar gelirli ailelerin çocuklarının suçtan uzak kalmasını sağlamak amacıyla 2015'te ilk adımları atılan Barış Çocuk Senfoni Orkestrası ..."" , ""Venezuela'nın başkenti Karacas'ın dezavantajlı bölgelerinde yürütülen ""El Sistema"" projesini örnek aldıklarını ..."" (in Turkish) [3] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James DanandjajaCreated by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.   I have concerns.  First off, usual disclaimer that Wikipedia's coverage of ""local"" topics can be woefully lacking, especially local topics in areas without much English-language media.  So your work expanding that area is genuinely appreciated.  That said... I don't know Turkish.  However, some of this article doesn't seem to be accurate or proportionate interpretations of the sources.  For example, Kadifekale is linked, and nom added a section to that article on the youth orchestra.  But the Wikipedia article and the newspaper source are obviously not talking about the same thing - the Wikipedia article is talking about a historic ruined castle, while the newspaper article seems to refer to it as a troubled neighborhood.  I recognize that the neighborhood is probably named after the castle (or they're both named after the same thing), but the point remains, it's off-topic.  The same is true of Agora of Smyrna, where the linked article is a heritage site and not a neighborhood.  But more generally, even if there was a neighborhood to link, it's literally one word in the sourced newspaper article, with no context or explanations.  I don't think it's due weight to copy it over here.  More generally, I'm inclined to think that this article is much too long.  It's including trivial details like specific grants from the webpage of a non-profit (Sivil Toplum Destek Vakfi), which just isn't Wikipedia-relevant: we should be using secondary sources.  Most of the newspaper articles are short and inconsequential.  The longest newspaper article is still a bit of a ""culture beat"" filler-type article about some local organization, and while I'm not one of them, certainly some Wikipedians would probably call this a WP:NOTNEWS violation for expanding a common newspaper story into a Wikipedia article.  I'm not saying the article should go to AFD, but I do think if cleaned up, the article would be 4 sentences long, and essentially say that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is a local orchestra in Izmir, skipping out on all the news/PR type material.  Such a cleaned-up article would then fail DYK length requirements.  I'm inclined to think that the article needs some more substantive sources than what it has currently to qualify on grounds of verifiability and length.  (But happy to help if such sources are found!)  SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Also, the ALT is too unfocused currently, but the article issues are more important.  I would suggest something more cutting and to the point if we're highlighting the surprise of Turkey-Venezuela cross-pollination, if the article ends up in shape to go to DYK after all: ALT1: ... that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra in Turkey is inspired by a similar music program in Venezuela? Nonsense! CeeGee 07:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC) @CeeGee: what makes you say that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)theleekycauldron The point is that for the founding of the orchestra in Turkey, the example in Venezuela has been taken, where children are kept away from crime through music. The military music is irrelevant. I don't know how do you come on this argument. CeeGee 05:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC).Shorter hooks are more memorable.  The part about keeping kids away from crime is the feel-good ""meal"" for people who click the article to read it.  The DYK hook is just the interesting part, it's a teaser, and the closest to a teaser is an interesting juxtaposition between Venezuela & Turkey.  The less distracting parts, the better. If someone else wants to review the DYK, they're free too - I made some minor edits for clarity and concision.  I would probably cut it down even further if I full followed my preferences per above, but tried to keep it to non-controversial stuff.  SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)SnowFire I appreciate very much your edits in the article. However, I don't agree with the Alt-hook at all. If you wish to transfer the DYK-nom to someone else, you can use the ""DYK?again"" tick. CeeGee 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) As it stands, SnowFire, this nomination is marked for closure. Are the issues irreparably prohibitive for DYK purposes? Iff so, CeeGee, do you agree? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)  In my opinion this is still too minor for DYK but then I believe that DYK should have somewhat stricter standards than others.  That said, I'll let someone else take a fresh look if desired. On the hook comment, I still believe my ALT1 is better than the original hook if there's a desire to run this after all.  I get it that it doesn't include the ""keep kids away from crime"" part but DYK hooks have to be interesting and ""punchy"".  The content of the article will fill readers in on the crime-prevention aspect.  Concise hooks are also much better than long ones, so restricting to the one, most interesting thing helps. SnowFire (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC) @CeeGee: I have now read this article and tend to agree that it is missing a little ""something"" that would make it more compelling for DYK purposes. As a regular at both DYK and AfD, I would say it probably would survive AfD, but the article as it stands now would still trigger a lot of people with a similar reaction to SnowFire (e.g. ""Lots of places have music programs for underprivileged children...what is so special about this one?"" and ""This is so local!""). That said, if there is any secondary source commenting on the significance of the program (e.g. ""compared to other similar programs in other countries, Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is distinctive because X, Y and Z"" or ""what is striking about Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is ABC"") we could possibly refer to that in the hook and/or in the article. But at the moment it feels a bit thin. I know it's disappointing, but unfortunately not every single article we work on is suitable for DYK, even if it is for a noble cause. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 27 ===   ==== Untitled Goose Game ====  ... that the idea for Untitled Goose Game came from a stock photo of a goose posted into the developer's internal communications? Source: Tweet by a lead developer at the game developer, House House: https://twitter.com/mjmcmaster/status/763596145452912640 ALT1: ... that the Untitled Goose Game was not originally meant to have music, but they changed their mind after the trailer received praise for using Debussy's prelude Minstrels in a ""reactive"" way? Source: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/358217/Road_to_the_IGF_House_Houses_Untitled_Goose_Game.php ALT2: ... that the developers of the Untitled Goose Game used the targeted mission structure of the Hitman games because, ""By removing the violence from it, we just let the situations exist as a joke,""? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49852317 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde White HarteImproved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Untitled Goose Game, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Added italics in ALT1, changed the link in ALT2 from Hitman to Hitman (franchise).  GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - not for the first hook. Interesting: YOverall:  @MyCatIsAChonk: Good article. But I'm not seeing the first hook be supported by the source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke: The lead section is not cited, but the fact is mentioned down in under ""Development and release"": The game originated from a stock photograph of a goose that an employee posted in the company's internal communications, which sparked a conversation about geese. The citation is for a Tweet from the lead game dev at House House (the company that made Untitled Goose Game).  @Onegreatjoke: Are there any other changes you'd like me to make? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Since the previous reviewer hasn't responded for a few days, I'm going to give it the holy tick.  I prefer the ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC) @BorgQueen: Now that I think about it, this has some seriously good potential for an April Fools hook. If it's not too late in the game, here are some proposals: ALT3: ... that geese make good protagonists? Source and context: The protagonist of the game is a goose; the idea came from a stock photo of a goose posted in the game dev's Slack chat. Source is a Tweet by a dev at the company: https://twitter.com/mjmcmaster/status/763596145452912640. ALT4: ... that Debussy is still hip? Source and context: The music in the game is derived from a Debussy prelude. Verge article: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/23/20879792/untitled-goose-game-nintendo-switch-debussy ALT5: ... that geese can be hitmen too? Source and context: One of the games that was used as inspiration was the Hitman franchise for its targeted-mission style (as shown in the original ALTs). Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49852317 An image of a goose would make sense for 3 nd 5 (here's some possibilities: one and two). If it's not too late, I think this would be really great. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Amusing, sure, if you're willing to wait until April. BorgQueen (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC) @BorgQueen: Would you mind moving it to the April Fools page? Is there a specific way I should do it? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)@Cielquiparle and Theleekycauldron: What do you guys think? BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC) @BorgQueen: we have lots of leeway on April Fools' Day for hooks, but stating jokes or quotes in wikivoice isn't usually something we screw around with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Respectfully, I don't feel that any of the April Fools' ALTs are twisting quotes; the only one that could possibly be close to that is ALT5, but that's a generalized statement in the article, not a quote. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC) The issue isn't that we're twisting the quote, MyCatIsAChonk, it's that we're repeating a quote without saying it's a quote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) hey, my apologies for being curt. I was frustrated about something in the meatspace, and it's totally not fair that I radiated that out here. if we could find another quirky part of such a funky game, that'd be great :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: It's all good; I've struck through the ALT0 through ALT2 because they're not April Fools' hooks, and ALT5 because of the quote issue. ALT3 and ALT4 are spinning the nature of the game. Personally, I prefer ALT4, but I do realize that it's less about the game and more about the music of it. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC) @MyCatIsAChonk: don't ALTs 3 and 4 also express opinions in wikivoice? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: In my opinion, ""Debussy is still hip"" is not a very wikivoice-like statement. Though, I do understand how ALT3 is, so I struck through it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) MyCatIsAChonk, thanks for striking ALT3. Could you explain how ALT4 doesn't express an opinion? (By default, a statement is made in wikivoice unless we attribute it to someone else). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)  @Theleekycauldron: Comparing it to the criteria under WP:VOICE, ALT4 is not an opinion (while I don't consider it a fact, I believe it's a rephrasing of a fact, the fact being that Debussy's music is still used today), it's not seriously contested, it's not a definite fact, not judgmental, and doesn't give undue weight to something. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)  This DYK nomination needs a hook that can get approved. Not too late for April Fool's Day consideration but it has to pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Is there anything else you think should be changed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I think ""hip"" means ""cool""/""trendy"" more than it means ""current"", the latter being more tonally charged. So, unfortunately, I stand by my dissatisfaction with ALT4 unfortunately, but let me see if I can't scare up a hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC) This is really tortured, but:ALT5: ... that the ganders taken at Untitled Goose Game were mostly positive?I think this would be a standard quirky hook, rather than an AFDay. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: At this point I'd just like it to get on the main page, so yeah, that's good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 29 ===   ==== Lovely's Purchase ====  ... that President James Monroe had promised an exclusive ""... gateway to the setting sun ... where they were not surrounded by the White man"" to the eastern Cherokee that resulted in the creation of Lovely's Purchase? Source: Gabler, Ina (1960). ""Lovely's Purchase and Lovely County"". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (1): 31–39. doi:10.2307/40038035. ISSN 0004-1823. JSTOR 40038035. ALT1: ... that Lovely's Purchase, set in the early Arkansaw Territory, was created as a buffer zone to separate the adversarial Cherokee and Osage Indian Nations? Source: ""Encyclopedia of Arkansas"". Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Retrieved 2023-01-23. ""Osage territory passed to Cherokees through Lovely's Purchase"". Muskogee Phoenix. Retrieved 2023-01-23. ALT2: ... that President James Monroe had promised the Cherokee tribes an exclusive ""... gateway to the setting sun ... where they were not surrounded by the White man"" that resulted in the creation of Lovely's Purchase in what is today Oklahoma and Arkansas? Source: Gabler, Ina (1960). ""Lovely's Purchase and Lovely County"". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (1): 31–39. doi:10.2307/40038035. ISSN 0004-1823. JSTOR 40038035. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Niue NukutulueaCreated by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 15:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lovely's Purchase, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - Where is hook 1? See comments below. GenQuest ""scribble""Overall:  @GenQuest: Good article, but I can't seem to find the first hook anywhere in the article.  Onegreatjoke: See first sentence in the ""Background"" sub-section. GenQuest ""scribble"" 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC) I see Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)  I added and additional ALT that I think reads better than the first. GenQuest ""scribble"" 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @GenQuest: I wanted to promote this but was wondering why the last sentence of the ""Major Lovely"" paragraph didn't have a citation...thought it was probably an easy fix...then found that I can't seem to find a source referring to Lovely's multi-step purchase starting in 1813? I don't doubt that it exists somewhere, but I'm not seeing it in the Agnew article, in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, or Muskogee Phoenix. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: I fixed the confusion and mixed-up dates. Thanks for pointing it out. GenQuest ""scribble"" 21:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Status please? GenQuest ""scribble"" 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)GenQuest I haven't had a chance to re-review the article line by line, as that would take some time, but I haven't blocked it from being promoted either, so if it looks ok to another editor, it could still get promoted by someone else in the meantime. (Regardless, it generally takes a long time for hooks to get promoted, unless the hook is so amazing that everyone is clamoring to promote it first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Request for Second Opinion: Pinging: Flibirigit, or Onegreatjoke, or Aoidh, or Narutolovehinata5, or Muboshgu. I believe these articles (see Buchanan's Station; Template:Did you know nominations/Buchanan's Station as well) are well beyond the threshold for DYK criteria and advancement, and are being held to a much higher standard than necessary: this is not a Good Article review.  They have been held up long enough, and I can't keep spending my limited editing time jumping through moving hoops on either of them.  Can someone please pass them?  Thanks, GenQuest ""scribble"" 20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC) My general feeling is that this article is in better shape than the other one (on Buchanan's Station), following the fixes mentioned above which hopefully resolved the failed verification and missing citation issues. I would also appreciate another reviewer to look at this closely, and provide a green tick mark if it looks ok. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 30 ===   ==== Airis Computer ====  ... that Airis Computer Corporation designed their 1991 laptop with the ability to have its BIOS updated via a modem connection? Source: ""For Chicago-based Airis, the bright idea is TeleROM, says Steve Valentor, engineering vice president. All Airis computers have built-in modems, and by combining that capability with a bank of flash memory that stores system BIOS, Airis can offer users a highly desired feature: instantly updatable BIOS. Simply by dialing into Airis's bulletin board, users will be able to update their BIOS for a nominal charge"" (Shandle 1990). Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/HixxyCreated by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Airis Computer, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.   @DigitalIceAge: Firstly, it's been a week since the nomination, so a QPQ must be provided as soon as possible for the nomination to pass. Secondly, the hook seems to require specialist knowledge: it requires readers to know that modem connections and computer updates via such technologies was still new in 1991. Maybe something less specialist can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC) @Narutolovehinata5: Apologies for the absence of QPQ, got majorly sidetracked on here. Perhaps: ALT1: ... that the president of Airis Computer Corporation was previously the head of a chain of picture-framing stores? ALT2: ... that Airis Computer's 1991 laptop could have been powered with 10 C batteries as an alternative to a rechargeable pack? DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I suppose ALT1 works (ALT2 is also a decent hook but I think ALT1 is more unusual). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I do have a minor concern with the article: maybe the sentence The product was met with a number of delays, and Airis fizzled before the company could sell many (or any) units of the laptop. can be rewritten? I'm not sure if ""fizzled"" is an encyclopedic term, and so is the use of ""(or any)"". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Replaced fizzled with dissolved and removed parentheses. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Thank you. However, now that I think about it, I wounder if that part should be rewritten entirely; rereading the article, the claim that none were sold was never confirmed, but a claim by two separate publications. Maybe the lede should be modified to reflect that it was a claim? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Not sure if MOS:CLAIM applies or not, but I have reworded the last couple of sentences in the lede to reflect the uncertainty. Thanks for the suggestion @Narutolovehinata5:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks. That part just needs a few minor grammar-related copyedits and this will be ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Full review needed; if grammar-related copyedits are still needed, they can be noted as part of the full review. Ping to nominator DigitalIceAge. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC) While the article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done, and while ALT1 (my preferred hook) is cited inline (and verified in the sources), I do have some concerns with the article. Apart from the earlier-mentioned need for a copyedit, I also note that the claim that the company folded in 1993 is only mentioned in the lede and the infobox, and is not mentioned in the body. It also lacks a reference. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks again for the review @Narutolovehinata5: I have given the article a copyedit and removed the semicolon between the clauses of the hook fact sentence to make it directly cited. I also tweaked the wording wrt the defunct date to be less definitive. Let me know if any other tweaks need to be made. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC) The 1993 date still needs to be mentioned in the body, preferably with a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC) @Narutolovehinata5: Found a source that confirms the 1993 date of defunctness, now included in the body. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water ====  ... that It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water explores the theme of water and was inspired by Phil Elverum's visits to the ocean? [4] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/30 West 44th StreetImproved to Good Article status by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment am the article's author. The original hook was factually incorrect, so I've substituted it above. Please add more if you'd like, @Onegreatjoke:. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)  Reviewing... Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: ?Overall:  @Onegreatjoke: Article promoted to GA on Jan 30 and nominated on Feb 4. It is long enough and everything is backed by sources. Hook meets the length requirement, it is interesting and cited in the article. QPQ done. Copyvio is a bit too high at 48.7%, I'd recommend trimming down Elverum's quotes from the KEXP source. Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)   Not done. What's the point of chasing an arbitrary number when it doesn't reflect the true state of the article? Most of the ""flagged"" passages on Earwig are just the album title. There are a handful of quotes I used, (which are properly shown as quotes and clearly not copyvio) but I don't think anything I did is violating a Wikipedia policy; point me to one if I'm wrong. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC) @PerfectSoundWhatever: Apologies for not pinging you as well! This isn't a policy violation as you indicated that the quotes are directly coming from Elverum. I did notice that the album title appears four times, however I still think that some of the quotes could be paraphrased as copyvio flags the source as being in the yellow area. Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)@Sebbirrrr: Can you look at this again because it doesn't really look like there's any copyvio issues anymore. Most copyvio flags are just names of the album and a place. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on January 31 ===   ==== Powell Marsh Wildlife Area ====  ... that water control structures built in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area introduced iron floc to a downstream lake? Source: https://www.wxpr.org/news/2021-09-23/the-fight-continues-slimy-water-dam-disagreements-and-politics-on-dead-pike-lake ALT1: ... that the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area is partially managed by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa? Source: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Fishing/ceded ALT2: ... that water control structures built in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area polluted a downstream lake? Source: https://www.wxpr.org/news/2021-09-23/the-fight-continues-slimy-water-dam-disagreements-and-politics-on-dead-pike-lake Reviewed: Comment: The image caption can probably be changed to something that fits better. I also prefer the first hook, but I am sure there is a better way to word it.Created by Heeps of Wiki (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Powell Marsh Wildlife Area, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Full review to follow, but I'm not really a fan of either hook. The second just isn't intriguing in a ""hooky"" way, while the first hook seems a bit technical; in particular, it mentions ""flocs"", which is a term readers may not know. Perhaps different hooks can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)I agree that the second hook is not the best, perhaps the third one is a bit better? I think it's a bit less technical and gets the point across in a hookier way. Thank you for your time. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC) ALT2 is okay, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the article? The water becoming polluted that is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC) @Heeps of Wiki: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Apologies for the late response, I didn't get a ping for this page for some reason. In the referenced article, there is this quote: Lake proponents say the water pressure in the manufactured wetland forces groundwater, rich in iron, into Dead Pike Lake. Rip out the infrastructure, return the marsh to its natural form, and Dead Pike Lake will be saved, they say. “This lake represents an opportunity for people to get a sense of what a pristine northern Wisconsin lake still can look like. But they’re polluting it,” said Wolf. “Our own Department of Natural Resources has contributed significantly to environmental damage and to the loss of property rights for the citizenry that’s here.” Heeps of Wiki (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Thank you, but the article doesn't seem to have been edited in a while and my original concern remains unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) The article hasn't been updated in a while because I am not sure what to fix. I misconstrued your earlier comment which asked where the statement was in the article, I assumed you meant in the reference. But either way, in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area article, there is prose in the Dead Pike Lake section that I feel adequately mentions the polluting of the water, and the source of said pollution. If this does not assuage your concerns, let me know how I can best rectify the problem. I would also love to hear some other feedback for the article. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Oh I apologize for that. I got confused by the article since I was looking for which downstream lake exactly was being polluted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) All good, do you think it would be helpful to name the lake being polluted? I wasn't sure if I should as I wanted to try to be concise. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== North Carolina Council of State ====  ... that the North Carolina Council of State is the collective body of 10 elective offices of the executive branch of the government of North Carolina including the Governor? Source: In the article ALT1: ... that the North Carolina Council of State is a holdover from the 1700s Province of North Carolina and includes 10 elective offices including the Governor? Source: North Carolina's ""first constitution, ratified in December (1776), provided for a Council of State"" [5] North Carolina Manual 2011, pp. 137–138 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard RwehururuImproved to Good Article status by Indy beetle (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/North Carolina Council of State, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Began reviewing for DYKgood article on January 31, 2023, 8179 characters (1289 words) ""readable prose size"", 29 references cited inline, Earwig stated that copyvios were unlikely; primarily multi-word phrases which aren't a problem. Hook is NOT interesting,  which is a primary requirement for DYK. Added alt1 hook; asked nominator to approve or supply their own.  QPQ was Bernard Rwehururu.   Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgreason (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2023 February 14 (UTC)  Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)   Adding query tag as ALT1 needs to be independently approved. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Actually, this needs a new reviewer to approve ALT1. I have adjusted the DYK checklist to reflect the fact that the original hook was not considered to be interesting, and changed the status therein accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think ""holdover"" is really a great way to describe the Council of State as it relates to history. Sure, the body originated in colonial governance (as did the office of governor and the office of secretary of state) but to call it a mere holdover I think dismisses it in a way I don't think accurately reflects what the sources say about this body. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)ATL2 ... that Elaine Marshall is the first woman elected to the North Carolina Council of State in its 246-year existence?  source — Maile  (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== The Crew Motorfest ====  ... that The Crew Motorfest takes place in Oʻahu, the same place as the first two Test Drive Unlimited games which were previously worked on by some of the same developers? Source: [6] and [7] Reviewed: Comment: If someone has any idea to word the hook better then feel free to tell me. Also, I'm including DecafPotato as an additional author since they helped me write a decent amount of this article.Created by Blaze Wolf (talk) and DecafPotato (talk). Nominated by Blaze Wolf (talk) at 15:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Crew Motorfest, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Newly created article about a video game. The article is long enough and sourced throughout. ALT0 is a bit confusing but makes sense when reading the article. It would have to be reworded to indicate what Ivory Tower is. I guess, instead of which were previously worked on by the director of Ivory Tower?, say which were previously worked on by the some of the same developers? QPQ is not needed as Blaze Wolf and DecafPotato have three DYK credits combined between them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) @Muboshgu: I like that. Sounds much better to me. Feel free to use that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC) We aren't allowed to request DYK dates based on commercial releases, but in the case of this ""upcoming"" video game, it would be helpful to know when the game will finally be published, because at the moment this article is mainly written in future tense and relies too heavily on the vendor as a source, making it arguably too WP:PROMOTIONAL. Once the game is released, there will be reviews and more independent secondary sources we will be able to cite in the article. In any case I'm uncomfortable with this article going to the main page as is, but perhaps this can all be rectified in the near future. Cc: @Blaze Wolf, DecafPotato,  and Muboshgu: Do we know? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: Hello Ciel! I was somehow not notified of your ping. As far as I'm aware a release date for the game is not known, however the game not being released yet hasn't been an issue before. WP:PROMOTIONAL isn't a concern as far as I'm aware as long as the article and DYK hooks are neutrally worded, which they are. Take Need for Speed Unbound for example, it was unreleased when it was promoted to the main page (albeit the release date was known at that point). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Blaze Wolf: Would you consider withdrawing this nomination for now and re-submitting this article after the product is released and reviewed, and the article reaches GA? At the moment, the article relies too heavily on the vendor as the main source for information (which is frowned upon for example at AfD), plus rumor and speculation, which triggers WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RUMOR. In any case, I can't support promoting this article to the main page at this time, but I would be happy to take another look once the product is released; otherwise it is just one of many games under development and could turn out to be vaporware (although it seems unlikely). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: I would much rather not withdraw the nomination. I put a pretty decent amount of time into this article and I'd much rather not have it be wasted just because the game is unreleased. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Blaze Wolf: I just wanted to say, the time and effort you put in to the article is appreciated, and I wouldn't consider it ""wasted"" if it didn't run on DYK prior to product release. As I was saying before, the article would still be eligible for nomination when it reaches GA. (But side note: It cannot run twice at DYK.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: It honestly feels like you don't want to approve it solely because the game isn't released yet, despite that not being something that would hold back a DYK considering I got a DYK for another article I created, Need for Speed Unbound, before the game released. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Blaze Wolf: Exactly. Personally I don't feel like defending this one all the way to the main page if/when we get complaints. But there may very well be other editors who are willing to, so let's leave it to them to review, approve, promote, and send to Queue. If I thought it was an outright fail, I would have rejected it. This one to me seems borderline; I still say the article would have been stronger and better timed once the product was available. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Another side note is that just because an article was approved for DYK previously, doesn't always mean it was the right decision. We do sometimes get it wrong. If a major problem is found, the article can get pulled from the main page, which is always unfortunate. The standards have also seem to have changed a lot over the years. I think it's important to look at each article on a case-by-case basis, just like we would at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Need a new reviewer to restore green tick. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 3 ===   ==== No More the Fool ====  ... that Elkie Brooks's hit ""No More the Fool"" was originally written for Kim Wilde? Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoko Kishimoto Comment: The article should be long enough already (roughly 1,500–1,550 characters), but I will expand it a bit more tomorrow.Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Not really a big fan of the hook since it is reliant on names that not be familiar to all readers (for what it's worth, I do know who Wilde is thanks to Kids in America, but I can't assure that most readers are familiar with her). Can a different angle be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC) I will expand the article tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and will try to find another interesting fact about the song to use for the DYK. The problem is that I could find only one book that I could use. And there isn't much in it that I haven't already put into the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)@Moscow Connection: Okay. Just note here on the nomination page once those have been accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)@Moscow Connection: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Tomorrow, I promise. Sorry for the delay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @Narutolovehinata5: Could you maybe propose something else as a hook?I think that he current hook is interesting. And I can't think of anything better.Btw, I've been trying to find more sources to use, but I can't find anything. And I couldn't find a single source that would say what the song was about. I even tried searching for a source saying this song was a ballad (it is ballad, isn't it?), and nothing.I can ask for help at the music project talk page, maybe they will be able to find something. And to come up with a better hook.--Moscow Connection (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)I'm going to be frank here: with the current content, I don't think the article is a right fit for DYK. There's not much in the article that seems to be intriguing to a non-specialist audience, especially if readers don't know who either name is (I personally only recognize Wilde). Looking at the article again, I think the only possible option that could still be used might revolve around this particular part: ""I’ve been writing this song for Kim Wilde,"" said Ballard and showed them ""No More the Fool"". Brook's husband and Mike Heap were instantly ""blown away"". ""That’s it!,"" said Jordan when Ballard stopped singing. ""But I’ve written this for Kim Wilde,"" said Ballard protestingly. ""No you haven’t. You’ve written it for Elkie Brooks,"" replied Jordan. Basically, a rewording of the original hook, but with more emphasis on the quote and Ballard's protest. But otherwise, I'm also out of ideas. In any case, the article does meet the technical DYK requirements including a lack of paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. I'll assume good faith on the sourcing as I can't access the sources. The article is technically eligible for DYK, but its lack of a suitable hook (proposed or possible) is the sticking point here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Narutolovehinata5: Yes, some pages are omitted from the Google Books preview. But you can try googling „""Finding My Voice: My Autobiography"" site:idoc.pub“. And maybe, just maybe, you'll find something. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I'll just ask for help at the music project. The song is very famous and it's a pity I wasn't able to find more information about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I have asked for help here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Any help appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)ALT1 ... that Russ Ballard didn't want to give the song ""No More the Fool"" to  Elkie Brooks, because he wrote it for Kim Wilde? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)It's getting warmer, but I think the ""protested"" wording like in the quote would make it more intriguing regardless of reader familiarity with the names involved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Mosaic of Rehob ====  ... that people returning from the Babylonian captivity to the Holy Land and to their places of settlement in the Holy Land at that time left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices? Source: Mishnah (Tractate Shebiith 6:1 ) Reviewed:Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  @Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on ""left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?"" because i don't know what you mean by ""indelible mark"", what ""Jewish nation"", and what ""certain religious practices"". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this ""The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text"" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)  So, should I go ahead and re-submit a nomination for this page ""Mosaic of Rehob"" at DYK, using your suggested hook? I'm willing to do so. I'll also link the name ""Mosaic of Rehob"". If you give me the go-ahead, I will re-submit it, with the hook reading this time as follows:""Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"" Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)  @Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this. ""... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"" Though if we are going to work with this hook, there are two minor problems I kind of have with it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC) @Davidbena: Here's my two problems. It says ""in any mosaic in the region"" but what region? I can't tell if you mean the palestine region, the holy land, or some other region I don't know about. The hook needs to be stated in the article, not just the lead, with an inline citation. I might be dumb but I can't see these mentioned in the article at all other than the lead. These are generally pretty easy to fix and answer so I hope to see them done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC) The obvious answer to that is ""... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any Hebrew mosaic in Palestine."" I will make the correction now in the main article, and I'll find a way to incorporate the text, besides in the lead, also somewhere else.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke:, At your directives, I have just now amended the text to read ""...in Palestine,"" instead of ""in the region,"" and I have also repeated the claim that it is the largest Hebrew mosaic found in Israel, with a source, in the section entitled ""Description of mosaic"".Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)  Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC) That should be fine. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)@Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached ""Good Article"" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired?Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)  You've already submitted the nomination you don't need to submit it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)  The article looks good, long enough and well cited. The hook is interesting enough, but I feel like it being the oldest known Talmudic text is more hook-y. ""The oldest X"" is just slightly more interesting than ""the longest text on a type of art from a specific place"", and the Talmud is reasonably well known. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC) @Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 4 ===   ==== Sara Gadalla Gubara ====  ... that despite her physical disability, Sara Gadalla Gubara came third in a 50 km mixed-sex national swimming event in 1972? Source: newspaper shoutUNCIF Reviewed:Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this one! Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)QPQ: N - not neededOverall:  As clever as this hook is, I'm afraid that the source of the hook https://www.assayha.net/ is reliable or not. I'm not sure if https://www.unicef.org/ can be used as a source at the DYK. Please explain the source's reliability. Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Taung Tan newspaper shout is a respected Sudanese newspaper although it is diffcult to prove this. There are some news excerpts from around that time but it is in arabic so I am not sure who much I am stretching your kidness, and a picture for the winners (she is next to the guy in the front with glasses . There are other sources including  France24 eluded to that + The UNICEF also talk about the race + Sudan Jorunal but not in details, there is a detailed account at Alarabya, a online blog written by a Sudanese historian, Sara's TEDxTalk and nationl TV interview which includes some images. I hope on of these stick.   It qualified for approval after I reviewed the sources. So it's good to go. Taung Tan (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Taung Tan, in which case you may wish to change ""cited"" to yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC) @Gog the Mild and Taung Tan: I should let y'all know that in general, it's best to leave initial reviews as-is, so that promoters know what went down at a glance when trying to close up a nom. Many thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC) FuzzyMagma and Taung Tan, earwig picked up a sentence in the article that appears to be virtually the same as one in the cited source.  the source is dated 2010, while the wikipedia article was recently created. also, although there aren't many english sources, i picked one of them at random, and it doesn't seem to support the text for which it is cited.  the source is used following a paragraph covering gadalla gubara's tertiary education, but the source doesn't seem to mention her tertiary education at all.  i admittedly stopped checking sources after that.  dying (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) @Dying:, the sentence was taken from Cinema of Sudan (before ref 23). I have now rephrased it. Reference 19, was also copied over from the lede of Gadalla Gubara, ref. 2 (also indicated in the edit). I should have checked, and sorry for not doing that. I have now moved to where it belongs, near ref (26). It is now being replaced by Ref. 10, 6, and 19  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talk • contribs)  FuzzyMagma, that is good to know.  thank you for clearing that up.  (by the way, the title of the documentary should have remained in italics when you were rephrasing the sentence mentioned above, as placing the title in italics is not a personal decision, but a general english standard.  more details regarding how wikipedia treats titles of works can be found at mos:title. Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) unfortunately, i am now also worried about the quality of the sources provided.  i decided to take a look at the arabic sources, and the first one i looked at, the sudaneseonline source, appears to be a message board, which is not a reliable source. depends on who wrote it? not all sources are BBC and NYT. I mentioned above who wrote it and why I think it can be seen as reliable. anyway can be removed if contested further  FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) admittedly, i stopped looking at arabic sources after that.  i also noticed that the article was originally translated from ar wikipedia.  as i am not fluent in arabic, i cannot competently check for copyright violations or instances of close paraphrasing with regard to the arabic sources, which may have existed in the ar wikipedia article before you translated it. I am not sure casting doubts without an evidence is a good thing as it can be easily interrupted as assuming bad faith. Please either give evidence to your claims or refrain from being too hypothetical FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) due to these issues, i do not feel comfortable promoting this hook at this time.  your opinion is noted, and again can be easily amended - at least the point were you provided a ground for doubts. anyhow there is already an endorsement and a DYK check above FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) anyone else is free to promote this hook if they are confident enough in the quality of the hook and the article, you did not mention anything about the hook itself in your argument, so I am not sure why now you are mentioning the quality of the hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) or request a more in-depth review if they believe it is warranted.  i do want to see this article promoted, as i had initially looked over this nomination intending to promote it, but i don't think i am competent enough to give this nomination a proper review.  dying (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) @Dying: in-line response FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Needs further review by new reviewer per discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Jeff Wrana ====  ... that in 2018, Jeff Wrana co-discovered a new type of cell in the intestinal lining? Source: Dr. Jeff Wrana and team follow a gut feeling and discover a new type of stem cell ALT1: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is likely to remain breast-cancer free? Source: Researchers develop promising technology for breast cancer Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jett HowardCreated by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jeff Wrana, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - I think ALT1 might be partially incorrect; I'll explain why further down below.Overall:  Really interesting submission! Almost everything looks alright, from the article's length and age, to the sources you used, to the QPQ requirement. ALT1 definitely looks like the ""hookiest"" hook, if it makes sense, but I fear there's a problem with it: the second half contains an an unclear statement... See, saying ""breast-cancer free"" might lead some people (including myself) to think that Wrana and Taylor's tool could help predict if a woman can completely avoid contracting the disease. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what's reported in the source you linked, which states: ""Canadian researchers have developed a technology that analyzes breast cancer tumours in a new way, allowing them to predict with more than 80 per cent accuracy a patient's chance of recovering. The goal of the computerized tool is to eventually help doctors better target treatment to an individual patient, based on their tumour's profile."" So, I think that technique is mainly about cancer treatment and survival, rather than cancer immunity... If confirmed, both the hook and the quote from the article should get edited accordingly: however, let me know if I missed something important! Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)  @HickoryOughtShirt?4: More specifically, I would suggest these kinds of hook: ALT1b: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to survive breast cancer? ALT1c: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer? By the way, cancer biology is one of the subjects I'm currently studying at uni, so I'm not just doing a review, but you're also allowing me to have a review... : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC) @HickoryOughtShirt?4: how's this going? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Hi @Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron:. I am so sorry, I am just seeing this review for the first time. My fault for not checking it. I am completely fine with any of Oltrepier's proposed hooks. Let me tweak the sentence in the article. Also, Oltrepier, that is so cool that you're studying cancer biology. I am in absolutely no way studying anything STEM related in uni right now so I was relying heavily on my own translations/understandings. Thank you for clarifying my error. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @HickoryOughtShirt?4: No worries at all! And that's fine: I'm not mother-tongue in English, either, so I definitely understand there can be some issues with the translation and the interpretation of documents... But anyway, this is not a big deal. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron: is this g2g? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yes, absolutely! I just can't promote my own hooks by myself... : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)   Reviewer needed to check ALT1b and ALT1c to see whether they can be approved. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier:  It looks like ALT1b and ALT1c make claims that require secondary sourcing in line with WP:MEDRS – I don't think that The Toronto Star is gonna cover it, but we're looking :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Oltrepier: As a reminder, ALT0 doesn't carry any MEDRS implications, if you'd like to approve it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  I do think that ALT0 still is a biomedical statement.  More generally, popular media or PR pieces from the researcher's institution (such as this one aren't really that reliable for priority-type statements about being the first to discover something.  I'd like to see a citation from a medical source; it doesn't have to be peer reviewed but should be from a technical medicine-oriented publication or organization, more like this one.  Or you can stick to a general statement about what kind of research he does.  Also, male breast cancer is a thing, so the hooks should be rewritten to be gender-neutral.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC) i'd personally say it's bio, not biomed, but i think you're right otherwise – i'd also want to see some kind of medrs-reliable secondary source that confirms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)@Theleekycauldron and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): You're right, I should have addressed the need for more adequate sources, too... Luckily, though, I think I've found the original paper by Wrana and the rest of his team: here's the PubMed address, while this is the DOI link (which, unfortunately, is behind pay-wall). The journal that published the paper, Nature Biotechnology, is cited as a source both by the original Toronto Star link and a CBC article I've found by myself, and the respective dates match with one another, as well. I also wanted to clarify that, as reported by both the aforementioned articles, the study only involved female patients. For example, the CBC wrote that ""In this week's online issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, Wrana and his colleagues say the system enables them to accurately predict in 82 per cent of more than 350 women studied whether the breast cancer would be fatal."" I hope this will help solve the sourcing problem, but let me know if I missed anything else! Oltrepier (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Per WP:MEDRS, primary sources generally shouldn't be used for medical content – we'll need some kind of secondary MEDRS-compliant source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Do citations in other papers count towards the criteria? I was thinking about looking for those here. Oltrepier (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Oltrepier: Yes, it's good to find a review that discusses his work, especially if it spends a few sentences or a paragraph on it.  I'm not sure if you're conversant with Wikidata, but I recently made a query that will find all the papers that cite any paper by a specified author (in this case Wrana), and sorts them so that reviews are likely to be towards the top of the list.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC) @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): That's just amazing, thank you for the help! I found one good review via your tool, which you can find here on PubMed, or here for the full text (you actually have to look for ""Taylor"" as a reference, because that's the first name on the original author list). I've also made my own research through PubMed, and found at least two recent papers that cite and discuss the work: here's the first, while here comes the second. I hope they can all be useful! Maybe, should we add them to Wrana's own Wiki article, as well, in order to further justify the sentence? Oltrepier (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC) @HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Yes, please use those sources in the article wherever appropriate.  It looks like the mentions are scattered sentences rather than a pargraph specifically discussing his work, but they still strengthen the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and Theleekycauldron: Right, I've just tried to integrate all of the aforementioned sources in the original article: let me know if it's good enough. I must address that, actually, the whole page might need more secondary sources, but at least we should have got this specific part covered now. Anyway, thank you so much for your kind help! (Also, if we're going to use the hooks I've proposed by myself, can someone else approve them for me, please?) Oltrepier (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 7 ===   ==== 2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum ====  ... that the government of Ethiopia's SNNP region supported local governments calling for a referendum to secede from the region? Source: [8][9] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/First Republic of ArmeniaCreated by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y Other problems: YOverall:  Is it really a good idea to run a hook for this article before we have the election results, especially as it will likely be running a few days after we get the results (and therefore rather significantly changed from the nominated version)? Not totally opposed to this; I don't think it is explicitly banned to do something like this, but I'm not sure it's really a good idea either. There aren't any other problems here, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)  An interesting question. We don't run political hooks before elections or similar, but the actual voting has passed. (Another issue perhaps is that if I had waited for the results it would be past the seven day mark, but that's DYK so here we are.) Hopefully timely results emerge on the predicted date and the article will be updated then. CMD (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC) I think the point that Elli raises – and I must say, I agree – is not one about promotionality, it's one about article integrity. Once the results are released and analyzed, the article is likely to need or poorly undergo a large spate of of editing, and it'll need a re-review then. Let's hold off on approval until the results are tallied. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Article has been updated by HapHaxion. CMD (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  Pinging Elli and theleekycauldron to see whether their concerns have been addressed by the updates. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Gonna defer to Elli on that one, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC) The final results seems pretty clear, despite one zone is still working through it, so if that is the concern I think this can go ahead now. Since my creation HapHaxion has gotten to the updates very fast, I'd like to request the promoter include them in the credits. I have inserted the code above. CMD (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 9 ===   ==== Mark Hunter (photographer) ====  ... that Mark Hunter, known as The Cobrasnake, started “one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites” according to Vogue? Source: “ Hunter’s blog, which was one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites of its kind, offered anyone with an internet connection unprecedented access into the blossoming hipster subculture: an intoxicating–and intoxicate” Vogue Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bondiola sandwichCreated by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 04:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mark Hunter (photographer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Would it be possible for someone crop the image I included in the nomination? I think it’s great, but wouldn’t stand out on the front page as it is. Thriley (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Will review shortly. In the meantime @Thriley suggest trying CropTool to crop. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC) New (moved from draftspace Feb 9) and long enough. Mostly well written and sourced; some notes are below. Unable to load Earwig, but don't expect any issues there. QPQ present.Here are a few suggestions: The lede could use another sentence explaining what Hunter is known for, and move the birth date to just after ""Mark Hunter"". Add birth date and age to infobox. Fill in some bare link citations. Uncurl quotation marks. The sentence ""It allowed anyone on the internet to have access"" is hyperbolic; maybe put this in Vogue's voice (as in ""Vogue argues that it allowed anyone on the internet to view ..."" or similar). Some lingering q's: What did Hunter change the name of his website to? Relevance of the Kennedy paragraph? Why put one sentence about Hunter's book under its own heading?Not sure about the photo ... I see that it was uploaded by a new account (presumably Hunter), but it cannot be ""Own work"" because Hunter is the subject of the photo and not the photographer.The current hook doesn't grab me. My current thought is something zany likeALT1: ... that the Cobrasnake snapped stars? but would love to hear any other suggestions. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC) @Thriley: Hi, just checking in two weeks later. I realize I wrote a fairly long list of things to do. The only important ones for DYK are about neutrality and completeness - revising ""It allowed anyone on the internet to have access ..."" and clarifying a few things that are labeled ""lingering q's"" above. I can do any remaining copyediting after that. And please suggest a new hook, since I'm not supposed to approve one of my own. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Thank you. I’m going to shortly fix up the article and come up with a new hook. Thriley (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 12 ===   ==== Women and bicycling in Islam ====  ... that feminist activists' struggles for liberation, like those of Fatma Aliye Topuz (pictured), were helped along by the bicycle? Source: Raab Alon, Women cycling in the Middle East url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003142041-52/wheels-fire-alon-raab work=Routledge Companion to Cycling doi=10.4324/9781003142041-52/wheels-fire-alon-raab ALT1: ... that in May 2008, Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan along with Syrian first lady Asma Akras Al Asad took part in a cycle ride for peace from Beirut to Bethlehem? Source: Madden, Steve, ed. (August 2008). ""Pedaling for peace"". Bicycling. Vol. 44, No. 7. USA: Rodale Inc. p. 34. ISSN 0006-2073. ALT2: ... that Saudi Arabian and Iranian movies Wadjda and The Day I Became a Woman use bicycle as metaphor for independence? Source:Bennett, Bruce (2022-10-31), ""Cycling and cinema"", Routledge Companion to Cycling, London: Routledge, pp. 28, 115, ISBN 978-1-003-14204-1, retrieved 2023-02-13  Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Södermanland Runic Inscription 113 Comment: Counting of expanded characters is too technical for me. But the article has been rejuvenated quite a fresh in last 4 days. If fails the 5 times expansion criteria please let me know I shall withdraw the nomination.5x expanded by LegalSmeagolian (talk) and Bookku (talk). Nominated by Bookku (talk) at 17:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bicycling in Islam; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  The first DYK source is accessed by request from WP:REREQ quote is included in the article citation that shall help verification, rest of the 2 DYKs were accessed from Google books.  Bookku    (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)@LegalSmeagolian and Bookku: Could you please explain how you arrived at 5x expansion? I am not able to replicate your calculations using the DYK tool, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. (If the article is eligible, I would like to have the article run on International Women's Day if possible...but I do have a few very specific comments about things to fix first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)@Cielquiparle: Sorry I am not technical enough for exact counting. But we rescued article from AFD claims, renamed and almost WP:TNT new start over. In number of sentences terms we may have retained at the most five sentences from version prior to 7 Feb, We added almost 30 new sentences. If you do not count bibliography part then new sentences are 5 times. Bibliography too was added by me in December.Since it is almost afresh I thought to present it over to this forum. we wish to respect rules and guidance.  Bookku    (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Article is new enough (expansion began on February 7 and was submitted on February 12). Although the way in which the 5x expansion was calculated did not, strictly speaking, adhere to the rules, based on the explanation given above, I see that the ""original"" article had 620 characters (105 words) of ""salvageable prose"" and by February 12, it had expanded to 4,795 characters (777 words). (The article is now at 5,786 characters (948 words) of prose.) On this basis, we can say that the article is long enough (expanded more than 5 times), and I would just ask that next time, you read the rules and install the DYK check tool so there is no uncertainty or confusion. (Basically, it's cleaner to delete all the prose you are not planning to keep, the day before you start expanding.) The article is well sourced throughout, with inline citations, and a lot of care has gone into trying to maintain a detached and neutral tone about a very sensitive and controversial subject. Earwig says copyvio is unlikely, although I do have one immediate concern which I will explain below. The QPQ is done. ALT0 is OK. So what is left is to discuss the other hooks and address some related issues:1) Please minimize the text quoted in Footnote 2 (the Raab chapter). It is too long and will raise flags down the line. I understand maybe you just included it to help the DYK reviewer, but we don't need it anymore, so please only include 2 to 3 key sentences at most. 2) ALT1 is not approved, as I was unable to verify this fact based on the source. While it's fine to just discard the hook if you don't want to fix it, the corresponding claim in the article still needs to be fixed. The original text (which is easily accessed through Wikipedia Library) says Follow the Women bike tour (followthewomen.com), from Beirut, Lebanon, to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem. The cyclists, whose ranks included women in long sleeves and head scarves, and women who'd learned to ride just to join the trip, rode with queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan as well as Syrian first lady Asma Akhras Al-Assad, crossed the Jordan River (which was neither deep nor wide, they reported), shared meals with locals and visited refugee camps... Many of the Arab women ended their ride early... The reason I object to the current wording of ALT1 is that it makes it sound like both Queen Rania and First Lady Asma al-Assad rode together all the way from Beirut to Bethlehem, when in fact, based on other sources it sounds like they probably only joined a portion of the ride, because as ride sponsors, they were also responsible for hosting and officially receiving the cyclists. I would advise either finding a reliable source that explains their role a bit more clearly and modifying the article accordingly, or simplifying the sentence in the article so that it sticks closer to what the ""Pedaling for Peace"" article actually says (that the Rania and Asma ""rode with"" the women, without implying they both rode with the women the whole way). 3) In ALT2, the word ""powerful"" sounds non-neutral in wikivoice, so it needs to be reworded somehow – e.g. simply striking the word ""powerful"" out, or using wording to make it clear that there is a specific scholar you are naming in the article who says it's a ""powerful metaphor"" (e.g. ""is viewed as a powerful metaphor...""). If you could please address these issues ASAP, I am happy to approve the hook for DYK. Many thanks for your hard work in rethinking and reworking this insightful article following the AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Pinging @Bookku:. (Also edited my own copy above.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle Many thanks for valuable inputs. We shall ping you as we accomplish suggested improvements. Although Alt1 and Alt2 are not must- in the article and in DYKs too I have tried to present diversity across regions in Muslim women's cycling practices and there by avoiding stereotype. 1) I have trimmed ref note a bit, I am also contemplating to split in feminist view and orthodox view and look for further scope of trimming as required. 2) For Alt1 I shall request @LegalSmeagolian and Ipigott: to help out to avoid grammar mistakes from my side when article is soon about to go for DYK. I suppose for Alt1 more sources may be available in Jordan and Syrian Arabic news media, but availability of such sources shall take it's own time. 3) About Alt2 metaphor of cycle in photographs has been discussed by author Raab too but without using word metaphor. Besides both the movies have been explored favorably by multiple academic authors though I could not spare enough time on all of those. I am  removing word 'powerful' from 'powerful metaphor' as of now as suggested. Idk if word 'substantial' will be enough for toning down. Just now saving in bit of hurry. I shall work further a little while later.  Bookku    (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC) @Bookku: Thanks for your response. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)  Approving ALT0, ALT1, and ALT2. The current wordings of both ALT1 and ALT2 have been amended slightly to address concerns raised earlier (ALT1 says ""took part in"" instead of ""took""; the word ""powerful"" has been removed from ALT2). The direct quote in the footnote has been split and shortened (though it could be shortened more, it is better than before). Additional sources and content have been added re: the Follow the Women bike tour. Happy to have this promoted for International Women's Day (8 March 2023, Prep Area 1) if possible. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC) I've unpromoted this due to multiple issues discussed at WP:DYK#Bicycling in Islam WT:DYK#Bicycling in Islam  and Talk:Bicycling in Islam and the dispute tags added to the article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)@RoySmith, the link created by you seem to go some where else. I suppose that needs to be  WT:DYK#Bicycling in Islam  Bookku    (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, my bad.  The WT link is the correct one, thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC) This is just for record. I had discussed my views on some of the concerns expressed @ User talk:RoySmith#To clear the air. To be editorially neutral I will take their relevant concerns on article talk page for discussion after present round of article update by other users.  Bookku    (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend ====  ... that there are many proposals to build a new station in South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line? Source: Many in the article Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Craig GreenbergImproved to Good Article status by SecretName101 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  The hook doesn't sound all that interesting to me. Perhaps you should mention how long the proposals have been going on for. The article mentions that there were plans to relocate the station since 2006, an environmental study in 2008, and a financial estimate in 2013. Perhaps:ALT1: ... that the construction of a new station has been proposed in South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line since 2006? https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/next-stop-downtown-buttigieg-wants-south-shore-to-run-into/article_c56e5214-9907-5273-a286-7306e2b6ce0e.html@Onegreatjoke: @SecretName101: Sorry, forgot to ping. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 00:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)@PizzaKing13: We can do ALT2: ""... that there have been many proposals for a new station at South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line since 2006? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) ALT2 looks good to me. New enough GA, long enough, hook is interesting, neutral, sourced, no copyright vios. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Overall:  PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 06:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)   @Onegreatjoke: Quite frankly this article seems WP:TOOSOON for publication on the main page, even if it would survive AfD. Maybe we could revisit as a ""new"" article for DYK when the station is [closer to being] finally built? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 14 ===   ==== Rufina Bazlova ====  ... that Rufina Bazlova has used traditional embroidery to depict protests in Belarus? Source: AGF for book source [2] and foreign language sources ALT1: ... that Rufina Bazlova's embroideries become digital narratives and thus a testimony to the Belarusian mass protests? Source: AGF (see article) Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Saint John's IslandCreated by Zartesbitter (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rufina Bazlova; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - problems Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YHook eligibility:  Cited: N - Inline citations needed Interesting: YOverall:  @Zartesbitter and Paul2520: So some problems. Firstly, The awards and exhibitions sections look to be mostly uncited and I would prefer citations for them. Second, the hooks mentioned need to have inline citations in the article which it doesn't look like it is. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)  I have fixed the problems now. Zartesbitter (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke: did Zartesbitter's work adequately resolve the issues you mentioned? = paul2520 💬 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 16 ===   ==== Phisuea Samut ====  ... that the sea ogress Phisuea Samut (depicted), a main character from Phra Aphai Mani,  is worshipped as a deity in Thailand? Source: ""ชาวเกาะเสม็ด ทำพิธีเปลี่ยนชุดให้ 'ผีเสื้อสมุทร' อัศจรรย์ฝนหยุดตกทันที"". Thairath (in Thai). 2017-05-01. Retrieved 2023-02-10. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Self-portrait (Jan Lievens)Created by Taung Tan (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Phisuea Samut; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   New enough (but misplaced; it was created on 10 February and nominated on 16 February). Long enough. The prose section is mostly a summary of the legend about Phisuea Samut, and could gain from some context. It simply starts with ""Legend tells the story"" which seems an odd way to put it. What legend, told by whom, in what context? I think some background would be needed here. Also, I would remove the work ""masterpiece"" in the lead, unless possibly if you can show through sources that it is broadly considered a masterpiece by critics or in some other relevant way. ""Mother Sea Butterfly"" in bold should reasonably be placed in the lead, if I interpret the MOS correctly. The hook is supported by inline citations AGF, and the wording is fine. However I lack an inline source supporting the claim that it is an ""ogress"". QPQ perhaps done but the link is red, so please clarify this. So in all a few things to fix before I will take another look. Good luck! Yakikaki (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Yakikaki Qpq has been completed and some errors have been corrected. Taung Tan (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Taung Tan. The QPQ is now done. However, you didn't really address my concerns above. I also have further ones: note 1 needs to be rephrased, I don't understand what it means. Is it the case that Phisuea Samut is called ""Mother Sea Butterfly"" because of a linguistic similarity between the word ""butterfly"" and ""ghost"" in Thai language? What do you mean by ""(not an insect)""? Maybe you can elaborate? I also think you need to explain more clearly who erected the statues, and when. It is very vague the way it is written now, again some context would be useful. But perhaps the sources are vague on this point? In that case you could rephrase it as something like ""At one point, statues started to be erected..."" or some such. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 17 ===   ==== Balanica ====  ... that mandible BH-1 excavated in Mala Balanica in 2006 is the third oldest hominin fossil in Europe, being dated up to 525,000 BP? Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054608 ALT1: ... that remains discovered in Velika Balanica suggest possible exchange of cultural innovations, ideas and technologies between Neanderthals and modern humans 300,000 years ago? Source: https://news.uwinnipeg.ca/neanderthals-from-the-balkans-had-cultural-ties-to-levant-300000-years-ago/ Reviewed:Created by PajaBG (talk). Self-nominated at 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Balanica; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: N - nHook eligibility:  Cited: N - n Interesting: YOverall:  @PajaBG: Good article but it doesn't look like the sources verify the hooks. Can you provide new sources or an exaplanation? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)  forgot to mention but there looks to also be lots of copyright issues. That will need to be addressed too. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Hi @Onegreatjoke:. Hook 1. Source [10], in its Discussion segment, names only Sima de los Huesos and Mauer as older (per maximal minimum range). Source [11], in the very first line says ""Mala Balanica, koja krije tajne trećeg najstarijeg ljudskog fosila u Evropi..."", meaning ""Mala Balanica, which hides secrets of the third oldest human fossil in Europe..."".Hook 2. Source [12] in its segment Cultural connections in the Middle Paleolithic era, though they say, ""Neanderthals or some other species"". Source [13] cites University of Belgrade's Faculty of Philosophy's statement which basically says the same as the previous source, ""neandertalci ili druge vrste ljudi"" meaning ""Neanderthals or other species of humans"". Source [14], head of the Serbian team Dušan Mihajlović also talks about the connections and says the project, of which the Balanica caves survey is part of, is called """"Neanderthal and Early Modern Human interactions in the Central Balkans"". So, maybe Hook 2 could add ""early"" before ""modern humans"". Also, the last source gives the range of this happening from 300,000 to 240,000, so maybe that can be added, too. I left both out due to the length issues.It is hard to rewrite scientific texts into your own words, replacing every single word with its synonym. I do try it and spend a lot of time on it, but frankly, I don't really care about, however it is called here, copyright, plagiarism, etc. Despite being imperfect to the perfection, Wikipedia is world's Number 1 starting point for knowledge. So, if we cite some scientists, and properly reference them, with links to their papers and journals, what's the fuss? They should say thank you. For whom are they making discoveries? If that was the point of mentioned ""copyright issues"". Real, printed, general encyclopedias never referenced anything, maybe just had a general list of literature listed at the end. At least in my part of the world, they were there to spread knowledge. Plus, this is just DYK, I didn't nominate it for GA or something. Take care! PajaBG (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 18 ===   ==== The Day of Books and Roses ====  ... that The Day of Books and Roses originated as Day of the Book in Barcelona, Spain in 1926 and was described as a day of ""civility and intelligence""? Source: Page 130, second column, under the header, ""El Dia Del Libro"". https://books.google.com/books?id=nNUSAAAAIAAJ&newbks=0&vq=la%20vanguardia&pg=RA5-PA130#v=snippet&q=la%20vanguardia&f=false ALT1: ... that in Catalonia, Spain over 1.5 million books are sold annually on The Day of Books and Roses? Source: https://booksandroses.cat/en/about-booksandroses/ Reviewed: Comment: As a librarian, I want to support a day of books! (and love). Any help welcome.Created by Bridges2Information (talk). Self-nominated at 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Day of Books and Roses (Catalonia); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Does this topic have too large an overlap with that of Saint George's Day (Spain)? Diada de Sant Jordi and Saint George's Day (Catalonia) are already redirects to the Catalonia section of that page. Would it be justified to have this article on the Catalan celebration and the other on Catalonia + Aragon and Valencia? Ham II (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @Ham II: Hi, it took me awhile to figure out how to reply, apologies (the reply link doesn't work). I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps update the Saint George page to reflect how the day is commemorated outside of Catalonia/Northeast Spain. I think the two redirects, that I didn't know about, should be redirected to The Day of Books and Roses. Is that possible? Bridges2Information (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @Ham II: I've edited the Saint George's Day (Spain) page to include information for another region in spain and shortened the information about Catalonia to be more in line with the other regions. Bridges2Information (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC) @Bridges2Information: Thanks for engaging with my concerns in good faith. Given that Saint George's Day has a subsection on Spain as well, my feeling is that there is one article too many – perhaps Saint George's Day (Spain) is now the superfluous one, and its contents could be merged into its parent article Saint George's Day. The Catalan celebration merits a standalone article, which would be The Day of Books and Roses, though I'm not sure about the name – I note that the German, Dutch and Breton Wikipedias have articles titled ""Diada de Sant Jordi"". I've redirected Diada de Sant Jordi and Saint George's Day (Catalonia) to The Day of Books and Roses. Ham II (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) @Ham II: I think the idea of absorbing Saint George's Day (Spain) into the larger article makes sense. Especially because the other events/activities outside of Catalonia are smaller and seem to focus on religious aspects of the day, if it's celebrated at all. Bridges2Information (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) @Ham II: Thank you for integrating the information St. George's Day (Spain) into the larger St. George's Day page.Bridges2Information (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 19 ===   ==== Oscar Holmes ====  ... that during World War II, Oscar Holmes became the first black US naval aviator only because the still-segregated Navy initially thought the light-skinned Holmes was white? Source: Kraus, Terry. ""Oscar Holmes: He Broke Three Color Barriers, but Few Knew"" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration.Schneller, Robert J., Jr. (January–February 1998). ""Oscar Holmes: A Place in Naval Aviation"" (PDF). Naval Aviation News. United States Navy. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Baltasar CalvoCreated by Clarityfiend (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Oscar Holmes; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - what makes black past reliable? Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YQPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @Clarityfiend: Good article. Though, what makes Black Past a reliable source? Also, I may be confused but does the article contradict with Jesse L. Brown, I may be dumb here. Minor comment that isn't DYK mandatory, ""He was survived by his wife and their three[3] or four[5] children."" should probably be rid of per WP:SURVIVEDBY. QPQ also needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)  @Onegreatjoke: Have you read BlackPast.org? The Library of Congress and the New York Public Library reference librarians consider it reliable. As for SURVIVEDBY, that's a bit nitpicky, but okay. I'll rephrase it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC) As for Jesse Brown, the distinction appears to be due to the fact that Holmes was already a pilot when he enlisted, hence he didn't need flight training. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @Clarityfiend: Alright, I still need a QPQ though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke: QPQ done. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Desert of Maine ====  ... that there is a ""desert"" in the U.S. state of Maine called the Desert of Maine? source Reviewed:Improved to Good Article status by AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk). Self-nominated at 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Drive-by comment (not a full review): (1) ""only desert in New England"" does not appear in the article, and needs to before this hook can be approved; (2) quora is not a reliable source, and neither is the YouTube video used as a reference in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)  AverageEstoniaEnthusiast Welcome. Regarding the hook it is catchy and would be a quirky hook, however it needs to be in the article. The article has the correct inline citations and is neutral. Recently promoted to GA so it fits our criteria for inclusion. First DYK nomination so a QPQ is not needed. Since there is no RS which states the hook it needs a reference. The article and hook are interesting. In addition to the hook I have a concern about a copyright violation, the detector picks up. See here.  Bruxton (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I edited the source and hook. The readability of the hook might be a little bit wonky, so let me know if you want it changed. I will start working on filtering out the plagiarism in the article.AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC) After doing a bit of investigating, I found that the version with the 'plagiarized' information was actually fully stolen from the Wikipedia article at the time. To be fair, the ""Random Times"" sounds pretty sketchy, so a stunt like this is most definitely something they would do. For proof of this, see Revision as of 14:17, 3 February 2021 Basically exactly what Crescent77 said.It's pretty clear the article of copyright concern is copypasta that takes most of its material from WP, most of the rest from sources referenced here. Alot of the material in question has been on WP for years, while the article of concern is only a little more than a year old. Crescent77 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)  I removed a youtube reference see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Bruxton (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) From WP:RSPYT: ""Content uploaded from a verified official account ... may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability."" The content being cited comes from the management of the attraction, which would be an unreliable source for anything with promotional tendencies, but I think it can be accepted for something as neutral as when the attraction got its current name. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast,  and David Eppstein: Bryanrutherford0 you have left out the most important part of WP:RSPYT where they give an example of a verified account that is acceptable such as that of a news organization. This video is a YouTube cartoon created by a privately owned company. Is it really needed for the article? It seems easy to replace this with another reference and maybe move this YouTube video to external links? The article is somewhat incomplete (D7) in that we also do not list the recent new owners or previous owners in the article. Also here is an archived Boston Magazine article about the place. Possibly some lines in that article would support ALT0 with cultural definitions of desert. I hope to approve a new hook or find support for ALT0, but we have these other issues to sort out. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC) A news organization is, indeed, mentioned as an example of a source that might post Youtube content that might be relevant to a WP article, but the guideline certainly doesn't say, ""Only content from news organizations has the potential to be cited in a WP article."" The citation is used to support the assertion of the date of origin of the attraction's current name, and refusing to accept a business's assertion of its own date of establishment, in the absence of controversy or conflicting published claims, seems excessively pedantic to me. As for whether it's needed, not at all, if you're aware of another published source that documents the same fact. The attraction's owners aren't notable, and there would be nothing to say about them beyond their names, which would add nothing to the article for any reader not already personally acquainted with them. Given how little the article would gain in context from the inclusion of a non-notable name, I incline in the direction of respecting the privacy of persons who aren't the subject of the article, as discussed at WP:LPNAME. The Boston Magazine piece looks like an excellent find, and should definitely be used to improve the article. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks @Bryanrutherford0:, our article does not say that this is privately owned until the end of the article I think it should be in the lead. The privacy of the owners is probably out the window when they have RS about them. I will await a new ALT or support for ALT0 and I will not edit war the YouTube source. I think if it can be replaced it should be. Two editors here have called it out as red. I am but one editor here and whatever I approve will get scrutinized by an admin queue promotor and then it will be subject to errors. Perhaps the nominator can return to add information and get a hook back on track?  Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)I do agree with Bryan Rutherford that YT is an acceptable source in this case, but I did find an alternate to keep folks happy. I agree with Bruxton that the lede should indicate the site is privately owned, so I edited as such. I agree with Bryan Rutherford that the inclusion of a list of owners is both unneccesary and undesirable. Crescent77 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)  Thank you @Crescent77: I appreciate your efforts and thank you for the opinion. I think the ownership is is more about adding the timeline of ownership, and maybe the 2018 price, 725k. Also these articles list property amenities like a gift shop and barn which is more than 225 years old, which are not in the article. 1, 2. It is about the article being complete (D7). ATM, we are giving the article the appearance that this is some geology museum and not a private business. So that is where my confusion came in. When I first read the article this seemed like a park, not a private business. Even now it also uses a museum infobox. It calls the area a ""Geology museum"" in the infobox, but Geology museum is not mentioned or referenced in our article. The owners make no such claim, they simply call the place a ""Tourist Attraction"". The article is also listed in three museum categories. But Museum is not mentioned or referenced at all in our article. If this is a museum or geology museum, that should be made clear in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC) @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast,  and Crescent77: The nomination has been stalled just shy of three weeks without action. The unaddressed issue is outlined above and I am wondering if anyone plans edit the article so that the nomination can proceed. This is strictly a tourist attraction but the article is in three museum categories- those should be removed. I see that ""Geology museum"" has been removed from the infobox so that is one step. Our article probably should also use the ""attraction"" Template:Infobox attraction and not the museum one. Our article should make it clear that this is not a museum and it is a tourist attraction.  Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Bruxton, I'm wearing my editor hat and not my DYK hat, so this is not a re-review. That said, I made the changes mentioned above. AEE already implemented the infobox fix, and I fixed the cats and moved the YouTube video to the EL section. I don't think there's anything left that suggests this is a museum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: thank you much, please review - I think all they need is a hook that is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ALT0 has been edited since the first reviewers looked at it, and I think it's supported now. We could also do: ALT1: ... that there is a ""desert"" in Maine? as a final slot hook maybe? The hookiness does depend on basic reader awareness of Maine climate/geography though. ALT2 ... that a farm was treated so poorly that it turned into the Desert of Maine? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @AverageEstoniaEnthusiast and Crescent77: Checking if you like either of these. Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC) The participants have not responded to me for three weeks so I request a re-review from another editor. Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Aubri Esters ====  ... that Aubri Esters was among the winners of a hackathon focused on ways to reduce drug addiction and deaths? Source: https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/12/opiod-hackathon Reviewed:Created by Elttaruuu (talk). Self-nominated at 06:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Aubri Esters; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: N - noHook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: ?QPQ: ?Overall:  @Elttaruuu: Thanks for contributing to DYK; your article needs some copy editing as the [earwig score]  is exceeding the limit. RV (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)   Thank you very much for the revision. It appears to be satisfactory to me, and I've marked it for review. RV (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 20 ===   ==== Destination (game) ====  ... that Destination, a bestselling taxi-based British board game, entered administration after the film release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was delayed by eight months? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2012/oct/29/bouncing-back-from-bankruptcy, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mbe-for-dragons-den-star-shame-her-business-has-just-gone-under-1704128.html Reviewed: exempt5x expanded by MB190417 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Destination (game); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment. It wasn't the game that entered administration, rather, it was the publisher RTL Games that did so. Mindmatrix 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) @MB190417:  Article is new enough. Not quite long enough though - the before version is 1458 chars, and it's currently around 4,230 (2.9x expansion, 7290 is the target). Possible additions: the Dragon's Den story, and the irony of her success after, might be expandable and interesting; a Reception section might be useful if possible; perhaps briefly describe some elements of gameplay variations in the most notable editions. Otherwise well written (I did small copyedits) and cited - the Amazon links seem fine, though WP:RSPAMAZON suggests just citing the product itself. No QPQ needed; first nomination. As implied above, new suggestions for hooks are welcome. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Hi Hameltion, thank you so much for your review and helpful copyedits to the article.  I'm very sorry not to have checked the expansion rate: that was silly of me; I had assumed I had easily expanded by 5x!  The article should now meet eligibility at 7362 B (diff from your review), though further copyediting may be welcomed. I've added further information across the history section, as well as a new paragraph on gameplay variations as you suggested.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find much by way of a section on Reception, with surprisingly few comments in local newspapers that might have been expected to report on the launches of local editions (there were probably more sources 10 years ago when new versions of the game were being released, so I feel like we are constrained to a smaller pool!). I wasn't sure how to interpret WP:RSPAMAZON for a board game, seeing as the guidance seems to have in mind printed sources such as books rather than products; for disclosure, I've cited Amazon as a source in the new paragraph on gameplay variations, specifically using information from the image of the gameplay manual for Destination Hogwarts.  But I think this is still in-keeping with the spirit of WP:RSPAMAZON. Once again, thank you so much for your review and copyedits, and I am sorry not to have been careful to check the expansion rate! _MB190417_ (talk) @MB190417: No worries. Size approx. 7350+ now, the added material all looks good.  Last thing basically is to propose one or more alternative hooks for me to sign off on. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Great, thanks!  Here are a few: ALT1: ... that the publisher of Destination, a bestselling taxi-based board game, entered administration after the film release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was delayed by eight months? ALT2: ... that Destination became Hamleys' bestselling board game three months after its investment pitch was rejected on television? ALT3: ... that a BBC investigation on bank irresponsibility changed the fate of Destination, a bestselling taxi-inspired board game? _MB190417_ (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Thanks. These are better, but want something snappier (either revision or new). Also, in ALT1 it's not clear that the delay caused the legal action, and ""administration"" is not familiar in the US; ALT2 is smart but it seems the episode aired after the game came out, so maybe reword but keep the meaning; and ALT3 is fairly vague (""changed the fate""). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway ====  ... that the completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between five-and-a-half and seven-and-a-half hours? Source: Madagascar Tribune and Africanews Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Light the BeamCreated by Red-tailed hawk (talk). Self-nominated at 05:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article new and long enough - I would shorten the hook as it repeats some information in the body verbatim, but not a disqualifier. Copyvio not detected, hook interesting. QPQ done, and hook verified in source cited + mentioned in article. The two sources linked above isn't inline cited to the hook fact in article, but the existing one does so no issue there. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Just a quick comment, but the hook can be further shortened by converting the measurements into numerals. It's not that common to spell out compound fractions like that. Thus: ... that the completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours? Imzadi 1979 →  17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Works for me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  @Red-tailed hawk and Juxlos: Unfortunately this hook cannot run as is. At the moment, it sounds like Wikipedia is making a prediction in wikivoice about a highway that has not been completed yet. As we all know, large public infrastructure projects are often political footballs – governments and various parties often make claims about future expected benefits that don't always pan out. It's also possible that the highway will not be completed. I'm not even sure if it's ok to feature this article on the main page, given that it's about a highway that hasn't been built/isn't in operation yet, but at minimum the hook would need to be modified in some way. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Would that the completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours, per Madagascar's government work better for you? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Formatting the hook above as ALT0b (with further tweaks to stay within the 200 character limit) and proposing a few other modifications:ALT0b: ... that completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours, per Madagascar's government? ALT0c: ... that Madagascar's government expects the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway to reduce typical travel time from the capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours, once completed? ALT0d: ... that once completed, Madagascar's government expects the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway to reduce typical travel time from the capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours? Need another editor to review and approve (or propose more ALT hooks). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 22 ===   ==== Quarterback (TV series) ====  ... that Patrick Mahomes (pictured) will star in Quarterback, a streaming television series produced by his own production studio? Source: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/02/22/netflix-nfl-partner-on-quarterback-series/ ALT1: ... that the upcoming Quarterback series will be the first collaboration between Netflix and the NFL? Source: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/02/22/netflix-nfl-partner-on-quarterback-series/ ALT2: ... that to film the series Quarterback, the NFL allowed quarterbacks to be mic'd up for every game of the 2022 season? Source: https://www.vikings.com/news/netflix-kirk-cousins-patrick-mahomes-marcus-mariota-quarterback-docuseries Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joey Marciano Soulbust (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Image only applicable for ALT0. QPQ to be done soon.Created by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Quarterback (TV series); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   New enough (just), long enough. Early spotchecks found no issues, however oddly enough it's the sentences relating to hook ALT2 that have the closest paraphrasing. The sentences on microphones need rewriting. The ALT2 hook is the most interesting of the above, and by itself does not appear to be a close paraphrase. QPQ not done. CMD (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Soulbust: QPQ needs to be done, it's been over a week since the nomination and the reminder above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)QPQ completed. Soulbust (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC) @Chipmunkdavis: Is this ready for a new look? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Some rewriting is still needed to remove the close paraphrasing. CMD (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== African Space Agency ====  ... that the African Union has set up a space agency in a space city? Source: [15] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jailangkung Comment:Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/African Space Agency; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'm starting a review. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: N - There's more than one source with the title ""Is there a need for an African space agency?"".  This one, for example, concludes that there isn't.  This negative view is not presented in the article. Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YHook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - The hook teases with its talk of a space city.  The reader is likely to be disappointed that the article has a red link for this.  Perhaps this should be unlinked and the section expanded to give them more details of the space city.Overall:  The biggest issue is balance as there seems to be plenty of negative opinion out there. Also, I'm not understanding the reference to Jailangkung in the nominator's comment. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)  Sorry, that was the QPQ, I must have put it in the wrong box. Regarding neutrality, those are older articles of the sort of discussion that always precedes the creation of any body (is it necessary, what would it do, etc.). The opposition was the same as it always is for these projects, money better elsewhere, another white elephant sort of thing. I don't see that as due. I also haven't put any positive opinion in. In both cases, as the org was just founded, there isn't much actually behind it either way (well, a delay of opening from 2022 to 2023, but again that is reasonably routine and I haven't seen any source call it out). On the Space City, it's a newly built complex that also holds the Egyptian Space Agency. I can add more to this article, and alternatively I suppose an article could be created for it; I thought it worth a red link although I'm not 100% on how notability for that sort of infrastructure development. CMD (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC) I wondered if Jailangkung was the QPQ but didn't recognise your abbreviated sig of CMD there.  I've updated the review now to acknowledge this. But I'm still not content with the other issues.  I'll look at the topic more closely myself. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC) I have found a second source noting a different person with a similar concern over prioritisation from before the agency was founded, so I have added that citing both that source (in a CNN report) and Martinez 2012. I also found two sources noting a slowdown in 2020 due to budget and benefit concerns, and so added that as well. CMD (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Rosa Smester Marrero ====  ... that Rosa Smester Marrero, a schoolteacher and feminist writer from Santiago de los Caballeros, protested against the American occupation of the Dominican Republic by writing in the national press? Source: https://revistas.uasd.edu.do/index.php/ecos/article/view/154/88 page 23 (other sources offered in the article); https://epdf.tips/contemporary-caribbean-cultures-and-societies-in-a-global-context.html pages 163-4. Reviewed:Created by Rafird (talk). Nominated by MB190417 (talk) at 22:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rosa Smester Marrero; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. will review this FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Overall:  (hook brainstorming) Well-written article and kudos MB190417 for rescuing the article . Learned a lot. some minor comments (1) re-upload the image as a non-free image if you do not know if it is free or not given the that the subject is dead. Use this link and take this image as a reference of how to fill the required info. here also some alternatives. (2) can you address the reliability of reference no. 6 and 9 (preferably on Talk:Rosa Smester Marrero and why you think it can be accepted, or please provide a better reference?  ALT1:  ... that Rosa Smester Marrero protested US occupation of the Dominican Republic and refused to speak English so Americans would not also occupy her mind? FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Hi @FuzzyMagma, thanks for your very kind review.  I've reuploaded the image, and removed the claims previously tagged with ""better source needed"" (further explanation is provided on the talk page).  Please note too that I came across another book which - thank heavens - published two of Smester's works, so the article has now been further expanded, and may require further copyedits.  New additions mostly discuss her views of feminism, motherhood, gender roles, and teaching; here is the diff since your review.  As for ALT1, this now includes a claim retracted from the article, so here are some other alternatives: ALT2: ... that Rosa Smester Marrero protested against the US occupation of the Dominican Republic by refusing to speak English? ALT3: ... that Rosa Smester Marrero protested against the US occupation of the Dominican Republic by writing in the national press? ALT4: ... that Rosa Smester Marrero said that without women, men would live the life of a turnip? _MB190417_ (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)@MB190417: great work, thanks for adding the picture and for elaborating more on your sources in the page talk. Truly great work. if you improved the lede and dug some details about her early life, I think there is a chance this can be a good article. I might come later and help. As for now, I did some light copy editing and removed some typos. All new ALT are referenced, and I like ALT2 and ALT4. We can make it more dramatic/controversial by ALT5: ... that Rosa Smester Marrero, a prominent Dominican feminist, believed motherhood is a woman's ""true mission"" and a woman's life devoid of maternal work is ""useless""? I will leave it to you to decide between ALT 2, 4, and 5. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Far from making it dramatic/controversial, I would say ALT5 just makes it both tedious and offensive to those of us who have heard this far too many times. There are lots of catchy alternatives, let's use them. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 23 ===   ==== Matt Hicks (basketball) ====  ... that NIU dorm residents cast 65,000 write-in votes to elect Matt Hicks to the 1977 Pizza Hut All-American game? Source: https://www.proquest.com/docview/169561939 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Guslagie MalandaCreated by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 03:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Matt Hicks (basketball); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Overall:  @TonyTheTiger: Good article. AGF on sources since I can't access ProQuest. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)  User:Onegreatjoke Please double-check. You should be able to access the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism ====  ... that in his book It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, Bernie Sanders (pictured) refers to Jeff Bezos as ""the embodiment of the extreme corporate greed that shapes our times""? ALT1: ... that in his book It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, Bernie Sanders (pictured) refers to American billionaires as oligarchs? ALT2: ... that it's okay to be angry about capitalism? Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Crew Motorfest Comment: DYK hooks try to not unduly focus on the negative, but I don't think ALT0 does ""unduly"". Bezos.... is who he is. ALT1 does not identify anyone by name, but it's also nothing new, so I don't like it so much. ALT2 could work for an April Fools hook if no other ideas work. Also, the image currently appears in the sidebar. I don't know if that's good enough or if it needs to be in the article itself.Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment: Personally, I'm not impressed by either ALT1 or ALT2.  ALT1 is pretty uninteresting/expected as far as critiques of capitalist wealth go.  ALT2, on the other hand, feels like a violation of WP:NPOV, April fools or not. _MB190417_ (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Fair points. I prefer ALT0 but will try to brainstorm some others in case that's not seen as appropriate for the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I agree with MB190417, and honestly I'd say ALT0 has the same pitfall as ALT1. This is an entire book — surely Sanders has included some amusing anecdote or unexpected fact that would make for a catchy hook? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)I think I've covered all of the significant anecdotes as reported by the reliable sources. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I will say the sources easily check out in terms of reliability and high quality, and it is properly-written. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)  Full review needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Article is new enough, long enough, and earwig compliant; I have some concerns about the sourcing, though. You seem to be citing quite a few sources that either unreliable or don't demonstrate due weight of the facts they support due to partisanship, including Rolling Stone and WCIV (SBG-owned). I also agree with the above that the hooks presented don't really fly, so it would be nice if others could be fine (although the article is pretty content-heavy). A QPQ has been done – nice work so far, Muboshgu! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Thanks. I'll take a look at the sources and try to think of another hook. I don't see a problem with using Rolling Stone or a Sinclair-owned station given the contents and plenty of strong sources are used, like the Guardian, Fortune, NYT, NPR, New York magazine. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 24 ===   ==== The 1619 Project (TV series) ====  ... that according to Time magazine, The 1619 Project television series is ""posed to spark fresh controversy""? Source: Time magazine article Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/National Tom Sawyer Days Comment: QPQ to follow. Open to ALT hooks.Created by Cielquiparle (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The 1619 Project (TV series); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - just a suggestionQPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @Cielquiparle: Good article. Though, I believe that the hook would benefit better from an explanation on what the controversy is supposed to be or why it wants to spark controversy. Simply just saying controversy I feel isn't interesting enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Monster Max ====  ... that a Game Boy-released isometric action-adventure game was called by critics the closest in quality to and even greater than The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening? Source: GB Action review: ""I for one hope everybody believes me when I say this is lengths ahead of the Zelda phenomenon.""Banzzai review: ""In direct line, we find Zelda: The Awakening which has now moved into second position in my personal ranking.""Super Play review in this issueKeith of Super Gamer: ""It's second only to Link's Awakening as the best Game Boy game ever"". Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism Comment: Banzzai article is French. Sorry :/5x expanded by HumanxAnthro (talk). Self-nominated at 22:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Monster Max; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  General eligibility: New Enough: N - n Long Enough: YHook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - Concision preferred.Overall:  Great work expanding the article. Sourced, neutral, and free of plagiarism. A couple of issues. First, is there a reason for the unusual notes section in this article? It seems like they could just as well have been cited as a normal reference rather than note. Second, while this article has been greatly expanded, it is about 200 words short of being expanded by 5 times. I think it would also be clearer and more concise to refer to the game by name in the ALT, rather than by euphemism. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)   CurryTime7-24, thanks for the comments! The reason I was not explicit with the name was that I assumed readers would be way more interested in the being-compared-to-Zelda part. 200 words? Wow, that's close. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Got it. Well, referring to the game euphemistically gives greater attention to Link's Awakening than this game. After all, Monster Max is the star of this DYK. ;) As for the expansion being short by ca. 200 words, I don't think it would be tough to pad this article just a little more in order to reach the threshold. It's not a big deal to me personally, but I don't want this DYK nom to be derailed by another editor on a technicality. Again, great work here overall. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) CurryTime7-24 Honestly, I think this article is as complete as it could be, so you can cancel this nomination. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I meant ""200 characters"". I'm very sorry about my mix-up of words. You've added enough since you submitted this DYK to meet the threshold. So all I'm waiting for now is for you to improve the ALT. I'm ready to review and approve once you're set! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, well in that case, let me submit a new ALT. ALT1 That some critics considered Monster Max to be the closest in quality to The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening over any other Game Boy game, some even greater than?User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 25 ===   ==== Qnat ====  ... that during the Battle of Qnat, a group of 44 Lebanese resistance fighters stood up to a 3,000-strong Syrian brigade? Source: Clovis Choueifaty, This is how the Free Resistance faced the Assad army in Lebanon (Beirut, 2017) Reviewed:Created by PalauanReich (talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Qnat; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - The one giant paragraph in the History section has all its reference lumped at the end. I understand that often sources are reworked and mixed, making it impractical to identify a specific source for each statement. This giant paragraph should be broken up into more reasonable paragraph sizes, which will then also allow the references to be more specific. Neutral: N - The History section is not entirely NPOV, problem terms: ""surprisingly effective"", ""martyred"". Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YHook eligibility:  Cited: N - As a result of the huge history paragraph, it is impossible to check if the hook is properly cited. Policy requires that ""the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact."" Interesting: Y Other problems: N - The numbers in the hook are not mentioned in the article!Image eligibility:  Freely licensed: N - Taken from an external website without permission. Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: YOverall:  Thank you for working hard on this new geography article! Please modify the huge History paragraph by breaking it up into a few smaller paragraphs, adding the appropriate references. The hook itself must be in the article - if no sources back up the total number of fighters (from both sides!), then the hook needs to be rewritten. Remove the copyvio image. Other general improvement suggestions (not related to this DYK): add vital statistics and demographics, and Economy section. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  @PalauanReich: let me know when the article is ready for another review. At this moment, I still don't see the ""3000-strong"" fact in the article... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @P199: sorry, I didn't know you could have it rereviewed, I instead created a Battle of Qnat wikipedia article that I submitted. It says 3000 strong though, right after Hamat Airport. PalauanReich (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Sure, DYK's are not dead after only one review. Articles can be worked on to address the issues raised in the DYK review. As for this review, sorry, yes, I see the ""3000"" in the article, but what source/reference is this number from? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) From here PalauanReich (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry, it is not on that webpage (using Google Translate).  -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Myat Phaya Gyi ====  ... that the Burmese princess Myat Phaya Gyi (pictured) cohabited with a palace servant, gave up her royal princess insignia, and lived a life of great poverty and extreme loneliness until her death? Source: Shah, Sudha (2012). The king in exile : the fall of the royal family of Burma. New Delhi. pp. 40–45. ISBN 978-93-5029-598-4. OCLC 962026050. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/TBACreated by Taung Tan (talk). Self-nominated at 16:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Myat Phaya Gyi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   The size and freshness is good for DYK. The prose is well referenced and no copyvio was observed. The article reads ""Myat Phaya Gyi fell in love with Gopal Bhaurao Sawant, an Indian palace gatekeeper, in 1906, when she was 26 years old, and had a child with him. At the time, he was already married."" It's not clear how they married if the guy had a wife and the sentence implies the two had child before marriage. Please correct me if it's wrong. Also waiting for the QPQ. --Mhhossein talk 06:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Mhhossein, The reason why the princess never married him was because he already had a legal wife, which she was unaware of during their love affair. During that time, the gatekeeper pretended to be single in order to win the heart of the princess. Taung Tan (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the explanations Taung Tan, so why does the hook say they got married? --Mhhossein talk 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC) My apology my misatke. fixed. Taung Tan (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) No worries. Please let me know when you're done with your QPQ. --Mhhossein talk 06:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Mhhossein: Just to make you aware, Taung Tan is currently indeffed for sockpuppetry, so said QPQ is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the notice, Iazyges. --Mhhossein talk 07:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Has a QPQ been provided yet? I'm willing to donate one for this nomination if one has not been provided yet. Pamzeis (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Bishopcroft ====  ... that, in 1910, the Bishop of Oregon commissioned a new residence that included a grand staircase, ballroom, and private chapel? Source: ""National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Bishopcroft of the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon"". National Park Service. 18 May 2000. Retrieved 24 February 2023. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Iconic (concert) Comment: Draft created by Bking64, article expanded and pushed to mainspace by PbrittiCreated by Bking64 (talk) and Pbritti (talk). Nominated by Pbritti (talk) at 16:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bishopcroft; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Article: Created on February 24, 2023, nominated for DYK the same day.Y The length checks, and its neutrally written.Y Hook: Truth be told, the hook caught my eye among the other nominations mainly for the opulent description of a bishop's residence. The description of the design in the article was fairly interesting to me.Y No issues with the neutrality and the info checks.Y QPQ: checks.YLooks good to me.--GDuwenHoller! 21:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)  Note: the article wasn't submitted on the date of creation; I did submit it within the requisite window, though. Just a minor correction for logging purposes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @Pbritti and GDuwen: I don't love ALT0, because it's a claim that has to be inferred from the original NRHP application, based on the fact that it states that no other alterations were made from the original design except for X, Y, Z. I searched the newspaper archives to see if I could find a reference to the ballroom in 1910/1911, but no joy there. It would be great if you could propose an ALT hook or two. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: I'm fairly certain that The house has been preserved in its original construction out of the source is explicit enough to to cover the grand staircase being original. There are multiple references to the bishop's chapel also being original in the NRHP report. The ballroom is additionally sourced to to not only the NRHP report (which doesn't describe it's origins in an exceedingly typical way of indicating it's presence in the original construction) but also to this article which indicates its lateral renovation. As best I can tell, the only hold up is that no source explicitly says ""the ballroom was built in 1911"" despite the overwhelming contextual evidence rather than unfounded inference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Pbritti: Unfortunately I don't think this explanation will hold up when we get grilled about it; it's too many inferential leaps. (It's possible, for example, that the ballroom was originally the library and got converted by Sumner without any ""major"" alterations... It's impossible to tell with the sources given so far.) Furthermore, that OregonLive article is a bit breezy and superficial; in the end, it's promoting a quirky home for sale so it's a source to use with caution. Is there any way you could find a copy of Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon, 1850–1950 in a library near you? It seems to be the main source missing that covers the subject in detail, and could provide more interesting hook ideas. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)We'd need to really, really contort the sources and assume the worst about a local paper's recent coverage to discount the most grammatically, contextually sound interpretation of the sources. However, I appreciate the excess caution in a post-Doug Coldwell world. I'll be checking out a copy of the book this weekend (it might require a day to ILL locally; I may expedite by dropping in when I'm in Denver for work) so we will have absolute confirmation then. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: Point taken. Since we seem to be kind of stuck at the time, why not modifying the hook to read ""commissioned a new residence that would include a grand staircase, ballroom, and private chapel?""?. I admit I did not go deep into those details while checking the source material. If it becomes that hard to establish, that modification of the hook would allow us to at least suggest that if the rooms were not there, they were added later at some other point in time. And if they were indeed there, it also covers it.--GDuwenHoller! 17:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 26 ===   ==== Zandra Flemister ====  ... that Zandra Flemister was the first African American woman to become a U.S. Secret Service agent? Source: Asma-Sadeque, Samira. (2023-02-26). ""Zandra Flemister, first Black woman in Secret Service, dies aged 71."" The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/26/zandra-flemister-first-black-woman-secret-service-dies Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Newark Liberty International AirportCreated by Topshelver (talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zandra Flemister; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   New enough, (barely) long enough, and not a stub. QPQ done. I'm wary of ""first X to do Y"" hooks, but I think this one is interesting enough. Properly sourced. However, there appears to be some inappropriate copying or close paraphrasing from the Washington Post obituary: compare our article ""Consul General in Pakistan and worked as the senior State Department representative at the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center in Washington"" with WaPo ""consul general in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in Washington as the senior State Department representative at the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center""; compare also our article ""affidavit in support of a class action lawsuit alleging rampant racial discrimination within the Secret Service"" with WaPo ""affidavit filed in support of a class-action lawsuit ... that alleged rampant racial discrimination within the Secret Service"". This needs to be fixed before this can be promoted. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)@David Eppstein: Thanks for the review. I made some edits - please take a look and let me know if additional edits are needed. Topshelver (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) That is the kind of edit one makes when trying to hide plagiarism, rather than to avoid it. It keeps the overall sentence structure the same and merely replaces some words with synonyms. All content must be written in your own words, based on your understanding of the sources, rather than merely copying the source material and making cosmetic edits to disguise the fact that it is copied. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)   ==== CFM International RISE ====  ... that unlike currently used aircraft engines, the in-development CFM International RISE engine would use an open rotor design? Source: CFM Unveils ‘Open Fan’ Demonstrator Plan For Next-Gen Engine, Aviation Week Network. ALT1: ... that the in-development CFM International RISE aircraft engine could use hydrogen fuel in addition to sustainable aviation fuel? Source: Boeing Keeps an “Open Mind” on RISE Engine Technology, Airways Magazine. Reviewed:Created by Taavi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/CFM International RISE; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   New enough and long enough. The user is QPQ-exempt. No textual copyvio issues. Other sources note the unusual nature of the design in the present environment, and both hook facts check out. Looks good to me. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) @Taavi and Sammi Brie: Isn't it a bit WP:TOOSOON to be sending an article about a product under development to the Wikipedia main page? Ultimately the main source cited for this is a company announcement which was republished in Aviation Week, etc. – the type of source that is frowned upon at AfD. There is a lot of promising about a future product that hasn't been evaluated properly by independent secondary sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Upon re-evaluation, the actual content of this article on the main topic (CFM International RISE) is too thin, too promotional, and simply too speculative per WP:CRYSTALBALL. At this time and in its current state, it is not suitable to be featured on the main page. Comments welcome but from me, this is a fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 27 ===   ==== Zenni Optical ====  ... that when Zenni Optical released a Super Bowl LIV ad, its website told a number of customers that eyeglasses deliveries would be delayed for between three and four weeks? Source: Narayan, Shwanika (2020-02-07). ""From eyeglasses to backpacks, Bay Area firms scramble as coronavirus closes Chinese factories"". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-02-27. Retrieved 2023-02-27.The article notes: ""This should have been a good February for Zenni Optical. The Novato eyewear company aired its first Super Bowl ad, starring 49ers tight end George Kittle, this month. But some people who watched the ad and went online to order glasses got this message: “Due to mandatory business closures in China, standard delivery will extend to 21-28 days. Express and priority shipping will not be available. We apologize for any inconvenience.” ALT1: ... that Zenni Optical offers a collection of glasses constructed entirely from recycled plastic? Source: Ling, Vanessa (2023-01-23). ""Zenni Optical Review: Affordable Custom Styles"". Everyday Health. Archived from the original on 2023-02-27. Retrieved 2023-02-27.The article notes: ""Zenni has a line of eco-conscious frames, ReMakes by Zenni, that are made from 100 percent recycled plastic."" Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Live at Bush HallMoved to mainspace by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 06:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zenni Optical; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Overall:  Impressive taking something that was salted and turning it into an article! Appears to be: new enough (moved to mainspace February 27), long enough, doesn't seem overly promotional, and no copyvios detected; the hooks are cited and are interesting. A QPQ has been done. This appears ready to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)   Is this article at AfD? There appears to be an AfD-like discussion transcluded somehow on the Talk page. Anyway, officially putting this nomination on hold until that is resolved. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on February 28 ===   ==== Torchlight: Infinite ====  ... that Torchlight: Infinite was worked on by the creator of Diablo, David Brevik? Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/diablo-s-creator-explains-why-he-s-working-for-a-chinese-rivalhttps://www.pocketgamer.biz/asia/job-news/79700/diablo-veteran-david-brevik-joins-the-torchlight-infinite-team/ Reviewed:Created by Nmarshall25 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Torchlight: Infinite; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article was worked on in draftspace and was moved into mainspace. It is long enough and sourced, although there is a citation needed tag that needs to be addressed. The article appears to be written neutrally and without copyright violation. Nmarshall25 has one DYK credit to their name, so QPQ is not required for this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Karmalink ====  ... that Karmalink is the first science fiction film from Cambodia? Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saramerican/2022/07/31/cambodian-sci-fi-film-karmalink-spotlights-displaced-communities-and-countrys-tech-developments/?sh=582599d710a0 ALT1: ... that Cambodia's first science fiction film, Karmalink, combines Buddhist concepts of karma with themes of artificial intelligence? Source: https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/karmalink-review-chiet-krawy-1235054335/ Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ilford Park Polish HomeCreated by Arcahaeoindris (talk). Self-nominated at 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Karmalink; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   The article is currently rated as a stub, although in terms of raw character count it passes the DYK checker. I'll look more into this while you expand it to the best of your abilities. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you! I called it a stub as I just started it. I have reclassed it as ""start-class"" now. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 1 ===   ==== Garry Kasparov ====  ... that Garry Kasparov holds the record for most consecutive professional chess tournament victories? Source: Roudik, Peter (2009). Culture and Customs of the Caucasus. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-313-34885-3. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/True (Spandau Ballet song) ALT1: that Garry Kasparov, the World Chess Champion from 1985 to 2000, broke away from FIDE following a dispute in 1993 and established the rival organisation PCA that same year? Source: Evans, Larry (4 November 1995). ""CONTROVERSY OVER TWO RIVAL RATING SYSTEMS"". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2 July 2021. Retrieved 2 July 2021.Improved to Good Article status by Dallavid (talk) and Billsmith60 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 17:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Garry Kasparov; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment I thought it might be better to use a DYK that wasn't one of Kasparov's records, because those could potentially be surpassed in the future. I had also wanted to write out the full names, ""...from the International Chess Federation (FIDE)  following a dispute in 1993 and established the rival organisation Professional Chess Association (PCA)..."" because the average reader may not be familiar with them, but this would've gone over the character limit. --Dallavid (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Hook eligibility:  Cited: ? Interesting: YOverall:  I'm not a chess expert, but recognize Kasparov as a great, so most consecutive wins does not seem all the surprising or interesting. The alt hook has potential. However, I don't see where ""World Chess Champion from 1985 to 2000"" is  explicly stated (and sourced) in the article. Also, the hook's ""dispute in 1993"" is not clear in the text of the WP article, which only seems to mention: ""After a confusing and compressed bidding process produced lower financial estimates than expected..."" Finally, the article's ""Their match took place under the auspices of the Professional Chess Association (PCA), an organisation established by Kasparov"" is not supported by the nearest citation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  As noted on the Kasparov Talk page, those two issues have been addressed. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC) While ""(1985 to 2000)"" is now in the lead,[16] I don't see it obviously sourced in the body.  Perhaps if someone can quote the text from the WP page that supports this span?  I'm also still unclear the exact ""dispute"" that the hook refers to. A quote from the WP page would be helpful there too. Finally, the Britannica source  for ""Professional Chess Association"" (currretly footnote 67), leads to a display of ""Page Not Found"" from the Britannica site.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Doesn't the Sun-Sentinel source I provided explain the dispute? Dallavid (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC) ALT1 says ...broke away from FIDE following a dispute in 1993..., but the Sun-Sentinel source talks about the dispute after they broke off and formed the PCA, not before.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Here are some sources for the disputes being before the PCA was founded.[17][18][19] Dallavid (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Those sources seem to allude to the dispute from 1984 at Garry Kasparov § 1984 world championship; however, the proposed hook refers to something different—""a dispute in 1993"". Also, note that WP:DYKCRIT says: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article...Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source...—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC) More info of the dispute, with sources, was added to the article. Dallavid (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Please see the Kasparov Talk page for your comments having been addressed Billsmith60 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I agree with Dallavid that the issue is sorted now – and done to death! Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)@Dallavid: I do see that you have added sources. However, my issue is probably not so much the sources (or that it's true), but with the WP article directly supporting the hook.  WP:DYKCRIT says: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article. Sorry if it's my ignorance of chess, but can you quote the specific text from the WP article that support the hook's:  ""World Chess Champion from 1985 to 2000"" ""a dispute in 1993"": I see ""the world champion and his challenger both rejected FIDE's bid for an August match in Manchester"", but that doesn't refer specifically to a dispute. A rejection is not necessarily a ""dispute"". Perhaps it's just the article text that needs tweaking to support the hook. Alternatively, perhaps the hook could read ""broke away from FIDE in 1993 following a dispute in 1993 and established...""?Also, make sure the supporting WP text has a citation next to it in the WP article. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Hello again, please see the first paragraph for the dates. You will note that citations are not permitted in the Lead. Also, I'd support your suggested tweaking of the Hook dispute text. I am unable to assist further with this endeavour. The article being GA is enough for me. Thanks and regards Billsmith60 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC) It's not so much that ""citations are not permitted in the lead"", but that the lead material is generally restating facts already in the body (MOS:LEADCITE).  So it's OK if the lead is not cited, but the fact would then need to be stated and cited in the body. So anyone can supply me the related article quote(s) that supports the time span stated in the hook.  Alternatively, perhaps the exact span is not the interesting part of the hook and can be pared?—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 2 ===   ==== The Discovery of Morniel Mathaway ====  ... that William Tenn's science fiction short story ""The Discovery of Morniel Mathaway"", has been used to illustrate Jacques Lacan's concept of the sinthome? Source: Žižek, page 58, and many (many) books that refer to Žižek Reviewed: Comment: No idea whether this is too many links or too fewCreated by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Discovery of Morniel Mathaway; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - See below. Neutral: N - See below. Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YHook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - No.QPQ: N - Not done.Overall:  Article created on 2 March, and meets the length requirement. Earwig reveals no copyvio and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. QPQ has not been done. I don't think the hook is interesting, since I think most readers will simply go ""I don't understand what that means"" and move on. Some comments on the content:  Plot summaries don't really need references (the work itself is presumed to be the source), but including them is not a problem, either. ISFDB is not a WP:Reliable source. The same script was used for productions on Future Tense in July 1976. – unsourced. Žižek's ""masterpiece"" work – this is the first mention of Slavoj Žižek in the article, so the full name should be included and linked. Žižek's ""masterpiece"" work – I don't see a good reason to include ""masterpiece"" here. Seems like unnecessary WP:PUFFERY. This analysis is widely used in similar works. – unsourced.Ping Maury Markowitz. TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @TompaDompa: The template makes it practically impossible to read in source form, so forgive me if I miss anything:  The opinion on this changes daily. Not going to do anything here. For a list of books it was published in? Really? Whatever, open to suggestions. Link added. ""masterpiece"" is used, in this form, in the article on the book. I'm in favour of leaving it in. Removed.Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  ""Masterpiece"" might be reasonable in the article on the book itself, but I don't see a good reason to include it here. On a similar note, an issue best known for its cover article by Willy Ley describing the Disneyland production of Man in Space which featured the famous reusable winged spaceship designed by Wernher von Braun for the show is WP:OFFTOPIC. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 3 ===   ==== Isaac Musa ====  ... that the  Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission listed former Council of State vice chair Isaac Musa among deceased supposed perpetrators of human rights abuses and war crimes? Source: Edmund Hogan (13 December 2021). Liberia's First Civil War: A Narrative History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-00-048570-7. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter White (Tennessee politician)Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Isaac Musa; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  @Soman: I am far from expert in en grammar but I feel DYK and the sentence in the article too needs bit improvement in paraphrasing. Sentence in the article says "".. Isaac Musa was listed, .., as 'Dead Perpetrators' by the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (LTRC), presented by the Commission as 'perpetrators who the LTRC [determined] were responsible for various forms of human rights abuses [...] and war crimes but died before the conclusion of the LTRC.'Can sentence in the article be rephrased something like, "".. Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (LTRC) declared Isaac Musa among perpetrators who  were responsible for various forms of human rights abuses [...] and war crimes but died before the conclusion of the LTRC. .."" Now about DYK, Can we understand why you are using word  'supposed'  in "".. among deceased supposed perpetrators ..""?  I am feeling that word bit awkwardly placed. I have not checked source. Whether commission is not sure of their war crimes? If LTRC is sure and conclusive then word 'supposed' seems unnecessary. If  LTRC is not sure then whether word 'likely' or 'most likely' will be better in place of word supposed? Your feed back will help Other users  to help you better.  I chose to comment in this DYK being participant in User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace.  Bookku    (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The problem is that LTRC wasn't conclusive by any means. Effectively Isaac's name was put on a list, but it's not like he was really placed on trial on anything. So adding 'supposed' to the DYK is a safer wording. --Soman (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Garnett Wikoff ====  ... that delivering newspapers was how Garnett Wikoff became an Olympic runner? Source: Norwalk Evening Herald (""Garnett Wikoff is working his way through college by selling newspapers. He has a route and it is a large one, covering territory of nine or ten miles. This has to be traversed each morning before breakfast and school. It is to this work that Wikoff owes his successes and fame as a long-distance runner and from this work he also earns enough to pay for his education. For two years he has had the route and has carried papers in rain or shine, in heat or cold. Each morning, the young man is up at an hour when most of his school mates are asleep. Daily he began to quicken his pace. First he adopted a brisk walk, then a dog trot, and now he runs at full speed, stopping only to deliver his papers."") Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Josi5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Garnett Wikoff; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article was expanded at least 5x, is long enough and is neutral. It was nominated for DYK on due time. It cites sources inline. ""Earwig's Copyvio Detector"" reports text similarity of 40.5% in one source commenting ""violation possible"". However, the text portions are quotes only, therfore, no copyvio is there. The hook is well-formatted, interesting, and is cited inline. Its length is within limit. QPQ is missing. I will approve after the QPQ was provided. CeeGee 08:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC) @CeeGee: Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Josi as a QPQ. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 08:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @BeanieFan11 and CeeGee: I really like this article. The one problem that jumps out is the 3 references citing Ancestry.com, which raises flags from a WP:RS point of view. Personally, I think it's ok to just delete that part of the article – it's kind of weak to be citing someone's ""occupation"" as listed in the U.S. Census and including that as encyclopedic information. But if you really want to keep it, I would advise fixing the links so that they link directly to the relevant census records, and then only listing Ancestry.com in the ""via"" field – Ancestry.com is not the actual source at all; they are just re-publishing the information. (The distinction is important because the original content on Ancestry.com itself is full of speculative garbage.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 4 ===   ==== Fred Narganes ====  ... that Fred Narganes (pictured) is said to be the first Latino wrestler to win an amateur US national championship or to compete for an American university, and among the first Latino American Olympians? Source: National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 College Football Playoff National Championship/retry5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fred Narganes; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Overall:  This article was newly expanded when nominated, is long enough (>4,300 chars), and shows no signs of plagiarism from online sources. It maintains a suitably neutral tone, establishing the subject's notability without getting too laudatory. The QPQ review looks good. The claims in the article are all supported by cited sources. The hook has some interesting firsts and is present in the article, supported by a cited source. Admins could consider adding the infobox image from the article, if they wanted a hook with an interesting image. The article looks ready for DYK to me. Good work! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @Bryanrutherford0: Thanks for the review. I've added the image to the nomination per your suggestion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 5 ===   ==== 2023 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly ====  ... that in 2023, the presidential address Vladimir Putin (pictured) delivered to the Federal Assembly was simultaneously broadcast on large screens in public areas of Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine? Source: https://archive.today/20230226114445/https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/22/in-photos-how-putins-address-really-was-one-to-the-entire-nation-a80308 Reviewed: Babel II (short story) Comment: i thought i might offer three different options for the picture.Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC).  ALT1: ... that in 2023, the presidential address Vladimir Putin (pictured) delivered to the Federal Assembly was broadcast on large screens in public areas of Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine? Radzy0 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC) This is my first full DYK review.  A second opinion would be appreciated. Two images in the article have been nominated for deletion with the comment, ""not a work from the Kremlin.""  One of them is included as an alternate in the DYK nomination. The hook, with elipsis and ""(pictured) "" removed, is 201 characters.  Maybe change ""simultaneously broadcast"" to ""broadcast live"" or (ALT1) to just ""broadcast""? I'm not sure the picture adds much value to the hook.Image eligibility:  Freely licensed: N - n Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: YOverall:  The article was created on March 5, 2023 and nominated within seven days after creation. The article is 1678 bytes long, so it's long enough. Sourcing requirements are met; two article are in Russian, AGF. The article is neutral in tone, and no plagiarism issues were detected. Earwig says copyvio ""Violation Unlikely 4.8%"" and the listed source, on manual review, obviously does not have a violation. No dispute templates. BLP requirements satisfied. The hook is properly mentioned and cited inline, and verified by the sources. Radzy0 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Radzy, I have relocated the notification of review template from this page, to the nominator's talk page, where it is meant to be placed. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Half a Soul, Olivia Atwater ====  ... that Olivia Atwater's debut novel Half a Soul, which follows a girl who is unable to feel and express her emotions after a faerie stole half of her soul, is set in the Regency era? Source: [20] ALT1: ... that the main character from Olivia Atwater's debut novel Half a Soul is unable to feel and express her emotions and that her condition was interpreted as a metaphor for neurodivergence? Source: [21] Reviewed:Created by Poirot09 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Half a Soul; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   I think there might need to be changes to the hook because, as currently written, it fails WP:DYKSG#C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Is it okay now? I haven't changed it much since I think the premise of the book is the most interesting part. Poirot09 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I've added a possible ALT that clearly refers to the real world in case the first one doesn't meet the requirement. Poirot09 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Can we try a different angle here? I don't think this one is working out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC) For both hooks? Is the issue the wording or the content? I'll see but I feel like those are the most interesting bits. Poirot09 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC) There may be disagreement on this, but based on previous precedent, I really don't think the new ALT solves the earlier concern about it not being related to the real world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)I have an idea with ALT1. Is this interpretation thing within the book, or was it from a review? It's not very clear in ALT1, but if it's the latter, I think the hook could be rewritten to be able to meet the guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)@User:Narutolovehinata5 Sorry for the late reply, yes the fact is from a review, should it be explicitly attributed to the reviewer? Poirot09 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Yes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Bating (leather) ====  ... that either dog feces, or hen and pigeon manure, were used by tanners to produce a soft leather? Source: Wood, Joseph Turney (1912). The Puering, Bating, and Drenching of Skins. London: Spon. OCLC 9336160, p. 1 Reviewed: Comment: This is a newly created article, made on 5 March 2023Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bating (leather); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment Why spell it ""fæces""? What I can find online all says that that's an archaic spelling. Cheers! Freedom4U (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)@Freedom4U:, yes, it is an old way of spelling, but it is also the typical British way of spelling the word, as you can see here. British spellings are permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this spelling was also selected for aesthetic reasons. Some of the sources used in the article actually spell it this way, and these sources date only to the 20th century. Besides, often we still find these archaic spellings used in Modern English, such as in Encyclopaedia Britannica. There are other examples, besides these. Davidbena (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - n Interesting: YOverall:  Interesting and original topic, will catch attention, hook citation needs proper location (citation attached to the prime sentence / maybe the cite two sentences on will do but this needs work by someone with access to the sources...) While the material does not raise plagiarism red flags, there is one rather long direct quote - it's properly cited, but still a significant percentage of the total; no other major issues. QPQ not required, as seems to be just second DYK. Will await article tweaks. SeoR (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 6 ===   ==== Nick Acocella ====  ... that New Jersey politics expert Nick Acocella hosted Pasta & Politics, a television show where he would make pasta with various politicians including Thomas Kean, Cory Booker, and Chris Christie? Source: “ He hosted a TV show in which he spoke with local political titans like Tom Kean and Chris Christie while cooking pasta.In 2015, he started hosting his own TV show, “Pasta & Politics,” on NJTV. He welcomed guests like U.S. Sen. Cory Booker and state Senate President Stephen Sweeney to make Italian food and chat about their trade.“I love politics. I love pasta. The combination was inevitable,” Acocella said of the idea.” NJ.com Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship gameCreated by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 23:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nick Acocella; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   @Thriley: New enough and barely long enough at 1540 characters, but it reads shorter than it is because of all the choppy sentences. The TV show is legitimately interesting as a hook and checks out. Have you tried using Newspapers.com? It's now in the WP:TWL bundle for qualified editors. It has good paper density in New Jersey, and I'm finding articles like the one I've cited here. I also clipped the newspapers.com version of a paywalled North Jersey Media Group article. I'd just like to see the article be less choppy and a bit richer before approving. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Thank you very much for your review! I’ll flesh it out with some newspapers.com newstories. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Geneva Declaration (1918) ====  ... that the Geneva Declaration was the agreement on a provisional government during the creation of Yugoslavia? Source: Janković, Dragoslav (1964). ""Ženevska konferencija o stvaranju jugoslovenske zajednice 1918. godine"" [Geneva Conference on Creation of the Yugoslav Community in 1918]. Istorija XX veka [History of the 20th Century] (in Serbian). Vol. V. Belgrade: Institute of Legal History of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law. pp. 225–262. OCLC 67000822. Pages 242-244 and 249 amongst other sources ALT1: ... that Nikola Pašić was did not want to compromise on the Geneva Declaration despite insistence and threats until a letter was received detailing Raymond Poincaré wishes to come to an agreement? Source: Janković, Dragoslav (1964). ""Ženevska konferencija o stvaranju jugoslovenske zajednice 1918. godine"" [Geneva Conference on Creation of the Yugoslav Community in 1918]. Istorija XX veka [History of the 20th Century] (in Serbian). Vol. V. Belgrade: Institute of Legal History of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law. pp. 225–262. OCLC 67000822. Pages 246-247 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal Comment: Unsure if I worded these correctly or got some incorrect.Improved to Good Article status by Tomobe03 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Geneva Declaration (1918); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Recent good article, certainly long enough. Nothing overtly non-neutral. QPQ done. Most of the sources are non-English or inaccessible, but I can access Jelavich & Jelavich 2000, and the sentence ""this prompted Pašić to instruct Serbian ambassador to the United States to investigate if Serbia could at least receive Bosnia and Herzegovina"" is quite a close paraphrase. A check on Pavlowitch 2003, pp. 29–35 produced no problems however. Regarding the hooks, I think new ones are needed. The current two lack context establishing what the declaration was meant to be and its surrounding context. There's some very interesting stuff here, for me especially the weird 'dual-monarchy' concept where one monarch was the national council. (I'm not sure how closely that is inspired by the Austro-Hungarian system exactly, but I'm happy to give the sources the benefit of the doubt there.) CMD (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reworded the sentence you pointed out just to be on the safe side.Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Davolls General Store ====  ... that Davolls General Store (pictured), operating since 1793, is the oldest continually operating general store in Massachusetts? Source: https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/massachusetts/oldest-store-ma/ ALT1: ... that Davolls General Store (pictured), operating since 1793, is one of the oldest continually operating stores in the United States? Source: https://turnto10.com/news/local/a-look-inside-one-of-americas-oldest-general-stores-reopens-in-dartmouth https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/22/business/general-store-all-about-details/ Reviewed:Created by AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Davolls General Store; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   The page is well written, is correctly sourced and has no neutrality or copyvio issues. The hook is supported by the source provided. Toadboy123 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)@AdmiralAckbar1977 and Toadboy123: A few thoughts. The article suffers badly from WP:OVERCITE. We should aloo try to avoid citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. The lead is three sentences but it has eleven citations. the claims of oldest are cited to local sources. I did have a look at the Boston Globe article and they make no such claims about ""oldest"". A hook will work with the years in operation which I believe is 230, or the year of establishment 1793. I think we might consider a new hook because the ""oldest"" is cited to Edible Southeastern Massachusetts and Only in Your State. Bruxton (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Hi @Bruxton:, would you be more comfortable with something like ""Did you know Davolls General Store has been in continuous operation  since 1793? Or, instead of since 1793, for the last 230 years? AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC) @AdmiralAckbar1977, I would suggest that you go for this hook, as it clarifies the point made by @Bruxton. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)ALT2:... that Davolls General Store (pictured) has been in continuous operation  since 1793?Here is the ALT you have proposed, I have only formatted. It is accurate and supported and I hope others think it is interesting. Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC) @AdmiralAckbar1977, Toadboy123,  and Bruxton: I have demoted this hook from Prep, because a section of this article has now been tagged for using a list where it should use prose. I could be convinced that the ""Ownership"" section should remain as is, as long as a bit more prose is incorporated in the ""History"" section. At the moment, the History section is very dense, and there is room to expand it in a more reader-friendly way that is easier to follow. (Quite frankly I'm a bit surprised that this article was already submitted for GA as is; it actually doesn't feel ""complete"" yet.) BTW, you may want to check out what WP:MOS says about hyphens vs. dashes; I see some hyphens used inappropriately. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Issue with tag inside of article still needs to be resolved. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 7 ===   ==== Caity Baser ====  ... that a trip to a London studio caused Caity Baser to cry her way through her second shift at The Co-op and leave on her third? Source: https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/caity-baser-interview-tiktok-average-student-radar-3331018 Reviewed: Comment: I plan on further expanding this, but have had enough for now. QPQ forthcoming.Created by Launchballer (talk) and 03md (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 13:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Caity Baser; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Hi Launchballer (talk), review follows: article created 2 March and exceeds minimum length; article is cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources for the content cited; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing in checking the sources; hook fact is interesting enough for me, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited; just awaiting a QPQ, I think - Dumelow (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Template:Did you know nominations/Thierry Coquand.--Launchballer 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Kemah Bob ====  ... that the American comedian Kemah Bob maintains a drag king persona, Lil' Test Ease? Source: https://www.itv.com/watch/celebrity-karaoke-club/10a0492/10a0492a0016 Reviewed: Comment: QPQ forthcoming. Genuinely unsure who else deserves credit on this.Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 12:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kemah Bob; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - n (needs some work)Overall:  (plagiarism free except of the quote of course! + the check just gives you how many the person did and not how they did vs. How many they nominated!) I enjoyed reading this article. Overall, Well sourced (did not verify all references but checked up to the hook) although an image for the persona would have added more perspective. Nevertheless, Good work! Let's brainstorm some hooks .. I will come back with some hook suggestions as the current one needs some work especially around the word “maintains” FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  @Launchballer: here some hooks .. ALT1: ... that Kemah Bob maintains a bipolar disorder and a drag king persona? ALT2: ... that the American comedian Kemah Bob performs a drag king persona, Lil' Test Ease? ALT3: ... that men's rights activist Lil' Test Ease is actually a woman? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Babel II (short story) ====  ... that Damon Knight invented a language for his story ""Babel II"", where the protagonist accidentally triggers a second Tower of Babel event? Source: page 104 of the original story and the entry in Conley and Cain Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Brennley BrownCreated by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Babel II (short story); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Maury Markowitz: general: article is new enough and long enough. policy: article is neutral.  everything is sourced except for the plot summary, which does not require citations as per mos:plotsource.  earwig shows nothing of concern. qpq: not yet provided. hook: i don't have access to the conley and cain source, but the story itself describes a simple substitution cipher, which i wouldn't call an invented language.  (the story ""partially describes"" the language when the protagonist lists which letters he had worked out.)  if, for example, i decided to substitute all my a's with e's and vice versa, i don't think i cen cleim to ba writing in e diffarant lenguega.  i think it is also a bit unusual to state that knight invented the language.  although he may have been the first to use that specific substitution cipher, i believe the general concept has existed for thousands of years. i think adding ""event"" to the end of the hook, to conform with the description in the plot summary, would prevent the hook from suggesting that another tower of babel was built in the story.  i wouldn't consider this modification necessary though; it's just a suggestion. points outside of the dyk criteria: do reliable sources state that the traveller was from a different dimension?  this did not seem clear to me from the story. the plot summary is worded to suggest that after the protagonist realizes that this is a repeat of the tower of babel event, he heads first to mexico to meet up with the traveller.  however, the story has the protagonist head first to greenwich village.  was this part of the story deliberately skipped?  if so, i think the phrase ""his next stop is in Mexico"" could be reworded, for example, by replacing it with ""the traveller would be heading to Mexico"", to accurately reflect the story without needing to go into details regarding the trip to greenwich village. i don't think the protagonist caught the traveller ""entering another building"".  the traveller exited the world the same way he entered: via the protagonist's drawing table. awaiting qpq.  issue with hook.  dying (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  Maury Markowitz, it's been two weeks since this was noted as awaiting QPQ. Given that a week is how long you have to supply one after it's been noted as missing, this could technically close at any time. Please supply your QPQ right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)@BlueMoonset: Sorry guys, I'm not getting any in-wiki notifications - I got an email for your ping BM, but not the one from dying. C'est la vie. QPQ: Brennley Brown. Dying, added ""event"", works for me. As to the ""invent"", I'm not sure what to say - this is what they called it. I understand what you're saying, but it's about V in the end. Having been to this rodeo many times, would you pass the hook if it said ""used a substitution cypher"" and had no c&c ref? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Maury Markowitz, no worries about not getting my ping; it seems like some pings never reach me as well.i understand that ""the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth"", but i don't believe verifiability necessitates inclusion, and personally, i have refrained from including verifiable statements when i believe that they are not true.  the ""used a substitution cypher"" proposal seems agreeable, though i am worried if it is in danger of violating c6 of the supplementary guidelines, which requires the hook to ""involve the real world in some way"".  technically, the hook satisfies that guideline, so i would approve the hook, but since i haven't been to as many rodeos as you have, i'd also flag it so that a more experienced promoter can review it to make sure that it is okay.similarly, if you mention the cipher in the plot summary, i'd be fine with the article not strictly adhering to rule 3b (which requires the hook to be cited) due to the exception afforded by d2 (presumably based on mos:plotsource), but i'd still recommend that you at least add appropriate citations to the parts of the summary relevant to the hook, as recently, people have been more strict on wt:dyk about citations being at the end of the relevant sentences in the article.more pressing, though, is the fact that the article has been unilaterally converted into a redirect.  i don't have access to the offline sources, so had assumed that, with your experience, you would know if the short story passes gng.  should the conversion be reverted?  dying (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)@Dying: Oh, isn't that nice? Delete someone's work without following any established guidelines like PROD or AfD. I wasn't aware this had even happened. I thought maybe this was just another missing ping, but nope, the editor in question didn't bother to inform anyone, they just went ahead and deleted it. I give up. Nom withdrawn. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Maury Markowitz, i am sorry to hear that.  if it helps, i enjoyed reading the story, so am glad that you had created the article.  by the way, this discussion [perm] might offer some insight regarding current practices at npp. withdrawn by nominator.  dying (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 8 ===   ==== N. Porsenna ====  ... that N. Porsenna, who translated The Ballad of Reading Gaol into Romanian, spent seven years in communist prisons? Source: Rhea Cristina, Închisorile politice. Zoe Porsenna, avocat, intervievată la București in 2001, at Memoria Digital Library; Călin Stănculescu, ""Nicu Porsenna, o victimă a temnițelor comuniste"", in România Liberă, August 12, 2005 (the first of these provides the exact full dates, showing that it was 7 full years and 2 months) ALT1: ... that the ""notorious anti-Semitic publicist"" N. Porsenna was also a noted figure in Romanian parapsychology? Source: The qualifier in Victor Rizescu, ""Social Policy and the Corporatist Design: A Romanian Experience of Reluctant Intermingling"", in Sfera Politicii, Issue 2 (188), 2016, pp. 28–29; his activity as a parapsychology is reviewed, with some accolades, in Victor Săhleanu, ""Telepatie, clarviziune, telekinezie..."", in Flacăra, Vol. XX, Issue 820, February 1971, p. 15. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sibil PektorosoğluCreated by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 12:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/N. Porsenna; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Censorship under the military dictatorship in Brazil ====  ... that newspapers in Brazil printed cake recipes and 16th-century poetry to cover material censored by the military dictatorship? Source: http://www.memorialdademocracia.com.br/card/noticia-censurada-da-lugar-a-camoes ALT1: ... that the military dictatorship in Brazil censored so much material from 1969 to 1975 that O Estado de S. Paulo published the 8,116 verses of Os Lusíadas twice over? Source: http://www.memorialdademocracia.com.br/card/noticia-censurada-da-lugar-a-camoes Reviewed: Comment: This is my first DYK nomination. I hope I've done everything correctly.Created by إيان (talk). Self-nominated at 19:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Censorship under the military dictatorship in Brazil; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. Shall we link O Estado de S. Paulo? Just a suggestion. Maybe mentioning the kilogram of salt would be good too. Bremps! 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Bremps, sure—whatever people think is best. I just found the kg of salt detail in the Vice source and wasn't able to cross-check it though. إيان (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)I haven't done a full review, but I've spotted a couple of things that concern me.  First the lede quotes a source for the phrase ""moral e bons costumes"".  I don't see that phrase in the source.  I see ""moral e aos costumes"".  I can't read the original Portuguese, and I suspect the meaning is essentially the same, but still, a quote should be exactly what the source says.  Next, the article says Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil were arrested December 17, 1968, but both cited sources gives December 27th for the date.  I assume that's just a typo, but more importantly we say under the false accusation of having performed a parody the Brazilian National Anthem.  The El Pais source certainly says that, but we really can't make such a statement in wiki voice; it should be attributed to El Pais.  This leads me to believe that we've got WP:NPOV issues with this article.  Given that most of the sources are in Portuguese, I'd like to see a review done by somebody who can read the sources in the original language.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)RoySmith, thank you for your attentive reflection on the article. For ""moral e bons costumes,"" a formulation with prepositions ""à"" and ""aos""—""à moral e aos bons costumes"" ('to morality and to good manners')—appears three times in the piece of legislation. ""December 17"" is indeed a mistake—thank you for bringing it to attention. The wording around the claim of false accusation can be revisited, but it is widely reported and hardly from El Pais alone. A few other sources: The Guardian, Folha,  and the New Yorker. إيان (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Sassoun Massacre ====  ... that the Sassoun Massacre was one of the first acts of systematic mass violence against Armenians, in 1894? Source: Mehmet Polatel. The Complete Ruin of a District: The Sasun Massacre of 1894. p. 179. Reviewed:Created by Nocturnal781 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sassoun Massacre; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Created by Nocturnal781 (talk). Self-nominated at  22:42, 8 March 2023‎. General eligibility: New Enough: Y Long Enough: Y Other problems: YPolicy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y Other problems: YHook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: YOverall:  Graearms (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)   The hook fact is cited to three sources in the article, and all of them qualify the claim in various ways.Polatel 2016: The Sasun Massacre of 1894 was the first case of organized mass violence against Armenians in the late Ottoman period that brought about the complete ruin of a region and its inhabitants.Dadrian 1995: The Sassoun massacre was the first instance of organized mass murder of Armenians in modern Ottoman history that was carried out in peace time and had no connection with any foreign war. Martirosyan 2022: The Sasun massacre of 1894 was the first in a series of incidents of mass violence against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This means it was the first in a particular series of incidents which the author goes on to discuss; not that it was the first ever.Since the sources do not verify the claim, I'm going to remove this sentence from the article; a new hook will be needed. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC) They are all saying the same thing? Nocturnal781 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure how best to explain this; tell me if I'm not being clear. You have to look at each statement as a whole, and compare it with the claim in the hook. So the hook says ""one of the first acts of systematic mass violence against Armenians"", which implies one of the first ever, one of the first in history. This may be true, I don't know, but the sources don't support that claim.Looking at Dadrian 1995, for example, it does not simply say that the Sassoun Massacre was the first instance of organized mass murder of Armenians; it does not even say it was the first in modern Ottoman history; it says it was the first in modern Ottoman history that was carried out in peace time and had no connection with any foreign war. That adds a lot of conditions to the claim. Polatel 2016 adds some different conditions; it says the massacre was the first in modern Ottoman history to bring about the complete ruin of a region and its inhabitants. Neither of these sources are saying that the massacre was the first act of systematic mass violence against Armenians in history (and the third, as I've said, is talking about something different).Now, the hook could be amended into a more qualified claim, but I suspect this would fail the ""interestingness"" criteria, so I suggest finding a different hook altogether. Also pinging Graearms since I forgot to before. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Just discovered the article has serious problems with close paraphrasing. The ""Armenian genocide"" section is copied from Martirosyan 2020, ""Armenian Demographics of Sassoun in the Late Ottoman Period"", pp. 83–84 (accessible through the Wikipedia Library). ""International reaction"" is copied from Miller, Sasun 1894: Mountains, Missionaries and Massacres at the End of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 23–24. These sections comprise about 50% of the article; I haven't checked the rest. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 9 ===   ==== Passions (Homilius) ====  ... that the St Matthew Passion, composed by G. A. Homilius (pictured) in two parts of 50 movements, was first recorded in 1993 1992, and performed in 2023, although it is not yet published? Source: several Reviewed: to come Comment: The article is about four Passions, and more details will follow I hope. For Good Friday, 7 April, please. Help wanted for perhaps include that both recording and performance were with the same bass soloist which made the performance possible. --Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Passions (Homilius); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - The source about the first recording mentions that it took place in 1992, not 1993, and also mentions that the work isn't signed. Credit was given based on stylistic grounds. I guess it should be mentioned in the article. Interesting: YOverall:  QPQ needs to be performed before if gets promoted. The other issues are fixable. C messier (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Thank you for reviewing. I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Sally Buchanan. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I fixes the year, - thank you for correcting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: I'm also not sure about copyediting; the main article image needs a caution, the category is wrong (it is about a TV show), probably the title should be in italics, like Passions (Homilius). C messier (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I fixed the category. Do you know how to add a caption without getting a frame? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) See {{Plain image with caption}}. C messier (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 10 ===   === Articles created/expanded on March 11 ===   ==== Drew Van Horn, Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission ====  ... that Drew Van Horn, president of Young Harris College, was appointed to the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission last year? Source: https://sky963.com/yhc-president-appointed-as-georgia-nonpublic-postsecondary-education-commissioner/ ""Young Harris College (YHC) President Dr. Drew Van Horn was recently appointed by Governor Brian Kemp to the Board of Commissioners for the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission."" Reviewed: Frank LeMasterCreated by Mgreason (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Drew Van Horn; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   The article on the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission has 12 citations, 10 of which are primary sources from the GNPEC itself. Asserting the notability of the organization would be improved by adding independent sources. Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I am concerned that the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission might not be notable for its own article, but rather than nominating for deletion, I hope the nominator can improve the article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I have found and incorporated four additional sources into the article. Do you consider that sufficient? There are numerous other sources naming GNPEC but they really contribute nothing to the topic. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) It looks improved. A full review is still needed for both articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 12 ===   ==== Amy Harvey ====  ... that before joining the girl group XG, Japanese singer Amy Harvey won the most magazine awards when she participated in Tokyo Girls Audition? Source: https://mdpr.jp/interview/detail/1612547 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Li Fu LeeCreated by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 22:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Amy Harvey; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Soviet submarine K-222 ====  ... that Soviet submarine K-222 was the first submarine built with a titanium hull? Source: Polmar, Norman & Moore, Kenneth J. (2004). Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Washington, D. C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1-57488-594-1. Page 139 ALT1: ... that Soviet submarine K-222 was the fastest submarine ever built? Source: same as above Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Getting Older Comment: Some problems. 1. alt1 kind of has an unsureness is completely correct. A google search shows me that it's the fastest but also not but also is. Personally I think alt1 is correct but It's weird. Though the main problem is that none of these hooks are in the main article but rather in the lead. If nobody puts them in the article then I'll have to add it myself.Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Soviet submarine K-222; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Hi Onegreatjoke, review follows: recently promoted to GA, well cited, written, free from copyvio. I'm not seeing ALT0 in the source (or explicitly stated in the article body). Could you quote where the source says that and add a mention in the main article. What do you mean about AL1 saying that "" it's the fastest but also not but also is""? Otherwise, a qpq has been conducted and this seems to meet the rest of the DYKCRIT. Eddie891  Talk Work  19:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 13 ===   ==== Otto Schwarz (bandleader) ====  ... that ""greatly respected"" travelling bandleader Otto Schwarz (pictured) and his Bavarian String Band were interned in Douglas, Isle of Man, during World War I? Source: Malcolm G. Neesam (2022) Wells & Swells, the golden age of Harrogate Spa, 1842–1923, Carnegie Publishing, Lancaster, England, pages 1024–1025. (Paraphrase: Schwarz continued to perform in Harrogate up to 4 August 1914 when the First World War was announced. On 5 August, Schwarz and his band walked to Harrogate Police station with luggage and instruments, and queued, as per government requirement, to be interned as enemy aliens. They were imprisoned, then transported to Douglas in the Isle of Man)... ALT1: that respected travelling bandleader Otto Schwarz (pictured) and his Bavarian String Band were interned in Douglas, Isle of Man, during World War I? Storye book (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Reviewed: LithophaneCreated by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Otto Schwarz (bandleader); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article is new enough (page history dates back to February but it was moved from user to article space on 13 March) and long enough. Sourced and neutral. Earwig detected no issue, but I am a bit concerned about the rather large quote at the end, which seems to be word-for-word an entire newspaper article; have you considered shortening it? Hook is verified in the text, save for the ""greatly respected"" quote, which I was going to recommend removing anyway. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Re ""greatly respected"" in ALT0, the point of that was to show the difference in attitude between the band's audience and the authorities, before and after the start of World War I. Before the war started, the band was popular and respected. After it started, the band was imprisoned for being German. This is what happens in wars, and no-one is to blame, but I put the quote there just to show that attitudes had changed. Therefore I have given you ALT1, without quotes, but still with the word, respected, to retain that contrast. If we leave out ""respected"", then the hook will look as if the band was imprisoned for a specific war crime. The long quote at the end is fulfilling a function in the article, and we need all of it. It is a voice from the past, showing the attitude of the time. Today we may make random assumptions about what happened to Germans in England at the start of World War I, and that quote takes us, as on a time machine, directly to that time and place. It shows us the attitude of the British people to the band, and the meek and honourable behaviour of the German band itself. We cannot interpret historical text in articles, but we can present it for the reader to interpret in their own way. We cannot shorten it, because if we do, it will not work in the same way. The journalist has gone to a lot of trouble to put his point across clearly, and you can tell that they feel strongly about the matter. The quotation is dated 1914, so there is no copyvio issue. Storye book (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula ====  ... that fieldwork for the Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War? Source: ""...at which point the civil war interrupted them and the project director had to leave in exile"" http://www.alpi.csic.es/en/alpi/los-trabajos-del-atlas"" when the fieldwork was interrupted by the military uprising against the Republican government which was to become the Spanish Civil War."" https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6165 Reviewed: Comment: Could I also submit another fact about a linguist/fieldworker for the ALPI who was accused of espionage and almost executed?Moved to mainspace by Erinius (talk). Self-nominated at 17:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  ALT1: ... that the linguist Aníbal Otero was imprisoned for espionage while working on fieldwork for the Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula? Source: ""On the strength of ‘evidence’ that he was a spy — his avowed sympathy for the Republican cause, the fact that  his  ALPI  fieldwork  was  funded  by  the  Republican  government  in  Madrid,  and  especially  those  suspicious  notebooks  he  had  with  him,  which  were  apparently  full  of  incomprehensible  writing  in  ‘code’ — a  summary  military  tribunal  convicted  Otero  of  high treason and sentenced him to death by firing squad... his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He was eventually pardoned and released in 1941 (two years after the end of the Civil War), having spent more than five years in prison for the crime of linguistic fieldwork and Republican sympathies "" https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6165   === Articles created/expanded on March 14 ===   ==== The Longevity Diet ====  ... that The Longevity Diet is a 2018 book by Italian biogerontologist Valter Longo which suggests that lifespan and healthspan may be increased through fasting and diet? Source: ...restricting calories to between 800 and 1,100 per day. When you eat this way, your body gets tricked into believing it’s fasting, Longo says. This is also called a fasting-mimicking diet.  and The Longevity Diet proposes that the answer to not only a longer lifespan but also a longer “healthspan” comes down primarily to what, how much, how often and when we eat. ALT1: ... that The Longevity Diet is a 2018 book which advocates a ""fast-mimicking diet"" to increase lifespan and healthspan? Source: ...restricting calories to between 800 and 1,100 per day. When you eat this way, your body gets tricked into believing it’s fasting, Longo says. This is also called a fasting-mimicking diet. and The Longevity Diet proposes that the answer to not only a longer lifespan but also a longer “healthspan” comes down primarily to what, how much, how often and when we eat. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Joe Biden speech in WarsawCreated by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Longevity Diet; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Sarah Maria Griffin ====  ... that a fantasy novel by Irish poet and author, Sarah Maria Griffin, was sent to around 200,000 ticket-holders of the Tomorrowland music festival? Source: The Irish Times at www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/tomorrowland-i-can-t-believe-my-life-1.3960349 - ""around 200,000 of them have been dispatched to attendees of the festival. / It's Griffin's fourth book."" ALT1: ... that a fantasy by Irish author, Sarah Maria Griffin, sent to around 200,000 Tomorrowland attendees, had a case with a secret compartment? Source: The Irish Times at www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/tomorrowland-i-can-t-believe-my-life-1.3960349 - ""around 200,000 of them have been dispatched to attendees of the festival. / It's Griffin's fourth book."" & ""the finished book, a beautifully bound and designed artefact that comes in a specially created case with several props, a secret compartment and an electronic wristband"" Reviewed: Comment: Major expansion (finished at c. 6x) begun 2100 14 March. Unusual block sale of novel by multi-area artist (novelist, essayist, poet, spoken word artist, zinester), may generate more hooks, and still checking re. picture. DYK to follow within 24h.Created by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Maria Griffin; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Stanley Browne ====  ... that after bailing out of his aircraft over France, Stanley Browne was able to evade any German soldiers searching for him with the help of local villagers? Source: Lambert, Max (2011). Day After Day: New Zealanders in Fighter Command. Auckland: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 978-1-86950-844-9. Page 294-296 , Wells, Kevin W. (1984). An Illustrated History of the New Zealand Spitfire Squadron. Auckland, New Zealand: Hutchinson Group. ISBN 0-09-159360-3. Page 78-80 ALT1: ... that Stanley Browne was one of the first pilots to land on Sicily during World War II? Source: Shores, Christopher; Williams, Clive (1994). Aces High: A Tribute to the Most Notable Fighter Pilots of the British and Commonwealth Forces in WWII. London: Grub Street. ISBN 1-8-9869-7000. Page 153 , Rawlings, John (1976). Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and their Aircraft. London: MacDonald & James. ISBN 0-354-01028-X. Page 225 , Cull, Brian; Malizia, Nicola; Galea, Frederick (2000). Spitfires Over Sicily: The Crucial Role of the Malta Spitfires in the Battle of Sicily, January–August 1943. London: Grub Street. ISBN 1-902304-32-2. Page 136 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hyatt Grand Central New YorkImproved to Good Article status by Zawed (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stanley Browne; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  FWIW, I prefer ALT1 but with a suggestion for a slight tweak for context (on a literal reading of ALT1, it is incorrect since Italian/German pilots would have been landing there all the time as Sicily was a base for operations against Malta):  ... that Stanley Browne was one of the first Allied pilots to land on Sicily following its invasion by the Allies during World War II? Zawed (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Life Is but a Dream... ====  ... that Avenged Sevenfold teased their eighth studio album Life Is but a Dream... through an online scavenger hunt that began with their social media accounts being hacked? Source: Kerrang - ""A7X kicked off their cryptic online scavenger hunt last month by apparently getting 'hacked', with a fake announcement that a couple of their massive upcoming festival appearances had been cancelled. This naughty hacker was discovered to be Libad5343, with a website of the same name the launching and feeding fans all sorts of breadcrumbs""; Blabbermouth - ""Prior to the track's release, the band launched an elaborate and mysterious digital scavenger hunt with puzzles, ciphers, images, and blog posts all written by Chat GPT, DALL-E 2, and AI voice modifiers. What was initiated as a cryptic hacker campaign on socials, eventually lead fans to a web site full of challenges to complete over the past two weeks that ultimately lead to the single being 'unlocked' for release today."" Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Killer toyCreated by Aria1561 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Life Is but a Dream...; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Overall:  No problems here. The hook is cited and interesting, and the article is new, long enough, and within policy. Lazman321 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   Hook and article seem very promotional. It's a hook about a marketing campaign, a teaser for a product that hasn't been released yet. Not sure if it's main page material at this point in time, per WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:TOOSOON. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Cielquiparle: The marketing campaign is now concluded, people cannot partake in it anymore even if they wanted to. It was to promote the announcement of the album and its lead single, not the release of the album coming in June. I can remove the term ""upcoming"" to make it seem less promotional, though as it stands both the hook and article are not really ""promotional"", they're just restating events that have been reported on by secondary sources. There is also nothing WP:TOOSOON about it so that point can be discarded as irrelevant; I have submitted many successful DYK nominations, with no rejections, for albums that were not released yet at the time of the nom. Aria1561 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 15 ===   ==== I'm Casting My Lasso Towards the Sky ====  ... that it was Slim Whitman's wife who suggested the song ""I'm Casting My Lasso Towards the Sky"" for his first recording session at RCA? Source: [22] Reviewed:Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/I'm Casting My Lasso Towards the Sky; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Eldridge Milton ====  ... that when young, future NFL player Eldridge Milton liked playing with alligators? Source: Clemson linebacker Eldridge Milton owes his success to the alligators Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pendingCreated by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Eldridge Milton; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  QPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @BeanieFan11: Good article. Waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  I think the article might currently fail WP:DYKSG#D7 as there's no information about his post-NFL life. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @Narutolovehinata5: If I had been able to find any post-NFL coverage I would have written about it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Obviously 5 Believers ====  ... that Bob Dylan complained that he did not want to spend much time recording ""Obviously 5 Believers""? Source: Wilentz, Sean (2010). Bob Dylan in America. (loc 2013 in Kindle edition) ALT1: ... that the working title for Bob Dylan's ""Obviously 5 Believers"" was ""Black Dog Blues""? Source: Wilentz, Sean (2010). Bob Dylan in America. (loc 2013 in Kindle edition) ALT2: ... that Bob Dylan did not perform his 1966 song ""Obviously 5 Believers"" live until 1995? Source: Bob Dylan's official website: Setlists that contain Obviously Five Believers Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KSMO-TV Comment: Suggestions for ALT hooks welcome.Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Self-nominated at 10:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Obviously 5 Believers; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  @BennyOnTheLoose: Good article. Though, the hooks kind of feel a bit bland. The only one that really interests me is Alt2 but i'm not all too confident about it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) How about a version of one of these, Onegreatjoke? (I think there's something in ALT3, but it might need tweaking.)  ALT3: ... that in 1966 one of the Hawks (later known as the Band) played on ""Obviously 5 Believers"", which was later the name of a band (later known as the Hawks) who played on Obviously 5 Believers (2021)? Sources: Heylin, Clinton (2021). Heylin, Clinton (2021). The Double Life of Bob Dylan. Vol. 1 1941-1966, A restless, hungry feeling pp. 388–392.;  Seaman, Duncan (August 26, 2021); ""Stephen Duffy and David Twist on The Hawks: 'We weren't after world domination'"". The Yorkshire Post.  ALT4: ... that ""Obviously 5 Believers"" by Bob Dylan inspired the name of a band featuring Duran Duran founding member Stephen Duffy? Sources:  Petridis, Alexis (October 15, 2004). ""Radio daze"". The Guardian.; Seaman, Duncan (August 26, 2021); ""Stephen Duffy and David Twist on The Hawks: 'We weren't after world domination'"". The Yorkshire Post. @BennyOnTheLoose: Alt3 could work but I do agree that a rewording is needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC) How about... ALT3a  ... that ""Obviously 5 Believers"" (1966) which featured one of the Hawks, later known as the Band, inspired the name of a band, later known as the Hawks, who featured on Obviously 5 Believers (2021)? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 16 ===   ==== Darryl Milburn ====  ... that Darryl Milburn made his Canadian Football League debut on his birthday? Source: National Post ALT1: ... that Darryl Milburn made his Canadian Football League debut on his birthday, but did not appear in any other games that year? Source: National Post and Pro Football Archives listing him as having played in only one game on the year Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pendingMoved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Darryl Milburn; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - other problemQPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @BeanieFan11: Good article. Though i think that hook alt1 should be worded differently like ""that Darryl Milburn made his Canadian Football League debut on his birthday, but did not appear in any other games that year?"" because putting the and there doesn't seem like the correct way to word it. Also need a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  I slightly reworded ALT1. Will review a qpq soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Order of Excellence for Women, Order of Righteous Son of Sudan ====  ... that Sudan has a separate decoration for women (with a pink ribbon) and men? Source: The law the instituted all Sudanese orders in 1961, [23] Reviewed:Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Order of Excellence for Women; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comments: the men’s order has a robin that is coloured similar to military fatigues but I don’t how to add that succinctly. Another thing, ‘DYK code’ does not consider information inside tables for some reasons FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== TRAPPIST-1 ====  ... that the star TRAPPIST-1 has seven planets in a harmonic chain? Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Old Bazaar, PrilepImproved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 09:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/TRAPPIST-1; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Starting review. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - ? Interesting: N - ?QPQ: ?Overall:  Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Not finding the term ""harmonic chain"" in the article. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I don't know what a harmonic chain is, which I think affects interestingness of the hook. Maybe a link? Valereee (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) QPQ started; I can AGF on finishing it once we finish up here. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I confess, I used ""harmonic"" mostly because I don't know a better word to describe a chain of planets whose orbits are in a beautiful mathematical order. Is there a better word? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) How do reliable sources describe it? Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This press release uses ""harmonic"". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 17 ===   ==== George Wythe Baylor ====  ... that Confederate troops under Colonel George Wythe Baylor disabled two Union tinclad gunboats on the Red River in Louisiana on May 5, 1864? Source: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Tinclads_in_the_Civil_War/lmWLppXvSVoC ALT1 ... that George W. Baylor's Texas rangers destroyed the last of Victorio's band of Apache on January 29, 1881 in the last such raid in Texas? (137 characters)Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Meyer (aviator)Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 11:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/George Wythe Baylor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: N - ?Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - ?Image eligibility:  Freely licensed: Y Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: N - ?Overall:  Thank you for this history which needs to be told. However, there are some major issues with this article, with a lot of work required to resolve the plagiarism.  The use of the word ""Indian"" several times in the article is troubling, and in my opinion it affects the neutrality of the article. We have to be particularly careful with neutrality in this article, due to the historical behaviour of the biography subject, and modern sensibilities to that. Even though it might have been a historical usage of the word in line with some of the sources used, the word is not used in quotations, so I believe that we must use a more acceptable word or phrase instead. Maybe you can find alternative words in the article Indigenous peoples? Earwig finds 89.2% copyvio - not proper names or common phrases - real plagiarism. This nomination cannot be passed until all the plagiarised sections are either paraphrased or put into blockquotes or quotation marks. See Earwig for details of exactly how much you need to rewrite. The citation for the hook is offline, but I shall take that in good faith. However the date mentioned in the hook is not repeated in the article, so I cannot approve the hook until the date is there. Re the image: although that picture is interesting in larger size, I don't believe it would work on the Main Page as a thumbnail. If you really want an image in this nomination, may I suggest that you give us another hook with a different image? Storye book (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)@Storye book: I've replaced ""Indian"" with ""Apache"" or ""Comanche"" throughout, depending on context. I've also added an alternative hook. As for the copyvio concern, the source copied from is in the public domain and is acknowledged in the ""Sources"" section of the article. There's more than 1500 characters of paraphrased text here besides the content lifted from the public domain source, so length is not a problem. Thanks for the review. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Also, the date of the sinking of the tinclad is in the caption of an image in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Ficaia: Re neutrality. Thank you for replacing most iterations of the word, ""Indian"", with more acceptable alternatives. However, there is at least one remaining iteration without quotation marks, and maybe some of the remaining ones could be paraphrased, with a different word? If you must have quotes including the word, then it would be wise to mention the author openly in the text, to make clear that it is a historical usage. Just using ""scare quotes"" makes it worse, because the word is then being used in the Wikipedia voice. It is better to correct this now, than to have repercussions when the article is linked to the Main Page. Thank you for ALT1, which would be fine, but for the use of ""Indian"". I believe it would be acceptable if the hook included the author of that quoted phrase (so it is clear that they were being racist, not WP). The ALT1 hook fact has an online source, in the article. Re copyvio. You do need to make clear with quotation marks or blockquote, exactly which words are quoted in the article. Just saying at the end of the article or in a citation that its public domain contents are used, is not enough. This is because a reviewer like me, and also your reading public, cannot tell easily what is copied public domain material, what is your own paraphrase, and what is copyvio. If the entire article and all the sources consisted only of public domain material, then little notes at the end, to that effect, would be OK. But when you have a complete mix of material, you cannot do that, without it being called copyvio on WP. So please make your quotations absolutely clear. If, as you say, length is not a problem, you will not lose this nomination if you do that. Re the date in ALT0. The date being in the image caption in the article is fine, but you need a citation for the date in that image caption, please. Thank you for kindly making an effort so far to sort out these issues. Because you have started in this way, I believe that we can get there, and I have good hopes of seeing this nomination pass, although it will take some work. Storye book (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)@Storye book: There is at least one footnote at the end of every sentence here, so it is always clear what source is being drawn from for any statement in the article. I've been made aware that copying from PD sources is fine as long as there is an attribution in the reference list and there is always an inline citation to indicate where exactly that source is being used. Also, I've amended the hook and removed/altered any remaining uses of ""Indian"". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you, Ficaia, for removing all unnecessary uses of ""Indian"" from the article. Thank you for your explanation of why you have not indicated your quotations. I can see where you're coming from and I respect your opinion, but It does not feel right to me. This is because I deal with 19th-centrury texts every day, and I value the quotes from those sources because the language and attitudes of the era show clearly in the quotes, and tell us how those people thought about what was happening to them. But if we use their words as Wiki-voice, that can be dangerous, especially in a biography of a white pioneer soldier who freely butchered people of another race because that was his job, at a time when newspaper reports tended not to be as critical of his actions as we might be. I think we need to separate the words used at the time, from today's Wiki voice. But that is just my opinion. To be fair to you, I shall ask for another opinion. @BlueMoonset: @Theleekycauldron: @Bruxton: Storye book (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC) @Storye book: Are there any specific passages you have a problem with? I've actually done quite a bit of pruning and rewording of the PD source, changed ""murdered"" and ""massacred"" to ""killed"" and other such vocabulary, and haven't included any of the editorial moralising. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I was just making a general point of principle, and I accept that you have been very careful. I was certainly not suggesting that you were promoting those old ideas. I did not find anything non-neutral apart from ""Indian"", and we have resolved that. But let's see what others think about whether we should mix public domain and paraphrased copyrighted texts together without using quote marks to differentiate them. Storye book (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)I myself do use ""Indian"" most often in everyday vernacular, but unless you're writing an article about U.S. law, it does strike me as unnecessarily inflammatory for an encyclopedic article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you, theleekycauldron. I believe that we have now removed all the unnecessary iterations of ""Indian"". from the article and hooks. What is left is (1) ""Indian Territory"", which is a historical term appropriate for this article (2) a quote ""an old Indian fighter"" from a named newspaper of the era described in the article, (3) the original title of a map, and the original title of a 1916 book. I think that those are OK because they are clearly used in their historical context. The main question that I have for you now, is whether we can mix (a) copied Public Domain text (without quotes) into the article text, alongside (b) the editor's paraphrased text from other sources, and (c) proper quotations in quotation marks. All material in the article is properly and fully cited (as far as I can see), but the difficulty is that the reader cannot see which is what in relation to a, b and c. Earwig finds over 80% copyvio, and on Earwig you can see that almost none of that highlighted stuff is in quotation marks. The creator/nominator says that it is OK. Because I have not seen this type of mixed presentation before, I have asked for a second opinion. Please let us know what you think? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) The main things to keep in mind are: 1. all text copied from the public domain needs to be attributed in the listing of the source; 2. PD copied text doesn't count towards the 1500B length minimum. Beyond that, copyright isn't really a consideration we make with the end user in mind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC) As I understand it, the creator/nominator and I are already agreed on those principles. The question is: if the PD text is not defined by quotation marks, (1) how can we follow the rule, ""all text copied from the public domain needs to be attributed in the listing of the source"", and (2) how am I as reviewer supposed to separate out the PD stuff from the rest to count characters? Another issue for me is, if quotations are not defined, then how do I separate informal language which is permissible in quotes, from slang etc. which is used in those parts of the text which should be formal Wikivoice? One example in this article is ""back of"", which is possibly used instead of ""behind"", but to those of us outside the US, its meaning is unclear.Storye book (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)I think the point about slang is a bit nit-picky. 'Back of X' is common usage in Australian English too, btw. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Slang is a local and casual use of language. This is an international platform, whose audience includes many people for whom English is not their first language, and who have been taught formal English. I am a professional user of English, and have been an examiner of English, and I am still unsure of your precise meaning of ""back of"" in that context. If it does not mean ""behind"", then what does it mean, and why can't you use a formal English expression? Or could it be a quotation, in which case please mark it as such with quotation marks? It doesn't make much sense to me: the mother is apparently in a boat on a river, - behind a city? How can you be behind a city? From which point of view is the rear of the city? That is the problem with informal language; it is often imprecise. One of the functions of formal language is precision. If you had said ""back of a house"", I would have understood you, because a house normally has a back and a front. I have never seen a city with a back and a front. Storye book (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I've replaced it with 'near'. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you, Ficaia, for improving the article, and resolving the ""back of"" issue. Don't worry, you are not alone in this. Like a lot of people here, I too am using formal English as a second language, so to speak. My first dialect is from south-east England, where we have Estuarine overlaid on the old, defunct, east Kent rural dialect, plus the street habit of using the F-word several times in every sentence. But you can't get a professional job in Kent unless you can also speak received English and write Standard English. And on WP, you and I just have to fit in. It can be fun sometimes, because formal English (whether in American or British English) can be a powerful tool, not least because when your language is clear, concise and to the point, people take you seriously. So I believe that you will go far in writing these articles, so long as you are prepared to adapt to this rather powerful method of communication. Anyway, well done, so far. Storye book (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Wihtburh ====  ... that the incorruptibility of Wihtburh's body was considered a miracle and her remains were re-interred in the church which she had built in Dereham? Source: Pestell, Tim (2004). Landscapes of Monastic Foundation The Establishment of Religious Houses in East Anglia c.650-1200. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-18438-3-062-7. Page 89 , Cruz, Joan Carroll (1977). The Incorruptibles: a Study of the Incorruption of the Bodies of Various Catholic Saints and Beati. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers. ISBN 978-08955-5-066-8. Page 61 ALT1: ... that the incorruptibility of Wihtburh's body was considered a miracle? Source: same as above ALT2: ... that the relics of Wihtburh were all destroyed during the Reformation? Source: same as above Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chase BrownImproved to Good Article status by Amitchell125 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wihtburh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== 1866 Helston by-election ====  ... that at the 1866 Helston by-election, the two candidates received the same number of votes? Source: ""Close of the Poll: Campbell ... 153, Brett ... 153."" (""Helston election: The polling"". The West Briton & Cornwall Advertiser. Truro, Cornwall. 4 May 1866. p. 4 – via Newspapers.com.) Reviewed: Battle of Corycus5x expanded by Harrias (talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1866 Helston by-election; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  QPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @Harrias: Good article. Waiting on QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  @Onegreatjoke: I've just done a QPQ, but belatedly realised it was one of yours, which is possibly a conflict of interest. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)If you are waiting on a third party to confirm that nothing shady involving approval-trading is afoot here, I've taken a look at the article and it looks fine to me.  So don't believe Onegreatjoke's review is problematic. As a passerby question, though: is it just me or are these vote counts insanely low, even given the smaller UK population of 1866?  The rotten borough article says that such tiny constituencies were largely abolished in the 1830s...  did the UK still have really restricted suffrage based on property holdings and this was normal, or is this a genuine case of a rotten borough that still existed?  SnowFire (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The latter. It wasn't until the following year that the Reform Act 1867 was passed, significantly increasing the voting population of the United Kingdom over the subsequent few years. Harrias (he/him) • talk 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Rumrich spy case ====  ... that at the trial of the Rumrich spy case, US Army deserter Guenther Rumrich stated he was instructed to determine how many US soldiers were based on the country's east coast? Source: Rumrich Testifies Spies Checked East Coast Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis ManlyCreated by Therapyisgood (talk). Self-nominated at 08:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rumrich spy case; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  General eligibility: New Enough: N -  17 March Long Enough: N -  Just long enoughPolicy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N -  Sourced based on contemporary news media Neutral: N -   No obvious bias Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: N - Hook eligibility:  Cited: N -  Interesting: N -   Borderline, but okay Other problems: N - Could this be made more concise?Overall:  Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   @Therapyisgood and Smith609: I don't believe this article complies with rule D7, which says an article must be reasonably complete and give an adequate overview of the subject. Having read the article, I remain in the dark as to what the case was all about – e.g., what was Rumrich pleading guilty to? Espionage, desertion, impersonating Cordell Hull; all or none of the above? Why was he impersonating Cordell Hull? What's the connection between Rumrich, the hairdresser and the airplane mechanic? What were they convicted of? Did Rumrich go to jail too? And if so, why? There's a lot of basic information missing from this article, and I don't think it's ready for the main page in its current form. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC) All excellent points, I'll be working on this in the coming days plus I need a QPQ. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Clarified Rumrich pleaded guilty to espionage with source. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Clarified that Hoffman served as a go-between between Rumrich's contact person in Germany and himself. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Clarified Rumrich served two years in NYC. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Clarified why Rumrich wanted the passports (to give to the German government). Therapyisgood (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Sojourner in the earth: how does it look now? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I think it could still be expanded (eg. still no explanation of Voss's involvement) but the narrative is clearer now, so I'll withdraw my objection. Thanks. I'll let Smith609 or someone else give the final tick when you've provided the QPQ. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Smith609: QPQ done at Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 18 ===   ==== Sasajiscymnus tsugae ====  ... that Sasajiscymnus tsugae is used as a biological control method for the hemlock woolly adelgid, an aggressive invasive pest of the eastern hemlock? Source: Cornell University College of Agriculture and LifeSciences Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mata (album) Comment: Perhaps an image of the eastern hemlock or the adelgid would be nice?Created by Thriley (talk) and Peter coxhead (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sasajiscymnus tsugae; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Hi Thriley (talk), review follows: article moved to mainspace 18 March and exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; a QPQ has been carried out; A handful of queries - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Hook is interesting enough for me but the article doesn't currently mention the eastern hemlock, just hemlock in general? What does ""pubescent on the dorsal surface"" mean? Can it be simplified for the layman? Link instar, shorion, pupa, larva Much of the description section is too close to the source for my liking, can the paraphrasing be improved?   ==== Li Fu Lee ====  ... that the first Chinese woman to attend MIT, Li Fu Lee, (pictured) studied electrical engineering, which was considered as MIT's most difficult major at the time? Source: China Comes to MIT Reviewed: Comment: The image is being restored by Adam Cuerden, who did a lot of restorations for featured pictures. Thus I highly recommend using the image.Created by FunnyMath (talk). Self-nominated at 19:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Li Fu Lee; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Oh by the way, this is my first DYK nomination, so no need for QPQ. FunnyMath (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - ""MIT"" should be wikilinked to Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the hook. Hook is interesting but needs some frame of reference as to which source determined electrical engineering was the most difficult major at the time.Overall:  QPQ not needed as this is the first nomination. Picture is good. It was mentioned in the hook that electrical engineering was considered the most difficult major at the time. ""At the time"" should be mentioned in the article itself, as well as which source stated it was the most difficult. lullabying (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  @Lullabying: I made the relevant changes in the lead and the ""Biography"" section of the article. As for the hook, I'd change it to this: ... that the first Chinese woman to attend MIT, Li Fu Lee, (pictured) studied electrical engineering, which the undergraduates at the time said was the hardest major according to The Boston Globe? Source: China Comes to MIT And thank you for reviewing the article! FunnyMath (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Are we allowed to use two sources instead of one? The China Comes to MIT link doesn't have the quote that supports the phrase ""the undergraduates at the time said was the hardest major"". The phrase is supported here: Boston Evening Globe FunnyMath (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I'll take another look. I've used two sources before for DYK and I don't see a problem using more than one. lullabying (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Tina Brower-Thomas ====  ... that Center for Integrated Quantum Materials researcher Tina Brower-Thomas's (pictured) earliest endeavors in chemistry as a child led to her concoctions eating holes in her coat? Source: [24], 3:35–4:10 Reviewed: Jeff WranaMoved to mainspace by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tina Brower-Thomas; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and well-referenced. Hook is supported by an inline reference at the end of the sentence. The image is free and appears in an uncropped version in the article. The nominator commented on but did not review Jeff Wrana so we need a proper QPQ if the nominator has run out of free credits. The hook is a little wordy. I would suggest shortening it by cutting her place of work. Also possibly changing endeavors to experiments. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Philafrenzy: Re-reviews have always been accepted as QPQs, especially since they almost always involve tricky issues that take more effort to resolve than many original reviews.  This was not a single comment, is an ongoing review.  Tightened hook below. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ALT1: ... that quantum materials researcher Tina Brower-Thomas's (pictured) earliest attempts at chemistry as a child led to her concoctions eating holes in her coat?   ==== Roman Josi ====  ... that defenceman Roman Josi (pictured) is the highest-scoring Swiss-born NHL player? Source: https://www.espn.com/nhl/recap/_/gameId/401272683 ALT1: ... that defenceman Roman Josi  (pictured) is the Nashville Predators single-season points leader? Source: https://www.nhl.com/predators/news/josi-sets-another-franchise-record-leads-preds-over-senators-in-ottawa/c-332751616 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/TBD5x expanded by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Roman Josi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - some issues Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YQPQ: N - not done yetOverall:  Nice expansion! Appears to meet all the criteria, expect there's a few spots needing citations (I've marked them) and a qpq has not been provided. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  BeanieFan11, I have addressed all the CN tags. I will work on my QPQ tomorrow. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 19 ===   ==== William F. Matthews (died 1977) ====  ... that in 1976, William F. Matthews was the first bookbinder to receive the Insignia Award of London's City and Guilds Institute? Source: Matthews, William F."" in Michael F. Saurez & H. R. Woudhuysen (Eds.) (2010) The Oxford Companion to the Book. Vol. 2 D-Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 919. ISBN 9780198606536 Reviewed: to be doneCreated by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 22:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William F. Matthews (died 1977); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  QPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @Philafrenzy: Good article. AGF on offline sources. Waiting on QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Neminath Jain Temple, Girnar ====  ... that Indian king Mandalika I gilded the Neminath Jain Temple on Girnar hill with gold plates? Source: Diskalkar, D. B. (June 1940). ""Inscriptions Of Kathiawad: No. 77"". New Indian Antiquary. Vol. 2. pp. 116–117.  Dhaky, M. A. (1997).  Shah, Jitendra B. (ed.). મહાતીર્થ ઉજ્જયન્તગિરિ (ગિરનાર તીર્થ) [Mahatirtha UjjayantGiri (Girnar Tirtha)] (in Gujarati). Ahmedabad: Sheth Anandji Kalyanji. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/QPQ pending Comment: Might need some copyeditingCreated by Nizil Shah (talk). Self-nominated at 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Neminath Jain Temple, Girnar; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   === Articles created/expanded on March 20 ===   ==== The Doll's Hospital ====  ... that that the owners of The Doll's Hospital toyshop were the penultimate victims of the Acid Bath Murderer? Source: ""It later emerged they had been the victims of the acid bath murderer, John George Haigh, a notorious serial-killer who dissolved his victim’s bodies in barrels of concentrated sulphuric acid."" [25] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/ not yet doneCreated by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Doll's Hospital; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Article falls short of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically it is based on just two sources: a caption on a Shutterstock photo and a Wordpress article. According to WP:BLOG we should be cautious about using blogs as a reliable source at all, let alone as the sole support for the substance of the article. The blog post appears to be original research based on secondary sources; if some of those sources can be tracked down and included as support for the article, and if the article is brought up to style guideline standards, perhaps this may be worth reconsidering.Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Sorry about that, Oblivy. The deadline was looming and I was tired. It is now over 1500 characters and has two more sources. As for the blog, it is the official blog of LBHF Libraries and Archives, with a named author, Lauren Romano, so I think we can reasonably consider it to be a reliable source. There are plenty of good sources about Haigh and his murders, but decent sources specifically about The Doll's Hospital are harder to find. I will dig around some more later today, and do a QPQ review. Edwardx (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Wasn't looking for an apology, just trying to make some constructive criticism of the article without being too discouraging. The article is better now - more focused on the shop and less on the murders. Some headings would help.You may like this: it's a published article from Ms. Romano which overcomes the ""blog"" issue.[26]   Also, on the blog there's a gripe from a guy named Michael Volpe who she quoted his ""book"" without attribution; in the article she quotes his blog.  Could be this? [27] Good luck with the article.Oblivy (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Drake (musician) ====  ... that Drake has the personal approval of Barack Obama to portray the U.S. president in a biopic if the opportunity came? Source: Variety ALT1: ... that Drake took a hiatus from his musical career to return to television as executive producer of Euphoria? Source: The Hollywood Reporter Reviewed: Comment: Tried to go with lesser known trivia than ‘Did you know that… Drake shattered x record?’ QPQ review coming later as my battery is currently at 6%Improved to Good Article status by Trillfendi (talk). Self-nominated at 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Drake (musician); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  QPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  No issues with anything as far as the actual hook or article are concerned (I'd definitely go with ALT0 over ALT1 personally) but holding off on giving it the all clear until the QPQ has been done. Turnagra (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== American Song Contest ====  ... that there was an American version of the Eurovision Song Contest, but it didn't get renewed for a second season? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220321181721/https://www.billboard.com/culture/tv-film/american-song-contest-producers-interview-1235045924/ , https://wiwibloggs.com/2023/02/06/american-song-contest-2023-axed-as-organisers-hope-for-2024-renewal/275313/ , amongst other sources. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1937 Fleischer Studios strike Comment: Yes i did review this article for GA.Improved to Good Article status by Grk1011 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC). at 19:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/American Song Contest; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   Article has recently been GA reviewed. Earwig reports a copyvio of this source, but I can see that the copied text is just a list that can't really be rewritten any other way. The main problem I have is that the citations given don't really support the hook, and I'm not sure one of them is GA quality. The Billboard source pre-dates the first season coverage, while the second source only says the series won't be renewed for 2023, but it might be renewed for 2024. So you can't say ""it didn't get renewed for a second season"" as it may yet do so in the future. And, that brings me onto - what makes wiwibloggs.com a reliable source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)I'd suggest changing the wording to ""renewed for a 2023 season"" to better reflect the refs. I also added an additional ref to the article, though it's in Swedish [28]. Regarding Wiwibloggs, it is reliable source that just so happens to have blog in its name. The site lists their editorial policies, key staff and their credentials, significance in the field, etc. [29], [30] per WP:RS. Grk1011 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== 2B (Nier: Automata) ====  ... that writer Yoko Taro requested that the design for the character 2B be enjoyable for cosplayers? Source: http://dengekionline.com/elem/000/001/068/1068126/ , https://dengekionline.com/elem/000/001/146/1146564/ Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wyndham New Yorker HotelImproved to Good Article status by Zxcvbnm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2B (Nier: Automata); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Started reviewing this. Will update later today. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - Third paragraph under the Nier: Automata heading has no sources. You may know better than I do what's acceptable when summarizing in-world story/characters based just on the game itself. Further down, there is a quote ""cleansed"" that doesn't have a citation directly following the sentence. Ditto ""droll"". Best practice is for there to be a citation immediately following any quotation. In the reception section there are several direct quotes which have a citation at the end of the paragraph but not the sentence. Not a huge deal, but might as well fix. Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y Other problems: N - Just something I noticed when running it through Earwig: there's a quote from one of the sources where ""prevalence of"" should be included in the quote that ends ""blindfolds, collars and black materials"".Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - Could you clarify where in the source the claim is verified? I'm relying on Google Translate, but while I see several mentions of cosplay, none seem to verify the hook exactly. Interesting: Y Other problems: N - The wording is a little awkward. Maybe ""enjoyable to cosplay"" or ""enjoyable for fans to cosplay""?Overall:  Just a few things to work out before promoting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Rick Suder ====  ... that Rick Suder was bumped from the NCAA record book by JJ Redick and Gerry McNamara? Source: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2007/2007RB.pdf ALT1: ... that Rick Suder was among the Top 25 most accurate free throw shooters in college basketball history until he was passed by JJ Redick in 2006? Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Charles Sorby Comment: 1st of 10 QPQs for this reviewCreated by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Will take for review Longhornsg (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  Hook as written doesn't really say anything and the wording is confusing. Did Redick and McNamara physically bump him? Why is it interesting that Suder was passed in the record books? I made some direct edits to the article and added ALT1 hook as an option for a more descriptive hook. Would also improve the inline citing of your sourcing in the article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 03:17, March 21, 2023 (UTC) --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Would displaced be a better verb? The point of the hook is to draw the reader in with the implication that Suder may have held some important record that these other guys broke. In fact, he was 24th on a top 25 list and these guys entered the list above him to move him out of the top 25.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. While I have your attention. I think we should discuss the WP:LEAD. Honestly, I think it needs to include a mention of his grandfather. I have created a lot of relatives of famous people and most of them have become quite stable with the mention of the famous relative. I.e., articles that are relavant for WP:CBBALL, such as Tim Hardaway Jr., Glen Rice Jr., Aubrey Dawkins, Glenn Robinson III, Kameron Chatman, Phil Pressey, Patrick Beilein, and Ian Hummer are stable long-term articles that include mention of their famous fathers, uncles or cousins. Distant 3rd cousin Caris LeVert does not include relatives in the LEAD. I don't know why I never put Brian Earl's brother in the LEAD. Since his brother mentions him in his LEAD, I have added his brother. Since both Foster Loyer and Fletcher Loyer are both relatively new articles (created during the same trip down the David DeJulius-->Foster Loyer-->Fletcher Loyer and Rick Suder rabbit hole as this one) I can't confirm that they will be stable with the mention of their famous fathers. Bob Scrabis (basketball) is also too new to describe as stable yet. I am deliberating about how to mention Suder's grandfather. You removed the sentence ""He is the grandson of Major League Baseball infielder Pete Suder"", which I think is an appropriate LEAD inclusion. I am deliberating about expanding the prose of the main body to add the following on the the current sentence in the main body, ""who is notable for platooning with Nellie Fox as part of a double play record-setting infield.""  However, I think as part of the LEAD, I am also suppose to mention his financial advisory career since I should summarize every major section of the article in a proper LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC) N.B. Because of the number of articles that I have done regarding famous relatives and how stable the relative mentions have been in the articles, I am going to do a partial revert of your edit and add the platoon mention and a financial advisory mention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I have revised the LEAD to summarize each major section of the article..--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) @Longhornsg:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Also, Mike Yastrzemski (unlike the others I was not involved in this article) has one of the more famous grandfathers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Trial & Error (company) ====  ... that YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show  tickets—US$1,287 on day one, $644 on day two, all the way to $1 on day 24—was a university entrance exam question? Source: Tsang, Emily (2021-12-11). ""It's no boy band, but Hong Kong's Trial & Error scores success between 'red lines' with videos, parodies, songs"". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20.The article notes: ""In October, Trial & Error decided to test their offline success by holding two live shows at the 3,600-seat Star Halls venue to mark their first anniversary. Tickets sold out in just four days. Sales were done Dutch auction style, with prices set at HK$10,000 on the first day, HK$5,000 the next day, HK$2,000 the day after, with the promise of being just HK$10 on Day 24. Day 1 saw 13 tickets sold for HK$10,000 before four went for HK$5,000 the next day. All were sold by Day 4, when the ticket price was $800.""游學修反抽水親解答案 ""【試當真】Live騷售票方式獲「官方認證」成DSE試題　游學修反抽水親解答案"" [[Trial and Error] the live show ticket sales method has been ""officially certified"" as a DSE test question. Neo Yau's anti-pumping answer]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-05-04. Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20.The article notes: ""YouTube頻道《試當真Trial & Error》去年舉行兩場Live騷，以「減價拍賣」方式售票杜絕黃牛黨。開賣第一天已成功售出13張價值一萬元的門票，穩袋6位數字。香港中學文憑考試（DSE）經濟科昨日（3日）開考，卷一共有40條選擇題，其中一條以此Live騷門票價格功能為試題，再次引起網民熱論，""From Google Translate: ""The YouTube channel ""Trial & Error"" held two live shows last year, and sold tickets through ""reduction auctions"" to prevent scalpers. On the first day of sales, 13 tickets worth HK$10,000 have been successfully sold, with a stable bag of 6 figures. The Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) Economics exam started yesterday (3rd). There are a total of 40 multiple-choice questions in the paper, one of which is based on the Live Show ticket price function as a test question, which once again aroused heated discussions among netizens, ...""Fung, Kei-na 馮琪雅 (2022-05-10). 考評局解構出題原因 ""【DSE2022】「試當真」減價賣飛方式驚現DSE經濟科MC　考評局解構出題原因"" [[DSE2022] The ""Trial & Error"" reduced price method of selling tickets surprisingly appears in DSE economics MC. The Examinations Bureau deconstructed the reason for the question.]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20. ALT1: ... that Trial & Error's manner of selling tickets—HK$10,000 (US$1,287) on day one, HK$5,000 (US$644) on day two, all the way to HK$10 (US$1) on day 24—was a university entrance exam question? Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tamba Taylor Comment: The sources list the currency in HKD. The HKD to USD currency conversion is generated using {{To USD}}. An example: ""HK$10,000 (US$1,287)""Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 05:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Trial & Error (company); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Drive by comment: I really don't think you need to convert the currency into dollars (Not everyone on English Wikipedia is an American after all). Having solely the Hong Kong dollars will be cleaner/easier to understand and won't detract from the hook much. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for sharing your input. Here is another hook that incorporates your feedback:ALT2: ... that YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show  tickets—HK$10,000 on day one; $5,000 on day two; all the way to $10 on day 24—was a university entrance exam question?Cunard (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Another drive-by comment: please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm seeing anything about university entrance exams in the article? Or maybe I missed it. I'm also not sure if it's even necessary to mention the prices at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for pointing this out. I've modified the article to mention university entrance exams. Based on your feedback, here is an updated hook without the prices:ALT3: ... that YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show  tickets was a university entrance exam question?Cunard (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)That hook may need revision, as it's vague if the company used university exam questions to sell tickets, or if Hong Kong university entrance exams included the company's way of selling tickets as one of the questions (the article seems to suggest the latter, but the hook itself is unclear). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for catching this ambiguity. The latter interpretation is the correct interpretation. Here are revised hooks:ALT4: ... that YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show  tickets appeared as a question on a university entrance exam?ALT5: ... that a university entrance exam asked about YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show tickets?ALT6: ... that a university entrance exam question was about YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show tickets?Cunard (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks. I've struck the other hooks, leaving ALTs 4-6 for review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)@Cunard, Narutolovehinata5,  and Theleekycauldron: Is it possible to make this hookier for April Fool's Day? ALT7: ... that Trial & Error appeared on a university entrance exam? Or, is that simply run-of-the-mill ""quirky"" and not April Fool's Day material? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I think it's just too run-of-the-mill unfortunately, and personally I think the non-AFD version is more intriguing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC) OK. Proposing further rewording: ALT8: ... that a university entrance exam asked a question about how Trial & Error sold tickets to its live shows on YouTube? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 21 ===   ==== Castner Range National Monument ====  ... that Castner Range National Monument, a former weapons test site that closed in 1966, is still undergoing remediation so this portion of the Franklin Mountains can be used for recreation? Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/03/21/a-proclamation-on-the-establishment-of-the-castner-range-national-monument-2023/ Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monument to the Victims of the HolocaustCreated by Reywas92 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Castner Range National Monument; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - nOverall:  The article is very nice and meets all DYK criteria, but I think the hook needs to be changed, because the cause of the protection of the site was not only the plan to turn it into a recreational area. Castner Range is also important for historical and naturalistic reasons, and in my opinion this should appear in the hook. Alex2006 (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I've changed that to ""used for recreation"". It does also have historical and natural importance, but the remediation is less relevant to that purpose – it had already been preserved for those. Or what wording would you suggest? Reywas92Talk 13:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship ====  ... that, after winning the 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship, Alabama head coach Nick Saban has won more Division I college football national championships than any other coach? Source: https://www.si.com/college/2021/01/12/nick-saban-passes-bear-bryant-most-championships-cfb Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hernán Galíndez Comment: Was nominated before but failed newness. However, it recently became a GA so i believe I can nominate this again. Also yes, I did copy one of the hooks from the last nom.Improved to Good Article status by PCN02WPS (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2021 College Football Playoff National Championship/retry; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - minor issues Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YOverall:  @Onegreatjoke and PCN02WPS: Almost there; however, the sentences This was the second of four consecutive College Football Playoff National Championship games matching the No. 3 seed and the No. 1 seed, with No. 1 LSU defeating the No. 3 Clemson Tigers 42–25 in the 2020 edition. and In the Sugar Bowl for the second semifinal, Ohio State defeated Clemson 49–28, to get their first win over them, after four previous attempts. need citations. Then this will be good to go. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Looping State of Mind ====  ... that the electronic music album Looping State of Mind features live instrumentation? Source: (Gorman 2011) ALT1: ... that acclaimed musician Axel Willner's first project as the Field to be recorded at an official studio was his third Field album? Source: (Gorman 2011), (Spencer 2020) ALT2: ... that Looping State of Mind was seen as an improvement over the Field's previous album Yesterday and Today? Source: (Dietz 2011), (Baer 2011), numerous reviews Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Life Is but a Dream... Comment: The numerous reviews to verify ALT2 is in footnote C in the article.Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Looping State of Mind; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  @Lazman321: Good article but, I don't really think that any of these hooks are interesting. Maybe I need an explanation as to why but I'm just not seeing. Maybe other hooks could be proposed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Hearst Castle ====  ... that Hearst Castle inspired Xanadu, the lavish mansion in Orson Welles's acclaimed film Citizen Kane? Source: North Carolina Museum of Art The character of Charles Foster Kane was modeled on real-life publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, and his fictional estate in the film Xanadu was based on Hearst’s “Enchanted Hill” in San Simeon, California. ALT1: ... that Hearst Castle was rumored to have been described by George Bernard Shaw as ""what God would have built if he had had the money""? Source: The Golden Days of San Simeon George Bernard Shaw... is rumored to have said ""this is probably the way God would have done it if He had had the money"" Reviewed:Improved to Good Article status by KJP1 (talk). Nominated by Festucalex (talk) at 05:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hearst Castle; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  * My only observation on the suggested hooks is that both may generate a bit of noise. There are those who get worked up at the suggestion that Kane is modelled on Hearst, and thus whether Xanadu is modelled on San Simeon, even though it's blindingly obvious that he was and it is. There's a smaller, but still vocal, group that get agitated by the Bernard Shaw quote, maintaining either that he didn't say it, or that he said it about somewhere else, usually St Donat's Castle. An alternative, which I'd favour, would be something like the below. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)ALT2: ... that Hearst Castle was designed by Julia Morgan, ""America's first truly independent female architect""? Source: Mark Anthony Wilson, Julia Morgan: Architect of Beauty (2012), isbn 978-1-423-63654-0, oclc 966008538, FrontispieceDoes it matter if someone denies the undeniable historical fact that Kane was modelled on Hearst? Let em get worked up. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Well, that's an approach! KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reserving this. Very nice article (but many paras look long on our new narrow pc screens, & no doubt even more on mobile). Why not a pic for DYK? First hook may be the best. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 22 ===   ==== Capa House ====  ... that at Capa House (pictured), photographer Robert Capa took pictures of the last man to die in World War II? Source: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ea23f5_5f03d31716f84cf8ab42629feef0b8ea~mv2_d_2606_1841_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1560,h_1102,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/ea23f5_5f03d31716f84cf8ab42629feef0b8ea~mv2_d_2606_1841_s_2.webp ALT1: ... that the last man to die in the Second World War was photographed at Capa House? Source: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ea23f5_5f03d31716f84cf8ab42629feef0b8ea~mv2_d_2606_1841_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1560,h_1102,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/ea23f5_5f03d31716f84cf8ab42629feef0b8ea~mv2_d_2606_1841_s_2.webp Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hoke III Comment: Should I also review another nomination, or is the re-review of John Hoke III acceptable?Created by Andreas Wolf 01 (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Capa House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Soviet submarine K-68 ====  ... that the K-68, a Soviet-era submarine, could carry nuclear warheads, posing a significant threat during the peak of the Cold War? Source: Vilches Alarcón, pp. 12, 18, 22; Polmar & Noot, p. 289 Reviewed: [[]]Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by ULPS (talk) at 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Soviet submarine K-68; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  @ULPS: Good article but the hook isn't that interesting. There are many submarines that hold nukes with many still around today. So that doesn't exactly make the hook any special so a new one should be proposed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Battle of Qnat ====  ... that a group of 44 Phalangist resistance fighters led by Samir Geagea killed hundreds of Syrian special units in the Battle of Qnat? Source: https://www.lebanese-forces.com/2014/12/05/knat-battle-pierre-jabboor/ (translated) purging the town of the remnants of the Syrian special units led by Dr. Samir Geagea. After the dust settled, hundreds of Syrian special units were killed.  ALT1: ... that a group of 44 Phalangist resistance fighters led by Samir Geagea stood up to a 3,000 strong Syrian battalion in the Battle of Qnat? Source: https://www.lebanese-forces.com/2014/12/05/knat-battle-pierre-jabboor/ ALT2: ... that the Battle of Qnat elevated Samir Geagea, the son of a peasant, to the ranks of the Maronite community's new elite? Source: https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:1850/fulltext.pdf Page 75 Reviewed:Created by PalauanReich (talk). Self-nominated at 01:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Qnat; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielscene ====  ... that Arnold Schoenberg composed a film score to no film? Source: Arnold Schoenberg to Otto Klemperer: ""I find your suggestion about the abstract film, after thinking it over and over, very tempting indeed, since it solves the problem of this '[film] music to no film'."" (Arnold Schoenberg and the Cinematic Art by Sabine Feisst, p. 98) ALT1: ... that the US premiere of the Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielscene by Arnold Schoenberg was intentionally ignored by the Los Angeles Times and resulted in the firing of its conductor? Source: ""The last important premiere of one of Schoenberg's orchestral works in America before his arrival there was of Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielscene [...] in Los Angeles in July 1933. [...] For the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Hollywood Bowl audience, it was their first encounter with twelve-tone music [...] and [Nicolas] Slonimsky met with harsh resistance. [...] [H]e was fired after the Schoenberg performance. The Los Angeles Times abstained from reviewing the concert [...] (Schoenberg's New World: The American Years by Sabine Feisst, p. 26) Reviewed: Comment: QPQ to come soon.Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielscene; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  QPQ: N - Not doneOverall:  @CurryTime7-24: Good article. Just waiting on a QPQ. AGF on offline sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 23 ===   ==== Jake Witt ====  ... that although he only had ten minutes to learn to play offensive lineman, college football player Jake Witt was able to successfully block against one of the best defenses in the country? Source: The Athletic (""As Jake Witt sat at his locker during halftime of a game against eventual Division II national champion Ferris State, he saw his coach coming toward him with a new jersey: No. 65. An offensive lineman's number. 'Oh no,' Witt thought. Injuries had ravaged Northern Michigan’s O-line and, out of necessity, the Wildcats needed their 6-foot-7, 265-pound tight end to fill in at right tackle. Witt had never played or practiced on the offensive line, but his size made him the next man up. 'After 10 minutes of coaching Jake to play a whole new position, he allowed zero sacks or pressures against the best defensive line in the country,' former Northern Michigan offensive coordinator and interim coach Dylan Chmura later said, via WLUC."") Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pendingMoved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jake Witt; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Vylet Pony ====  ... that Vylet Pony's popularity increased after her work was featured on The Needle Drop? Source: https://www.wweek.com/arts/2022/06/01/vylet-pony-learned-to-embrace-her-queer-identity-through-the-music-of-a-saturday-morning-cartoon/ Reviewed:Created by CJ-Moki (talk). Self-nominated at 04:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vylet Pony; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I will review this one! — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - Explain more on Vylet Pony.Overall:  Earwig does have an unlikely violation copyvio score but it's for their music style, so it's all good there. Fix the citations from the article, and do a short explanation about Vylet Pony (for the hook). — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @JuanGLP: Why would I remove the citations and bibliography? The Pinky & Pepper Forever article uses a similar citation style. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @CJ-Moki: I checked some other pages, and I do see people citing like that. (I'm still new here.) For the hook, maybe who is Vylet Pony, like mention that they are a musician.   ==== Margery Jackson ====  ... that the Carlisle miser Margery Jackson, who chose to live like a pauper, possessed a fine court mantua dress (pictured)? Source: Tullie House Museum. ""The (court mantua) dress originally belonged to Margery Jackson (1722-1812) who was born in Carlisle ... Her eccentric and miserly habits earned her a reputation."" Reviewed: George Wythe BaylorMoved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Margery Jackson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Erwig copyright check mistakenly seem to show copyvio of stevebulman.f9.co.uk but that does not seem correct. I checked some content and is duly taken from Blair, Frances (1848) so practically copyvio problem is unlikely.  Bookku    (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)@Bookku: If you would care to look again at Earwig, you will see that all of the highlighted text (except common phrases and proper names) is in quotation marks or blockquotes. In the article, all of those quotations are fully cited. Therefore there is no confusion, no errors, and all is well. Storye book (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)@Storye book: Very much agreed, I am on same page as of yours. I made note so as some one else should not get confused by looking just @ Erwig report. Actually I wanted to do evaluate and clear this DYK but I am finding my self busy in something else. cheers  Bookku    (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 24 ===   ==== William Y. Slack ====  ... that William Y. Slack (pictured) was dead when he was promoted to brigadier general? Source: Warner, p. 278. Can provide quote upon request Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Buchanan's Station Comment: QPQ is a nomination that is still ongoing as of the time that I'm nominating SlackImproved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William Y. Slack; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Victor Wembanyama ====  ... that Victor Wembanyama is regarded as one of the greatest NBA prospects of his generation, being described him as the most anticipated prospect since LeBron James in 2003? Source: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/wemby-watch-victor-wembanyama-reaches-new-heights-but-just-how-tall-is-the-top-prospect-in-the-nba-draft/, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/06/victor-wembanyama-basketball-french-teenager-nba-draft, https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamzagoria/2022/10/06/18-year-old-frenchman-victor-wembanyama-being-hailed-as-the-single-greatest-prospect-in-nba-history/, https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/victor-wembanyama-nba-draft-prospect-lebron-james/tahdqvkwbib75ug33c6cfqe9, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/16/sports/basketball/victor-wembanyama-nba-draft-2023.html Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hart ElyImproved to Good Article status by Sportzeditz (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Victor Wembanyama; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: Y Other problems: N - The hook could be slightly corrected and trimmed.Overall:  @Onegreatjoke: I was the one who reviewed and promoted the article to GA, so I'm definitely willing to take over this nomination, as well! To be honest, everything looks fine, including your QPQ. I just think you could optimize the hook even more by focusing on the comparison between Wembanyama and Lebron, but this is mainly a suggestion, rather than a must. On a side note, was ""being described him"" a typo? That pronoun looks a bit weirdly-placed to me... Please, let me know what you think about this. Oltrepier (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Jean Mignon ====  ... that in the 16th-century etchings of Jean Mignon most figures have open mouths (example pictured)? Source: ""The figural types are also typical... Almost all have open mouths"" p. 271, in Boorsch, Suzanne, in Jacobson, Karen (ed), (often wrongly cat. as Georg Baselitz), The French Renaissance in Prints, 1994, Grunwald Center, UCLA, ISBN 0962816221 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/comingCreated by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 18:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jean Mignon; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== The Belnord ====  ... that a dispute at the Belnord apartment building in New York City was likened to the siege of Beirut? Source: Lavietes, Stuart (June 25, 2004). ""Lillian Seril, 95, Dies; Landlord at Center of Rent Strike"". The New York Times. ALT1: ... that a New York City official likened a dispute at the Belnord apartment building to the siege of Beirut? Source: Lavietes 2004 ALT2: ... that the owner of the Belnord apartment building in New York City bought free houses in Florida and Nevada for existing residents? Source: Lagnado, Lucette (July 3, 2001). ""Old Notions: All-Natural Retirement Isn't So Easy, a Look At the Belnord Shows --- In a Luxury Building, a Duel Between Senior Services And a Landlord's Vision --- The Symbolism of Benches"". The Wall Street Journal. ALT3: ... that the owner of the Belnord apartment building bought houses for residents, then rented out their old apartments? Source: Lagnado 2001 ALT4: ... that in the 1970s, residents of the Belnord in New York City had to sneak in refrigerators at night? Source: Harris, Elizabeth A. (October 21, 2013). ""A Landmark Building With a Fraught History"". The New York Times. ALT5: ... that residents of the Belnord in New York City had to sneak in refrigerators at night because the building's owner would not let them replace their appliances? Source: Harris 2013 Reviewed: QPQ pending5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Belnord; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: ? Interesting: YQPQ: ?Review is incomplete - please fill in the ""status"" field @Epicgenius: Thanks for your work on the article. I have a couple of quetions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Should the infobox location be New York City rather than New York, New York? First hook is fine per the source, but in the article body compared the dispute to the siege of Beirut, ""where one or both parties are shooting at us"" to me implies that the speaker felt that parties were shooting at him and his department. However, looking at the first part of is quote (""I'm not going to get myself into a West Beirut situation, where one..), it seems he wanted to avoid that. ALT4 & ALT5 - I'm not seeing support for the hook in the archived version of the source. What's the relevant text from the source used for these? (accused others of infractions from illegal subletting to ripping out fixtures to installing appliances was the closest that I saw there. @BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review. For ALT4 and ALT5, I accidentally provided the wrong source, which has now been fixed. I've also rephrased the article so that the ""siege of Beirut"" quip is clearer. I will do a QPQ soon. Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for expanding the article! I do think there's a possible opportunity for a quirky hook based on Only Murders in the Building, given that ""the Building"" is The Belnord, but I'm struggling to come up with something right now. Legoktm (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) @Legoktm: My pleasure. And if you have any hook ideas related to Only Murders in the Building, feel free to add them. The six hooks I proposed above were just the things that jumped out at me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 25 ===   ==== Zayn al-Din Qaraja ====  ... that Zayn al-Din Qaraja was the founder of the Beylik of Dulkadir? Source: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/dulkadir-COM_27743 ALT1: ... that Zayn al-Din Qaraja was imprisoned and executed by the Mamluk Sultanate after he declared the Beylik of Dulkadir Independent? Source: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1725218 Pages 85-86 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Bahamas BowlImproved to Good Article status by Aintabli (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zayn al-Din Qaraja; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Flight Deck (California's Great America) ====  ... that a man dropped his hat while riding Flight Deck and went to retrieve it but ended up dying after being struck by the foot of a rider? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24428251/the-san-francisco-examiner/ , https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109183022/man-dies-after-being-kicked-in-the-head/ , https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109279406/fatal-accident-at-theme-park/ Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria AdvocataImproved to Good Article status by Adog (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Flight Deck (California's Great America); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Vladimir Cavarnali ====  ... that Vladimir Cavarnali, who edited a communist children's magazine (May 1948 cover pictured), had previously been a member of the fascist Crusade of Romanianism? Source: ""Dela Cruciada Românismului"", in Adevărul, September 10, 1936, p. 7 on his Crusade membership; the exact nuance of the Crusader ideology is a matter of some dispute, though a vast majority of sources (one quoted in this article as well) point to it being at least heavily inspired by Italian fascism. On his editing Licurici (and other such publications): Mihai Stoian, ""Evocare tîrzie"", in Gazeta Literară, Vol. XIII, Issue 31, August 1966, p. 7. ALT1: ... that the Bulgarian–Gagauz poet Vladimir Cavarnali, who sang his love for a Nogai Tatar lady, was once affiliated with the fascist Crusade of Romanianism? Source: On his ethnicity: Anatol Măcriș, Găgăuzii, pp. 104, 128–129. Bucharest: Editura Paco, 2008 (a reasonable source, though not the most prestigious, Măcriș cites on this topic a previous study by scholar Eleonora Hotineanu, as well as his own research. The Nogai-themed poem in Alexandru Burlacu, ""Istoria literaturii. Vladimir Cavarnali: poezia faustică"", in Metaliteratură, Vol. X, Issues 1–4, 2010, pp. 125–126. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Casum sentit dominus Comment: Special holding area suggestion: It would be great if the picture hook, if selected, gets a slot on May Day, which is what the cover illustrates.Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Cavarnali; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Eduard Hamm ====  ... that Eduard Hamm was arrested by the Gestapo in 1944 following the July 20 Plot and took his own life on September 23, 1944, by jumping out of a window during a Gestapo interrogation? Source: https://www.gdw-berlin.de/en/recess/biographies/index_of_persons/biographie/view-bio/eduard-hamm/?no_cache=1 Reviewed:Created by Dudu90 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Eduard Hamm; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   In its current form, this article suffers from a usual problem as a translation from the German Wikipedia: the referencing requirements of the English Wikipedia are far stricter. As a minimum, DYK rules stipulate that every paragraph must have at least one citation. Most paragraphs are unreferenced. Please ping me if you want to tackle this problem; in its current state, this article cannot be passed. Schwede66 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Tyrrhenika ====  ... that Roman emperor Claudius was so proud of his work about the Etruscans that he had it regularly read to the public in the Library of Alexandria? Source: Briquel (1988), p. 218 ALT1: ... that marriage to Plautia Urgulanilla may have helped Claudius get first-hand information for his work about the Etruscans, Tyrrhenika? Source: Briquel (1988b), p. 448 Reviewed: I will do it asapCreated by Alessandro57 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tyrrhenika; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I liked this article a lot. It is well-written, seemingly well-sourced, and rather exciting. I have taken the liberty of only slightly adjusting English in the proposed hooks. If you disagree, please revert. In any case, I am shocked that this is an entirely new article, considering the extent of coverage in reliable sources. It is big enough and I suspect there is room for further growth in the future. I do not see any copyright issues. I do have some questions:  Does the cited source really say that Claudius married Urgulanilla because of his interest in Etruscans? I do not see it in the one page that is visible to me. Her grandmother's distant descent from Etruscans seems like a very far-fetched reason to marry Urgulanilla. Why would pedantry and erudition lead to a work of little value? This source is accessible and appears to say that one scholar, Momigliano, presumed Tyrrhenika to have been derivative because Claudius's interest were all over the place, and does not blame pedantry or erudition. Should we not name Briquel as the person who disagrees with Momigliano's assessment? We seem to accept Briquel's judgement as superior to Momigliano's and I am not certain that we should. One of the sources, the Etruscan Corner, seems to be markedly inferior in quality to the rest. Is it self-published? What is the name of the author?I am looking forward to your reply! Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 26 ===   ==== Friedrichshafen FF.19 ====  ... that the Friedrichshafen FF.19 became the first German aircraft to conduct successful tests with wireless telegraphy? Source: Borzutzki, Siegfried (1993). Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen GmbH: Diplom-Ingenieur Theodor Kober [Friedrichshafen Aircraft Company: Diploma-Engineer Theodore Kober] (in German). Berlin: Burbach. ISBN 3-927513-60-1. Page 97. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/AmmonihahImproved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Friedrichshafen FF.19; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== The Noble Fisherman ====  ... that in the 17th-century ballad The Noble Fisherman, Robin Hood eschews the forest for the sea? Source: Really anything, but https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/robin-hoods-fishing-introduction works.  (""Rymes of Robin Hood"" is more direct about the oddity of Robin Hood at sea.) ALT1: ... that Robin Hood somehow finds himself fighting French pirates in The Noble Fisherman? Source: https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/robin-hoods-fishing-introduction ""He is very poor at that trade, but proves his heroic quality with the bow and sword when a French pirate ship tries to steal the catch."" ALT2: ... that Robin Hood's fishing skills leave much to be desired, but his archery is still unmatched in the ballad The Noble Fisherman? Source: https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/robin-hoods-fishing-introduction ""He is very poor at that trade, but proves his heroic quality with the bow and sword when a French pirate ship tries to steal the catch. "" Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie-Julien Dunand5x expanded by SnowFire (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Noble Fisherman; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Comment: Since I know people might ask - it's a bit of a mess, but as best I can tell, ballads generally have neither italics nor quotation marks.  Since they're songs or short poems, it seems like quotation marks should be called for by MOS:T, but that doesn't appear very commonly in the sources.  That said, some WP articles on ballads italicize them, so...  shrug emoji, not a clear case. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Arthur Dantchik ====  ... that two Americans, Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik are large funders of the Kohelet Policy Forum, an  intellectual driving force of the controversial 2023 Israeli judicial reform package? Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-01/ty-article/.premium/hartman-institute-received-funds-from-u-s-billionaires-funding-attack-on-israeli-courts/00000186-0d9d-db1b-a1ce-cddde8ed0000 Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Yitzhak Weinstein-BranovskyCreated by Longhornsg (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Arthur Dantchik; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Achaemenid royal inscriptions ====  ... that the initial decipherment of cuneiform was based on the Achaemenid royal inscriptions from Persepolis? Source: Mousavi, Ali (2012-03-14). ""VI. PERSEPOLIS AND THE PUZZLE OF THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS"". Persepolis. DE GRUYTER. pp. 113–122. doi:10.1515/9781614510338.113. In this way, the exploration of the ancient ruins at Persepolis proved to be one important key to the development of historical and archaeological studies in the first half of the nineteenth century. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/HummingbirdCreated by Onceinawhile (talk), पाटलिपुत्र (talk) and Falten-Jura (talk). Nominated by Onceinawhile (talk) at 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Achaemenid royal inscriptions; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Note: This is a replacement for Template:Did you know nominations/Decipherment of cuneiform scripts, as the other article was deemed not currently eligible. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Lynch/Oz ====  ... that the documentary Lynch/Oz incorporates hundreds of film clips to illustrate the influence of The Wizard of Oz on the work of filmmaker David Lynch (pictured)? Source: ""With its impressive array of hundreds of film clips..."" ""Philippe illustrates their insights with endless rolling montages of movie clips, and of course by pinpointing the key visual examples of Lynch/”Oz” connection."" Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Erika ThompsonMoved to mainspace by Οἶδα (talk). Self-nominated at 11:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lynch/Oz; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this one! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Policy compliance:  Adequate sourcing: N - Added three citation needed tags under ""Synopsis"" Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: YQPQ: N - Need a QPQOverall:  I'll note that Earwig gave a relatively high score on some articles, but it's all quotations and names, so it's all good here. Need a QPQ and citation needed tags to be filled and we'll be all good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Ping for Οἶδα MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) MyCatIsAChonk Thank you for reviewing! I have personally created only two DYK nominations in the past. This will be my third. However, I have gone ahead and reviewed one other nomination. I have also fixed the inline citation issue caused by a paragraph break which left the latter portion of the first paragraph unreferenced. Οἶδα (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Articles created/expanded on March 27 ===   ==== Drag Isn't Dangerous ====  ... that Drag Isn't Dangerous is a charitable telethon set to be hosted by numerous drag queens to fight against the Tennessee drag ban bill? Source: https://www.out.com/drag/drag-isnt-dangerous-telethon#rebelltitem1 https://www.them.us/story/drag-isnt-drangerous-telethon-bans Reviewed:Created by JuanGLP (talk). Self-nominated at 16:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Drag Isn't Dangerous; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  I'll review this! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Overall:  I'll note that Earwig shows a somewhat high copyvio score but it's for the RuPaul quote on most of the sources, so it's all good there. Nicely done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: @MyCatIsAChonk, thank you very much!! — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 22:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Death (Melanie Martinez song) ====  ... that Melanie Martinez's song, ""Death"", was her first chart hit over a decade? Source: https://www.latestly.com/socially/entertainment/death-by-melanie-martinez-debuts-at-95-on-the-hot-100-it-marks-her-first-latest-tweet-by-pop-crave-5000263.html https://www.billboard.com/artist/melanie-martinez/chart-history/hsi/ Reviewed: Vylet PonyConverted from a redirect by JuanGLP (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Death (Melanie Martinez song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Original: ""... that Melanie Martinez's song, ""Death"", debuts at #95 on the Billboard Hot 100, making it her first appearance since her time on The Voice?"" ALT 1: ""... that Melanie Martinez's song, ""Death"", was her first chart hit over a decade, since The Voice?"" ALT 2: ""... that Melanie Martinez's song, ""Death"", was her first chart hit over a decade?"" ALT 3: ""... that Melanie Martinez's song, ""Death"", was her first chart hit on the Billboard Hot 100, over a decade?"" There is a maintenance tag on the ""Music video"" section. Also, I'm not sure the hook is particularly catching, charting at number 95 is not a significant achievement (compared to, say, top five). Maybe instead have a hook that says it was her first chart hit in over a decade? Also, a QPQ is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)@Ritchie333, I do not know what's a QPQ, and I have put three alternatives. If you would like to give it a try, add one. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 22:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) QPQ is ""Quid pro quo"" ie: review a nomination when you add a new one, although I see you've now done this. I like ALT2 the best. There's still the issue of the ""unsourced"" tag on the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Ritchie333, I changed the hook and the ""unsourced"" tag has been fixed. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Okay, that should be sufficient to get on the main page now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Testimonies (novel) ====  ... that years before Patrick O'Brian published Master and Commander, the first novel in his Aubrey–Maturin series, he had already used the surnames Aubrey and Maturin in his 1952 novel Testimonies? Source: Jessica Mann, ""Fatal Triangle"" [31] The Sunday Telegraph. pp. Books, Review, 10. Text reads ""Now re-issued as Testimonies, it is O'Brian's first book, similar to the contemporary work only in the perfection of its prose and the brief appearance of the names Aubrey and Maturin, later re-used for his naval heroes."" Reviewed:Improved to Good Article status by MichaelMaggs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Testimonies (novel); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: Y Interesting: N - nOverall:  @MichaelMaggs: Good article but, I don't really find the hook all that interesting. Can you create a new hook? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Onegreatjoke, OK, will have a think tomorrow. The hook would I think be of significant interest to the many readers of Patrick O'Brian's majestic 20-volume Aubrey-Maturin series of historical novels, but I can understand that we may need something of more universal appeal. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)It seems like it does this book a disservice to only mention it in comparison to O'Brien's later (and more famous) works.  So, I'm thinking of hooks which treat the subject on its own.  Maybe something like:ALT1: ... that although Patrick O'Brien's 1952 novel Testimonies was reviewed poorly in his native England, it earned high praise in the United States? ALT2: ... that Patrick O'Brien's 1952 novel Testimonies got reviews ranging from ""clumsy in construction to the point of amateurishness"" to ""rare and beautiful""? Both of those look good. My preference would be for ALT2, but I'd be happy with either. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Logic translation ====  ... that logic translations can be used to analyze whether arguments expressed in ordinary language are correct? Source: Baumgartner, Michael; Lampert, Timm (September 2008). ""Adequate formalization"". Synthese. 164 (1): 93–4. doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9218-1. The problem of adequately transforming statements of natural language into the formalism of standard propositional or predicate logic is a problem most students of logic encounter without being presented with satisfactory solutions. ... Nevertheless, formalizations are frequently used as a means to reconstruct arguments or to prove theorems ... Proofs involving the transformation of ordinary language to a formalism, such as validity proofs of ordinary language arguments or proofs of metamathematical theorems, are convincing only if they rely on a systematic understanding of the adequacy of the formalizations resorted to. ALT1: ... that an intermediary step in logic translations is to create hybrid expressions that use ordinary vocabulary in logical formulas? Source: Peregrin, Jaroslav; Svoboda, Vladimír (2016). ""Logical Formalization and the Formation of Logic(s)"". Logique et Analyse (233): 60–1, 63, 77. ISSN 0024-5836. (HF1) ""∀x (Is-a-donkey(x) → Has-ears(x)) ... The problem with this suggestion is obvious: we would have to explain what kind of formula (HF1) is and to which language it belongs. If the terms Is-a-donkey and Has-ears are expressions just borrowed from natural language, then (HF1) is not really a formula of any of the usual logical languages. In fact, it is no more a formula of CPL than it is an English sentence. Though it is easily readable for any English speaker acquainted with basic logical symbols, it combines expressions that do not really fit together. It might seem that it would be possible to establish a hybrid language that would combine logical symbols with natural language expressions in the way (HF1) does ... The next step is then relatively easy – it involves a transformation of this paraphrase into an expression of the ""hybrid"" kind of language mentioned above ... We often proceed by paraphrasing and by ""translating"" the sentence into a formula of a kind of hybrid language, from which we then can abstract away the (extralogical) remnants of natural language Reviewed: (second DYK submission)Created by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Logic translation; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Frank LeMaster ====  ... that as a college football player, Frank LeMaster changed from being a fullback to the starting halfback, to reserve halfback, to tight end, to linebacker, back to halfback and then linebacker again? Source: The Courier-Journal (""And he recalled his early college career. 'I was a fullback my whole freshman year,' said the 6-foot-2, 220-pound LeMaster. 'In my sophomore year, we introduced the Wishbone offense and I started at halfback the first two games. I only got to carry the ball 10 times and I averaged four yards but apparently that wasn't good enough ... I went about three games as a reserve halfback and they switched me to tight end ... Then they switched me to linebacker. Then they moved me back to halfback. And then they moved me to linebacker again.'"") Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Frank LeMaster; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Reviewing for quid pro quo. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 23:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Review not started   ==== List of The Last of Us (TV series) characters, Music of The Last of Us (TV series) ====  ... that original game composer Gustavo Santaolalla (pictured) returned to compose the music of The Last of Us, while original game actors Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson returned to play different characters? Source: Collider, The Hollywood Reporter ALT1: ... that music in The Last of Us was repeated throughout the series to remind viewers of different characters? Source: HBO: 25:25 , HBO: 40:25 , Mashable ALT2: ... that the soundtrack for The Last of Us features a song performed by Nick Offerman (pictured), who played a character in the series? Source: Pitchfork Reviewed: Recreational drug use in animals, Ash Street shootout Comment: Image of Santaolalla with ALT0, Offerman with ALT2.Created by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 00:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/List of The Last of Us (TV series) characters; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   === Articles created/expanded on March 28 ===   ==== John Green ====  ... that author John Green fundraises for Partners In Health by selling coffee, socks, and shirts with an image of his mustachioed face? Source: [32] [33][34] ALT1: ... that in addition to writing the best-selling book of 2014, John Green is the co-creator of both VidCon and Crash Course? Source: [35][36][37] ALT2: ... that John Green was partially inspired to write The Fault in Our Stars by a Nerdfighter named Esther Earl? Source: [38] ALT3: ... that author John Green fundraises for Partners In Health by selling shirts with an image of his mustachioed face called ""Pizza John""? Source:[39] Reviewed:Improved to Good Article status by Cerebral726 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Green; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Taiari / Chalky Inlet ====  ... that according to Māori legend, the inner arms of Taiari / Chalky Inlet were created when the demigod Māui slipped over? Source: Kā Huru Manu (""There are two accounts of how Māui created the Sound. The first states that Māui slipped over and fell forward, causing both of his arms to instinctively extend out, creating Moana-whenua-pōuri and Te Korowhakaunu."") ALT1: ... that in 2022, over 100 traps were set to catch a single stoat on an otherwise predator-free island in Taiari / Chalky Inlet? Source: Department of Conservation (""The stoat on Chalky Island has been seen on-camera, but so far has avoided the 100 stoat traps that have been set."") ALT2: ... that photos taken in Taiari / Chalky Inlet by Alfred Henry Burton contributed to support for establishing Fiordland National Park? Source: Te Papa (""His Views of Fiordland helped to convince authorities to have the area set aside as a national park."") Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Drake (musician)Improved to Good Article status by Turnagra (talk). Self-nominated at 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Taiari / Chalky Inlet; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.  Hook eligibility:  Cited: N - n Interesting: YOverall:  @Turnagra: Good article. But, there's a hook citation problems. Alt2 doesn't even mention the chalky inlet so I can't verify that hook in there. Either tell me where it mentions the inlet or get rid of the hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== That's 60s ====  ... that the first song played on That's 60s was the same as BBC Radio 1 over 55 years earlier, and both by Tony Blackburn? Source: ""As he did when he launched Radio 1 back in 1967, Tony chose the song Flowers in the Rain by The Move as the first track to play on That’s 60s."" [40] Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Death (Melanie Martinez song)Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/That's 60s; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   ==== Abdillah (Indonesian politician) ====  ... that although he ran against a candidate backed by that party, Abdillah was elected mayor of Medan, Indonesia by PDI-P city councillors? Source: Hadiz, Vedi (2010). Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia Perspective. pp. 123–124. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gouzenko Affair Comment: Skirting around BLP rules here.Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Abdillah (Indonesian politician); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.   === Articles created/expanded on March 29 ===  The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.  Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page. Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [41]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [42]. April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know."
489	498	1096	WP:AMA	Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates	489	"The Association of Members' Advocates (AMA) was a Wikipedian voluntary association devoted to advocating, counseling, and assisting Wikipedians who were undergoing difficulties. It claimed to be mindful of due process, fundamental justice and fairness and the principle of audi alteram partem (hearing both sides) in dispute resolution. However, in discussions here and here, it was found by many Wikipedians to be bureaucratic, and prone to wikilawyering. Some reform was suggested. Two months later, when this reform failed to surface and most cases were not responded to for a long time, the project was shut down. This page is maintained as a historical reference of the group's design and activities.  Advocacy is that process in which an individual (an Advocate) provides assistance to a particular Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians involved in a dispute. This assistance includes advice, assistance during the negotiation phase of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, or:  Providing access to and explanations of, Policy (particularly pages like Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Help desk, M:Foundation issues, etc...)Communicating on article discussion pages and the user talk pages in question;  Occasionally advocacy may require directly involving oneself in the article involved in a dispute.Assisting in the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process (assuming it is necessary) and seeking out additional assistance as necessary.  It is preferable to achieve an equitable solution to the problem at hand which does not involve escalation to a formal dispute resolution process.Understanding and articulating the advocee's viewpoint in the dispute and assisting/representing that viewpoint during Mediation or Arbitration, when necessary.Being an example of policy accordance and civility, especially when involved in Advocacy of an ""official"" nature. Advocacy is not mandatory, neither the advocate nor the advocee is obligated by wikipedia policy to engage in the advocacy process.  Some editors appreciate the informality that this optional nature affords the advocate.Advocacy is NOT a lawyer–client relationship. - An Advocate should see their Advocacy relationship more like that of an older sibling, or an informal wardship or charge; Advocates should at all times stand against WikiLawyering. To illustrate this, Advocates do not take on clients, they take on advocees.Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure. - The AMA is a voluntary user-group and, as such, Advocates will take cases on a volunteer basis.  It is the advocates themselves, by consensus and as individuals who determine how to best solve disputes.Advocacy is NOT a method to coerce the breaking up of a dispute by Administrative action. -- Some Advocates are Administrators, others are not. The advocacy process as a rule of thumb will NOT involve the use of any special 'admin powers' on the part of an advocate.Advocacy is NOT a Complicated and Difficult Wikipedian Procedure -- For those requesting an Advocate's help, the procedure is usually as simple as talking to a friend who will listen.  For the Advocate, the process is often as simple as giving good advice to a friend.  For more difficult cases, an Advocate can obtain help or advice from other Advocates.  New and unique problems rarely arise, and almost anything can be solved with good communication between all parties concerned. Generally, the scope of, and appropriate methods for advocacy will be determined by the Advocate, based upon consultation with the person requesting assistance (the 'advocee').  Advocacy is an informal and voluntary process: there is no ""right"" (or obligation) to use the services of an Advocate.    === Privacy === The AMA will attempt to find a suitable Advocate for you. Advocates make an effort to preserve your privacy and to maintain a level of confidentiality and professionalism expected of counseling professionals. With some exceptions, however Advocates are not trained professional counselors, but volunteers. Though Advocates are volunteers, in some cases an individual advocate may (because they are a lawyer or social worker etc.) have an independent obligation to maintain confidentiality to varying degrees. If you desire a high degree of privacy, it is possible for you to consult with an advocate through email or other ""off-wiki"" methods. Please note that due to the open nature of Wikipedia, communications with the AMA or individual Advocates ""on-wiki"" cannot be considered confidential, as most areas within the wikipedia are available for anyone to read.   === Assistance during formal resolution processes === It is preferable to reach a resolution -- through advocacy alone -- which does not escalate to more formal dispute resolution procedures, however an Advocate can assist you in presenting your case during more formal processes such as Mediation or Arbitration. Because mediation is a consensual process, the involvement of an Advocate in the actual process may depend on the approval of the other party and the Mediator. Advocates can also help gather information and discuss your options with you and give advice on a more informal basis. In the latter case their identity does not have to be revealed to anyone if you wish the consultation to remain anonymous.  At present, the rules are provisional and incomplete, and due to the informal nature of advocacy advocates are guided more by good judgement than a formal set of rules and procedures, but our informal ""Constitution"" (aka ""ABC"") is an attempt to give a little of order to these rules. The Guide to Advocacy and the AMA Handbook can also provide more insight into what it is an Advocate does, focused mainly on how members should behaive on a case.  Should informal advocacy procedures fail to reach an acceptable solution, and in the interests of fairness and impartiality -- considered ""core concepts"" of advocacy -- during formal dispute resolution, the following guidelines have been adopted. These may be considered to be fundamental rules:  A user should decline to act as Mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an Advocate. A user should decline to act as Advocate in a case where the user has previously acted as a Mediator. A user should decline to act as a Mediator if that user has recently acted as an Advocate for or against one of the parties in the Mediation. When participating in Mediation, users who are both Advocates and Mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting. Users who are also Arbitrators should not serve as Advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee. (This is to avoid putting Arbitrators in the position of deciding cases in which they have already supported one side.) Alex756 (Founder, Coordinator) -- 30 Apr 2004 - 16 Jan 2006, also the founder of the AMA (no longer an advocate member, (and no longer a member of Wikimedia because there is no membership as of Dec. 11, 2006) but please see his user page and feel free to contact him if necessary, he is available and willing to help, if necessary) Rebecca (Coordinator, formerly known as Ambi) -- Jan 2006 - 28 Jun 2006 Wikiwoohoo (Deputy - Dealt with complaints and other proceedures within the AMA; Resigned in April 2007) Æon Insanity Now!EA! (Deputy, Resigned to help reform the AMA) Martinp23 (Deputy - resigning to reduce bureuacracy in the AMA) 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) (Coordinator) -- Jun 2006 - May 24 2007 - Resigned due to irreconcilable issues with Wikipedian politics. Questions can be directed to his talk page."
490	499	1097	WP:YAMB	Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band	490	"Yet Another MySpace Band (YAMB). Acronym descriptive of the frequent misuse of Wikipedia as a repository of promotional information about someone's emerging garage band that's ""going to hit it big one day"", ""really honest, my friend's cousin knows a guy in the band, and they're really good!"" Such articles tend to have the following characteristics:  Lots of unsourced, promotional statements (""One of the hottest bands in the scene today"" or ""The East Coast's premier [add obscure genre] band"") No albums released, or only a self-produced CD they gave to their friends or make available free online; Not signed to any label; Only play at minor local venues, such as local bars and restaurants; Written by the band, which is generally Made up entirely of teenagers; and The only ""sources"" supporting the notability of the band are Myspace pages, Facebook pages and user-edited websites and fansites (these are not Reliable sources on Wikipedia) Sometimes there is a bonafide Reliable source about the band, but all it does is indicate that the band exists, or that they played (""According to the New York Times, local warm-up acts during the afternoon included Young Garage Band X."") Sometimes, editors attempt an end run around WP:Notability guidelines by adding references that show one of the band members is indeed notable in some other field: ""Young Garage Band X's bass player Suzy Xhosa was mentioned by the New York Times as one of the ""Top ten young women to watch for in venture capital"". This reference may support an article about Ms. Xhosa as a venture capitalist, but it can't be used to support the notability of an amateur garage band she plays in.Most such articles are caught during New Page Patrol, and nominated for speedy deletion via A7 (lack of notability), or G11 (blatant advertising). Those which are not speedily deleted tend to end up at AFD, due to failing to meet either the Wikipedia general notability guidelines or the subject-specific guidelines for bands and other musical groups.  Such articles often turn up or end up in userspace ""while editors look for reliable independent sourcing"". Frequently they are then left there indefinitely.  However, they are often only written for promotional purposes, and are deleteable at WP:MFD, or as per WP:CSD#G11, {{db-promo}}, if blatant.  Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band"
491	500	1103	WP:NOTTHERAPY	Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy	491	"Wikipedia is not therapy. If an editor has behavioral problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons. The phrase ""Wikipedia is not therapy"" should not be taken to imply that editors with mental disorders are incapable of making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, or of collaborating with other Wikipedians. Editors with disorders should not be banned from Wikipedia simply because of their disorders. Nevertheless, editors who engage in disruptive or antisocial behavior may be blocked or banned. Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed. However, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the editor's participation in the project.  As a collaborative project creating reference works, Wikipedia and its associated projects offer opportunities for editors to practice collaborative constructive work. While not intended as therapy, this work may have therapeutic and rehabilitative effects. Anyone who can benefit from this is welcome on the same terms as any other editor.   === Unintended consequences === Overly focused editing on a single subject can be very detrimental to the collaborative editing process, and not infrequently leads to resentments and alienation that eventually spills over into overt incivility:  the very undesirable antithesis of therapeutic benefits! Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with ""ownership"" of articles. After working hard on one article for a long time, you may be less open to others' input. This is a dangerous pitfall that most good experienced editors have learned to avoid along the way. Working on a larger group of articles may reduce this problem.   === Pace your work === Bold editing is encouraged, but when many editors are making contributions to the page, the pace of editing may need to be slowed and spread out in time, to allow for real-life time demands on useful and, not infrequently, expert contributors. For many articles, expert involvement is desired and needed. Keeping expert contributors requires that non-expert editors be sensitive to how their editing affects other editors. Fast-paced editing in a collaborative process can be a discourtesy to editors that can't contribute as much time. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and subject to endless and merciless editing, but in a well-developed article, even a small edit may be controversial or disruptive. Consider checking the article's talk page before beginning to edit so that you know whether any major discussions are underway. With a ""work in progress"", remember that there is no deadline, so annoyances and imperfections can be set aside for a while. When you encounter articles in dispute, either join the conversation and help develop consensus, or edit elsewhere. Make haste more slowly!   === Rules and authority === Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be complicated and difficult to apply in practice. But Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a very helpful guide in that regard. If you have made a mistake, even a relatively serious one, rely on ""assume good faith"", apologize, and try not to repeat the mistake. If you openly acknowledge what you did wrong, people will usually assume that you understand the problem and did not intend to cause a problem. If you do not openly acknowledge your role in the problem, people will usually assume that you are highly likely to make the same mistake again. Everyone on Wikipedia has made mistakes before; do not be afraid to admit yours. Likewise, Wikipedia has a number of Administrators, some quite skilled, some not. Working it out with them may prove challenging, but in this environment little is at risk.   === Considering other viewpoints === Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires a fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject—so long as those viewpoints are published in high-quality reliable sources, not merely your own thoughts or experiences.  As a result, editing on Wikipedia offers an opportunity to practice considering opposing viewpoints regarding a subject. Discuss such matters in depth, allowing other editors time to consider various suggestions. Don't attempt to force a viewpoint into the article, or to make a minority viewpoint seem more important than it is. Causing numerous reverts and counter reverts is disruptive and can bring down disciplinary action.   === Playing well with others === As most of the content and policies of Wikipedia are worked out among editors, Wikipedia offers the opportunity to practice the skills of courtesy, negotiation, and compromise that make graceful social life possible. If you are getting strong reactions from others, or worse, strong language, take a step back and reassess the matter. Consensus is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Although you do not have to conform to what other Wikipedians consider constructive and civil, insisting on your behavior may cause a complaint on WP:AN/I which can lead to administrative action. If you find yourself against strong opposition but still believe you are doing nothing wrong, consider contributing to other articles or topics, or avoiding contributions and discussions that cause controversies.   === Getting back on the horse === If you have had trouble at Wikipedia in the past, for most editors Wikipedia offers the chance to start over and try again; the only exception being editors who have caused serious disruption which has been judged likely to continue if nothing is done. If you have been blocked for a short time, wait until the block expires, and resolve to do better. If you have been blocked for a long time, do not try to create another account. Instead, you can appeal the block on your own talk page, or you can send e-mail to an administrator to request a review of the block. Even permanent bans can be appealed by filing a request with the appropriate party.   === Taking on greater responsibilities === Wikipedia readily promotes editors who have taken responsibility. This offers an opportunity to practice administrative skills in a collaborative environment.   === Compassion === As others will make mistakes from time to time or need help, your participation in Wikipedia offers opportunities to practice friendliness and forgiveness.  If an editor is having trouble, offer advice, gentle correction, and, if necessary, use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to resolve problems. Remember to assume in good faith that an editor whose work is disruptive is likely not trying to cause problems. In some cases, those actions will ultimately be ineffective, and action must be taken to stop the disruption of the encyclopedia. This requires that Wikipedia editors accept our limitations at changing behavior or policing it, admit that we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior, and follow the usual procedures to request a block or ban. Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the community to develop or enforce a plan that enables the editor to be successful.  {{User mental health}} Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Aspergers editors Wikipedia:Competence is required User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses meta:Wikipedia is not a convalescent center Wikipedia is not therapy!, a personal essay on this essay"
492	501	1104	WP:CA7M	User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes	492	"Of all the criteria for speedy deletion, A7 (and by extension A9 and A11) is probably the one that gets misapplied the most. This page serves to outline common mistakes and strives to provide a list of claims that make an article's subject important or significant enough to fail speedy deletion.   == The Wording ==   == The big mistakes == The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:  ""Subject is not notable"" A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using ""important or significant"" instead. ""No sources"" / ""No references"" A7 is not about whether the indications of ""importance or significance"" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion. Limited scope A7 only applies to real people, individual animals (not species), organisations, individual events and web content. It does not apply to books, films, albums (see A9 for that), fictional characters, locations (considered inherently notable anyway), buildings, games, software, products or anything else. Retagging declined speedies This is a mistake people make with every criterion. Admins are allowed to decline deleting a page even if the tagging was correct. This is a binding decision for everyone involved and it should not be retagged for the same reason and, as one can assume that admins consider all applicable criteria, none other (except valid G10 and G12 taggings). If an admin decided that a page should not be speedy deleted, do not retag it for speedy deletion but rather choose alternative venues like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Retagging may be viewed as attempted admin shopping. Of course, this does not apply if circumstances change after the declined tagging or if new circumstances become known that the first admin declining the tag could not consider. For example, re-tagging as G7 when the user requests deletion after the declining or as G3 if it turns out that the page was created for vandalism-purposes.   == Common indications of importance or significance == → This list can now be found at Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance   == Handling articles about potentially significant or important subjects ==  The aforementioned section mentions a lot of common indicators why A7 should not be applied to the subject in question. Those are, however, not reasons why the article should be kept. If you encounter an article about a subject that is potentially significant or important according to these indicators, check whether it also is notable enough for a stand-alone article. If it isn't, remember the alternatives. If significance or importance is indicated because of an association with a notable subject, consider merging and/or redirecting to the subject's article. Otherwise, see if there are suitable lists or other entries that can benefit from the inclusion of this information. In most cases, any article about a subject that meets one of the aforementioned indicators will not have to be deleted, even if the subject does not merit its own article.   == Notes ==   == See also == User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion Wikipedia:Why I hate Speedy Deleters Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance"
493	502	1105	WP:MEDIA	Wikipedia:Media	493	Wikipedia:Media may refer to:  Help:Files – using images, video clips, or audio clips Help:Media – for playing media files, as a user Help:Pictures Help:Creation and usage of media files Help:Viewing media Wikipedia:Images Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media Wikipedia:Graphics Lab Wikipedia:WikiProject Media – covers print and electronic mass media Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises Wikipedia:Notability (media), an essay on the notability of media outlets
494	503	1106	WP:EXR	Wikipedia:Expert retention	494	"The issue of how to attract and retain expert editors, given the anarchic and often frustrating nature of Wikipedia, is one that many Wikipedians feel needs to be addressed. Based on the thousands of articles needing expert attention, there is clearly a need to encourage their participation and for the community to accommodate them. Some expert editors have withdrawn because of discontent with Wikipedia's policies and processes. No study has been undertaken to determine whether such a withdrawal has occurred in numbers significant enough to be problematic. Nevertheless, the perception alone may be sufficient to cause concern that material in Wikipedia is not written to a high standard of accuracy or completeness because of a lack of participation by subject matter experts.   === What is an expert editor? === For the purposes of this essay, an expert editor is a user with an advanced degree, such as a PhD, a professional degree, such as a Juris Doctor or equivalent professional expertise (e.g., a widely published novelist) who is contributing to Wikipedia in their field of expertise. Some editors may consider graduate students who are working on doctoral degrees to be functioning at a high level of expertise, though lower than a professor with a PhD.   === Does Wikipedia value expertise? === (I am) perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor... If by ""Wikipedia"" one means its values as expressed in policy, then it can be said that Wikipedia definitely does not value expertise. Attempts to establish a policy on credential verification have failed. There are competing essays that say credentials are irrelevant and that credentials matter. An attempt to push through a policy to ignore all credentials failed, though it received considerable support. The culture of Wikipedia has no single commonly held view, as is illustrated in the discussion pages of the above cited essays and proposals. However, the lack of consensus (and indeed doggedly opposed parties) results in a perceived lack of respect for expertise, a deference normally found elsewhere in society. Anti-expertise positions often are not acted against, so they are in effect encouraged. And as they are encouraged, they more than negate any positive regard for expertise, since the latter is only expressed, at present, in the consideration given by individual editors to those whom they recognize as experts. This article arose out of Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, in which discontent was spurred by situations in which amateurs promoted dubious or plainly wrong positions in spite of their utter lack of knowledge of the topic at hand. It appears that the original complainants have largely abandoned further efforts in this regard; some have left, and some have not, but in either case complaints are registered on many user pages.   === Aims of this article === This article is an attempt at a community project to investigate this issue, and an investigation into what changes might be useful.  Please only list here reasons that can be directly attributed to expert authors   === Edit creep === According to User:Hillman ""Articles reach a state of which WP can be proud, but then are gradually dismantled by careless edits, sometimes from well-intentioned registered users who are too hasty or inexperienced to take care not to shove in new material any old place, but rather to try to find some place where it fits neatly, or barring that, rewriting nearby paragraphs in order to correct any damage done to the previous flow of ideas."" Novice editors are typically insensitive ""to the sometimes challenging high-level intellectual task of seeing how to fit material they wish to add into the existing structure and vision of a given article. In an unstructured wiki model, all too often, novice writers prove unable to maintain consistent paragraph structure, verb tense, terminology, and notation. Or even worse, they often do not appear to even be aware of such issues!"". "" ... other irritants include those that feel the need to 'polish' otherwise stable articles with bad grammar and oversimplifications; editors for whom English is a second tongue but have no grasp of this language's idiom making a stand on what they perceive the meaning to be"".   === Failure to recognise edit creep === There is a widely held belief in the WP community that there is no such problem. ""Hillman talks of 'the naive expectation that Wikipedia articles tend to naturally improve monotonically, at least ""on average'"". [Franco] A dangerously naive WP myth holds that (apparently by some previously unknown law of nature) articles can only improve monotonically in quality.""   === Cranks === These fall into two classes:  The loners. ""Some users pose a particularly insidious threat to the content value of the Wikipedia, because they are engaged in a persistent, determined, and often quite ingenious campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact."". ""By nature the classic crank is only interested in his own unique and bizarre vision (and cranks often abuse each other with extreme viciousness)"". Hillman.""A few months before I left I was treated to the spectacle of no less than six editors claiming PhDs trying to reason one of these idiots out of his notions of the existence of a ceramic gas, and thinking what waste of talent. In the end the crank had to be brought before ArbCom and was subsequently barred, but only after tying up mine and several other editors time for months. Undaunted, this individual has opened several sockpuppet accounts and continues to push his ideas on the same pages he was barred from. The fiction is that these people need to be educated in the ways of the 'pedia — the truth is that by in large they are beyond redemption because they are parasites, scofflaws or insane."" Crank groups. ""There are fairly sizable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as ""scholarship"", and therefore many science/math articles at Wikipedia have been slanted in cranky ways by several editors working together."" (Hillman,). ""The bad guys (the ideologues, hoaxers, linkspammers, crank physikers, undercover political ""dirty tricks"" operatives, and guerrilla marketeers, among others) are winning this struggle for control of the Wikipedia."". ""There is an oddball... who has edited in passages of bewildering incoherence... What is happening is precisely what I feared... the work is being bowdlerised and corrupted""   === Lack of adherence to or understanding of scholarly values === Hillman. ""in order to make good judgements in content disputes regarding encyclopedia articles on scientific subjects, one must neccessarily adopt scholarly values. Unfortunately, the populist values of many prominent Wikipedians are generally antithetical to scholarly values, which is a huge part of the problem in attempting to deal with bad content in the scientific categories."" ""There exists a class of editor so driven by ideological agendas that they simply will not recognize Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy or seem to believe that it means that it guarantees uncritical place for their interpretations regardless of how flimsy the supporting facts or underlying logic might be. Worse, after an exhausting effort to bring these under control in a few months a fresh batch of POV pushers, unrelated to the first, show up to the same topics and the process must begin again from scratch.""""I am sorry to report that I begin to feel-after very few weeks of browsing and editing-the whole Wikipedia enterprise verges on the worthless... It's a pity, really-but there are just too many people with perverse agendas, who care little for clarity or objective truth.... I did try reversion,.. but it was promptly edited back again without explanation. The whole exercise then becomes pathetically childish, and I simply refuse to compromise myself any further. If people prefer ignorance, so be it. I do not want to give you the impression that I consider myself to be infallible; I am as capable of error as any other individual; but I always welcome reasoned challenges to any point I put forward. Apart from one or two people.. it is not forthcoming.""""There is, I think, a deep flaw in the philosophical grounding of the whole project, the assumption that 'truth' can somehow emerge through consensus. What emerges-depending on the topic- is a kind of mad Berkeleian world, where ideas struggle for dominance in complete disassociation from physical reality-I shout the loudest, therefore I am!.""The expert has to seriously wonder about being part of a project at all that highlights a Featured Articles like Wonderbra on the front page.[1]  Um, but what if your particular area of expertise is women's clothing, or more specifically, women's undergarments. Seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate for a feature article.We are making an encyclopedia about everything. I am an expert about some aspects of chemistry. For everything else I look at or edit I am not an expert but just an ordinary editor, so I do not wonder about Wonderbra.   === Vandalism === ""the constant drizzle of schoolboy vandalism.""   === Procedures === A comment when the Template:Tone tag had been placed on an article: ""If you think it needs work then do it instead of adding puerile tags""   === A cumulatively dysfunctional system ===  Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. They want to have loose reins to make WP their playground for their own particular agendas. People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed.  The problem on WP is not so much the obvious trolls but the ones who make editing painful for other editors by repetitive questions, tendentious editing, private agendas hidden beneath yet lord of all arguments; immature teenagers and college students who view biographies of living persons as their private political platform rather than a task requiring the utmost responsibility and mature outlook, all in recognition that words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly WP:Wikilawyering in order to pettifogg the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas.  Most people like me ended up at Missing Wikipedians much sooner, and many such people are enjoying the heck out of other, more responsible wikis, and some enjoying reading the jabs at places like Wikitruth. The price that has been paid and will continue to be paid until something changes is a Project in the guise of an encyclopedia that cannot even be cited by 1st graders, lest high schoolers. Welcome to your Wikipedia. I am done. CyberAnth 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)   === Discrimination against Living Inventors === Having had the misfortune to discover/invent Flow-Based Programming (FBP) about 50 years ago, I naturally wanted to share it with the world.  I am glad to say it is steadily gaining acceptance, and I am now seeing a plethora of ""classical"" FBP and FBP-like products, especially some recent ones incubated by Apache.  Unfortunately the WP article, originally written in 2006, cannot be kept up-to-date because back around 2016 someone decided that any changes to it were ""self promotion"".  I was also removed from the list of WP ""notables"", which I was nominated for a number of years ago, and I confess was a source of some pride (blush).  I could, I suppose, ask one of my colleagues to update the article, but wouldn't that be ""sock-puppetry""?  Bottom line: the article is old, and getting older, indirectly impacting WP's overall credibility. I have run across similar things in the past, although not as extreme: one post by me that I had personal knowledge of, about my Sunday School teacher when I was in my late teens (he is a WP notable), was disallowed ""because it wasn't documented"" - I was taught by him, for heaven's sake! Another post was disallowed because it referenced a web site, not a dead trees article! Why is paper more credible? At a more general level, with these rules, how is WP going to be able to capture living knowledge?  These problems all seem to relate to the WP credibility issue, especially with respect to living informants, and, while I have defended WP to all comers in the past, these problems have left a bad taste in my mouth! So my question is whether WP has any interest in finding solutions to issues that I believe impact on WP's credibility. Jpaulm (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  Please suggest here solutions based directly upon the discussion of problems only — for concepts not drawn directly from detailed problems   === Peer review system in Wikipedia === I believe that scholarly experts are needed because many pages with scientific content, at least in my field, need serious edits. However, my experience with posting a page on a scientific conference with links for students, post-docs, and senior scientists is rather discouraging. The main problem with specialty pages is notability of the subject, which is somewhat ill-defined if pages get immediately deleted. Usually, external sources on conferences or organizations are rare (with exception of the respective webpages, of course), but interest to gain knowledge once a page is created may be pretty significant. My suggestion is to introduce a peer-review system like the one existing for other scientific contributions (and actually existing for ""classical"" encyclopedias such as the Encyclopædia Britannica). Notify the editor of a problem, allow for a correction, but do not delete within 7 days (my article got deleted in less than one day).Ebieberich (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)  The main issue never really mentioned for obvious reasons is that dispute resolution on wiki happens on a personal rather than substantive/professional level. Just look at the any resolution board or such, and observe that ~100% of decisions are made on the basis of trite rule violations or other politics by so and so and almost never on the veracity of the content itself. While this might work for similarly trite topics such as American Idol where being right mostly doesn't matter, the same approach is obviously fallacious in any STEM related issue. This is result of the fact that most admins (or any editor with social power) simply don't have the background to grasp that there's such a thing as ""objective reality"", and are evidently more comfortable with people drama than arguing or otherwise working with facts. There's no fix for this sort of system incompetence, and as a whole wiki just falls back on the coincidental premise that technical topics are not contentious enough for the incompetent to get involved.  71.217.118.226 (talk)   === End anonymous editing === For the definitive statement of this perennial suggestion, which has been suggested since 2003, see m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles; see also IPs are human tooAnonymous editing should be eliminated if only to cut down on the vandalism level.Require positive (and difficult-to-forge) identification so that banned editors cannot come back under yet another sockpuppet account.Anonymous editing has served its purpose, no one can rationally argue that Wikipedia's policy of permitting anyone to edit is not well known, and thus needs to be promoted. The argument that most editors started off as anons is somewhat disingenuous as it assumes that these folks would not have opened an account had they not first contributed without one. There is simply no proof of this statement at all.Wary internet users aware of the hazards of being spammed to death or having their computers hacked when they identify themselves on a new website may initially dabble in Wikipedia as anonymous editors. When the overall experience is positive, and they come to understand the system, then they may come on board and obtain an identity. Being very quick to semi-protect frequently vandalized pages may be the better compromise solution. People new to wikipedia could thus understand the need to have something positive to contribute and ""earn"" their way in by making contributions to less-protected articles first.How about making the most contentious articles -- the ones that have been edited the most often -- more difficult to edit? How about requiring editors to have made X number of edits before editing an article that has been edited Y times? Proper levels of X and Y to be empirically determined. Right now, some articles are functioning merely as bulletin boards. Frex, the Muhammad article is reworked several times a day, by a never-ending flood of new editors, a great many of whom seem to me to be motivated by the opportunity to piss off actual live Muslims. If only editors with over 10,000 edits, say, could work on the article, it would stabilize rapidly. I don't think we'd be missing any great new information (I don't think any has been added in the last year!), we'd just lose all the attempts to capture the article for one POV. Editors would have to EARN the right to edit the contentious articles. Also, if we threw out the loons faster, we wouldn't have any loons upending the contentious articles. Zora 23:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)I completely agree that anonymous editing should not be allowed. In my short time on Wikipedia, I have seen numerous anonymous edits bordering on sheer malicious vandalism. Randomly changing values/numbers on articles, adding the word ""not"" after does to change a positive into a negative, etc. I bet some of these exist just to add factual errors into otherwise-decent Wikipedia articles. Shrumster 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)There is another possible solution which no one has apparently suggested so far. Namely, make multiple articles available on the same subject. This is what happens in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Experts will typically write contrasting articles on the same subject, often drawing different conclusions, especially in ""soft"" subjects like history or the fine arts. Scholarship then consists of comparing these different articles and drawing conclusions about the overall validity of one argument as opposed to another. It's not obvious why Wikipedia must limit itself to one article about each subject. While it remains quite true that traditional encyclopedias would never consider such a solution, Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and there is no obvious reason why Wikipedia need limit itself to modes of presentation based exclusively on the print models of traditional encyclopedias. Another possible solution would involve the revival of the medieval practice of glosses. A gloss in a medieval text involved commentary on the original text printed surrounding the original text. In some cases, medieval texts not only provided a gloss on the original author, but a gloss on the gloss.   === Three deadly rules === There are three policies that experts do not encounter in their professional settings:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change (AKA ""No binding decisions"") Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions stating that the ArbCom is not bound by precedentAt the root of all of the above issues is Wikipedia’s corpus of policy. It is gaps in this area that create the conditions that permit cranks and the incompetent to operate freely and makes bringing them under control such an exhausting exercise. The issue with the rules here stems from the fact that they are all in tension with each other. The ""No binding decisions"" policy is an invitation for anarchy. Exacerbating this condition, ArbCom has as part of its policy that it will not be bound by precedent. As a consequence this internal tension cannot ever be eased by due process. The excuse that this is to avoid having to repeat a ruling that may have proved not to be workable, is ludicrous on its face; they are not the last level of appeal, that belongs to the Foundation and [Jimmy] Wales. If a precedent needs overturning it can be done there.A doctrine of open ended rules was appropriate in the beginning of the Project; it provided room for quick maneuver and adjustment during the initial phase and allowed for some flexibility as the project defined itself. However if it is to mature beyond its present state some solidification has to occur. Getting rid of those three 'anti-rules' would be a good start.Of course, if other ""well-intentioned"" rules that experts find anathema to their experience in their stable, collegial and productive environments become policy, then they also might be added to this list. Note that User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia notes that one of the policies that Jimmy Wales encourages was ""the decision not to ban trolls until after a protracted public discussion"". Jimmy Wales, who in April 2006, publicly declared himself to be an ""anticredentialist"" (see Time 100 story), then stated at the Wikimania in August 2006 that Wikipedia is in need of more work on quality of articles (as opposed to quantity), and expert editors are amongst some of the most able members of the community for much of this quality improvement drive. But the reality is that Wikipedia/WikiMedia does not ""die"" if experts are lost, Wikipedia dies if it runs out of money and money and fundraising requires traffic volume. The question is, will Wales require volume first, volume last and volume everywhere in between? That is certainly the model of Wikia.In well-funded, prestigious institutions, credentialed cranks sometimes penetrate the environment deeply enough to cause disruption of the work of experts (both cranks and experts being somewhat loaded terms). What Wikipedia lacks is the means to certify experts and thereby give them elevated access to articles, perhaps with the ability to easily limit or possibly exclude exceptionally disruptive cranks based on articles (or perhaps category), lack of credentials and a history of adding information that is false or otherwise low-quality. The process is curently dominated not by issues of article quality but by social or ""community"" concerns that experts are not as motivated by.   === Expand ArbCom to deal quickly with cranks === Cranks show themselves early on, not immediately perhaps, but sooner than most problem editors. One thing that works very well, albeit slowly, in dealing with problematic editors is ArbCom. Naturally as a court of last resort that is involved largely with serious charges of rule-breaking, cases that wind up there are complex and thus require careful and lengthy examination of the evidence. However all of the conflicts that wound up at ArbCom, started as content disputes that escalated. Looking back on many other cases that have gone to ArbCom it's apparent that this is the situation in for most of them, and in the overwhelming bulk of those there was an apparent violation of basic policy, like one of the five pillars, or what Wikipedia is not. Had evidence been presented then and there a ruling could have been made and it would have been over. Some of these were clear issues of NPOV violations, yet the bickering went on for months until it got to the point where behavior problems broke out and it was on these that it went to arbitration.The present system of dispute resolution is quite simply overwhelmed which results in disputes escalating far beyond the point where they need to be, thus becoming far more complex to sort out than they have to be. The solution is to create a much larger pool of arbitrators who would accept cases earlier in the conflict, and expand the purview of arbitration to include violations of basic policy.   === Featured Articles as a cure for edit creep === An established process exists to nominate and approve an articles promotion to the status of ‘featured,’ also a similar process can be invoked to demote it. Featured should also automatically render the entry fully protected. At least until it falls back down to the lower level. Or alternatively semi-protection is another consideration.Talk pages would still be open, of course, and should it be felt that some error, or important new information need to be inserted, it could be discussed first and when consensus had been reached any administrator could unprotect the article to permit changes to be made and lock it up again after. Should the contents need a more detailed reworking then a nomination to have it demoted would pass through existing channels. Thus this doesn't mean an article is declared ""finished,"" only that an extra layer of oversight is added to prevent unilateral changes without broad support.Editors would be encouraged by this policy to clean-up and nominate entries as they would know that there would be some stability obtained from their efforts. As it stands it’s just not worth the trouble as nothing is gained except exposing your work to more intense vandalism.   === Ban tendentious editors ===  ""To attract and retain the participation of experts, there would have  to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with  Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who  are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when  there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most  disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption  would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to  the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet.""                                              -- Larry Sanger  Users who persist in making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits, who continually attempt to include original research, who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories that are widely discredited or continuously attempt to insert unfounded personal beliefs should be blocked or banned from the project. The prevalence of popular misconceptions means that there is a never-ending stream of such editors. At present, 60 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution. Strict application of consensus and the three-revert rule could lead to blocking or banning of an editor for correcting claims that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old, that creationism represents a valid description of the fossil record, and so on. Observed reality is not determined by majority vote. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has ambitions to become a serious reference work. Readers ought be able to consult it with the expectation that they get information which, if not always the most well-researched or best-documented, at least does not fly in the face of established knowledge. Articles may be written by experts in the field, or by amateurs; as long as readers can be confident that the information presents the state of the field accurately, the sources does not matter. Some contributors, however, seek to exploit our openness in order to promote controversial or extreme positions, often attempting to present them as fact or as theories which have recognized merit among experts. Other editors stubbornly modify articles to represent their mistaken or distorted interpretation of their sources. Just as Wikipedia chooses to exclude spam and propaganda, we should also choose to exclude advocacy of crackpot theories. Many editors find themselves spending a considerable time repeatedly reverting the edits of users who persist in advocating theories for which there is no discernable support among experts in the field, only to be rewarded by being blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Persistent attempts to include such material, after being informed that it is inappropriate, should be considered disruption of the encyclopedia and as such the same as vandalism. The logical question that extends from this is, how can it be done without giving experts a special role in Wikipedia?   === The problem with banning editors === The problem with such an approach is of course the opposite happening, wherein editors attempting to correct an egregious error or blatantly POV article are labeled as ""tendentious"" and banned . Groups of determined editors typically ""hijack"" controversial or popular articles and stake out a POV based on an incorrect position that supports their point of view, defending through sheer numbers or sockpuppets against any opposing edits (see Wikipedia:Tag team). Such behavior is increasingly happening in Wikipedia in cases of ""kingdom building"" or WP:OWN. Examples of such ownership or ""hijacking"" behavior can be found in the Wikipedia articles of popular media stars or controversial politicians. Attempts to edit or provide some balance to such articles are usually met with hostile mass reverts of edits done in good faith. The banning of editors is an easily abusable mechanism.   === Ban editors from both articles and talk pages === Banned editors should lose their rights to both sets of pages. They can continue to dupe unsuspecting new persons to the page, and continue to swamp up discussion. If they make truly good points, other editors will take up the slack.   === Create a parallel series of Expert Editions === There are two competing priorities here. Cited experts should not have to compete with cranks and other forces of erosion such as edit creep and vandalism. The general public should be able to edit Wikipedia pages. Accordingly, Wikipedia shall have two versions of TechnicalPages, for example 1) Natural selection (expert edition) and 2) Natural selection (public edition) where Natural selection (public edition) would be governed as the Natural selection page is now and the Natural selection (expert edition) will be opened for edit only by those experts that Wikipedia as a community will elect based on citations to the experts' work in the publications available on PubMed. In this way, the reader can judge between the two versions ""Expert"" and ""Public,"" and, given the Wikipedia community, the expert version will be expected to lead and anchor the other. But the work of vital experts will not be subject to the current forces of erosion. And the public will still be able to edit Wikipedia as they do now.There is considerable bureaucracy involved. Experts need to be verified. A sensible condition might be having a PhD in the subject area under consideration, a sufficient criterion would be having published at least two papers in reputable journals in the area (so as to encompass individuals who change subject after their PhD). Implied is that experts are only qualified to write about their given subject. This makes a software implementation marginally more complex. Basically, it amounts to ""tagging"" both people and articles in the flickr/technorati sense (and don't anybody quote me the Revelation here). It also requires some amount of disclosure on the part of applicants. A remaining concern is how to ensure that the articles are still written in a way suitable for laypeople to read. It's also possible that at least some ""public"" articles will expand at a greater rate than their ""expert"" equivalents, in which case, the expert version would not be leading the public one. Meanwhile, there is Citizendium, Scholarpedia, and Veropedia.   === Disallow ephemeral sources === Currently, articles naturally deteriorate with time, because most articles contain online sources that eventually turn into dead links. Such sources should not be used, both because they are an easily accessible source of crackpot science, and because they undermine the quality of articles by eventually falling to dust. Encourage the use of archiving services for references, such as WebCite. These have been designed specifically to prevent linkrot in academic papers, a standard which Wikipedia articles should adhere to.   === Improving the quality of debate in talk pages === An expert is someone who has studied for years to acquire expertise. To acquire expertise, it is necessary to read many books and to submit to the methodology of a field of study. To make sure that an expert get more influence on the contents of an article, i want to propose to promote the acquiring of all relevant literature on a subject and debate on this, before editing an article. The resulting version of an article after the debate can be immortalised in a template on the talk page of the article and on a special project page where the debates are organized. This project page will be hosting several unchangeable versions of articles and it will be an integral part of Wikipedia, without breaking any of the rules, while circumventing the bureaucratic system of Wikipedia. My suggestion on the procedure of a high-quality debate is:  Picking an article. Searching for all relevant literature. Making sure that all participants of a debate have all the literature. A solution for people who live far away from a major library and can't get most of the literature is to make all literature (temporarily) available on the internet. This would violate copyright in most countries. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Another solution would be that participants get the literature from a major library in their neighbourhood.--Daanschr 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (Picking a chairman with the task to make sure that the debate is about the literature and not about something else. He could also make sure that the debate comes to an end.) The debate. The new version of the article will be constructed during the debate. Changes made by casual users to the old version of the article during the debate should be discussed as well. New participants of the debate will be asked to join our project and to read the literature during the debate. New titles can be added during the debate. Replacing the old version of the article with the new version.--Daanschr 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)I will try another time to get started. For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject critical source examination.Daanschr (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)   === Project-based control === The Wikipedia projects could be used to limit crank/vandals problems. A verified expert could be nominated by administrators or whoever, to have locking and banning rights within a specific project; this expert could, in principle, also be able to nominate other experts to have similar right on sub-projects. This work best with the biological sciences: e.g.: you find that professor D., a most renowned Oxford biologist is a verified contributor of Wikipedia, and you put him in charge of Project Life on Earth; given absolute power over who edits all articles belonging to the project, he could then appoint Dr. C. as the overlord of the animal section, who could in turn appoint somebody else to rule over myriapods. All these could lock and ban only in the domains assigned to them. This sectorialisation would make it so that scientists without much editing ability wouldn't wreak havoc in other fields while still retaining full control of their own. It is a bit of a utopian solution, as it would require massive rewriting of the underlying Wikipedia software, but it could create vast areas of un-cranked content.   === Recognition === Using {{expert-subject}} in a sparing, appropriate fashion might help. Assuming that there is a relationship between experts and Featured Articles:  Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles - unlikely goal for 2007, but maybe someday in our lifetimes? Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations - others who function as experts of a sort, some of who have also quit Even in List of academic disciplines (which is linked to in the FA list), there are eight entries for hard science. The rest...how shall I put this? Do not require much math or have a lower density of prestige among its peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing   === A combination of approaches, to help WikiProject experts === Having read over all the suggestions on this page, and having acted as an expert editor for nearly a year now, I think there may be a way to combine a number of the approaches suggested here to minimize some of the sorts of post-editing that frustrates expert contributors like myself (contributing primarily in the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods). Most of my contributions are not high-profile articles, and few are ever likely to be Featured Articles (most are, in fact, stubs), but it is pages like this where a lot of expert contributors are needed, because of the technical nature of the subject material, and it is too easy for well-meaning contributors to find outdated or incorrect authoritative resources and make changes that must be undone. In a nutshell, by combining some of the ideas in the sections above regarding ""Featured Articles as a cure for edit creep""[2], ""Project-based control""[3], and ""Recognition""[4], I would suggest that perhaps what would help experts is (and this assumes that what I'm about to say is technically feasible) if articles which are part of a WikiProject are only freely editable by those who are registered participants in the project, while the associated talk pages remain open for non-project participants to make suggestions. What this might entail is changing the standard WikiProject template so it states right up front that users wishing to edit the article must register as a project participant, or else please refer to the talk page. In essence, the WikiProject flag at the top of a page would tell the reader that this is a special article (though not a ""Featured Article""), and that there are special rules governing changes to its content. But, like many of the suggestions on this page, this is also fundamentally at odds with the underlying idea that any person, anywhere, can edit any article, any time. I don't see this underlying philosophy as likely to be changed any time soon, so I don't imagine any of the suggestions made in this discussion can ever come to pass; it might, however, come down to something akin to the ""Expert Editions""[5] suggestion made above — two parallel pages with differing content, so a reader can choose whether to stick with the expert-only version. Dyanega 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)   === Reject Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials === A new policy Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials has been proposed in the wake of the Essjay controversy. This policy should be rejected. False credentials are not nearly the problem that they are being made out to be. Far more common are incidents in which people who are manifestly without any credentials act as if they were the peers of those who are (on the strength of their credentials) genuine experts. If all credentials can be ignored, then we are all experts, and we need not back down in any dispute with someone who may actually know more and understand better than we do. Wikipedia is contentious enough without that extra encouragement. See also Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant, a supporting essay which in some ways is worse than the proposal.   ==== Verifying credentials ==== Some history may be in order here. Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials and other similar proposals arose in reaction to a positive proposal for verifying credentials. Rather than being merely negative, those concerned with expert retention may also want to contribute to developing a positive framework for credentialing within Wikipedia.   === Encourage experts to write supporting articles === Experts can write and post citable supporting articles. Non-experts cannot. This can help drive an article over time towards a more correct position even if the expert is not prepared to enter the battle over a Wikipedia article directly. In some cases, experts might be approached by Wikipedia authors in order to supply such supporting articles. Whether it is wise to create a mechanism to protect some links from deletion I lack the experience to judge. I am not a Wikipedia author and I am afraid that a few weeks pottering has convinced me that writing and defending Wikipedia articles directly is not a sensible use of my free time. Writing some supporting articles in areas which are contentious and overlap my field of expertise might be. HonestGuv 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)   === Ease up on conflict of interest rule === A book published by a major university press, or by a long-reputable textbook company, should be citable by anyone in the world, and its author should not be the sole person barred from quoting it. Once you've gotten your research through an exhausting process of peer review and into a scholarly text used by the profession, an amateur should not be allowed to prevent you from making use of that information by facile charges of conflict of interest. Kylegann 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)  The guidelines do allow ""experts"" to cite their own scholarly publications at arms length, NPOV being adhered to, naturally. One problem is that not all the admins know this or sometimes chose to ignore it. I got into a spat with an admin over correcting some details of a bio of a controversial research scientist I know who did early work on MRI. This was all done according to the Wikipedia rules, naturally. I also made the horrendous mistake of revealing my true ID (I'm an MD, PhD researcher).Next I know, the admin is wandering thru Wikipedia deleting as many of my postings as he can, under the excuse that I have cited some of my own scientific work. I point out that under the rules this is perfectly OK, as long as the citation is at arms length. So he goes over and attempts to change the rules.Meanwhile, members of his ""clique"" are sending public messages to each other proposing to look very closely at my other postings. Apparently, to send a message. True, there is no ""wikipedia cabal"". But there are groups of people who cooperate in faking a ""consensus""-- against the rules, naturally. The lesson is that you post on controversial subjects at your peril.Such behavior constitutes one of the reasons Wikipedia has such difficulty in retaining the various thankless ""experts"" that really make the thing work.Pproctor 15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)This matter had an interesting consequence. An Emmy-award-winning documentary film maker is doing a documentary on the history of MRI, of which I was an early wittness as a grad student. As a first step, he looked at the Wikipedia bio of the scientist. He read my input and the argument on the talk pages and interviewed me for the documentary. This shows two things--- people consult wikipedia for a lot of things and the ""Real world"" tends to trust expert editors over the contentious riff-raff.Pproctor 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)A very common situation could be that two authors of books in the category that you describe with widely different views would get into a conflict with eachother. Are amateurs allowed to join in this conflict. Or, if an amateur finds books that oppose the views expressed in the book of an author who wants to help change an article. Would it be allowed to confront the author with these opposing views and be able for the amateur to help shape the article regardless of protests of the author?--Daanschr 07:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)My view is that intellectual debate based on literature should be more prominent on Wikipedia, but not the singlehandedly autocratic enterpherence of a single author of a book.--Daanschr 07:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) In any case, NPOV prohibits this kind of behavior-- BOTH points of view would have to be presented, if they meet NOR, etc, naturally. The real problem is not experts differing with each other, but meddling in technical articles by non-experts who do not understand the limitations of their knowledge.   === Watch articles === Editors must realize that once an article is written that isn't the end of it. It can still be improved upon, updated etc., and yes, there will be people who either vandalize it or make it worse by trying to make it better. An editor who wants their work to remain in good condition needs to be prepared to watch the article as well, ensuring that quality does not deteriorate. Systematic watching of articles may be able to eliminate the so-called 'edit creep' problem. Furthermore, someone need not be a subject expert to maintain an article's quality. Experts should ensure that someone suitable is committed to watching an article if not themselves, which save them from having to maintain the article day to day after working on it. I believe an organized, WikiProject supported maintenance system is required to protect articles from this fate, which is admittedly a gargantuan task. Richard001 00:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)   === Not worry about it too much === I don't really see too much point in trying to convince ""experts"" to stay on Wikipedia. Amateurs can write very good articles based upon using the experts as sources. I think Wikipedia's articles are slightly biased toward the establishment and their mainstream at he moment (in large part because of the idea that all blogs aren't reliable sources). I would support easing up on verifiability and reliable sources and recognizing some of the larger and more respectable blogs from all viewpoints (particularly those which are notable) as being reliable. I believe it does severe harm to Wikipedia that we aren't following NPOV enough (and clearly, I think a lot of the problem the experts have has to do with their desire to eliminate opposing points of view to their ""consensus""). Wikipedia has been far more successful than its competitors Conservapedia and Citizendium in large part because of the policies which the experts dislike. I personally have no problem with any expert interested in editing Wikipedia, as long as that expert wishes to respect policies such as NPOV. However, we don't want to turn Wikipedia into Citizendium for the sake of satisfying a few experts. We should instead work to promote NPOV by accepting certain blogs as ""reliable."" Life, Liberty, Property 06:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)  I think it is possible to advance expertise within Wikipedia, without having to cut down on participance. A way of doing that is by creating a database of unchangeble articles, created by experts. I dissagree with you about the lack of problems on Wikipedia. Experts turn their backs en masse on Wikipedia. The Dutch schools and universities try to limit the use of Wikipedia by students, and that is necessary in my view. You underestimate the importance of good factual information and analyses based on years of study.--Daanschr 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)This comment is more suited for the talk page, in my opinion. Not that it matters too much, hardly anyone is working on this page. It is like a silent monument.--Daanschr 08:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Why would an expert spend time editing a Wikipedia article for minimal obvious benefit when they can dedicate time to preparing peer-reviewed, publishable articles? Face it folks, most expert involvement comes because an expert wanders by looking for phrasing that they might use for other purposes, sees something in Wikipedia that is particularly egregious, and repairs it. Most folks who claim to be experts in a topic on Wikipedia are really folks like Essjay who are using the claim to support their edits. But, and this is a big but, in spite of the lack of expert invovlement and the occasional risible article, Wikipedia has improved tremendously over the years — much of this progress comes from requiring references. It isn't broken — don't break it. Williamborg (Bill) 02:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)well, there are a number of authentic experts here who seem to think otherwise. People come here looking for a phrase, perhaps, but then may stay on long-term.  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)There are very good reasons for an expert to contribute to Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia articles are not even remotely similar to articles that are published under the peer-review process. The peer-review process is to advance the field, and publishes articles containing new findings based on the author's recent research. In astronomy, for example, a researcher might typically publish 2-4 peer-reviewed articles per year. A Wikipedia article does not cover an author's latest research (such a thing is prohibited in fact). A Wikipedia article covers material that is more established, that can be supported with third-party sources. A researcher who cares about communicating science to the public may well see Wikipedia as an avenue to do this, in a way that peer-reviewed articles can never be. Thus, Wikipedia does not at all compete with peer-reviewed articles. It competes with other ways of disseminating knowledge to the public, such as books, popular talks and blogs. Compared to these, Wikipedia has pros and cons. The main pro of Wikipedia is reach. The main con is that the efforts of the researcher will be rejected or even penalized by the Wikipedia community. Some researchers choose to contribute to Wikipedia, and others prefer to stick to public talks or other venues.  DanielCarrera ( talk ) 19 January 2013  Some links where contributions from (alleged) subject-matter experts, who consider their contributions to be authoritative, have been reverted or met with resistance by editors who may lack expertise in the subject matter (or in some cases, who may be pushing ""crank"" theories).  Talk:Consciousness/Archive_2#Oh_Lord.... Consciousness is understood as a symbiosis (interaction) of Mind and Information. Controversy over Cantor. Cantor was wrong. Talk:Uranium trioxide/Archive 3#Thermodynamics One amateur holds out against a team of PhD's Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 10#Reverted without comment Einstein argued that time is pseudo-directional. Talk:pseudoscience An editor holds out for the claim that chiropractic is used to cure homosexuality (hence proving that it is pseudoscientific) in the face of the bemusement of assorted chiropractors and others. When (eventually....) it is shown (by a letter from the equally bemused author) that the claimed reference does not mention chiropractic, he then claims as an alternative V RS, an article in a monthly Society newsletter not listed on ISI, written by a private sex counsellor with an MA in psychology. Nobody has seen the text because that issue is withheld from the Society online archives. He is still active, others have just left in disgust. Talk:History of the Internet/Archive 3#Pictures - An editor challenges an expert editor about the meaning/correctness of historical material that the expert scanned in from original hardcopies in his files. This edit at the Cow tipping article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention Wikipedia:Expert editors Category:Articles needing expert attention:  There are many thousands of such pages, but only a few dozen experts in scattered knowledge domains.  Anti-intellectualism Wikipedia:Anti-elitism Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur, a parody of what we're talking about. Wikipedia:Competence is required Wikipedia:Expert rebellion Wikipedia:Randy in Boise, a class of incompetent editors particularly frustrating to experts Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists User:Curtis Clark/Note to new editors from academia User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy discusses some of the social dynamic behind these controversies User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal Wikiversity WikiJournal of Medicine – Academic peer-reviewed publication format for expert-reviewed Wikipedia articles Meatball:GoodBye – On departures and threatening to leave  Wikipedia:Quickpolls User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism by Larry Sanger Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia"
495	504	1109	WP:RO	Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania	495	"The scope of the project covers all topics related to Romania and the Romanians, including but not limited to:  History Geography Politics Economy Education Culture People LanguageWe at WikiProject on Romania work together to reach the following goals: Increase the exposure and quality of Romania related articles on Wikipedia. Ensure that every Romania related article on Wikipedia is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, appropriately referenced, neutral, and stable. Improve every article in the category Romania stubs. Support other WikiProjects, groups, and editors, who are striving to achieve the same goals.   ====== See Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania/to do to add more tasks. ====== Remember, if you are writting a draft that is related to this WikiProject, go on the article's talk page and put the tag that indicates that is linked with the WikiProject and at the class perimeter put ""Draft"" and at importance put ""NA"".   === Member identification === Members of WikiProject Romania should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject Romania members.   Media related to Commons:WikiProject Romania at Wikimedia Commons Уикипедия:Румъния (in Bulgarian) Projet:Roumanie (in French) პროექტი:რუმინეთი (in Georgian) Proiect:România (in Romanian) (join) Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Bulgaria Dacia Eastern Europe European History European Union Moldova Serbia Ukraine Deletion sorting - Romania  Media related to Commons:WikiProject Dacia at Wikimedia Commons Romanian military history task force Romanian cinema task force Romania Moldova Europe European Union  For more information on article assessments, or to make assessment requests, refer to the Assessment page.  Quality Scale Importance Scale Relevant categories for the project (see project Goals and Scope above): Note: These categories are not used by bots. Those are here and are manually picked, since many category trees do not fully apply.   === Fully applicable === ► Dacia ► Moldova ► Romania   === Partially applicable === ► Ancient Thrace ► Scythia ► Ancient tribes in the Balkans ► Former populated places in the Balkans ► History of Bulgaria ► History of Serbia ► History of Moldova ► History of Ukraine ► History of Hungary  Wiki Loves Monuments Romania Romania on Flickr"
496	505	1111	WP:EMMERDALE	Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Emmerdale task force	496	Add your name to the list if you're interested in joining this project!  Bungle (talk · contribs) - Attempting to rewrite articles to meet an encyclopedic standard, as well as the odd content additions. Conquistador2k6 (talk · contribs)- Will help where needed Meena (talk · contribs) – I've watched from 2018 onwards, but have researched and read about major plot points and characters from before this point. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) – I want to help any way I can with the articles, mainly by fixing errors and adding/rewriting the storylines section. I want to add more characters to the character lists and I also am working on an Emmerdale Cast Members list here 😊   === Good Articles ===   === Most Important Articles ===  Category:Emmerdale Category:Emmerdale characters Template:Emmerdale   === Userbox === Template:User Emmerdale task force
497	506	1113	WP:BIOMED	Wikipedia:Biomedical information	497	"The English Wikipedia gives detailed advice on sources to support content about biomedical information in the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (""MEDRS"") guideline. The goal of this page is to help Wikipedia editors differentiate biomedical content from other content, and to find sources that comply with MEDRS – that present accepted knowledge and mainstream positions on biomedical information.  Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health. Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.  Attributes of a disease or condition Symptoms, causes, prognoses; how a disease or condition progresses; how it is caught or transmitted; the molecular or cellular basis of a disease. Attributes of a treatment or drug How a treatment or drug works; whether a treatment or drug works, and to what degree; factors that affect whether a treatment or drugs works; dosage and timing information; side effects, benefits, and disadvantages. Medical decisions How a condition is identified, tested for, or diagnosed; how useful or effective those methods are; what the standard of care is, and whether a specific treatment, practice, or decision meets the standard of care; results or expected results of a medical decision; what constitutes a medical error and whether a medical error occurred. Health effects Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc. Population data and epidemiology Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc. Biomedical research Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them. Other information about research, such as funding information, is not biomedical.Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information, as can occur with content about human biochemistry or about medical research in animals. For example, if a disease is caused by low activity in a particular enzyme, then information about the enzyme's activity levels is treated like biomedical information. More generally, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information.  Nearly all encyclopedia articles should contain some non-biomedical information.  Here are some types of information that are not biomedical:  Commercial or business information Which company invented it or owned it, whether it is currently for sale, how profitable it is, how many units were sold last year, marketing methods, any criticism of the company (such as disease mongering) that is not itself a biomedical claim, who the competitors are, almost anything about money, etc. Economics How much money this disease cost society last year; who pays for it and how much it (or its treatments) cost for the government, insurance companies, or individual people; other impacts on the economy; etc. Beliefs Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment, including religious or spiritual beliefs; religious beliefs about causes or cures for a disease (e.g., information about the evil spirits causing mental illness); why people choose or reject a particular treatment (whether that treatment is conventional, alternative, or spiritual); descriptions of the underlying beliefs of alternative medicines. History Pretty much anything involving names and dates, especially founders and inventors, but also obviously outdated medical practices, such as historical diagnostic tests (e.g., drinking the patient's urine to diagnose diabetes mellitus) and outdated treatments (e.g., herbal treatments for pneumonia). Statements that could still have medical relevance, such as about the effectiveness of historical treatments, are still biomedical, although historically significant primary sources are often MEDRS-compliant. Society and culture Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc. Legal issues What laws regulate related provider conduct, whether a disease needs to be reported to the government, what constitutes medical malpractice, who can or did sue whom, etc. Notable cases If the patient is still alive or is recently deceased, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living people rules apply. Popular culture Examples of people with the disease in literature, video, or songs Etymology and definitions The words that society, groups, or individuals use to indicate a condition, as well as whether they choose to think of a situation as a small part of a large condition or as a separate condition are not, themselves, biomedical information. Training How a person learns to do a job, or what tests they have to take to do that job legally, is not biomedical information, even if the material they are learning is largely biomedical. Regulatory status Whether a substance is legal or illegal or available only by prescription has significant practical effects on the everyday practice of medicine, but it is medico-legal information, not biomedical information. Medical ethics Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information. Some issues in medical ethics (e.g., how to handle requests from a delusional patient) are frequently discussed in biomedical sources, but ethicists can also be used as sources.Everyone should avoid using poor sources for any type of information. The best source is the one that is appropriate to the type of information:    For biographical information, use a source that is reliable for biographical information, such as a book about the person. For commercial information, use a source that is reliable for commercial information, such as a newspaper or magazine that specializes in business reporting. For legal information, use a source that is reliable for legal information, such as an article in a law review.The context of non-biomedical information often needs to be presented with caution. For example, discussion of lawsuits which allege harm (such as have been undertaken against various vaccine manufacturers), if presented without context or without careful wording, may imply that a treatment is in fact harmful. Likewise, without context, a statement that a certain treatment is popular or widely used may imply some level of effectiveness. Additionally, MEDRS-quality sources are often higher-quality than non-MEDRS sources even for non-biomedical information, so when they are available it is often better to use them.  The best type of source depends upon the information that you're supporting.  Alternative medicine Designation of a treatment or idea such as alternative, conventional, Western, or traditional are social labels rather than biomedical information, and such statements can therefore be sourced to news media and similar sources.  For example, you could use a history book to support a statement that black salve was previously conventional medicine and is now considered alternative medicine.  Statements about efficacy – for example, that black salve is better than placebo for treating superficial non-melanoma skin cancers, but that it has one-tenth the efficacy and ten times the side effects of modern conventional treatment – is a statement about biomedical information. Veterinary medicine Generally, editors do not enforce a requirement for especially high-quality sources for non-human medicine.  However, all the principles can be voluntarily applied to veterinary medicine. Actual use Whether people do something, or whether healthcare providers prescribe something, could be biomedical information or not, depending on how you phrase it. Recreational drug use This may be biomedical (e.g., statistics about prevalence) or not (e.g., whether the substance can be bought legally). Current affairs Certain events may trigger claims about illnesses or side effects. For example, after 9/11 those exposed to the dust complained about breathlessness and coughing. High-quality news sources can be used for these anecdotal reports, so long as no claims are made about causes or diagnoses. ""Five hundred people were admitted to hospital after the attack complaining of breathlessness"" can be sourced to a newspaper, but ""Exposure to the dust caused interstitial lung disease"" needs a MEDRS-compliant source. Biomedical information not sourced to a WP:MEDRS may be removed in accord with WP:BURDEN which states ""Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"". If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a {{Medical citation needed}} tag."
498	507	1114	WP:FINDAGRAVE	Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people	498	"This is part of WikiProject Missing articles, an effort to use outside sources to determine what articles are missing from Wikipedia. This list includes famous people from Find a Grave. Although each name was separately approved by the staff of Find a Grave, putting this list into a form that Wikipedia can use has broken some of the names. Please use the Find a Grave link next to each name to help fix corrupted names.  As for how Find a Grave defines ""famous"":  Q. How does Find a Grave define 'famous'? A. Please don't confuse importance with fame. Every one of your ancestors is important, and every veteran deserves to be remembered and honoured—but that does not mean that they are 'famous'. An individual is more likely to be designated as ""famous"" on the Find A Grave site if he or she is well known outside of his or her local community.When considering whether an article should be created on Wikipedia, anyone who would not qualify for an article under Wikipedia guidelines (principally WP:Notability) should be considered ""non-notable"". If you believe a person on this list may be non-notable, please place them in a separate section at the bottom of that list's page under the heading ""Possibly non-notable"", and with a short explanation of why you believe the person to not be notable.  As usual, only delete a blue link from this list when you have verified that the person linked is the same person on Find a Grave's site. Some of the items on this list are not people, but memorials, etc. Please follow the same process mentioned above for determining notability. When calculating how close we are to being finished, we count both verified and non-notable as ""done""; we don't expect anything further to happen to these names.  Check to make sure the topic does not already have an article in Wikipedia - use the search function to see if it's there as an alternate name, or as part of a larger article. If so, make a redirect, so that others can find it under the name Find a Grave uses; you can now delete it from the Find a Grave list. Fix spelling or other errors in the list. Do not copy and paste text from Find a Grave. Their copyright rules do not permit it. For general help on how to write biographies, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. The Find a Grave dates may be wrong by a year or two. If possible, find other sources. Remember that all articles must satisfy Wikipedia core policies of notability, verifiability and reliable sources. Find a Grave is not considered a reliable source. Suggested edit summary: Created as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles|WikiProject Missing articles]] Wikipedia:External links to the Find a Grave website should generally be avoided, in accordance with the Links normally to be avoided guideline. See WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL for further explanation about why such links should not be included. In the rare case that an external link is added, the {{Find a Grave}} template can be used. Take care when adding information from Find a Grave to articles; Find a Grave is not considered a reliable source, because it is user-generated content – anyone can edit information there. If the information can be sourced from reliable sources, that is best; if the information can be considered at all controversial, seriously consider not adding it. If you add facts from Find a Grave into the article, add Find a Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment  explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find a Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source. If you don't enter any material, or if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find a Grave link.  This list started with 46,698 entries, before pruning.   === Progress === Of the initial 46,698 entries, there are 4,951 remaining (as of 2021-05-12).  User:The Anome/Find a Grave famous people filtered by gender"
499	508	1116	WP:BEATLES	Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles	499	"Several Wikipedians have formed a WikiProject to better organize information in articles related to the Beatles (including Apple Records).  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and/or see the to-do list. The Beatles are the quintessential pop/rock group, indisputably the most celebrated and influential in history and, arguably, the most popular (as measured by several metrics: number of #1 hits, total sales, Beatlemania, etc.). There are already a considerable number of articles about the Beatles on Wikipedia, of varying levels of quality and depth. These range from featured articles, such as John Lennon, down to stubs of the lowest quality. This project seeks to marshall the efforts of interested editors to improve and unify these articles and to raise the overall standard of the Beatles' coverage on Wikipedia.  The scope of the project is articles about the Beatles and their work, and people and things directly related to—or who have achieved a significant part of their notability through their connection to—the Beatles as a group and individually.  Please discuss on the talk page or be bold and add some!  Unify and improve articles about albums Unify and improve articles about the Fab Four Unify and improve song articles Unify and improve articles about post-Beatles bands (i.e. Traveling Wilburys)   === Book references === In accordance with Wikipedia policy, facts and assertions should be attributed to verifiable, reliable sources wherever possible (see WP:V and WP:RS). The Project's preferred method for this is inline citations using the  tag. Usage is very simple: Put the book in the ""references"" section: * {{cite book |last=Lewisohn |first=Mark |year=1992 |edition=2010 |location=Chicago |title=The Complete Beatles Chronicle:The Definitive Day-By-Day Guide To the Beatles' Entire Career |publisher=[[Chicago Review Press]] |isbn=978-1-56976-534-0 }} Citing the book in the article: {{sfn|Lewisohn|1996|p=77}}   === References from web pages === {{cite web|url=URLwebpage |title=Lennon and McCartney: The Truth |first=Andreas |last=Egde |page=1|publisher=[[The Times]] |date=8 December 2006 |access-date=4 June 2011}}    === Further reading === Wikipedia:Footnotes – More details about the ref tag and footnotes Wikipedia:Citing sources – A more general overview   === Books used for references ===   === Parentage === The father of this WikiProject is WikiProject Music.  The achievements of the WikiProject so far are recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log. If you create a new article, perform a merge or achieve some other goal on behalf of the project please record it in the log. It's helpful and motivating for us all to see how we've progressed as a team.   === Article alerts ===  Compile a list of current and missing articles, and catalogue them by status – see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Wikipedia_articles_on_The_Beatles Restore The Beatles to, and upgrade History of The Beatles to, featured article status. Alternative approaches (see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history): Seek peer review, and 'tweak' Plan the article structure anew and major edit. Maybe History can be merged back in, and less substantial stuff forked out. Insert other projects (big jobs) here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles   === To-do list ===   === Tasks === Buy a book about the Beatles Invite new members by contacting editors who have made substantial Beatles-related edits in the past Fix templates to talk pages To do this, does anyone have a suggestion as to how to develop a list of the articles to do this to? There are so many different partial sets (the categories help). Or should an article only get the tagging as it is reviewed by one of us and improved? ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Yep, use What Links Here for the Beatles' template, as discussed elsewhere on this (ever growing) page. That'll locate every article which uses the template, and any not properly categorised articles can be dealt with at the same time. But please don't mess up the lovely cat tree I spent a lot of time tidying :)If you're gonna do it, and if you're gonna do it in a web browser, might be best to reset your link cache first? Then you can see where you've been and where you haven't. With the cats, subcats and the template usage you'll find most articles more than once. --kingboyk 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Construct Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment by following the category 'tree'(what that means is update this table: Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Categories as the automated code reads it and using what links here for The Beatles template. Can do the talk page notices at the same time. Assess articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment Apple Records discography – Needs British LPs and singles, and US LPs. Needs restructuring. I'd propose using the Brit catalog as the basis, and having only those releases which are different in the US section. This might not be practical, however, if the cat. no.s are different (they are for the singles, not sure for the albums).Blue links need to be checked for and, if they aren't already, added to Category:Apple Records singles or Category:Apple Records albums, and the same for The Beatles/solo members singles/albums categories. Add specific fair use rationales to Beatles-related copyrighted images, especially album covers (see Image:LetItBe.jpg for example). Add the geographic coordinates of The Beatles significant places as : Tittenhurst Park, Savile Row, St. Peter's Church, etc. As already exist for the Shea Stadium, Abbey Road or Friar Park. Completed by User:Billy. insert other tasks (smaller jobs) here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles   === Adopt an article === Similar to the Collaboration of the week, but on a smaller scale, you might want to ""adopt"" an article. This would involve doing the research, writing, and picture-taking (if possible) for either a non-existent article or a stub.  Of course, everyone else can still edit an adopted article, and you can work on other things too, but the idea is to find a focus for a while, to try and build up the number of quality articles the Project has produced.  The following are participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles... Anyone may join! To join simply click here and add yourself at the bottom of the list. Please use the {{user|username}} template   === Active participants === Please add yourself to the bottom of the list if you would like to take part. From time to time, the participants list may be trimmed and seemingly inactive members moved to ""Inactive"". Please don't be offended; if you're here and editing Beatles articles or working on administration of the WikiProject, just put yourself back on the main list.   === Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea... === If your name has been moved here in error, please feel free to move it back.   === Good Article/Featured Article === Periodically, project members collaborate on an article to bring it up to Good Article/Featured Article status. As of April 2022, GAR collaboration is: Please Please Me album   ==== Nominations ==== We are assembling a ""task force"" to get every album to at least GA status (see discussion). Below is the proposed schedule for future collaborations :   === Wikipedia articles on the Beatles === Articles using The Beatles template (indicated by ""(inclusion)"" after the article's name).   === Status board ===   === Featured articles ===  Something (Beatles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Hey Jude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  The Long and Winding Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Lisa the Vegetarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Say Say Say (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Paul McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Imagine (John Lennon song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Ringo Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)  I've Just Seen a Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FAC)   ==== Featured article candidates ====   ==== Featured article review ====   === Featured pictures ===   ==== Featured picture candidates ====   === Featured lists ===  List of songs recorded by George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FLC)  List of songs recorded by John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FLC)  List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FLC)  List of songs recorded by Ringo Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FLC)  List of songs recorded by the Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FLC)   ==== Featured list candidates ====   === Good articles ===   ==== GA nominations ====  The Night Before (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   ==== Good article reassessment ====   ==== Articles that could be GA ==== Badfinger   === Assessment === Please see the Assessment department for further info.   === Unsourced personnel, track listing sections etc. === Like genre churn, an ongoing problem on Wikipedia is constant change to who played what instrument, who sang which vocals etc. In a proportion of Beatles articles, the relevant sections have been checked by editors against reliable sources and hence are supported by inline citations. This makes it a straightforward matter to revert any unexplained changes to the content of those sections. Please add articles where this has not yet been done to the list below. Include a diff if you want to provide an example of the churn that prompted the addition here.  For examples of sourced articles, see personnel sourced from Lewisohn and track listings sourced from Calkin and from Allmusic. To take on one of the articles in this list, append Taken ~~~~ to the line, review and source the section in question, and then change ""Taken"" to ""Done"" here.   You've Got to Hide Your Love Away [1] Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Rubber Soul (track listing only part sourced, and source doesn't support stated vocalists) Please Please Me#Track_listing (includes vocalists) [2]   === Red links === See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Red links for a full list   === Missing Articles === Redlinks which need to be turned blue at the earliest opportunity need to be listed here. If you can help by creating a stub (or better!) please be bold and go right ahead (In brackets: number of incoming links from main space, excluding redirects and dab pages):   === Article suggestions/requests === Lennon/McCartney songs not originally released by the Beatles: One and One is Two - The Strangers with Mike ShannonThis topic is obliquely treated in the article The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)   === Article creation instructions === You're starting a new article? Great! Please follow these instructions:  Articles about the Beatles are generally considered to be articles with a ""strong tie"" to the dialect of the United Kingdom and should be written in British English. Add the new article to the appropriate subcategory of Category:The Beatles, or to the parent category if most appropriate Add any appropriate template to the article, such as an album or single infobox Place a {{WPBeatles}} template on the new article's Talk page If the article is listed as a redlink on the to-do list please remove it from that list If the article needs a photo and you don't have one, place a {{Photo requested}} template on the talk page and add the article to ""Wanted Pics/Graphics"" on the the to-do list List the article in the appropriate category on the Article Classification list. Don't classify it yourself, it's best if we classify each other's articles not our own Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Wikipedia page.  DYK has a 120-hour time limit (from the creation of the article, not the nomination). Finally (hooray!) record your wonderful achievement on the Project Log   === Articles for deletion === Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians  Per current Wikipedia convention, articles on Beatles singles which are also the sole article for the song in question should belong to the following categories:Category:The Beatles songs Category:The Beatles singles Category:Year singles Category:Year songs Category:Parlophone singles or Category:Apple Records singles (if appropriate; and note that no Capitol Records single category exists at the time of writing)   === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Quiz for a quiz about The Beatles in general.  It is recommended that Project members add each of the above Project pages to their watchlists.  There are a lot of useful templates that may be relevant, infoboxes, notification boxes and so forth. If you know of any resources not listed here, please add them!   === Infoboxes === There are several useful infoboxes that are relevant to this project, as the project covers a large number of types of articles.   ==== Infobox album ==== The Beatles produced albums, together and individually. So the {{Infobox album}} template is likely to be useful. Hopefully most relevant articles have it already by now, but this is something to check for. Some examples: Help! (album) Band on the Run Dark Horse (George Harrison album)In addition to the writeup on the talk page of the infobox, the WikiProject Albums page has some discussion on how to effectively use these, color coding, and what some of the fields mean and so forth, as well as larger guidance on how Album pages ought to be done (how the track list is formatted, dates, usages, and so forth). Some important points copied from that page: When you create or find a new album page, please add {{WikiProject Albums}} to the top of the talk page.  If the page has no infobox, you should use {{WikiProject Albums|needs-infobox=yes}} instead.  If the page has an incomplete infobox, note the missing details at Incomplete infobox. If the page has an old style infobox, add {{newinfobox|type=album}} to the bottom of the talk page.   ==== Infobox musical artist ==== The Beatles are a band. Offshoots and side projects of members are also bands. So the {{Infobox musical artist}} template is likely to be useful. Hopefully most relevant articles have it already by now, but this is something to check for. Some examples: The Beatles Wings (band) Traveling Wilburys   ==== Infobox person ==== Members of The Beatles are people. So the {{Infobox person}} template is likely to be useful. Hopefully most relevant articles have it already by now, but this is something to check for. Some examples: George Harrison George Martin Linda McCartney Mimi Smith Julia Lennon Alfred Lennon   ==== Infobox song ==== The Beatles produced singles, together and individually. So the {{Infobox song}} template is likely to be useful. Hopefully most relevant articles have it already by now, but this is something to check for. Some examples: Please Please Me (song) (first single, chronology starts here) Help! (song) Say Say Say (note, uses a custom subst'd variant of the infobox since this is not a Beatles' single per se, it's a collaboration between Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson and it has two covers... use your judgement)Note that the template supports ordering of singles by when they charted.   === Invite user === If you see someone that might have an interest in the project, you can place {{WikiProject The Beatles Invite}} on their userpage to invite them:  DO put some commentary below it, explaining WHY they might be interested, and sign. Alternatively, you may leave a message and sign within the template by supplying an optional parameter DO NOT spam people extensively, give it some thought first and don't invite too many people at once.It makes sense to grow the project participation slowly so use with care. But it's a fun template, a bit more attention grabbing than just a note.   === Navboxes === Use {{The Beatles}} for major articles. Place it at the bottom of the article. The result is:  Use {{The Beatles albums}} on articles about albums:  Use {{The Beatles singles}} on articles about singles and b-side releases:  Use {{The Beatles compilations}} on articles about compilation albums:  Use {{The Beatles filmography and videography}} on articles about films and videos:  Use {{Apple Corps}} for articles about the company:   === Project banner === Place {{WikiProject The Beatles|class= |importance= }} on the talk page of an article that you think belongs in the project:  This template is used for article classification. See also: usage instructions. Do not subst it!   === Stubs === {{beatles-song-stub}} lists articles in Category:The Beatles song stubs. There are currently about 95 songs listed, though some of these are songs recorded by the members of the band as soloists after 1970.NOTE: stubs are managed by the Stub-sorting WikiProject. Before creating a new stub, you should propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. See Wikipedia:Stub for general guidelines on creating stub templates and categories. It is inadbisable to create new stub templates without consultation as these will probably be nominated for deletion.   === Userboxes === You can place {{User WikiProject The Beatles}} on your userpage to show project membership:  Alternatively or in addition, you can place {{User WikiProject The Beatles 2}} on your userpage to show project membership:  Placing one of these on your pages is entirely optional, but it is a way to show your involvement to others... That's good for the project, as we have lots of work to do!  The {{Beatles barnstar}} may be awarded by any editor to another editor who has made a significant contribution to the WikiProject and/or to articles about the Beatles and related topics. Neither editor need be a registered member of the WikiProject. To award the template, add the following to the recipient's talk page: {{subst:Beatles barnstar|Put your message here. ~~~~}}   === Example ===  This should be a list of useful resources to the project that will aid in research, article creation, or that may be a source of images that are freely usable by the project. Please add to this list as you find items. Assume that project members know about common things, like IMDB.  Soundscapes.Musicologist Allan W. Pollack has taken an in-depth look at each of the Beatles' songs from a musicological point of view. Wordy, but with a lot of meat, and definitely helpful in adding length to articles on songs – also useful to add as an external link to song articles."
500	509	1118	WP:HNST	User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates	500	One of the significant problems I've seen is with templates. I don't really think rewriting them will help, as there's a more innate problem with comprehension, which happens anywhere people come across a new subject. I read something similar to this in a user interface design book once, and it's stuck in my mind. While we see the text in {{db-meta}}, a new user might well filter it through to meaning something more akin to this:
501	510	1119	WP:WEBA	Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Web animation work group	501	Welcome to the Web Animation work group of WikiProject Animation! This group was formed to better organize articles on web animation in a spirit of cooperation.  This group includes within its scope all articles related to web animation, its creators, and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on web animation in a fair and accurate manner. All of these articles should be contained within the Category:Web animation or one of its subcategories.  To join the Web animation work group, edit this section and add # {{user|yourusername}} and any comments to the following list of members in alphabetical order by username. EarthFurst (talk · contribs) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) John Carter (talk · contribs) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) XapApp (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)   === Member userbox === You may place {{User Web animation work group}} on your user page to display the following userbox:  This template will add your user page to:  Category:Web animation work group membersYou may also place {{User WikiProject Animation}} on your user page.  Any articles that are within the scope of this project should be tagged with the {{WikiProject Animation}} banner, and add |Web-animation=yes as this will automatically put the page in the appropriate categories, such as Category:Web animation work group articles.   === Todo items for members of Web animation work group === Tag related articles. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Identify articles for creation Identify articles for improvement Review importance and quality of existing articles   === Todo items for anyone ===  For article assessments, please see {{WikiProject Animation}}.  {{WikiProject Animation|class=|importance=|web=yes|web-importance=}} - to be included in talk pages of web animation related articles. Places articles automatically in Category:Web animation work group articles.For main project templates, see the main project page for WikiProject Animation.   === Former featured articles ===   === Good articles ===   === Former good articles ===   === Good article nominees ===   === Did you know? articles ===   === Main page featured articles ===  Good article nominees  11 Feb 2023 – All your base are belong to us (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by MyCatIsAChonk (t · c); start discussion   === Useful pages ===   ==== Animation databases ==== bcdb.com - The Big Cartoon Database   ==== Animation news ==== Animation World Network Animation Magazine
502	511	1120	WP:BOOSTER	Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism	502	"Wikipedia articles on colleges, universities, and other academic institutions are often written by editors who currently or previously attended the institution or who work for the institution. Editors are often motivated by conflict of interest, loyalty, and pride to portray their alma mater in a favorable light even though this often conflicts Wikipedia's core policy against the abuse of Wikipedia for promotion as well as the content policies on neutrality and verifiability. Using imprecise weasel words, non-neutral peacock words, and other 'words to avoid' to portray an academic institution in a positive light is termed boosterism. A reader might be forgiven for concluding that Wikipedia only covers colleges and universities in the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, where all colleges and universities are above average. Just as there is no single, indisputably preeminent college or university, there is no single metric which definitively establishes the quality of a college or university. Every institution is different and its Wikipedia article should emphasize these differences by summarizing what an academic institution has and does rather than serving as a shrine to its various accolades and superlatives. Notable distinctions and recognition have their place in the article, but they should not be the primary focus of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to summarize and contextualize information about these complex institutions, not an admissions brochure to convince readers of the quality of the school. Allow the facts to speak for themselves and let the reader decide.  Review the college and university article content guidelines representing current consensus about articles of higher education institutions. Motivated editors should direct their energies towards describing all the various aspects of an institution to a broader audience rather than emphasizing its quality using imprecise, context-free, or otherwise ambiguous superlatives. There are many useful and reliable web resources published by an institution and other sources that can be incorporated into college and university:   Visit the website for the archives to expand the information on its history, campus, and traditions Use the fact book or common data set to include more information on the student body and faculty Incorporate information from university reports, faculty handbooks, or course catalogs to describe the administrative organization, academic programs, and research centers Review the Alumni Association's website to include additional notable alumni Search news archives like Google News or LexisNexis for historical coverage of the universityIn the United States, organizations like the National Science Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Chronicle of Higher Education, and National Center for Education Statistics collect and publish authoritative information about colleges and universities.   === Avoid vague terms of praise === ""…is a highly competitive university…"" ""…is a prestigious private liberal arts college…"" ""...is one of the most selective graduate schools...""Avoid vague terms of praise and ambiguous superlatives. ""Prestige"", ""reputation"", ""excellence"", ""exclusivity"", and ""selectivity"" are often used imprecisely in order to create a positive impression of an institution's quality that cannot be verified or falsified. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide: a college or university is not necessarily ""good"" because it excludes a large number of applicants, nor well-reputed simply because it is old, nor prestigious simply because of its alumni. For example, admission to a military academy or music conservatory might be more competitive than an Ivy League university, even if the latter has higher average admissions scores.  Boosterism is particularly unpalatable to some Wikipedians when describing institutions whose ""elite"" status is already widely acknowledged elsewhere. For instance, in an opening summary paragraph, simply noting that a university is ""in the Ivy League"" or is the ""main"" or ""flagship"" campus for a larger university system succinctly establishes that the university is prestigious.   === Assert facts, not opinions === ""…is one of the best universities in the world…"" ""…is widely recognized as a leader in…"" ""...is one of the premier institutions on the West coast...""Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. Editors should not be trying to ""sell"", ""spin"", or otherwise convince readers of the quality of the school. ""One of the"" and ""widely recognized"" are canonical weasel words: how many are among the best, what specific recognition, best on what criteria, how recent in the recognition, etc. If the statement can't stand without weasel words it lacks a neutral point of view. If a college or university was ranked 4th internationally in the most recent Academic Ranking of World Universities, state exactly that rather than contorting it into non-neutral and non-verifiable statements like those above.   === Substantiate claims === ""…is consistently rated among the best…"" ""…has an impressive record in X…"" ""…is a highly selective college…""Attribute claims to known authorities or substantiate the facts behind an argument by using facts and statistics. If a college is consistently rated among the best, who is doing the rating, how long or often is consistent, and what threshold constitutes the best? If a university is selective, whose criteria are being used for this classification, how many students apply, and what percentage of students are admitted?   === Omit original research === ""…was ranked third among public universities in X…"" ""…11 of the 15 programs offered have been ranked in the top 10 over the past 9 years…""These are both examples of potential original research that lack reliable sources to verify them. Recontextualizing or narrowing the criteria may increase an institution's standing in a ranking, but unless the source explicitly offers recomputed rankings of universities on their public or national basis (for example), it is inappropriate to perform these calculations yourself as this original research cannot be verified. Similarly, making historical statements or analyses about rankings without providing reliable sources stating the same is also original research, even if they are true.   === Do not synthesize claims === ""…is widely acknowledged as the preeminent university by most university rankings"" ""…is historically recognized as the top university in A by X, Y, and Z.""Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As above, simply and neutrally state the facts. The statements above could likely be changed to ""…is ranked A by X, B by Y, and C by Z"" and ""…was ranked A by X in 2007, 2008, and 2009"" which is a neutral and substantiated presentation of verifiable facts without any POV, weasel words, or peacockery.   === Avoid undue weight === ""State University is the #3 ranked public university by Magazine X. It is a public research university located in X,Y,Z.""Do not give undue weight to rankings in the lead paragraphs or elsewhere in the article. Make sure to state the obvious in the first sentences of the lead paragraphs: it doesn't help the reader to know a university was ranked highly if he or she doesn't even know what or where it is in the first place! Moreover, the lead is not a section to astonish readers by establishing the quality of the college or university, only to serve as a summary of the rest of the article. Nor does the lead of the article have to include a preponderance of rankings and superlatives to establish the notability of a college or university since all accredited colleges and universities are inherently notable.   === Do not parse rankings === ""State University ranked 34th in publication X which only considered Y and Z. However, it ranked 3rd in publication A which considers B and C.""Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers. Similarly, do not exclude notable rankings simply because they are inconveniently low or you disagree with their methodology. An article about a university is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of various rankings' respective methodologies. If a reader wants to know about the methodology, they can follow the citation that should already accompany any ranking or the wikilink to the Wikipedia article describing that ranking in more detail.   === It's not a score board or horse race === ""…has 65 Laureates, 102 Award Winners, 165 acres of land, 72 academic programs, 15% admissions rate, 13 national championships, …..."" ""…has the second-largest student body, third-largest campus, fifteenth-largest faculty, seventh-largest research expenditures, sixth-most applicants, second-most award recipients …"" ""Compared to X, Y has a larger student body, campus, faculty, research budget and lower admissions rate and failure rate.""It is tempting to replace claims of prestige or academic excellence with a cascade of related or unrelated facts intended to generate the same impression. While this is a large improvement over the vague claim, remember that a university article's lead paragraph should be a summary of the most important facts about that institution. Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article. Likewise, an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate venue to play out intercollegiate rivalries over who has more and better: describe information and statistics in absolute terms rather than relative to your rival institution(s) or in abstract ordinal terms (first, second, third).   === Be concise, precise, and honest === Claims that an institution ""places highly"" in rankings are just as vague as claims that it is ""prestigious"", ""highly selective"" and ""excellent"", and are more dishonest in that they seem to cite an authoritative source. Limit rankings to a single section rather than spreading them throughout the article and be sure to include a comprehensive cross-section of rankings by national and international publications reported as numeric values with publication years and verifiable sources. Do not attempt to include every ranking by every publication for every school or program since some rankings are more notable than others. However, do not exclude notable rankings on the basis of not being in the Top X. Finally, do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and give undue weight to one publication's rankings or methodologies. Some popular rankings such as ""Best Colleges"" by U.S. News and World Report and ""America's Best Colleges"" by Forbes rely on undergraduate-only data and are only intended to rank or classify the undergraduate program, not the university as a whole. In this case, it is inaccurate to say that ""University X is the 27th best university"" when UX's undergraduate program is actually ranked 27th.  Among the University's highly-ranked schools… …is one of the best colleges in … No public or private university in the (region) can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors [The university] is the one of the most highly-regarded institutions in the region..."" [The college] is considered one of the premier institutions of higher learning in the [country] ...is the most selective in... WP:UNI – WikiProject Universities and Colleges WP:UNIGUIDE – Style guidelines specific to colleges and universities WP:ADVOCACY – Do not use WP to advocate a POV WP:PEACOCK – Avoid peacock terms WP:WEASEL – Avoid weasel words WP:NPOV – Neutral point of view Template:Booster – Available to flag articles for boosterism Template:Infobox US university ranking – Infobox to concisely summarize major publications' university rankings"
503	512	1121	WP:PLANTS	Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants	503	"Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants.  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list. To join the project, add your username to the list at WikiProject Plants/Participants or just jump in.  This table will update once per day, alternatively: Force update.  This WikiProject aims primarily to describe all plants, that is, all species and natural hybrids belonging to the kingdom Plantae. This project's scope also includes notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, botanists and botany-related articles.   === Goals === Describe all ranks and notable clades (particularly orders, families, genera, species, and natural hybrids) of the kingdom Plantae. For species, natural hybrids, and notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, describe botanical properties, distribution, usage (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information, and common names. Develop and implement a robust method of naming plant articles for the ease of navigation and searching for Wikipedia users. Maintain Category:Plants and its subcategories.   === WikiProject family tree === This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life:  WikiProject Science WikiProject Biology WikiProject Tree of Life WikiProject Plants WikiProject Aquatic plants WikiProject Banksia WikiProject Carnivorous plants WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening WikiProject Hypericaceae WikiProject Pteridophytes   === Related WikiProjects === WikiProject Agriculture concerns plants as food crops; forest products WikiProject Algae is where many algae topics fit WikiProject Australian biota for plants of Australia WikiProject Banksia for a primarily Australian genus of showy flowers (inactive) WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland for taxa in Ireland and the UK (inactive) WikiProject Cannabis, a project dedicated to one particular genus and its impact on society WikiProject Carnivorous plants (inactive) WikiProject Ecoregions works in flora articles by ecoregions. WikiProject Extinction for recently extinct taxa WikiProject Forestry, the science of managing forests and trees (semi-active) WikiProject Fungi is an analogous project concerning the Kingdom Fungi. WikiProject Fungi was originally modeled after WikiProject Plants, though modified to fit the needs of writing about mycological topics. Fungi Collaboration for working together (inactive) WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening for plants in gardens WikiProject Japan/Flora and fauna task force for flora of Japan WikiProject Marine life for life in salt water WikiProject Medicinal botany (defunct) WikiProject Microbiology for microbiological taxa WikiProject Palaeontology for prehistoric flora WikiProject Pteridophytes concerns ferns (inactive) WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative for ferns of the northeast of North America WikiProject Tree of Life for all taxa    Article requests Attention requests ( 13 ) Plant photo requests ( 28,116 ) and Botanists photo requests ( 250 ) Taxobox requests ( 1 ) Plant articles with maintenance and cleanup category listings Media related to Unidentified plants at Wikimedia Commons   === New articles ===   === Article alerts ===  Articles for deletion  28 Mar 2023 – List of plant scientists (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Elmidae (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)Categories for discussion  11 Mar 2023 – Category:Trees of the Amazon (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Fayenatic london (t · c); see discussion 11 Mar 2023 – Category:Flora of the Amazon (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Fayenatic london (t · c); see discussionFeatured list candidates  26 Mar 2023 – List of basal superasterid families (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dank (t · c); see discussion 16 Mar 2023 – List of early-diverging flowering plant families (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dank (t · c); see discussion 01 Dec 2022 – Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Davidbena (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees  08 Mar 2023 – Plant (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion 16 Jan 2023 – Eucalyptus wandoo (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hughesdarren (t · c); start discussionFeatured article reviews  18 Dec 2022 – Tulip mania (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Z1720 (t · c); see discussionRequested moves  22 Mar 2023 – Anemonoides nemorosa (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Anemone nemorosa by Afanasovich (t · c); see discussion 14 Mar 2023 – Sugar-apple (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Sugar apple by LightProof1995 (t · c); see discussion 20 Mar 2023 – Hyacinth (talk · edit · hist) move request to Hyacinth (disambiguation) by PhotographyEdits (t · c) was moved by Robertsky (t · c) on 27 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged  26 Mar 2023 – Abacá (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Manila hemp by Justlettersandnumbers (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Manila hemp (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Abacá by Justlettersandnumbers (t · c); see discussion 28 Feb 2023 – Eusideroxylon zwageri (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Eusideroxylon by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 18 Feb 2023 – Aloe suzannae (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Aloestrela by Plantdrew (t · c); see discussion 06 Jan 2023 – Chenopodium nuttalliae (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Chenopodium berlandieri by Canyq (t · c); see discussion 10 Nov 2022 – Bidens aurea (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Bidens ferulifolia by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion 19 Jun 2022 – Fraxinus parryi (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Fraxinus dipetala by Premeditated Chaos (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2022 – Cucumber plant defense (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Cucumber by Singularity42 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2022 – Bidens ferulifolia (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Bidens aurea by Loupeter (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split  16 Mar 2023 – Acephala group (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion 11 Feb 2023 – Rice (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mast303 (t · c); see discussion 16 Nov 2022 – Melanthera (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mat Kiyan (t · c); see discussion 18 Aug 2022 – Rootstock (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Jaredroach (t · c); see discussion 14 Jul 2022 – Orange (fruit) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Ost316 (t · c); see discussion 24 Feb 2020 – Chrysanthemum (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Peter coxhead (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  18 Mar 2023 – Draft:List of Endemic Plants in the Mariana Islands (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Halenhardy (t · c) 11 Mar 2023 – Draft:Alice Withrow (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Jengod (t · c) 08 Mar 2023 – Draft:Eryl Glynne Smith (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Archival Dreams (t · c) 07 Dec 2022 – Draft:Global Plant Council (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by GlobalGPC (t · c)  For the criteria used in assessing articles for this project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale. It is important to rate the quality of articles correctly; the number of Stub-class articles shown in the Statistics table near the top of this page is much larger than the number of articles which are actually stubs.  It appears that editors who expand stubs often forget to alter the quality rating. Stubs are by far the largest class of en:wikipedia plant articles, represented in red in bar below.   === Plant article naming conventions === These are now explained at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms). Monotypic plant taxa have not always been treated consistently; see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. A brief summary is ""use the lowest principal rank, but no lower than genus, unless the genus name needs disambiguating, in which case use the species"".   === Discuss taxa not names ===  Plant articles about groups of plants (taxa) are about the plants, not about the name of the group, and the opening of the article should reflect this (see WP:REFERS). Right:  Lambertia formosa, commonly known as mountain devil, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae, ... Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, ... The Marsileaceae are a small family of ... The radish (Raphanus sativus) is an edible root vegetable of the Brassicaceae family  ... Elms are deciduous trees comprising the genus Ulmus in the plant family Ulmaceae.Wrong:  Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is the name of a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, ... Marsileaceae is the name of a small family of ...The MoS at WP:BEGIN says that where possible ""the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."" So an article at the scientific name should begin with the scientific name; an article at the English name should begin with the English name.   === Redirects === Redirect pages should be created from at least all regularly used synonyms and English names, including alternative styling of English names, such as the use of capital letters, hyphens or apostrophes. (As of May 2014 the Wikimedia software automatically finds alternative capitalizations when these are typed into the search box but not when used as wikilinks. Although the policy of the English Wikipedia is to use lowercase for the English names of organisms, there are still many articles which don't. Thus there should be a redirect from Golden Bladderwort as well as from Golden bladderwort.) See the Categorization of Redirects section for more information.   === Singular and plural with the names of taxa ===  Some facts are not disputed:  The botanical name of a taxon higher than genus (i.e. from subtribe upwards) is plural in Latin. A genus name (and hence a species or infraspecies name) is singular in Latin. The botanical names of taxa are treated as proper nouns (noun phrases for species and below) in English, as is shown by capitalization, for example.After a lengthy discussion it is clear that there is no consensus, neither in reliable sources nor among members of this WikiProject, as to whether the grammatical number of the taxon name in Latin should be followed when writing in English. Accordingly, either may be used; for example, an article about a family may begin in either of the following ways:  Asparagaceae is a family ... It is/has ... The Asparagaceae are a family ... They are/have ...(The use of ""the"" follows the standard English grammatical pattern for proper nouns: ""the"" is required with those that are of plural form, e.g. ""the United States"", ""the Netherlands"", ""the Smiths"", but is usually omitted with those that are of singular form, e.g. ""England"", ""John Smith"", although there are exceptions.)   === Common names === For the use of common names as article titles, see WP:Naming conventions (flora). Sourced common names used in English are to be included in taxon articles. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph.   === The use of botanical names as common names === In some cases, the genus name has become the common name for a group of plants, particularly in a horticultural context. These cases include:  Using the common name for the genus as a whole, e.g. ""hostas"", ""cannas"". Using the common name for only part of the genus, e.g. ""pelargoniums"", ""rhododendrons"" (as opposed to ""azaleas""). Using the common name in a way that does not correspond to current genus boundaries at all, e.g. ""geraniums"".Such uses should be explained in the lead, e.g. ""Hosta is a genus of plants commonly known as hostas...""  When a common name and a spelled-alike genus name refer to different groups this needs to be made very clear. The singular of one of these common names is easily confused with an incorrectly formatted genus name and should be avoided as far as possible. When the plural means something like ""those species and cultivars of the genus which are in cultivation"" its use is more acceptable, as in ""Hostas are widely cultivated, being particularly useful in the garden as shade-tolerant plants"" meaning ""Species and cultivars of Hosta are ...""   === ""A"" or ""an"" with ""herb..."" === Dialects of English differ in whether they pronounce the ""h"" in words like ""herb"", ""herbaceous"", etc. Accordingly they differ in whether they use ""an"" (e.g. most US dialects) or ""a"" (e.g. most UK dialects). Experience shows that using either ""a"" or ""an"" in these circumstances leads to endless back-and-forth edits. Some ways to avoid such problems are:  use an adjective rather than a noun: X is herbaceous rather than X is a/an herbaceous plant put another word between: X is a perennial herbaceous plant rather than X is a/an herbaceous perennial plant use the plural: Herbs are ... rather than A/An herb is ...   === ""Synonyms"" of scientific names ===   ==== Citation needed ==== Whenever a list of synonyms appears in a taxobox, a citation needs to be given to support the statement that these are synonyms. This will almost always be a single citation; it is not appropriate to accumulate a list of ""synonyms"" from multiple sources, since the separate sources may not be compatible with one another. In rare cases, it may be necessary and acceptable to include more than one citation, for example, if the synonym reference contains a misspelling, then a citation could be added that discusses the correct spelling.   ==== Appropriate citations ==== There is as yet no single best source to cite for synonym lists for all plant taxa. The most appropriate source may be an authoritative monograph or flora, but assessing that type of publication requires care, and usually requires specialist knowledge. Databases are being developed outside Wikipedia to bring together summaries of the most thorough taxonomic work on all plant species, and these often provide suitable synonym lists.    Plants of the World Online (POWO): actively updated as of December 2018 World Flora Online Tropicos: includes much more information such as links to specimen images USDA GRIN Taxonomy: superb reference for agriculturally important crops and weeds, but as of 2014 the taxonomy is not being updated as rapidly as in the other databases Algaebase: for green algae The Plant List (TPL): last updated in 2013; it drew a subset of its information from other databases and now has compilation errors that do not accurately represent those databasesRegional: African Plant Database Australian Plant CensusNote: IPNI: (seed plants and lycophytes) is not an appropriate source for synonym lists (or species lists) because it aims to list all published names regardless of taxonomy; similarly, Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) is also not an appropriate source for a synonym list; rather, it aims to list all published opinions on synonymy.   ==== What to include ==== It is desirable to discuss and fully disambiguate many of the large number of names found in botanical or gardening reference works that appear to be scientific names of plants, but synonym lists in publications often contain many elements that are not synonyms as the term is used in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and these lists can be both difficult to interpret and confusing. The following approach is suggested:  The taxobox synonyms area (the synonyms parameter of the Automatic taxobox and Speciesbox templates) should be reserved for two kinds of names that are usefully considered to be synonyms of the taxon name used on the Wikipedia page: Names that are heterotypic synonyms as defined by the Code of Nomenclature, and Validly published names of a different rank that have the same type (specimen) as the taxon name used on the Wikipedia page, are well-known, and don't have their own page. A section of the text area of the page could be used to explain interesting or difficult aspects of nomenclature. This section could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history. For taxonomic (heterotypic) synonyms, which are synonyms only in the opinion of a particular author or authors, it is important to include one or more citations to the source(s) of these taxonomic opinions (the synonyms_ref parameter of the taxobox templates can be used for this). For nomenclatural (homotypic) synonyms, which involve the same type (specimen) and are less debatable, it is also desirable to include a citation to the source(s) from which this information was obtained.   ===== For example ===== Photinia arbutifolia Lindl. could be listed in the taxobox as a synonym of Heteromeles salicifolia (a heterotypic synonym, considered by the sources that Wikipedia follows to be part of the species Photinia arbutifolia). Cedrus libani var. brevifolia Hook.f. could be discussed on the Cedrus libani page as a case of debatable taxonomic placement, and also listed as a synonym in the taxobox on the page for Cedrus brevifolia. Banksia latifolia var. minor Maiden & Camfield could be listed in the taxobox as a synonym of Banksia oblongifolia (or as a synonym of Banksia oblongifolia var. minor if a page about that variety were created). The tribe Amygdaleae could be listed as a synonym of subfamily Amygdaloideae (a homotypic synonym at a different rank).   ===== The synonym list would include synonyms of subordinate taxa ===== This is because in a Wikipedia taxobox (as in many other reference works) homotypic and heterotypic synonyms are not distinguished. For example, if a single cited source states that :  Spiraea densiflora Nutt. ex Greenm. is a synonym of Spiraea splendens Baumann ex K. Koch var. splendens and Spiraea arbuscula Greene is a synonym of Spiraea splendens Baumann ex K. Koch var. rosea (A. Gray) Kartesz & Gandhithen the taxobox would list both Spiraea densiflora Nutt. ex Greenm. and Spiraea arbuscula Greene as synonyms of Spiraea splendens.    ===== Some cases to exclude from the taxobox (an incomplete list) ===== Misidentifications would not appear in a synonym list, and often would not require mention. For example: Crataegus pubescens Steud. nom. illeg. and Crataegus gracilior J.B.Phipps are very commonly misapplied to Crataegus mexicana DC., but if that situation is rectified it may no longer warrant discussion. Names that do not satisfy the technical definition of a botanical name, and uncorrected forms, would be excluded: Orthographic variants can be handled by redirects to the page with the correct spelling, and should not require any mention on the page. For example: Pereskia opuntiaeflora, the original spelling used by de Candolle, could redirect to Pereskia opuntiiflora, the corrected spelling specified by the code of nomenclature (article 60.8). Populus section Aegiros, a common misspelling, could redirect to Populus section Aigeiros. Nom. inval. or nom. nud. signals a name that was not validly published as a botanical name. Few of these have become well known without being validated by a later publication, but a small number are well known, and these may warrant discussion. For example: Crataegus macracantha Lodd. need not be listed; the validated name is written as Crataegus macracantha Lodd. ex Loudon or Crataegus macracantha Loudon. Subfamily Prunoideae Burnett was not validly published because Burnett compiled a list of comments about the (group at the rank now considered to be a) subfamily but did not provide text that qualifies as a description, according to the requirements of our modern codes of nomenclature (and he did not provide a diagnosis or refer to a previous description). Certain names published in suppressed works (opera oppressa) are considered invalid, and do not belong in the taxobox. It may be useful to discuss some of these in the page text. For example: Michel Gandoger earned some renown for publishing a vast number of species names in the genus Rosa in his suppressed work Flora Europae terrarumque adjacentium. It could be helpful to discuss these with Rosa canina, which is sometimes noted as a species that caused taxonomic confusion. Nom. rej. and/or Nom. illeg. can signal a name that has not satisfied some of the rules of the code of nomenclature. Nom. rej. can also indicate names that have been explicitly rejected (articles 14 and 56). Some such names may be best omitted, and others may justify detailed explanation. For example: On a page about the genus Hierochloë R. Br., it might be desirable to discuss Savastana Schrank, Torresia Ruiz & Pav., and Disarrenum Labill. These names are rejected in favour of Hierochloë, but a different taxonomy could consider them to be separate from Hierochloë, in which case they are valid and legitimate botanical names.   === Trade designations === In addition to a unique cultivar name (regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), many cultivated plants have ""selling names"" or ""marketing names""; the ICNCP calls these ""trade designations"". Trade designations are not regulated by the ICNCP; they are often different in different countries and can change over time. The ICNCP states that ""trade designations must always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets."" They should never be set in single quotes. Some are also registered trade marks (which cultivar names never are). There is currently no consensus as to how to represent trade designations in Wikipedia. The template {{tdes}} can be used; one advantage is that if a consensus is reached in future, consistency will be easy to achieve.  The RHS uses a different font face. This is the default for {{tdes}}. ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth}} → Syringa vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth.An alternative different font face can be produced using ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|roman}} → Syringa vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth. However, the font will only be noticeably different if the main text is in a sans-serif font.The ICNCP specifies use of a different font face, and illustrates this with use of small capitals. ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|smallcaps}} → S. vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth. Small capitals are generally disliked in Wikipedia.Plain text can be used, making clear the nature of the name. It is still useful to mark the name in the source as a trade designation. ''S. vulgaris''  'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|plain}} → S. vulgaris  'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as Ludwig Spaeth.   === Categorization of Articles ===  There are a number of standard categories that involve WP:PLANTS and that should be added to a plant article or redirect:  Taxonomy Articles (and redirects in some cases) should be categorized based on taxonomic rank. For full details, see WP:PLANTS/Categorization. Geographical distribution Where geographical categorization is appropriate, articles should be categorized based on the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD); see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. Year of description Articles on species should be categorized under the year of first description, e.g. Category:Plants described in 1753. For full details, see WP:PLANTS/Description in year categories.For the categorization of redirects using ""R templates"", see below. Most articles on higher taxa already exist. For new articles on genera and species, put the article in at least the following categories (replacing capitalized words by actual names): New genus articles  Normally [[Category:FAMILY]] but may be higher for small families (e.g. [[Category:ORDER]] or [[Category:CLADE]]) or lower for large families or the APG3 ""lumped"" families (e.g. [[Category:SUBFAMILY]]). Normally [[Category:FAMILY genera]] but may be higher for small families (e.g. [[Category:ORDER genera]] or [[Category:CLADE genera]]) or lower for large families (e.g. [[Category:SUBFAMILY genera]]).New species articles  Normally [[Category:GENUS|SPECIES]] but may be higher for small genera (e.g. [[Category:FAMILY]]). [[Category:Plants described in YEAR]] where YEAR is the year of first description, regardless of later changes of name (see WP:PLANTS/Description in year categories).   === Categorization of Redirects ===   ==== R templates for redirects not involving monotypic taxa ==== Redirect pages involving the scientific names of plants should be placed into a ""redirect category"" using an appropriate ""R template"" as shown in the table below, unless the redirect is concerned with the accepted names of monotypic taxa. ""Scientific name"" is here interpreted broadly as meaning ""Latin name"", which may or may not be a valid taxonomic synonym.  * Subcategorizing the redirect as a plant makes access and maintenance via the appropriate category easier. Examples:  Scilla non-scripta, which is a redirect to Hyacinthoides non-scripta, contains the template {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}}. Golden bladderwort, which is a redirect to Utricularia aurea, contains the template {{R to scientific name|plant}}. Pseudotsuga menziesii, which is a redirect to Douglas fir, contains the template {{R from scientific name|plant}}. (There should not be many such examples, since this WikiProject's guidelines say that a plant article should only exceptionally be at the English name.)   ==== R templates for redirects involving monotypic taxa ==== Where monotypic taxa are involved, there will be change of rank. There are two cases:  {{R to monotypic taxon|plant}} is used where the redirect is towards a monotypic taxon from its sole member; thus it will always be upwards. The template will place the redirect in Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of plants. Examples:Nerium oleander redirects to Nerium – from the sole species in the genus to the monospecific genus.{{R from monotypic taxon|plant}} is used where the redirect is from a monotypic taxon to its sole member; thus it will always be downwards. The template will place the redirect in Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants. Examples:Amborellaceae redirects to Amborella – from the monogeneric family to the sole genus. Amborellales also redirects to Amborella – from the monogeneric order to the sole genus. Alberta (genus) redirects to Alberta magna, since the species epithet is a more natural disambiguator than ""(genus)"".These redirects should also be categorized by taxon rank – see WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Monotypic taxa.   ==== Other useful R templates ==== {{Redr|from other capitalisation}} - for redirects from one capitalization of the English name of a taxon to another   === Botanists === WikiProject Plants has a number of components, these include taxa, botanical topics, and botanists. When describing taxa with authorities, the authorities should be checked against the List of botanists by author abbreviation, and if necessary, added. Authorities should be linked, and if red linked, consideration should be given to creating a biographical page. Wikipedia has no specific criteria for botanists, although it has for scientists in general. In most cases recognising an author by linking their name to a species as an authority is a form of notability, and any requests for deletion should be directed to this section. Botanist biography pages should at a minimum contain the following, the {{infobox scientist}} and {{botanist}} templates (the latter in turn creates a Reference to ""Author Query"" at the International Plant Names Index), a list of publications, including the ones that give them botanical authority status, and links to taxa they named, or are named in their honour. The botanist template will also generate a category (Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). In the Talk page the use of the {{WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=|botanist=yes}} template will link it to the project. Carl Linnaeus can be used as a model for a Good Article of a botanist biography. The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden has provided a centralized guide for editing and creating biographical articles for botanists.  Please always verify (and link where possible) the author abbreviations in the taxobox. (I have been working through the contributions of Joseph Dalton Hooker and all too often I find him abbreviated as Hook. f. rather than Hook.f.. See for example, Ascarina lucida, which had at that point 47 edits, and yet the author name remained unlinked and incorrect.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)     List of all subpages of this page"
504	513	1124	WP:NABOBS	Wikipedia:Don't feed the nabobs	504	"We, the few, the proud, the Wikipedians, know that our project is worthwhile and will, someday, be the ultimate repository of the sum total of human knowledge. Unfortunately, we're the few and the proud; there's a lot of people out there who point fingers at Wikipedia and laugh at every opportunity, enjoying the chance to point out ""inaccuracies"" and ""errors"", and who would like nothing better than to see Wikipedia die. Don't feed them. The nattering nabobs of negativism get plenty of fuel from clueless edits and vandalism. But even good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia can wind up merely adding fuel to the fire for those who would mercilessly mock our efforts. For instance, suggesting that a photograph to be deleted due to copyright could be replaced by a hand-drawn sketch of the aircraft, or that the article on a major river valley of historical importance is unsourced and, therefore, clearly not notable and should be deleted. Both suggestions made in the best of good faith; both suggestions that, if carried out, would lead to more late-night talk-show hosts adding to their ""top 10 reasons Wikipedia is silly"" sketches. Of course, sometimes the bullet must be bitten and tough decisions made regardless of what ""they"", the nabobs, will think of ""us"", the Wikipedians. But when the fence is being straddled, consider whether or not doing something would make Wikipedia look silly to those who don't ""get"" Wikipedia like we do. And if it would, in that case, the likely answer is: don't."
505	514	1128	WP:CITIES	Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities	505	Cities portal  Did you know  03 Mar 2023 – Tiakur (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nyanardsan (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2023 – Qnat (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PalauanReich (t · c); see discussion 03 Jan 2023 – Buchanan's Station (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by GenQuest (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion  28 Mar 2023 – Buda, Nebraska (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (0 participants) 25 Mar 2023 – Makran district (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants) 23 Mar 2023 – History of Porto (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Chidgk1 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant) 21 Mar 2023 – White Clay, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (0 participants; relisted) 21 Mar 2023 – Matthie, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (0 participants; relisted) 21 Mar 2023 – Mint, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted) 21 Mar 2023 – Twin Falls, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted) 20 Mar 2023 – Sikort Chuapo, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (0 participants; relisted) 20 Mar 2023 – Santa Lucia, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted) 20 Mar 2023 – San Agustin, Arizona (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dlthewave (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)(8 more...)Proposed deletions  29 Mar 2023 – Veraval Turk Jamaat (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by TimothyBlue (t · c): concern 28 Mar 2023 – Cedar, Idaho (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Dlthewave (t · c): concern 28 Mar 2023 – Saline, Utah (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Dlthewave (t · c): concern 28 Mar 2023 – Ross Corner, California (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Reywas92 (t · c): concern 24 Mar 2023 – Maygag Qabcalle (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Wbm1058 (t · c): concernCategories for discussion  28 Mar 2023 – Category:New towns in Egypt (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by PalauanReich (t · c); see discussion 27 Mar 2023 – Category:Largest cities of Somalia templates (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Andrybak (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Category:Communities by ethnic group (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Skovl (t · c); see discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Category:Capitals of country subdivisions in Europe (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by William Allen Simpson (t · c); see discussionRedirects for discussion  28 Mar 2023 – Kangzhou (talk · edit · hist) →Connecticut was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion 28 Mar 2023 – Luoshanji (talk · edit · hist) →Los Angeles was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Maynilad (talk · edit · hist) →Manila was RfDed by JWilz12345 (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Bishnupuriya Ustav (talk · edit · hist) →Bishnupur, Bankura was RfDed by Haoreima (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Bishnupuriya Utsab (talk · edit · hist) →Bishnupur, Bankura was RfDed by Haoreima (t · c); see discussion 17 Mar 2023 – Ramanagar (talk · edit · hist) →Ramanagara was RfDed by BarrelProof (t · c); see discussion 13 Mar 2023 – Pulau Laut (talk · edit · hist) →Natuna Regency was RfDed by PalauanReich (t · c); see discussionFiles for discussion  28 Mar 2023 – File:Drone view of GIFT City 1.svg (talk · edit · hist) (on GIFT City) was FfDed by Whpq (t · c); see discussion 25 Mar 2023 – File:Lothal Port City.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on Lothal) was FfDed by Whpq (t · c); see discussionFeatured list candidates  29 Dec 2022 – Municipalities of Oaxaca (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Mattximus (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees  18 Mar 2023 – Gunungsitoli (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nyanardsan (t · c); start discussion 18 Mar 2023 – Banjarmasin (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nyanardsan (t · c); start discussion 18 Mar 2023 – Palu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nyanardsan (t · c); start discussion 14 Feb 2023 – Adullam (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Davidbena (t · c); start discussion 24 Dec 2022 – Huntsville, Alabama (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by MyCatIsAChonk (t · c); start discussion 17 Dec 2022 – Robeson County, North Carolina (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Indy beetle (t · c); start discussionFeatured article reviews  08 Mar 2023 – Gangtok (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion 04 Mar 2023 – Quneitra (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by SandyGeorgia (t · c); see discussionGood article reassessments  10 Feb 2023 – Albany, New York (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Femke (alt) (t · c); see discussionRequests for comments  15 Mar 2023 – Template:Infobox Indian state or territory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Haoreima (t · c); see discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Minneapolis (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Some1 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2023 – Guling, Jiangxi (talk · edit · hist) RfC by 203.17.215.26 (t · c) was closed; see discussionPeer reviews  11 Mar 2023 – Saint Mary, Antigua and Barbuda (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by CROIX (t · c); see discussion 13 Feb 2023 – Saint John's Island (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Rabbitson2001 (t · c); see discussionRequested moves  26 Mar 2023 – Concise (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Concise, Switzerland by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2023 – Punanai (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Punani (Sri Lanka) by In ictu oculi (t · c); see discussion 19 Mar 2023 – Bhandara (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Bhandara (city) by UtherSRG (t · c); see discussion 14 Mar 2023 – Faizabad district (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Ayodhya district by WikiEdits2003 (t · c); see discussion 14 Mar 2023 – Carmel, Mount Hebron (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Carmel (Israeli settlement) by Nableezy (t · c); see discussion 12 Mar 2023 – Belgaum (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Belagavi by ಹುಲಿ (t · c); see discussion 24 Mar 2023 – Sioux Falls, South Dakota (talk · edit · hist) move request to Sioux Falls by Cork12 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 17 Mar 2023 – Neuilly-sur-Seine (talk · edit · hist) move request to Neuilly by Macrakis (t · c) was not moved; see discussionArticles to be merged  28 Mar 2023 – Kular, Punjab (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Kular, Jalandhar by DaxServer (t · c); see discussion 28 Mar 2023 – Kular, Jalandhar (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Kular, Punjab by DaxServer (t · c); see discussion 11 Mar 2023 – Homebush West (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Flemington, New South Wales by Newfoundbantustan (t · c); see discussion 10 Mar 2023 – Al-Mazyona (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Al-Mazyunah by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion 24 Feb 2023 – Az-Zakariyya (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Zekharia by Onceinawhile (t · c); see discussion 24 Feb 2023 – Lincoln (proposed Northwestern state) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Lincoln (proposed Southern state) by 4lepheus B4ron (t · c); see discussion 24 Feb 2023 – Vasa, Minnesota (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Vasa Township, Goodhue County, Minnesota by Pingnova (t · c); see discussion 17 Feb 2023 – Iltifatganj Bazar (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Iltifatganj by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion 13 Feb 2023 – City of Salford (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Salford by DragonofBatley (t · c); see discussion 12 Feb 2023 – Qadas (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Kedesh by Onceinawhile (t · c); see discussion(25 more...)Articles to be split  02 Mar 2023 – Lapu-Lapu City (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Einahr (t · c); see discussion 13 Feb 2023 – Stromboli (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Abcmaxx (t · c); see discussion 21 Dec 2022 – Tarapith (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Redtigerxyz (t · c); see discussion 28 Nov 2022 – Ürümqi (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2022 – Yau Tsim Mong District (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 203.145.95.57 (t · c); see discussion 07 Oct 2022 – Tin Shui Wai (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 42.98.171.120 (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2022 – Medway (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion 23 Jun 2022 – Wanshan Archipelago (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 219.76.62.114 (t · c); see discussion 30 May 2022 – Oxfordshire (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Grey13z (t · c); see discussion 30 May 2022 – Buckinghamshire (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Grey13z (t · c); see discussion(21 more...)Articles for creation  28 Mar 2023 – Draft:Ballycahillroe (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by DigitalNeoMinato (t · c) 28 Mar 2023 – Draft:Khryashchuvate (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Luganchanka (t · c) 27 Mar 2023 – Draft:Årsta, Uppsala (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by PeenikePorgand (t · c) 26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Ballinwire (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by DigitalNeoMinato (t · c) 25 Mar 2023 – Draft:Caridad Norte (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by LokiMikael1 (t · c) 22 Mar 2023 – Draft:Miana Chack Dahu (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 19 Mar 2023 – Draft:Ajgari (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Modifiedlucky (t · c) 15 Mar 2023 – Draft:Digras, Beed (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mahavillage (t · c) 15 Mar 2023 – Draft:Kavoor (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Ardo27 (t · c) 12 Mar 2023 – Draft:Downtown Nashville (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Cork12 (t · c)(30 more...)   === Articles that need... === attention (28) infoboxes (738) Templates are used within articles to provide a consistent look to the messages placed into them.   === Project banner === {{WikiProject Cities}} – Talk page project banner   === Infoboxes === Infoboxes are not required.  {{Infobox settlement}} – Standard infobox template for most types of settlements like cities, towns, villages, etc. To use it, copy the format located at Template:Infobox settlement and substitute the settlement's information in the parameters section as directed on the Infobox template page. See San Jose, California for an example. {{Infobox Australian place}} – Australian variation of the standard infobox. {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} – for cities in Russia. {{Weather box}} – for presenting temperature and precipitation information in a standard format {{Geographic location}} – Links to the surrounding areas   === Userbox === {{User WPCities}}  A list of members of WikiProject Cities, together with some of their interests, is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/participants. To join the group simply add yourself to the list, in alphabetical order.  List of all subpages of this page Our core list of 50 cities City articles sorted by page views Article status for the 100 largest cities in the U.S. Goal to have a city guide navigation for every world capital city General guidelines Naming conventions (geographic names) Canadian communities Indian cities Japanese municipalities UK settlements US cities National capital taskforce Regional capital taskforce The parent of this project is WikiProject Countries.   === Climate === For proposed infoboxes/city climate graphs, see: WikiProject Climate   === Descendant projects === Descendant WikiProject Cities include:  African cities Lagos Asian cities and city-states (non-Indian) Dubai, Hong Kong, Macau, Shenzhen, Singapore Australian cities Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney Canadian cities Montreal, Ottawa, St. John's*, Toronto, Vancouver European cities and regions Bedfordshire, Belfast, Belgrade, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Frankfurt, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, Munich, North East England, Porto, Rome, Sheffield, Somerset, Surrey, Sussex (West and East), Vienna, West Midlands, ZagrebIndian cities Balasore, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Cuttack, Delhi, Eluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mangalore, Mumbai, Patna, VisakhapatnamMexican cities TijuanaNew Zealand cities AucklandUS cities and regions  Appalachia, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Cape Cod and the Islands, Capital District (Albany, NY and vicinity), Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbia (MO), Dallas-Fort Worth, Erie, Houston, Hudson Valley, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, KYOVA Region (KY, OH, WV), Las Vegas, Lehigh Valley (PA, NJ), Los Angeles, Louisville, Lowell, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Santa Barbara County (CA), Seattle, Shreveport, Southern California, Syracuse, Tampa Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Western New York State, YoungstownRelated WikiProject Cities pages:  WikiProject Cities/German names WikiProject Cities/Names issues WikiProject Indian cities WikiProject Pakistani cities WikiProject Germany/CitiesOther related projects include:  WikiProject Architecture WikiProject Geography of Poland WikiProject Ghost Towns WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities task force WikiProject UK geography WikiProject Urban studies and planning WikiProject U.S. counties WikiProject Villages  The following list of links might be useful to editors when editing or maintaining city articles. Please feel free to share any useful links that you think others might find useful.  International census resources – An index of census sites for different world geographies Eurostat – Census & demographic data from the European commission U.S. Census Bureau – Census & demographic data (the FactFinder is also useful here). U.K. Office for National Statistics – Census & demographic data The Green Papers: United States (of America) Federal, State, and Local Government – General information on US data; also includes more specific information on incorporated municipalities. You can get specific information on towns in a given state by going to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/localities.phtml?state= (and putting the state's two-letter postal abbreviation at the end of the URL). Sister Cities International, Inc. – Information on sister cities programs and relationships among cities. Any postcard first published in the U.S. before 1978 without an explicit copyright notice is PD.
506	515	1129	WP:REFACTOR	Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages	506	"Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed.  It applies only in contexts where editors make signed statements (such as in the Talk and User talk namespaces). Refactoring has a number of uses, including:  Improving the clarity and readability of a page Removing off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material Restructuring of discussions for clarity Relocating material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriateRefactoring is more assertive than copy editing, but less substantive than archiving. Like copy editing, it always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Like archiving, it may hide material from immediate visibility. It should be used as a tool to separate unnecessary material from a discussion on the fly, without waiting for formal archiving of the entire discussion. The term ""refactoring"" is adapted from code refactoring in computing, where code is restructured (to improve its quality) in a way that does not change the operation of the program. Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page. Discussion pages that are confused, hostile, overly complex, poorly structured, or congested with cross-talk can discourage potential contributors, and create misunderstandings that undermine fruitful discussions. Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections within it, without refactoring can still be done.  Earlier in Wikipedia's history, and particularly before 2006, talk page content was summarized to conserve space – a non-preservative refactoring method. However, the community has come to prefer wholesale archival of talk page discussions, since archiving preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not lead to misrepresentation (accidental or disruptive) of other editors' opinions, and conserves material that may be useful in the future.  The same principle has come to be applied to refactoring more broadly. As a rule, editors should not edit each other's comments in ways that affect meaning – doing so creates misrepresentations, disrupts the flow of conversations, and makes debates and discussions impossible to follow – but cases exist in which an editor's comments need to be removed from the flow of conversation because the comments themselves disrupt the flow of conversation.  Loosely, the following types of refactoring are legitimate, with the listed caveats: Non-contentious cleanup – anything where you are sure that the other editor will thank you for the effort, rather than getting angry.  Adding missing topic headings and attribution Correcting indentation levels Fixing dead links Fixing technical matters of wikitext formatting, tables, templates, broken links, and the like Improving headings with typos or which are not descriptive of the content (use {{anchor}} below the new heading so as to not break any links to the old one) Reattaching signatures that have been split from the text, or adding ""missing signature"" templates such as {{Unsigned2}} to comments that users have forgotten to sign Other minor fixes (correcting other users' spelling or grammar is discouraged, other than for technical reasons, per previous point)Restructuring – should be done with care to avoid changing meanings.  Adding new sections that split an editor's comment into separate points Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion Moving or copying a comment to begin a new discussion in a different sectionPruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy.  Removing, striking or hiding personal attacks Hiding redundant, outdated, or otherwise superfluous material from view Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate Following Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, editors are encouraged to remove any content that is not appropriate. A link to the talk page history should be added if the removed text was part of discussions by other editors. See WP:Diff for guidance on creating a link to the page history and WP:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable for guidance on inappropriate talk page content. There are several tools and techniques available for refactoring material:  Deletion Editing and deleting the text completely.  Except for non-contentious fixes, this should only be done by the editor who wrote the material or by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause.  Unless a sysop uses Oversight, RevDel, or a page has been deleted entirely, the deleted text will still appear in old revisions of the page. Strike-outs Using the HTML strikeout tags – text to be struck produces text to be struck.  This text is still marginally readable on the page, and will show up in page searches. Moving text off-page Material can be userfied or moved to a different page where it is more appropriate.  If the refactoring is later reverted, the moved material should be deleted on the pages it was moved to, to prevent proliferation of the text. Hidden divs, collapsible tables, and templates A number of tools and templates hide or block text from further editing – {{hidden}}, {{cot}}, {{hat}}, {{archive top}}, {{discussion top}}.  These work by creating collapsible elements.  Material collapsed in this fashion does not show up in page searches unless it is in an expanded state. The tool or technique used should be chosen according to the particular needs of the material. The creation of an FAQ is recommended for any points that are likely to be repeatedly raised and refactored. Existing material should be generalized appropriately and reformatted into a simple question/answer format so that later editors can have their concerns satisfied without raising the question again. Likewise, lengthy ongoing discussions might benefit from template refactoring with a summary. The {{quote box}} template can be used to provide a floating summary box next to a refactored discussion, or a comment may be added at the bottom (or sometimes the top) of a section.   === Resectioning ===  In some cases, discussion should be broken down into new sections or subsections.  This is useful when a section becomes overly long, or when conversation begins to diverge into a number of separate points.  Resectioning may help both readers and participants understand the flow of the discussion and help them find relevant parts of the text. For long discussions, participants often insert arbitrary breaks by adding a new subsection heading.  In fact, such breaks are often given headings like 'Arbitrary break' or 'convenience break', with an index number to distinguish it from other arbitrary break headings.  Discussions that cover multiple points or become more complex, by contrast, may benefit from the creation of subsections to address different points, or in extreme cases by splitting off sections of text into entirely new sections.  It may be necessary in these cases to reorganize large swatches of text, and if so care should be taken to ensure that no comments are taken out of context or lose connection with the original point they were addressing.  It may be advisable to copy sections of text rather than move them (adding a comment that refers back to the original text), to duplicate the original author's signature across different points that have been moved to different sections, or to begin the new section with a parenthetical statement explaining the original context of the comment. See examples below.  These concerns should be considered when refactoring:  Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context. Editors should be conscious of the newcomer's perspective; one should not remove content that would benefit an editor who had not yet read the page.Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. If you think people may object to their discussion being refactored, make your summary on a different page. Rather than reducing archives 7 to 10 of Talk:New Imperialism, create a new page entitled [[Talk:New Imperialism/Summary of archives 7 to 10]]. Link this to the top of the appropriate archives, and to the current talk page. This gives newcomers the chance to get a quick understanding without the risk of losing what has gone before. Having a linked archive can help satisfy both those who feel their words must remain intact and those who want a neat summary.  Simple refactoring can easily be done with standard Wikipedia browser editing, but if you are faced with a particularly complex or tedious refactoring job, an advanced text editor or any of an assortment of scripting languages can be immensely helpful.  Basically, any tool that has extended find and replace features, regular expression capabilities, or programmatic text processing will become your best friend. Alphabetizing material, sorting sections into chronological order, changing multiple links, restructuring large tables – these tasks can be painful and time consuming to do by hand, but can be accomplished in a matter of minutes programmatically.  Most high-end 'Office'-type text editors have advanced text editing capabilities, and many light-weight but powerful text editing applications are available – see list of text editors.  Many scripting languages for text processing also exist; common ones are  Perl, Python, Unix shell scripting, and AppleScript. For long refactoring jobs, it may help to tag the page(s) being refactored with Template:In use. Simply add {{in use}} to the top of the page(s). This will alert other editors to the fact that the pages are under construction, and should help minimize edit conflicts.  Talk pages or talk page sections that have benefited from refactoring:  Exterior to what? Ausdehnungslehre means ""extension theory"", not ""exterior theory"" (conservative refactoring by inserting paragraph titles) Is there a convention about the order of multivector components? (conservative refactoring by inserting subheadings and paragraph titles) Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks Wikipedia:Pruning article revisions Wikipedia:Not so arbitrary breaks {{Inappropriate comment}} Refactoring wiki pages Refactoring category at Wiki Reworking category at MeatBall"
507	516	1130	WP:ESSAYS	Wikipedia:Essays	507	"Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more editors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes. Essays have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community because they may be created and edited without overall community oversight.  Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Generally soft advice belongs in an essay, thus avoiding instruction creep in Wikipedia's official protocols. There are over 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics.  Wikipedia policy says, “Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace”.  Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances. Consequently, many essays serve as interpretations of or commentary on perceived community norms for specific topics and situations. The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints.  An essay, as well as being useful, can potentially be a divisive means of espousing a point of view. Although an essay should not be used to create an alternative rule set, the Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia related subjects and viewpoints on user pages. The difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Wikipedia may be obscure. Essays vary in popularity and how much they are followed and referred to. Editors should defer to official policies or guidelines when essays, information pages or template documentation pages are inconsistent with established community standards and principles. Avoid ""quoting"" essays as though they are policy—including this  explanatory supplement page. Essays, information pages and template documentation pages can be written without much—if any—debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policies that have been thoroughly vetted by the community (see WP:Local consensus for details). In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion. See Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance and Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard for more information. Essays are located in the  Wikipedia namespace (e.g., Wikipedia:Reasonability rule) and in User namespaces (e.g., User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles). The Help namespace contains pages which provide factual (usually technical) information on using Wikipedia and its software (see below). The {{Essay}}-family templates (with several variants like {{Notability essay}} and {{WikiProject advice}}), versus the {{Guideline}} (and variants, like {{MoS guideline}}) and {{Policy}} templates give an indication of a page's status within the community. Some essays at one time were proposed policies or guidelines, but they could not gain consensus overall; as indicated by the template {{Failed proposal}}. Other essays that at one time had consensus, but are no longer relevant, are tagged with the template {{Historical}}. Essays currently nominated for policy status are indicated by the banner {{Proposed}}. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace for a listing of namespace banners.   === Wikipedia namespace essays ===  Essays in the Wikipedia namespace – which are never to be put in the main (encyclopedia article) namespace – typically address some aspect of working in Wikipedia. They have not been formally adopted as guidelines or policies by the community at large, but typically edited by the community. Some are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions (like ""guideline supplements"" WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and WP:Competence is required). Many essays, however, are obscure, single-author pieces.  Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.  Occasionally, even longstanding, community-edited essays may be removed or radically revised if community norms shift.   ===== How to and  information pages =====  Wikipedia's  how-to and information pages are typically edited by the community and can also be found in the help namespace. They generally  provide technical and factual information about Wikipedia  or supplement guidelines and policies in greater detail. Where ""essay pages""  often offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages are intended  to clarity and explain current community practices in an impartial way (e.g.,  Wikipedia:Administration).   ==== WikiProject advice pages ====  WikiProjects are groups of editors who  work together. Advice pages written by these groups are formally considered the same as pages written by anyone else, that is, they are essays unless and until they have been formally adopted as community-wide guidelines or policies. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays explaining how the community's policies and guidelines should be applied to their areas of interest and expertise (e.g.,  Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Recommended structure).   === User essays ===  According to Wikipedia policy, ""Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.""  These are similar to essays placed in the Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes (e.g., User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness). Some of them are widely respected by other editors, and even occasionally have an effect on policy (e.g., the WP:General notability guideline originated in a user essay). Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason.  Polemics against particular people, or against Wikipedia itself, are generally just deleted, as unconstructive or disruptive.   === Historical essays === The Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-wiki was envisioned as the original place for editors to comment on and discuss Wikipedia, although the ""Wikipedia"" project space has since taken over most of that role. Many historical essays can still be found at Meta.Wikimedia.org.  Before creating an essay, it is a good idea to check if similar essays already exist. Although there is no guideline or policy that explicitly prohibits it, writing redundant essays is discouraged. Avoid creating essays just to prove a point or game the system. Essays that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not  tend to get deleted or transferred to user space. You do not have to have created an essay to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment. However, essays placed in the User: namespace are often—though not always—meant to represent the viewpoint of one user only. You should usually not substantively edit someone else's user essay without permission. To be on the safe side, discuss any edits not covered by REFACTOR and MINOR before making them. If the original author is no longer active or available, seek consensus on the essay's talk page (other editors who have worked on the essay are likely to care about it), or just write a new one.  Wikipedia:Essay directory lists about 800 essays to allow searching for key words or terms with your browser. The gist of user-written essays can be found at Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell. Essays can also be navigated via categories, the navigation template (as seen below), or Special:Search (as seen below; include the words ""Wikipedia essays"" with your other search-words).  Wikipedia:list of essays sorted by score"
508	517	1137	WP:MANYTHINGS	Wikipedia:Many things to many people	508	"Wikipedia is many things, more concretely: many encyclopedias to many people, and that is one of its greatest strengths: it is a general encyclopedia, but it is also many specialist encyclopedias. Any conflicts arising through Wikipedia's multi-faceted nature should be resolved in such a way that Wikipedia remains a useful resource for all the different segments of its readership. In some cases, this might result in the need for, yes, two different articles treating the same subject on two different levels; the resulting ""Introduction to..."" articles should not be shunned as un-encyclopedic, they should be accepted for what they are: a necessary tool that allows Wikipedia to remain many things for many people. Live and let live –  and make Wikipedia as useful as possible for as many readers as possible.  Wikipedia's readership is quite varied, and that is a good thing. Readers will look for many different articles they could not expect to find in your generalist, run–of–the–paper-mill encyclopedia, and indeed they are bound to find them, since there are sure to be editors sharing the same interests. Compared with all dead-tree encyclopedias like the Britannica, we have an inordinate number of articles about TV series, pop bands and other musical groups. Taking pars pro toto the example of a pop group whose every song appears to have an article (making for a total of roughly 300 articles about this group alone), we might call this Wikipedia's inordinate fondness for Beatles. If we had any space limitations, such as any printed encyclopedia has, there would be heated discussions about the appropriateness of such articles –  should we stick to classic encyclopedia content? or, since the prototypical ""curious average reader"" is nowadays more interested in ""Hey Jude"", to take one pick from Wikipedia:Featured articles, than in Prehistoric Georgia, should we drop the latter to accommodate the former? Luckily, we have no such space limitations. The different parts of the readership can coexist peacefully side by side; except for encyclopedia purists, no one is going to be bothered if there are articles in Wikipedia you wouldn't find outside specialist encyclopedias in the regular book world. We should be proud that Wikipedia is so many things to so many people –  a regular encyclopedia to those who want to save the space that used to be taken up by their Britannica, and a host of specialist encyclopedias to a variety of readers with more specialized interests.  Sometimes, being many things to many people can lead to complications. For whom are we writing this? Are we writing for the college student? The ""man in the street""? The ""average curious reader"", whoever they may be? Again, since we do not have significant space limitations, this is less of a problem than it might be. Frequently, specialization will simply take the form of many detailed spin-off articles. If you are greatly interested in the Roman Army, then the level of detail you are bound to aim for as an editor will lead to the creation of many more specialized articles (""spinout""), in this particular case Structural history of the Roman military, Campaign history of the Roman military, Technological history of the Roman military, and Political history of the Roman military. For these articles, the target audience will certainly not be the ""curious average reader"" any more, whose interest in the Roman army, let's face it, is unlikely to run as deep as all that. But that is OK –  for the average reader, there will be the base article Roman Army; for the interested student or those with special interests who want to dig deeper, there will be the more detailed articles. Once more, no-one would ever demand to remove the more detailed articles on the ground that for all but a few readers, interest in the subject just doesn't run that deep –  there is no conflict between the different audiences; the fact that there is material at the level of college textbooks does not harm the less specialized reader. The result is that, in subject areas like this, Wikipedia is a valuable resource both for college students and for someone who's just seen a History Channel program about the Roman army and now wants to know just a little bit (but not too much) more. Which is, again, a good thing, and something to be proud of. Oh, and the fact that we're not short of space (do I hear servers creaking?) also takes care of one other conflict between writing for a general and for a special audience. If you've ever had to haggle with an editor about how many footnotes and references to include in, say, a popular science book (if we include more pages, the book will become more expensive! hardly anyone will read the footnotes anyway!), you'll appreciate this properly. Wikipedia articles can, and in fact should, cite their sources –  another feature that makes them eminently useful even for more specialized readers.  Onwards and more-specialized-wards: if you're an average curious reader perusing, say, the Political history of the Roman military, you might find it a bit too detailed for your taste, but, the occasional Latin word and a possible lack of appreciation for subtleties notwithstanding, you will in general understand what you're reading there. Not so with an article like, say, automorphic form. For a certain subset of the Wikipedia audience, namely those who study college-level mathematics or physics, this is an eminently useful article. It is certainly not accessible to a general audience. Should it be deleted? So far it hasn't been, and a good thing, too. We have no space problem. The fact that this article is on Wikipedia doesn't take anything away from the ""curious average reader"" (who will, in all but a very few cases, not even notice its existence), and it does give something to mathematically inclined Wikipedia users. Live and let live. In fact, many of those who study mathematics and/or physics at college level or beyond (many researchers, come to that) regularly use Wikipedia when it comes to quickly looking up formulae or mathematical definitions. By including such articles, we can certainly no longer argue that all articles on Wikipedia must be in toto accessible to a general audience. But again, Wikipedia is many things to many people, and it would seem both narrow-minded and pointless to restrict its usefulness to one part of the readership if no-one profits from that restriction. Not to create the mistaken impression that this stance is of groundbreaking originality, I hasten to add that it is actually reflected in the guidelines, namely in Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Under the heading Technical content, it says that articles on very technical subjects belong in the encyclopedia; however, the technical part should at least be preceded by a more generally accessible introduction. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case for most mathematics articles yet, which is something to work on (although, admittedly, the chances of the curious average reader stumbling upon an article like Splitting field are not all that high). But let us note that here is another example of peaceful coexistence, of Wikipedia successfully being different things to different portions of its readership: Even an article that, to be useful to the specialist, needs to be written in a way that makes it inaccessible to the general readership (for instance by freely using the language of mathematics), can be a helpful resource to the curious average reader as long as the technical part is preceded by an accessible lead. While the examples here are from mathematics and the sciences, this is a mere artifact of the essayist's own specialization. Surely the same will apply to specialized articles in, say, Literary theory as well.  What of cases in which the resolution strategies mentioned so far –  specialized sub-articles, accessible lead plus technical main text –  do not work? To be sure, such cases are likely to be rare; an article like that would need to have the following properties:  The ""curious average man"" is interested enough in the subject to want to know more than what is contained in the lead The subject matter is complex enough (involving unfamiliar concepts such as those of advanced mathematics) that a four-paragraph lead simply does not allow sufficient space for adequate explanations For the article to be useful to those with a more specialized interest, it must contain a considerable amount of information that is unavoidably technical; taking away that information significantly reduces usefulnessFor example, take general relativity (and, in fact, a first version of this essay formed part of the Featured article candidate discussion for Introduction to general relativity). It is certainly of general interest (as the large number of popular science books on the subject vividly attests). It is certainly not possible to sum it up in an accessible way in a mere four paragraphs –  not if the reader is meant to get at least an overview of what the theory is about. And it certainly has a specialist readership, as well –  the same readership as the relevant entry in the Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, to give an example. What to do? Leave out the technical stuff altogether? That would certainly be a step towards accessibility, but would severely diminish the use of the article for more specialized readers. One major factor of what makes Wikipedia come alive are its internal links. Wikipedia is a semantic web, and for a specialist, an article such as general relativity will be a central hub, linking technical terms like differentiable manifold or tensor or differential equation to one of their most important applications. Leave those technical terms out, and you have torn up that web. Someone who's heard about tensors, and happens to be reading this article, is denied the crucial information that the one plays an important role in the other. If this were a strict trade-off, I would be all for making the article accessible to a general audience. Let's hold onto this for a moment. Include the technical terms in parentheses only?  Sometimes, that works. For instance, I would argue that the Structural history of the Roman military does not become markedly more inaccessible by including unavoidably technical terms like ""hastati"" or ""socii"". Sure, some readers might feel a bit overwhelmed, but all in all, it's a good compromise –  the terms are there for those with a more specialized interest, and they do not harm those more superficially interested. But this will work only when there is the possibility of finding concise alternative formulations. If I talk about ""a sword known as a gladius"", that's certainly accessible. Everyone has a mental image of what a sword is, and one which is close enough to the more specialized usage to be useful. But what about, say, differential equations? Talking about ""equations that involve not only functions, that is, descriptions of how one quantity varies depending on another quantity, but also rates of change of such functions, known as differential equations"" is a mouthful, and not accessible at all. Sure, I can explain in more detail, which already makes the text more tedious to read for specialists. But even that isn't ideal. There is an analogy from linguistics: A word-for-word translation of a text written in a foreign language is, in one sense, closer to the original, but it is not in general a good text. Similarly, a series of term-by-term explanations of mathematical terms usually makes for a much, much less accessible explanation of the underlying physics than an explanation that does not slavishly stick to the technical terms, but instead makes an effort to convey the essence of the underlying physics. If I choose the latter variety, of course, I will need to leave out most technical terms altogether, so I'm making the text much less valuable to the more specialized reader. Sometimes, there just isn't a good compromise. Alternate non-technical and technical explanations? Can you write the article by developing the subject once (touching all the necessary bases), but at each step, first give an accessible account, and then follow up with the technicalities? I fail to see how, in the cases under discussion here, that can ever make for an excellent article. A reader without previous knowledge will, in each section or even in every other paragraph, be confronted with technical content they don't understand. Even if you tell that reader that, by just reading, say, the first paragraph of each subsection, they should get a good overview, this kind of reading is frustrating; if you do not explicitly tell the reader how to read, most are going to decide even after the first paragraph that this is much too technical for them to understand. For the most specialized readers, this is also sub-optimal. In browsing the text, they will encounter each explanation twice, which will certainly interrupt reading flow (not as bad as only understanding half of what is written, but still). Such an article will be mediocre for both groups, but excellent for none. Non-technical first, technical later? This is much less frustrating for all involved: Add an introduction first, the technical stuff after that. General readers will read the introduction and be happy; the same step-by-step development of the subject will be repeated at a higher level afterwards for the more technically inclined, which will also be happy. Nothing against that –  it's the logical continuation of the way it is (or should be) done for other unavoidably technical articles: General description in the lead, gory details after that. However, once we're there, there will be the length issue. An accessible explanation is quite a feat, and, paraphrasing Rudy Clark, it's gonna take space. But that's OK, after all, we've had this problem with other subsections before; now that we have it with the lead, there's the analogous solution: Make the subsection into its own article. Such a spinout of the lead of article X is commonly called an ""Introduction to X""; for our example, general relativity, there exists a companion Introduction to general relativity. The guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, in which the creation of such introductions is encouraged wherever appropriate, also calls them ""trampoline articles"", since they might serve as an aid for readers who will read the introduction first and, thus fortified, move on to the main article. A list of current ""Introduction to"" articles can be found here. While there have been vociferous objections to the very existence of such articles (one particular variety of exclusionism), they are a natural application of the spinout principle. Most importantly, they are a key tool when it comes to ensuring that Wikipedia is many things to many people, resolving, as they do, the conflict between the different requirements that the ""average curious reader"" and the more specialized reader might have for an article on one and the same topic.  The multi-faceted nature of Wikipedia is part of what makes Wikipedia special. Whenever possible, live and let live –  do not make Wikipedia inaccessible for one of its many types of readers if you can avoid it, and do not assume that all readers of Wikipedia share your particular degree of interest or disinterest, specialization or general outlook concerning a given subject. Still, this principle should never be used as an excuse for writing bad articles or for not following Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. In particular:  Even if you are writing an article that is very likely too detailed to be of interest to the curious average reader, do not fall into specialist jargon. If you can, keep the article accessible. Even if you are writing a highly technical article mainly aimed at specialists, please add an accessible lead. The existence of an ""Introduction to"" page should never be used as an excuse not to make the main article more accessible. Conversely, think long and hard before starting an ""Introduction to"". Is it really necessary? Or could the main article be changed so as to remain useful for the specialist, yet become accessible to more general readers? Accessibility does not have to mean dumbing down. If you are a specialist writing an ""Introduction to"", do not talk down to your readers. Many of them will be quite as intelligent as you are. Thinking out good simplifications that are both accessible and yet do justice to your subject is hard work, but it's worth it.Finally, Wikipedia is certainly not all things to all people. Make Wikipedia the most versatile encyclopedia it can be, but do not try to make it what it is not (a dictionary, a text-book, a soapbox)."
509	518	1140	WP:SKY	Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers	509	"Welcome to WikiProject Skyscrapers.  Some Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of skyscrapers and the organization of information and articles on this topic.  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic.  If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below.  This WikiProject aims:   To improve Wikipedia's coverage of skyscrapers by creating, expanding, and maintaining articles relating to skyscrapers, highrises, towers, building lists and related articles. To provide guidelines and recommendations for articles related to skyscrapers. To serve as a point of discussion for issues related to skyscrapers in general in Wikipedia. August 8, 2021 - Singer Building gains featured article status. July 20, 2020 - List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list All articles relating to skyscrapers, high-rises, and towers are considered to be within the scope of this project. This includes all ""tallest building"" lists.Please feel free to join the project and expand its scope in any necessary directions. For articles relating to high-rises, skyscrapers, and towers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Articles serves as a guideline for creating new structure articles, with an example article to base new articles on. For guidelines on writing and improving articles, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for more information. For tallest building lists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists has a complete outline of list formatting and an example list to bases new city entries on. For building lists, which list all notable structures in a city, buildings should generally be listed in alphabetical order.  Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Members should also feel free to add {{User WP Skyscrapers}} or {{User WP Skyscrapers2}} to their user pages to identify themselves as members of this project. The appearance of the userbox is shown to the right.   There are also two additional lists for semi-active and inactive members who have few or no edits in the last 365 days respectively. If you have recently returned to Wikipedia after an extended absence and can't find your name below, it may have been moved to one of those; please feel free to move it back. You may also move your own name to from here to the inactive participants list at any time if you wish to cease participating in the project or retire from Wikipedia.   === Semi-Active Participants === This list includes members who have seldom edited over the last 365 days. Members in this group should not receive project notifications unless they explicitly opt-in in order to avoid talk page clutter. Members who have not edited in over 365 days should be moved to the inactive list. If your name has been moved here, please feel free to move it back to the active members list whenever you decide to return to full activity, or alternatively, to move it from here to the inactive participants if you wish to cease participating in the project or retire from Wikipedia.   === Inactive Participants === This list includes members who have not edited for at least 365 days, or have otherwise indicated permanent retirement from the project or from Wikipedia. No project notifications should be sent to them. If your name has been moved here, please feel free to move it back to the active members list upon your return. Thanks for all the time and effort you volunteered for the project.   === Featured content ===   ==== Featured articles ==== As of November 2019, five featured articles have a {{Skyscrapers}} project tag:  Chicago Board of Trade Building Construction of Rockefeller Center Construction of the World Trade Center Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) Monadnock Building   ==== Featured lists ==== As of November 2019, 40 featured lists have a {{Skyscrapers}} project tag:  List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque List of tallest buildings in Atlanta List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington List of tallest buildings in Boston List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn List of tallest buildings in Bucharest List of tallest buildings in Chicago List of tallest buildings in Cleveland List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio List of tallest buildings in Dayton List of tallest buildings in Denver List of tallest buildings in Detroit List of tallest buildings in Dubai List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong List of tallest buildings in Houston List of tallest buildings in Indianapolis List of tallest buildings in Jersey City List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas List of tallest buildings and structures in London List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester List of tallest buildings in Miami List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis List of tallest buildings in Mobile List of tallest buildings in New Orleans List of tallest buildings in New York City List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon List of tallest buildings in Rhode Island List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford List of tallest buildings in San Diego List of tallest buildings in San Francisco List of tallest buildings in Seattle List of tallest buildings in Shanghai List of tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo List of tallest buildings in Tampa List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C.   ==== Featured pictures ==== File:4_cilindros_y_museo_BMW,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_02.JPG File:30 St Mary Axe - The Gherkin from Leadenhall St - Nov 2006.jpg File:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg File:Calle_E_Monroe_St,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_04.jpg File:Chicago_Skyline_Hi-Res.jpg File:Chicago_sunrise_1.jpg File:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg File:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg File:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg File:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg File:Skyline Frankfurt am Main.jpg File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg File:View of Woolworth Building fixed.jpg   ==== Featured pictures on Commons ==== File:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Jan 2006.jpg File:Moon Monster2.jpg File:Portland Night panorama edit.jpg File:San Diego Reflecting Pond.jpg File:September 14 2001.jpg   === Former featured content ===  List of tallest buildings in Austin  List of tallest buildings in Baltimore  List of tallest buildings in Charlotte  List of tallest buildings in Dallas  List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region  List of tallest buildings in Singapore  List of tallest buildings in Toronto  List of tallest buildings in Tulsa  List of tallest buildings in Vancouver   === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Skyscrapers-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,000 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page. If you would like to request the creation of a particular article, please post on the project talk page.  Haitian Center Tower 2 - 13 November 2020 Evergrande Center - 11 November 2020 Carnegie Building (Atlanta) - 14 January 2020 110 East 42nd Street - 30 October 2019 Tulsa Club Building - 11 October 2019 One Hundred Above the Park - 5 October 2019 Blue Flame Building - 13 September 2019 The Lumen (Cleveland) - 2 September 2019 7Seventy7 - 13 July 2019 Essex on the Park - 11 July 2019 The Estate Makati - 4 July 2019 Re:Invent - 29 June 2019 Skyline Tower (Queens) - 24 June 2019 Block_216 - 20 June 2019 Tower Fifth - 17 June 2019‎ Park Avenue Tower - 4 June 2019 450 Park Avenue - 3 June 2019 3 Manhattan West - 28 May 2019 Bestseller Tower - 1 April 2019 Aziz Court Imperial - 25 March 2019 Zero-2-One - 22 March 2019‎ River District (Chicago) - 19 February 2019 Fifth & West Residences - 2 February 2019 Burj Jumeirah - 1 February 2019DYKs500 Fifth Avenue - 20 November 2019 Beekman Tower - 12 November 2019 Essex on the Park - 29 September 2019 Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Building - 4 April 2019   === Collaboration and review === Collaboration of the weekPeer reviewNote: As this is a daughter project of WikiProject Architecture and WikiProject Engineering, please feel free to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review or Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Peer review as alternatives.     Assessment   === Assessments === In order to easily identify articles in need of attention, article assessments have been implemented.  These are generated using the optional class and importance parameters in the {{Skyscrapers}} project banner on an article's talk page: {{WikiProject Skyscrapers| class= | importance= }} The statistics at right are updated daily (or every other day) by an automated bot.  See the subpage /Assessment for details.  November 8, 2007: Article tagging and assessments have been implemented. November 10, 2007: Over 750 pages have been tagged and more than 500 articles have been assessed. December 18, 2007: Over 1500 pages tagged and assessed. August 1, 2008: Over 1850 pages tagged and assessed. September 4, 2008: Over 2000 pages tagged and assessed. November 30, 2015: Over 3600 pages tagged and assessed. November 12, 2019: Over 4200 pages tagged and assessed.  For articles{{Infobox building}} {{TBSW}} {{China tallest buildings lists}} {{Tallest buildings in Japan}} {{UK tallest buildings lists}} {{US tallest buildings lists}}For talk pages{{Skyscrapers}} {{Skyscrapers|class=category|importance=na}} {{Skyscrapers|class=template|importance=na}} {{Skyscrapers|class=project|importance=na}} {{Skyscrapers|class=image|importance=na}}For user pages and user talk pages{{WikiProject Skyscrapers/Invitation}} {{WikiProject Skyscrapers/Welcome}} {{User WP Skyscrapers}}   ==== WikiProject Skyscrapers tag ==== The {{Skyscrapers}} template can be used for tagging different types of pages:  The root categories for this WikiProject are Category:Skyscrapers and Category:Towers.  Both root categories and their associated subcategories should be tagged with {{WikiProject Skyscrapers}}. Please note that both main categories themselves are subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures, which contains some categories that are out of scope of this project. Consider discussing with other project members if you are unsure if a particular category belongs to this project before adding {{WikiProject Skyscrapers}} on the category talk page. The major categories, Category:Skyscrapers and Category:Towers, should be reserved for articles about types of skyscrapers and towers, respectively, while specific individual skyscrapers, towers and high-rises should be listed in the appropriate subcategories.  If an article about a skyscraper is added to the project, please ensure that it has the correct country-specific, area-specific, and city-specific skyscraper category as neccesary, e.g. Category:Skyscrapers in the United States, Category:Skyscrapers in Osaka Prefecture, Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. For towers, please ensure that it has the correct country-specific, region-specific, or type-specific tower category, e.g. Category:Clock towers in Turkey , Category:Pylons,  Category:Fictional towers.  Also consider adding a link to the article in the appropriate list article, such as List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong, List of towers, etc. Next, please ensure that it has the correct skyscraper and/or tower type categories (one or more, in some cases). Here are some major categories for skyscrapers and towers:  SkyscrapersCategory:Art Deco skyscrapers Category:Skyscrapers by city Category:Skyscrapers by country Category:Former world's tallest buildings Category:Residential skyscrapers Category:Skyscraper hotelsTowersCategory:Bell towers Category:Campaniles Category:Chimneys Category:Clock towers Category:Towers by country Category:Fictional towers Category:Guyed masts Category:Inclined towers Category:Pylons Category:Shot towers Category:Water towers  Wikimedia Commons has many images of skyscrapers, towers and city skylines.  Many of these photos would make useful additions to many of our articles here which may be lacking adequate illustrations. Beware that certain countries do not have freedom of panorama. In accordance with Wikipedia:Copyrights, files that are subject to copyright should not be used in any article. For further details, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Situation in different countries. Please see the Commons categories at right, or try searching on Commons since many images available there are not properly categorized yet.  Any patterns of of obvious vandalism should be reported to AIV, once the perpetrator has been appropriately warned.Copyright violations should be reported to CP for text or FFD for files. Particularly wide-ranging problems may be reported to CCI.Violations of the three revert rule, or obvious but extended edit warring should be reported to AN/EW.The spamming of unsourced changes may also be reported to AIV if the offending user has ignored warnings to stop following a discussion.Other issues that fall below these levels of concern, i.e. do not require immediate action, can be listed below or addressed on the talk page here, or on the architecture, or engineering talk pages for wider input. This may include reports of persistent but low levels of vandalism, pages that need some additional watching, talk page discussions that need wider input, current XFDs or RFCs that concern the project, etc.Current issues listed here:  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana. Discussion closed as delete 25 November 2019.Please consider adding persistently vandalized articles to your watchlist, to help in reverting, and to counter any vandalism that resumes once semi-protection expires. Even during the period of semi-protection, some articles continue to be vandalized by recently registered accounts. Registered users who chronically vandalize articles can be reported to AIV even if they have not received many recent warnings if the user is obviously NOTHERE, or running a VOA. Unregistered users (or IPs) may also be reported with few or no recent warnings if they resume disruption immediately upon expiry of a previous block.  If you find any other articles within the scope of this project which are being heavily vandalized by multiple users whether registered, unregistered, or some combination of both, so that requesting individual blocks is unlikely to prove effective (as a rough standard, over 10 vandals per day, or continual vandalism for several days such that the last 50+ edits are all vandalism and reverts, or 10+ vandalism / revert edits in 30 minutes), please report them at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and add them to the list above. More articles or pages in need of attention could be found here at Category:Unreferenced skyscraper articles and Category:Skyscraper pages needing attention.   === CTBUH === CTBUH Tall Building Database CTBUH Global Tall Building News (Please cite the original source as this website is a hub for global tall building news) CTBUH Research Paper Library (Require application; a good start to find in-depth sources about anything that related to the skyscraper)   === Other databases === Emporis.com SkyscraperPage.com City Diagrams Structurae.de Phorio.com   === Journals, magazines, newspapers, and others === ArchDaily Architects' Journal (For United Kingdom) Architectural Digest Construction News (For United Kingdom) Construction Week Online (For Middle East) Construction Kenya Curbed (For United States) Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians New York YIMBY UrbanToronto   === Related projects ===   ==== Parent projects ==== WikiProject Architecture WikiProject Engineering   ==== Other projects ==== WikiProject Civil engineering WikiProject Urban studies and planning"
510	519	1141	WP:MINE	Help:How to mine a source	510	"It is very common for Wikipedia editors to add a citation, such as to a newspaper or magazine article, a book chapter, or other hopefully reliable publication, to source the verifiability of a single fact in an article.  Most often the editor has found this source via a search engine, or perhaps even a library visit, seeking a source for a detail in an article, some pesky tidbit without a citation.  This common approach tends to miss many opportunities to improve both the content and the sourcing of articles; it's akin to stopping at a grocery store for bread and nothing else, rather than ""working"" the store for an hour with a long shopping list and an eye for bargains. This tutorial offers a very short but real-world example of how to ""mine"" a source– to really work it like a pocket of ore for every last bit of verifiability gold.  In addition to noticing facts in your source that are missing from the article, and noticing that your source can also provide a citation for more facts already in the article than the one(s) you were most concerned about, you can also often double-up citations on a fact that already has one source cited.  While the average fact in an article does not need seven citations, having two rarely hurts, can provide a cushion if something is found faulty with the other source and it is deemed unreliable or its link goes dead, and can provide backup sourcing if a third, questionable, source challenges the first.  The article Manx cat, on the domestic cat breed, like most cat (and dog, and horse, and orchid, etc.) variety articles needed a lot of work as of late 2011.  In particular, even though it linked to many current breed standards, it was missing information on the early history of the variety.  Google Books actually turns out to be very useful for old ""natural or traditional breeds"" like the Manx, because it tends to have the full text of sources that are no longer covered by copyright.  One such source was Charles Henry Lane's Rabbits, Cats and Cavies: Descriptive Sketches of All Recognized Exhibition Varieties (1903) with a detailed if short chapter on the Manx.  This piece was ""mined"" first, and the Wikipedia article vastly improved with it, but this was too rich and complex an example to make a good case study.  A more appropriate example for this page's purpose was found a bit later.  It is a much shorter chapter, from The Cat: Its Points and Management in Health and Disease by Frank Townend Barton (1908).  Since it is out of copyright, and quite short, we can just quote the full text of his ""The Manx Cat"" here:The Manx cat—the origin of which is involved in obscurity—chiefly exists in the Isle of Man, and has been found also in the Crimea and Cornwall. Few specimens are now found.The suppression of the tail constitutes one of the characteristic features of the breed. Manx cats by no means breed true to type, any more than the bob-tailed sheep-dog or schipperke does, and if the aborted caudal appendage is removed, it makes the cat quite as good as though it had been born with a total absence of tail. It is the absence of tail that gives the peculiar appearance to the Manx Cat, being akin to that of the rabbit in the hinder part, owing to the length of the limbs.With reference to colour of coat, the Manx may be of any colour, but probably black is most frequently met with.There is nothing whatever to recommend the breed, whilst the loss of the tail in no way enhances its beauty.If a short tail is present, it should be removed whilst the kitten is a few days old, and there is no doubt that many spurious Manx cats exist, as the result of this simple operation, practised for deception. Yep, that's the entire chapter.  At first glance, it hardly seems worth bothering with. Attention was first drawn to this chapter because of its mention of similar cats in Cornwall and Crimea, details other sources so far had not discussed.  But there is actually a quite large number of facts (i.e., in Wikipedia terms, nontrivial statements of fact from an independent, non-fringe, apparently reliable, professionally published work) to be dug like gems from this source.  It is tempting to simply skim this source and edit the article for a point or two and move on, but it's quite easy to miss something (indeed, the fact that Manx cats were thought of by Barton as scarce and possibly even declining was missed until preparation of this essay).  It is best to make a list of facts (e.g. in a sandbox page or a text editor), in wiki markup and in sentences, or at least easily reusable sentence-fragment form, and already carefully rewriting to avoid plagiarism.  Start with the first sentence and work your way down.  It might look something like this, including square-bracketed notes based on sources already cited in the article:  The Manx's ultimate origin is unknown. [It was as of 1908, and still is now according to other sources, but genetic study could change that at any time.] Most specimens were then found on the Isle of Man. [This was long before the world-wide explosion of cat breeding.] Similar cats were also found in Cornwall and Crimea. [That they are exactly the same as Manx cats as Barton seems to suggest is not credible from a modern, post-genetics perspective; i.e. on that point of heredity, Barton cannot be a reliable source.] [We know from the Japanese Bobtail and Kuril Islands Bobtail that stunted-tail cats are a common type of mutation in insular, isolated populations but not necessarily the same mutation.] [But we also know from other sources that Manx cats were popular as ship's cats, so they could have simply spread to Crimea by ship.  Needs more sources.  We can't draw any conclusions yet; that would be original research.  Other sources also mention them in Denmark, etc. This is all interesting enough to mention, without advancing a theory.] Cornwall is not very far from the Isle of Man. [Again, we can't put words in the source's mouth, but simply noting this is enough to let the reader think about it; one of them might even find some evidence we're lacking that Manx cats originally came from Cornwall, or Cornish tailless cats originally came from the IoM.] As of 1908, the breed was uncommon. Barton implies clearly that they are declining. [It's tempting to say ""even on the IoM"", but honestly the original passage is a bit vague, and an inference that specific would be another form of OR.] One of the defining characteristics of the breed is ""suppression"" of the tail. [That's a good way to encapsulate ""taillessness to near-taillessness to short-tailedness""! Use that term.] It is not the only defining characteristic of the breed. [Barton does not elaborate much, but Lane did; we now have two sources making it clear very early in the days of the ""cat fancy"" that Manx are distinctive in more than one way, and where Barton does specify, he does so in a consistent manner with Lane. I.e. this is a really good thing to double-up citations on.] Manx do not breed true; i.e. not every pure-bred individual exhibits all defining traits of the breed, like taillessness. This is also true of various, though not all, other pure-bred varieties of domestic animal. [Some outside reading informs us that this is true of two canonically tail-suppressed dog breeds, the Bobtailed Sheepdog and the Schipperke, both of which are frequently born partially or fully tailed and are frequently tail-docked. This is an interesting point, and even the fact that it's not all about cats is likely interesting to the reader; broadens the perspective.] Barton actually twice recommended docking of partially-tailed Manx, though he later also specifically states that this is sometimes done for fraudulent purposes. [And he even thinks the breed is ugly; so he at least thinks of the breed as intrinsically a breed, albeit one he disfavors, rather than as defective cats that don't constitute a breed; this puts him in agreement with other late-19th-century sources that already consider this a legitimate breed.] Tail suppression is the most visually obvious of the breed's defining characteristics. Manx also have long back legs. [Other sources say this, but it's nice to have another period source indicate it was an early, natural trait, not the result of later, e.g. American, breeding.] With short or no tail and long legs they thus have a rabbit-like rear half. [Lane and others said this too, but it's nice to have another early source indicating this was always the case, and always the perception.] Manx are of any coat color. [In the context, this can only mean any coat color normal for a European cat; the cat fancy at that time did not extend further, and it obviously cannot include point coloration and other Asian cat traits; we know from Lane and, well, all other early cat fancy literature that in this era, Siamese and other ""exotic"" breeds were very rare curiosities in the West, and their genes were not being spread around yet.] Black was the most common color of the original, native Manx breed being written about at the turn of the last century, before controlled breeding of cats became a big deal.  [Lane corroborates. We also have tentative info from another source, not yet in the article, that this may actually no longer be true even on the IoM, but once was.] Barton is actually quite hostile to the breed, and his derogatory remarks are worth quoting directly in full. [They're a sharp counterpoint to Lane's enthusiasm (he owned one of the earliest championship Manx show cats), and are the earliest on-record cat expert hostility toward the breed. It's good to have this viewpoint balance for countering possible WP:Undue weight resulting from Lane's favoritism. This is a theme that actually carries through to the current day, and will soon be its own ""Controversy"" section in the article. This short little Barton piece is even more important than it seemed!] Docking of non-rumpy specimens was performed not long after birth. [This is no longer common practice today, and illegal in many places, including most of Europe.] Docking was sometimes performed for fraudulent purposes, to pass off regular cats as Manx by cutting their tails off. [We knew this already from cat Web forums, but actually needed a reliable source for it to add it to the article.]A quick scan shows that what we can glean from and source to this article – what we can determinedly mine from it – is, in combination with other facts that have to be connected (without novel synthesis) to and weighed against the details in this source, actually more material than the entire full text of the source! And that's before we've written it out in reader-friendly, explanatory prose. After all of this is worked into the article, it's good to re-read the source; often a salient point will have been missed the first time around.  As this simple test case demonstrates, even sources that appear to be near-trivial in their brevity can often, if they are reliable, be used to source far more material than they seem capable of at first glance, especially if they relate (negatively or positively) to material in other sources (so long as WP:SYNTH is followed carefully).  This remains true long after they are cited, since a newly ""discovered"" source may re-open a dynamic between the earlier, already-mined sources and the article as it evolves.  Care must be taken not to apply this approach to works that are not actually reliable sources for the material in question. A source is mainly about one thing or two, but it may have other points that can be used to expand an article. This must, however, be done within allowable limits of the Wikipedia core content policies. One must be aware in particular of the distinctions between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, because a case of misuse of material can arise for multiple reasons:  The work is a magazine article or other piece of lower-end journalism, mentioning something in passing or as a side comment, without any indication what the ultimate source is.  Many ""factoid"" sidebars and tables in regular news articles are also in the ""low-end journalism"" category, as they frequently misinterpret and misrepresent the data on which they are based.  Look for the real sources of the data. The work is a specialist piece by an expert on a particular topic, but the detail you wish to use is from a completely different field, and the author, with no credentials in that field, doesn't provide a source.  This arises frequently in non-fiction books.  Look for corroborating material from actual experts in that other discipline. The claim you want to cite is a novel conclusion reached by the author of the piece; this makes it a primary source for that claim.  In peer-reviewed journals, such material mostly takes the form of the newly-collected data and results/conclusions material in the article or paper (and the summary of this material in the abstract); there may be many pages of secondary-source material leading up to and supporting it.  Primary research is often provisionally cited in Wikipedia, with attribution (e.g. to the author, the research team, or to the paper); a secondary source should also be provided when available, as primary claims are always suspect – current research is constantly being overturned by newer research. For science material, the usual secondary source is a literature review.  We like to have both, because secondary sources indicate acceptance by other experts and are more understandable by more readers, while primary ones provide details and are especially useful to university students and experts using Wikipedia. The item you want to use is a subjective opinion.  You may still be able to use it, as a primary source, if you attribute the claim directly, either to the author(s) of the piece you are citing (if notable, e.g., ""According to Jane Q. McPublic ...""), or to its publisher (e.g., ""According to a 2017 New York Times article ...""). If neither are notable, are you sure the source is actually reliable at all?  Primary-source opinion pieces take many forms, including editorials and op-eds, advice columns, book and film reviews, press releases, position statements, speeches, autobiographical content, interviews, legal testimony, marketing or activism materials, and overly personalized instances of investigative journalism. Such content often appears in publications that otherwise provide the kinds of secondary-source material on which Wikipedia mostly relies, such as newspapers. The work is outdated and does not reflect current expert consensus about the matter at hand.  In such a case, the newer sourcing should be used. Include the contrary viewpoint, attributed to its author, only if it seems pertinent to continue including it (e.g. to highlight a controversy, or to cover changing views of the topic over time).  A general rule of thumb in research is that very old sources, or sources close in time to an event (i.e. ""old"" after a few months have passed and more analysis has been done by other writers) should be treated as if they are primary sources like eye-witness accounts and opinion pieces. The work is a tertiary source, like a topical encyclopedia, coffee-table book, or other conglomeration and summarization of material from numerous other sources.  Such works are often not written by experts, contain material that is already obsolete by the time the work is published, gloss over important distinctions and limitations in previously published research conclusions, and may reflect a strong editorial bias.  Tertiary sources are better than no sources, but they do not stand up to challenge from secondary ones. You are ""cherry-picking"" by only citing sources (or parts of sources) that agree with the claim you want to include. This is a fraudulent approach, a fallacious form of original research in which the editor is deciding what is and isn't true and warping Wikipedia content and citations to fit this personal pre-conceived notion.  Policy Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:No original researchGuildelines Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesEssays Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist Wikipedia:Cherrypicking"
511	520	1145	WP:NMAA	Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Women Artists Edit-a-thon	511	"Safe Space Policy Select the thumbnail for access to the PDF via Wikimedia Commons. File remain live and accessible after the event.  Articles for creation  Experienced editors: Select a red link to start an aticle. New editors: Ensure that you are logged in (top right). Go to your sandbox (top right). Start the article there and save as you go. When it's ready for mainspace Wikipedia, select and copy the text while in editing mode, return here, select the red link for your article, then paste the sandbox content and hit publish.Please use this Google sheet to reserve the article you plan to edit. Remove your name when you are done.Beya Gille Gacha[1] [2][3] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Adebunmi Gbadebo[4][5] [6] Asibi Ido[7] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Tsedaye Makonnen[8][9][10][11][12] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Nompumelelo Ngoma[13] [14] [15] [16] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Thania Petersen[17][18][19] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Zoarinovo Razakaratrimo[20] [21] [22] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Batoul S’Himi[23][24][25] Judy Woodborne[26][27][28] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection. Clara Ugbodaga-Ngu[29][30] [31] - To do: Create. Include that her work is the NMAA collection.Stubs (shortest articles)  Georgia Papageorge[32] [33] - To do: Expand lead paragraph w/ a better case for notability. Mention that work is held by the British Museum and the Smithsonian Museum of African Art. Create more sections below lead, i.e. Life, Works, Exhibitions, etc. Add that work is held by NMAA. Ebube Nwagbo[34] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Afi Nayo[35] - To do: Expand and add sections. Add that work is held by NMAA. Luísa Queirós - To do: Expand and add sections. Make a better case for notability. Note: There is currently only one source with the article and other sources are hard to find. If sources can not be found, she may not meet notability standards. Elizabeth Habte Wold[36] - To do: Expand. Add sections. Myriam Mihindou[37][38] - To do: Expand. Add sections and new of award. Seni Awa Camara[39] - To do: Expand with provided source. Add that work is in Jean Pigozzi Collection. Nina Barnett - Edit to have a more appropriate lead paragraph that establishes notability. Claire Beynon - Try to make a case for notability if possible. Very few independent sources exist. Naomi Jacobson[40] - To do: Expand using sources provided. Jill Trappler Daniella Okeke[41] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA.Start class (shirt articles)  Belinda Effah[42] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Etiyé Dimma Poulsen[43] - To do: Expand lead based on notable accomplishments in body of article. Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Latifa Echakhch Patricia Hayes (historian) Princess Elizabeth Olowu Ada Udechukwu[44] [45] - To do: Expand lead based on notable accomplishments in body of article. Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Gille de Vlieg Beverly Naya[46] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Chelsea Eze[47] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Kehinde Bankole Lilian Esoro[48] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Mary Lazarus[49] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Kim Berman - To do: Expand lead based on notable accomplishments in body of article.  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Deborah Bell[50] - To do: Expand lead with mention of notable collection or exhibitions. Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Candice Breitz[51] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Christine Dixie[52] - To do: Add sections. Improve structure. - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Frances Goodman[53][54]To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Maïmouna Guerresi[[55]] - To do: Rewrite lead to include notable points and exclude some basic biographical details. Add sections and re-structure. Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Wura-Natasha Ogunji - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Patience Torlowei[56] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Adejoke Tugbiyele[57][58] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Lina Iris Viktor - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Ingrid Mwangi[59] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Zoulikha Bouabdellah Houria Niati Pamela Sunstrum - To do: Add hyperlinks to lead. Complete infobox. Rhode Makoumbou Angèle Etoundi Essamba Nandipha Mntambo - To do: Find references and add citations for awards section. Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Afi Ekong Barbara Minishi Beth Diane Armstrong Bettie Cilliers-Barnard Bonnie Ntshalintshali Deborah Poynton - To do: Review and determine if warning is still necessary. Remove if not. Diana Page - To do: Replace sources with new ones. Relies too heavily on her own website. Dineo Seshee Bopape Doreen Southwood - To do: Re-structure to more typical WP format. Add references for exhibitions. Doris Bloom Hannelie Coetzee Hazel Soan - To do: Establish lead paragraph. Create sections. Iretiola Doyle[60] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Julia Rosa Clark - To do: Asses to see if warning template is still needed. Remove if not. Leila Anderson - To do: Rewrite so it is less like a resume. Liza Grobler Marlise Keith - To do: Add inline citations. Maud Sumner Minnette Vári Monalisa Chinda[61] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Remove warning template in early life. Pamela Stretton Philippa Hobbs Polly Alakija Robyn Orlin Rosemary Feit Covey Sanell Aggenbach Sarah Calburn Sheila Cussons - To do: Find and add references. Article has none. Svea Josephy - To do: Read article to see if warning still apply Fix those that do. Tracy Edser Valerie DesmoreC class articles  Miriam Syowia Kyambi [62] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Otobong Nkanga [63] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Owanto [64] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Linda Ejiofor [65] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Osas Ighodaro [66] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Taiwo Ajai-Lycett [67] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Tamara Eteimo [68] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Eku Edewor [69] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Ayana V. Jackson  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Berni Searle  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Berry Bickle  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Bertina Lopes[70] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Billie Zangewa[71]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Diane Victor[72] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Helen Sebidi  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Helga Kohl[73] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Jane Alexander  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Judith Mason  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Kamala Ibrahim Ishaq  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Lalla Essaydi  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Lynette Yiadom-Boakye  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Marcia Kure  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Marlene Dumas  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Mary Sibande  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Modupeola Fadugba  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Nike Davies-Okundaye[74]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Nontsikelelo Veleko  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Peju Alatise  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Ruth Seopedi Motau  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Senzeni Marasela[75]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Sokari Douglas Camp[76] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Sue Williamson[77]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Wangechi Mutu[78]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa.* Zina Saro-Wiwa  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Ruby Onyinyechi Amanze  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Arabella Elizabeth Roupell Araminta de Clermont Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy Esther Mahlangu Felicia Kentridge Gabriela Trzebinski Gladys Mgudlandlu Inji Aflatoun Irma Stern Jacki McInnes Jeannette Unite Jodi Bieber Kathryn Smith (artist) Kiki Omeili Ndidi Dike Nnenna Okore Noria Mabasa Peju Layiwola Ruth Sacks Sabah Naim Susan Hefuna Tamlin Blake Tracey Rose Yto BarradaB class articles  Amal Kenawy  - To do: Add that work was exhibited at NMAA if it's not already included. Ghada Amer[79] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Lebohang Kganye  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Penny Siopis[80]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Wanuri Kahiu Zanele Muholi[81] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa.GA class articles   Genevieve Nnaji [82] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Joke Silva [83] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Stephanie Okereke Linus [84] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Tope Oshin [85] - To do: Add that she was included in Iké Udé:Nollywood Portraits series at NMAA. Aïda Muluneh[86] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Julie Mehretu  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Ladi Kwali[87] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Lisa Brice  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA if it's not already included. Magdalene Odundo[88] - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Njideka Akunyili Crosby  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that her work was also exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Susanne Wenger - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Toyin Ojih Odutola[89]  - To do: Add that work is held by NMAA, if it's not already included, and that she exhibited as part of the museum's I Am...Contemporary Women Artists of Africa. Fatimah Tuggar Grada Kilomba Helen Joseph Maggie Laubser Maud Sulter  Wikimedia movement affiliates modelChapters Wikimedia chapters are independent organizations founded to support and promote the Wikimedia projects in a specified geographical region (in most cases, a country). Like the Wikimedia Foundation, they aim to ""empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"". There are currently 39 chapters, with at least one on every inhabited continent., i.e. Wikimedia DCWikimedia thematic organizations Thematic organizations are incorporated independent non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work focused on a specific theme, topic, subject or issue within or across countries and regions. i.e., Wikimedia Medicine.User groups Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates that are an alternative to chapters and thematic organizations - which require more formal requirements. User groups are highly valued as equal players in the Wikimedia movement, i.e., Art+Feminism Search all WikiProjectsWikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red"
512	521	1146	WP:SCV	Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations	512	This page lists possible copyright violations as detected by CorenSearchBot.  If CorenSearchBot is down, please e-mail Coren or leave him a message. To comply with copyright policy and Terms of Use, material imported to Wikipedia that infringes copyright should, as a general rule, be removed. While brief, clearly marked excerpts of copyrighted text are permitted under non-free content policy and guideline, text can otherwise only be imported if it is verifiably public domain or licensed compatibly with the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. Aside from brief, clearly marked excerpts, information taken from non-free sources cannot be presented in identical language and must be sufficiently rewritten to avoid constituting an unauthorized derivative work.  Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-01 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-02 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-03 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-04 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-05 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-06 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-07 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-08 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-09 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-10 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-11 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-12 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-13 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-14 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-15 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-16 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-17 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-18 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-19 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-20 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-21 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-22 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-23 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-24 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-25 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-26 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-27 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-08-28 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-29 Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-09-30
513	522	1148	WP:NOTEVIL	Wikipedia:Don't be evil	513	"The Wikipedia would work a lot better if people weren't evil.  If people don't vandalise, RC patrollers could work more on expanding the encyclopedia. If people don't get into lame edit wars and don't breach the 3-revert rule, fewer people would be blocked and they would be able to further edit the encyclopedia. If people are civil, everyone will be happier and fewer people would leave the Wikipedia, hence expanding it further.  Editors should be mindful that material in Wikipedia can affect people's lives; adding harmful content is not necessary for improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Remember still to be bold, and when necessary ignore all rules. Put very simply: Being good, not evil, helps Wikipedia expand.  Also, as with Google's slogan don't be evil, Wikipedia should be mindful of the effect we can have on people and companies. We should not be evil either; this is the philosophy that underlies WP:BLP and it is a good principle. That does not mean acceding to people's demands for vanity articles or mass links to their site, but it does mean doing what we can to ensure that Wikipedia's ""Widgetcorp are teh spammerz!"" discussion does not dominate their search engine presence. Wikipedia is not here to be part of their marketing machine, but neither are we here to punish them for trying to abuse us as such. Use redirects, courtesy blanking and other common tools, with discretion but always with a mind to allowing them a graceful exit. Banned users who have used their real names may also be more likely to ""scratch the itch"" if their vanity searches keep drawing them back to Wikipedia. Talk to any WP:OTRS volunteer about the impact of deletion and internal discussions on real people and organisations. We WP:DENY recognition but we should also not immortalise people's mistakes. That would be evil. Let's not be evil.  Don't be evil Wikipedia:Five pillars Meta:Don't be a dick Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is User:Durova/The dark side"
514	523	1151	WP:RELEVANT	Wikipedia:Relevance	514	"Relevance is a measurement of the degree to which material (fact, detail or opinion) relates to the topic of an article. Degree of relevance should be taken into consideration for most decisions on whether or not to include material. This is a goal statement intended to influence the application and evolution of policies, guidelines and editorial processes, not to restate current policies and guidelines. Material that is irrelevant or out of scope to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material undue weight. Directness of relevance is an important measure and consideration. A careful review of the actual statement(s) in the content is required to determine this. Keep in mind that in many cases (depending on the degree of expertise and objectivity of the source with respect to the statement) the ""fact"" is information about what the source's ""take"" or opinion is on the subject rather than information about the subject. For example, ""Larry said that John is lazy"" is not info about John, it is info about Larry's opinion and statement, even if Larry could sometimes be considered to be a source. Following is an approach to determine and name degrees of relevance and how to utilize the results:   Relevance level ""High"" – The highest relevance is objective information directly about the topic of the article. ""John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization"" in the ""John Smith"" article is an example of this. Relevance level ""Medium"" – Information that is ""once removed"" is less directly relevant, should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as wp:npov, weight and strength and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Including information about the XYZ organization in the John Smith article is a simple example of this.  Another example is any substantially disputed characterization or opinion about the topic because it is info about somebody's opinion about John Smith rather than direct objective information about him. This includes situations where the opinion is expressed by a WP:Reliable Source. Relevance level ""Lower"" – Information that is ""twice removed"" should usually not be included unless the other considerations described above are unusually strong.   For example, in the above ""John Smith"" article, ""Murderer Larry Jones was also a member of the XYZ organization."" Relevance level ""Very low"" – Information that is ""three times removed"" should not be included. For example, in the above ""John Smith"" article, ""Murderer Larry Jones, also a member of the XYZ organization which John Smith belonged to, murdered 8 people."" Related guidelinesWikipedia:Article size Wikipedia:Image relevanceRelated policiesWikipedia:Not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusionClosely related essaysWikipedia:Out of scope Wikipedia:Writing better articles – a style guideline that ""sets out advice on... how to make an article clear, precise and relevant to the reader."" (italics added) Wikipedia:Relevance emerges Wikipedia:Relevance of content Wikipedia:What claims of relevance are false Wikipedia:Indirect relevance is sometimes OKRelated essays  Wikipedia:Handling trivia Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context Wikipedia:Coatrack Wikipedia:Namedropping Wikipedia:Editorial discretion"
515	524	1153	WP:UKR	Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian	515	"This page describes how Ukrainian is romanized in Wikipedia.  It is subordinate to the naming conventions and the manual of style, and to common sense. Ukrainian-language text is written in the Ukrainian alphabet, a variant of Cyrillic. To be accessible to the readers of English-language Wikipedia, it is usually romanized, or transliterated into the Roman alphabet.  Different romanization systems are used for different subject areas in Wikipedia and elsewhere. More details and other systems are described in romanization of Ukrainian.  Each system has a handy transliteration table, linked below.  General romanization The Ukrainian National system of 2010 is used for general romanization of Ukrainian terms and names in Wikipedia. It is official for all proper names in Ukraine, and is used by the United Nations. It is intended for readers of English, and is easy to read and type. It also corresponds to the current UNGEGN 2013 and BGN/PCGN 2019 systems. [Ukrainian National transliteration table] Linguistics Scientific transliteration is used in Wikipedia articles about language, in the Wiktionary project, and in other linguistics publications. This is an “international” romanization system, based on central and eastern European orthographies. [Scientific transliteration table]   === Other systems === The ALA-LC system is used in English-language library cataloguing and publishing. It is very similar to the Ukrainian National system, but reduces ambiguity by using special characters and diacritics: є = i͡e, ж = z͡h, ї = ï, й = ĭ, ц = t͡s, ю = i͡u, ь = ′, я = i͡a. Earlier, the former BGN/PCGN romanization 1965 system was Wikipedia's default system for Ukrainian, but not for place names, so you may see it used in many articles. BGN/PCGN transliteration table.   === Indicating stress === When it is useful, syllabic stress can be indicated in romanized words by an acute accent over a vowel, e.g., Zaporízhzhia, jajéšnja, hýbel’.   === Pronunciation === Pronunciation is usually represented using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), Ukrainian phonology.   === Entering romanization === Enter Ukrainian terms and their romanizations using templates {{lang-uk}}, {{lang}}, and {{transl}} to properly format and tag them. For example:   Which yields:  Ukrainian: Київська Русь, romanized: Kyivska Rus, lit. 'Kyivan Rus', or just Русь, Rus.Romanizations in the national system can be tagged with the parameter transl-std= ungegn. Also valid and exactly equivalent is transl-std= bgn/pcgn, although it could be confused with the earlier 1965 BGN/PCGN standard. In citations, transl-std= ala-lc might be useful.  Keep the readers in mind: they read English, but might not be familiar with Ukrainian.  Ukrainian words should be used for a reason, not as a substitute for English.   An object that has a conventional name in English should be named that way, instead of transliterating, for example: Chorne more = Black Sea, Ukraina = Ukraine.  Living and very well-known people's names normally use their own preferred or most common spelling, e.g., Yulia Tymoshenko (not Yuliia), Jaroslav Rudnyckyj (not Yaroslav Rudnytskyi), Sergei Korolev (not Serhii Korolov). A secondary spelling like Kiev may be appropriate in some contexts, but should be introduced initially in parentheses, as in ""Kiev (Kyiv)"".    === Context and intent === Is a term only used to refer to someone or something, or is there a reason to represent the original Ukrainian orthography?  When using names or words in the running text of the article body, prefer English constructions, commonly used spellings, and Ukrainian National romanization: Khmelnytskyi Oblast, holubets (cabbage roll), hryvnia, Ruska Triitsia (Ruthenian Triad), Ivan Kotliarevsky, Eneida. When more precision is required, for example to convey Ukrainian spelling (as the title in an article's leading line), to clearly identify a work in a reference list, or when writing about Ukrainian language or orthography, prefer a detailed romanization with original capitalization, adhering to the appropriate standard: Khmelnytska oblast (official geographic name), holubéc′, hrývnja, Rús′ka Tríjtsja (scholarly transliterations for linguistics), Ivan Kotli͡arevs′kyĭ, Eneïda (ALA-LC for citations in footnotes). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) Romanization of UkrainianNaming conventions  Wikipedia:Naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)Pronunciation  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) Ukrainian phonology International Phonetic Alphabet Help:IPA/Ukrainian Wiktionary  wikt:Wiktionary:About Ukrainian wikt:Appendix:Ukrainian transliteration wikt:Index:Ukrainian"
516	525	1157	WP:IAD	Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas	516	Conflict is as addictive as cocaine, especially in a mature online community with a long history of grudges and petty vendettas; and as the encyclopedia ages, the articles mature, becoming harder and harder to improve.  Conflict is the most usual substitute satisfaction, and it can become a source of easy entertainment for even the most long-term Wikipedians to watch the latest fights on the noticeboards, checking back again and again for witty ripostes and put-downs.  It's much harder to write an encyclopedia article than it is to look through the latest shabby contributor's edits for evidence of wrongdoing, and write an indignant post about it.  A corollary to this rule, and a slightly nastier one, is this:  ignore all drama queens.  In any community of this size, there will be those whose primary contribution is to create and extend drama, and thereby call attention to themselves.  They are often the least self-reflective of people, and the least likely to know that they themselves are a problem; and the best way to handle them is with a polite silence.  Remember that not every stupidity requires an immediate answer; not every conspiracy theory needs immediate refutation; not every accusation requires a defense; and not every loud voice needs any more attention than does the barking of the neighbor's dog.  Any pile of bullshit eventually decomposes naturally. (Naturally, linking to this essay in a discussion is not silence and is therefore disregarding its advice.) We're still an encyclopedia, and we still need your help.  Meanwhile, the requests for punishment, suggestions for the pillory, and lists of troublemakers for public humiliation and shaming are already well-staffed by those who love such places.  Say something there only if you can say it well and politely, and it helps all concerned, causing no further harm.  Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism
517	526	1158	WP:sockpuppetry	WP:sockpuppetry	517	"On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally  expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Sockpuppetry takes various forms:  Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions Using another person's account (piggybacking) Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)Misuse of multiple accounts is a serious breach of community trust. It may lead to:  a block of all related accounts a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock) on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects the (potential) public exposure of any ""real-world"" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sockpuppetry or certain other abuses.An editor using multiple accounts for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose (see below). Optionally, the user and user talk pages of some of the accounts can be redirected to those of another. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.While there are legitimate use of alternative accounts, undisclosed alternative accounts might be connected publicly through a variety of means.  Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:  Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project outside of limited circumstance. A legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted to contribute to project space discussions that directly affect the account. Circumventing policies: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. Evasion of blocks/sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts, unless specified otherwise. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block, community ban or other sanction imposed on your original account will result in further sanctions, which may include reversion of your contributions. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Evasion and enforcement. Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden. Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. ""Good hand"" and ""bad hand"" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing. Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts. When editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding. Misusing a clean start: Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Wikipedia:Clean start. Role accounts: Because an account represents your edits as an individual, ""role accounts"", or accounts shared by multiple people, are (as a rule) forbidden and blocked. Many first-time editors may sign up an account with a username that implies it is a role account or is being shared. Such accounts are permitted only if the account information is forever limited to one individual; however, policy recommends that usernames avoid being misleading or disruptive. As such, if you edit for an organization, please refer to Wikipedia's username policy for guidance on choosing a name or a replacement name that can avoid these problems. Role account exceptions can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list below), and approved bots with multiple managers. See Username policy § Sharing accounts. Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA. Using more than one administrator account: Editors may not have more than one account with administrator user rights, except for bots with administrator privileges.  However, Wikimedia Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. If an administrator leaves the project, returns under a new username, and is nominated for adminship, they must resign or give up the administrator access of their old account. Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: Using an alternative account to participate in a discussion about another account operated by the same person.  Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets. If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy. Operating a legitimate alternative account, even for a reason listed in this policy, does not prevent the accounts from being connected to one another publicly. Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project. Valid reasons for an alternative account include:  Security: You may register an alternative account for use when accessing Wikipedia through a public computer, connecting to an unsecured network, or other scenarios when there's a risk of your account being compromised. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name. For example, User:Mickey might use User:Mickey (alt) or User:Mouse, and redirect that account's user and talk pages to their main account. Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below. Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is an account created with a username similar to your main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing. Doppelgänger accounts may be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag, or can simply redirect to the main account's userpage.Pseudonyms used to edit sister projects in a different language: Although SUL no longer requires Wikimedians to register different accounts to edit different projects, users who wish to have a separate account to edit a sister project written in a different script may do so. The other account should be treated as a Doppelgänger on the English Wikipedia, and vice-versa. These accounts may be marked with the {{User Alias}} tag to show a connection.Clean start under a new name: A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, usually due to past mistakes or to avoid harassment. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sockpuppet. Username violations: If you are soft-blocked for having an inappropriate username, and that is the sole reason for the block, you are permitted to create a new account with an appropriate username. Compromised accounts: If you are unable to access your account because you have lost the password or because someone has obtained or guessed your password, you may create a new account with a clean password. In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person. If necessary, you should also ask for an admin to block the compromised account. You may want to consider using a committed identity in advance to help deal with this rare situation should it arise later. Humor accounts:  The community has accepted some obviously humorous alternative accounts—for example, Bishzilla, Floquenstein's monster, and Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late). Technical reasons: Maintenance: An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks, or to segregate functions so as to maintain a user talk page dedicated to the purpose. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. Bots: Bots are programs that edit automatically or semi-automatically. Editors who use bots are encouraged to create separate accounts, and ask that they be marked as bot accounts via Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. Bots should be clearly linked to their owner's account. See Wikipedia:Bot policy. Testing and training: Users who use a lot of scripts and other tools may wish to keep a second, vanilla account, for testing how things appear to others; or for demonstrating Wikipedia's default appearance when training new users. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account, except where doing so would interfere with testing or training. Two-factor authentication users: Users with two-factor authentication may not be able to log on from certain clients. Such users may create a second linked account such as User:Username (phone) or User:Username (mobile). Designated roles: Editors with specific roles, such as Wikipedian in residence or Wikimedia Foundation employees, may have specific accounts for those roles. Note the account still belongs to an individual, not the role itself, and should be named as such. For example, User:Username (WIR for Foo Museum) is an acceptable alternative account, but User:Wikipedian-in-residence for Foo Museum is not, because it is named after the role. It is not required that the names match, e.g. the main account User:Jane could have the role account User:Username (WIR for Foo Museum), but the accounts should be clearly connected. If the editor leaves the role, their role account must no longer be used. If a new editor assumes the role, they must create a new account. Education: Educators and students are encouraged to create a separate account that does not have to be linked to their main account for the purpose of managing or participating in student assignments. Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork.Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose.   === Editing while logged out ===  There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia   while logged out, per se. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki. If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is inappropriate, you can give the IP editor notice of this policy ({{subst:uw-login}} is available for this purpose), and if the behavior continues, you should contact a CheckUser privately and present the evidence to them.  Unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:  Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot). Links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternative account | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Public user}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User alternative account name|OtherName|...|OtherName[n]}}. Links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, and editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. However, it is worth noting that making such notifications does not in any way protect the user or allow them to otherwise violate this policy. Properly maintaining separation between the main account and the alternative account is entirely the responsibility of the user. If the connection is discovered, prior notification is not a ""get out of jail free card"" and users should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki. Conversely, neither checkusers nor arbitrators monitor disclosed accounts to ensure compliance with policy. This is also entirely the responsibility of the user.  Editors who have abandoned an account and are editing under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy.  High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors:  Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion. A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: ""For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.""The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a ""meatpuppet"", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.   === Sharing an IP address ===  If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.   === Sockpuppet investigations === Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sockpuppet. If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. In reporting suspected sockpuppetry, you must obey the rules of WP:OUTING with regard to disclosure of personal or identifying information. Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny.   === CheckUser ===  Editors with access to the CheckUser tool may consult the server log to see which IP addresses are linked to which accounts. The CheckUser tool cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the investigation. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy and CheckUser policies, checks are only conducted with good cause, and (subject to the exceptions in those policies) results are reported in such a way as to avoid or minimize disclosure of personal identifying information. Particularly, ""fishing""—the use of the CheckUser tools without good cause specific to a given user account—is prohibited.   === Blocking ===  If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sockpuppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.   === Tagging ===  Non-editing accounts that provide an easy way to contact internal email lists: User:Arbitration Committee User:Emergency User:Oversight User:Wikipedia Information Team Accounts approved by the Foundation Sock puppet account Wikipedia:Sleeper account Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations   === Guidelines === Wikipedia:Canvassing   === Essays === Wikipedia:Consequences of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Griefing Wikipedia:Lurkers Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Single-purpose account Wikipedia:Tag team Wikipedia:The duck test  MeatBall:SockPuppet"
518	527	1159	WP:orphan	WP:orphan	518	"In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as ""an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace"". These pages can still be found by searching Wikipedia, but it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages; it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web. More colloquially, editors also sometimes use ""orphan"" to refer to pages that do not have as many incoming links as they ought to, even if they do not meet the technical definition for orphan status.  There are several factors that can classify an article or other page as an orphan:  Orphaned article: An article with no incoming links which meet the criteria for linking below. Isolated article: An article that cannot be reached via a series of links from the Main Page. Walled garden: A group of articles that link to each other, but have few or no links to them from other Wikipedia articles. In effect the entire group is orphaned. Theoretically, a walled garden could have numerous articles if they all link to each other but no others link to them. Orphaned project page: A project page (starting with ""Wikipedia:"") with few or no links from other project pages. Essays are the most likely to be orphaned. Orphaned image: An image not used in any article.  Orphaned articles, since they have no links to them from other pages, are difficult to find, and are most likely to be found only by searching, or by chance. Because of this, few people know they exist, and therefore, they receive less readership and improvement from those who would be able to improve them. In particular, if the topic is more obscure, this may make it difficult for many to locate. If not for links to a page, the only way such an article can be found is by a person who knows the topic entering it into Wikipedia or doing a web search, browsing a category in which it is contained, looking at the edit history of a contributor to the page, or having it show up by chance as a random article.  An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it.  In Wikipedia's early days, editors added Template:Orphan to mark both orphaned articles and articles with relatively few incoming links. The use of the template has since been restricted. It is now recommended to only place the {{Orphan}} tag if the article has zero incoming links from other articles. The template is only shown temporarily, under certain circumstances. Adding this template to any article is not strictly necessary, and many editors prefer to add it only when they believe that the article should be linked from many others. A single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag. Three or more incoming links will help ensure the article is reachable by readers. Editors may also remove the tag from any article if they believe that de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful, or if they have attempted to provide incoming links. See § What if I can't de-orphan it? below for more information. The following pages do not count as incoming links:  Disambiguation pages Any article in mainspace that is linked only in a hatnote Redirects and Soft redirects    ...except that incoming links to the redirects do count Discussion pages of articles Wikipedia pages outside of article spaceThe following pages do count as incoming links:  Any article in mainspace except those specifically excluded above (This includes links only present in collapsed navboxes.) List of... articles Set indexes   === On redirects === Neither soft nor hard redirects should normally be tagged as orphans.   === On disambiguation pages === Disambiguation pages themselves often should be orphaned. The only mainspace pages that should link to them are other disambiguation pages, and articles with hatnote links to them (via templates such as {{Other uses}}). Please do not place the {{Orphan}} template on disambiguation pages. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Links to disambiguation pages.   === On set indexes === Pages containing the templates {{Surname}}, {{Given name}}, {{SIA}}, and any other set indexes also should normally be orphaned, as incoming links should usually be amended to target one of the items listed. Please do not place the {{Orphan}} template on these pages either.   === On multiple page lists === Some very long lists are split into multiple sub-articles. The sub-articles are not orphans as long as they are interlinked amongst each other and also linked to from the first article in the series. See WP:NCSPLITLIST.   === Others === See the section below titled § Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan.  There are 129 months of orphan articles in the backlog (Category:Orphaned articles).   === Step 1: Finding an orphaned article === Lists of orphaned articles can be found in the following places (in order of priority):  Category:Orphaned articles from March 2023—This category holds the latest articles marked as orphans. There are 1,067 new orphans so far this month. Category:Orphaned articles from February 2023—This category also holds the previous month articles marked as orphans. There are 678 articles tagged. Category:Orphaned articles from January 2013—This category also holds the earliest articles marked as orphans. There are 19 articles tagged.  Some editors believe it is important to tackle the oldest orphans first. Category:All orphaned articles-This category holds all orphaned articles, de-orphan articles, and a Filter this category by topic section. Category:Orphaned articles—To find orphans from other months and view the backlog. Category:Attempted de-orphan—This category holds articles which someone has tried to de-orphan, but was unsuccessful.  These can be saved for later in favor of orphans which have not yet been attempted. Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject—This links to pages listing orphaned articles by subject. Special:LonelyPages—A page from Tools>Special pages>Orphaned Pages. This page updates irregularly and often isn't current, although it is easy to find.   === Step 2: Finding related articles === To verify if an article is currently an orphan, at the toolbox, click the ""What links here"" link (or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+j). If the article remains an orphan, continue below, otherwise remove the orphan tag. Note that articles years old in the backlog, or incorrectly tagged by AWB may no longer be orphans. The ""What links here"" shows any articles which mention the name or part of the name of the orphaned article. If the page lists other names or has redirects, consider searching for those terms as well. For the verified orphan article, at the toolbox, click on ""Related changes"" (or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+k), to see changes on pages linked to or from that page. Highly related articles are typically linked: In the uppermost lead of an article In a ""See also"" section (if existent) At the automatically suggested ""RELATED ARTICLES"" below the article. Note that ""Related articles"" feature is supported in Minerva skin (and hence mobile) and in Timeless skin. Find related articles with intersecting categories using the PetScan tool, or reviewing various categories at the bottom of the article. See: Petscan documentation for help getting started. Sometimes, the highly related terms aren't yet wikilinked despite a Wikipedia article existing so it is often a good idea to do a Google search of related terms found this way. Furthermore, the article's categories might contain related articles as well. Consider using Edward Bett's Find Link Tool to search Wikipedia for linking opportunities. An effective way of finding related articles and sections is to search the Web for related terms and appending the word wiki or Wikipedia or site:Wikipedia.org to them. Biography articles often can be wikilinked into: place of birth or death (add into a ""Notable people"" section), or one of the many ""List of xxxxx"" lists.If this doesn't help, then a little more research is required. First, read the article. Then, follow some related-looking outgoing links from the orphan to other articles, and do a Web-wide search for the article topic. Doing these will give you a much better idea of what it relates to. Not only will it probably give you information you can use to add meaningful links from other articles, but it will probably give you enough info to flesh out and improve the orphan itself. (This is, after all, the main purpose of Wikipedia.)   === Step 3: Adding links === Be careful to check that the search results refer to the topic of this article, and not something else of the same name.  When you find an appropriate parent, insert a meaningful link to the orphaned article. The link can be a meaningful new sentence added within the article, or consider using the {{Further}} template.   ==== Added link edit summary ==== When adding a link to an orphaned article, please use this edit summary:  Adding link to orphaned article, Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]]   === Step 4: Remove orphan template === Once the article has one or more links that fit the criteria, remove the tag, if one is present. Make sure to update the edit summary to reflect the article has been de-orphaned.   ==== De-orphan edit summary ==== You may use this edit summary:  Successfully de-orphaned! Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]] Check to see if there are articles about the same topic under a different name. If that is the case, it may be suitable to merge the orphaned page to the other, or vice versa. When the merge occurs, links from the other page may provide the de-orphaning. Consider creating reasonable redirects to the article.  (Some alternative titles may already have links to them, or searching for the alternative titles may suggest other appropriate links.) Redirects do not technically count as ""articles"" in de-orphaning, but do provide more ways a page can be found. The redirect may also previously exist as a red link on another page, thereby providing some linkage. Place the article name in quotation marks and click search (if the article title is a single word, quotes are not needed). This will list all the articles containing the term. Examine each one, and determine if the term in these articles means the same as the orphaned article. If it does, add an internal link. If it does not, simply ignore it. The same word or phrase that is used in the title of an article may have multiple meanings. If any related articles have a See also section, it is worth considering if the orphaned article may be listed there. However don't just add links there indiscriminately! Adding links to See also could be considered a quick 'easy way out' to de-orphaning an article, and may attract the wrong kind of attention from other editors if poor-quality or only tangentially-related articles are 'dumped' into the See also section of an article they worked hard on. They may be of mind to revert you and even accuse you of mindless link-spamming. So always keep overall quality in mind. Check to see if there are any Lists or Indices of whatever subject the orphaned article is about, or disambiguation pages listing articles with similar titles. If it belongs, you can add it there (although disambiguation links do not count towards de-orphaning). Search categories in which the article is contained and other similar categories for related articles. It may be worth listing the orphaned page in a see also section, or even adding new [appropriate] text (even a minute amount) to one or more of these articles in order to provide a link. These may include adding a new heading with a {{Main}} tag below the heading and possibly a brief description. Identify one or more navboxes containing articles in a category common to the orphan. According to some editors, this is the very best way to de-orphan, for it provides dozens of instantaneous links if a navbox is available. To do this, find the navbox, and add the article where it best belongs. You can edit a navbox by either visiting its title (beginning with ""template:"") or navigating to a page containing it, and clicking the letter ""e"" at the top-left corner. Once you add the orphaned article to a navbox, add the navbox to that article. If no suitable navbox exists, and you have the skills to create one, you can create a new navbox for the orphan and other related articles. Note: While adding a navbox is very effective in increasing the number of links to a page, it is important to assure that at least some of the articles within the navbox have links from articles outside of that navbox; otherwise you are left with a walled garden.   === Biography orphan articles === For biography articles, there are several posslble options:  Look for the orphan article's place of birth (or death). Open that place article and look for ""Notable people"" section. If that section does not exist, add one. Then add the orphan article there. (Occasionally instead of ""Notable people"" the section title may be ""Personalities"", ""Notable residents"", etc.) Look for date of birth or death, then add the person to that article. Begin by searching Category:Year lists by country. Within that country, (List of years in Sweden for example) click on the year (example, 1980 in Sweden. Next, add a wikilink for the orphan article in the appropriate section (births, deaths, events). Within the Wikipedia search box, ""People from..."" or ""List of people from"" may be helpful to find a place to add the orphan article. Another example, List of Argentines where notable people can be added.   ==== Search box examples ==== Some year articles exist or could be redirects. These are a few examples using the Wikipedia Search box:  June 1937, article, with daily sections June 1993, Redirects to 1993 article, June Events section Births in 2008, Redirects to 2008 article, Births section Deaths in July 2008, article, with daily sections An article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion. At worst, an orphan is just an article created by a less experienced editor who does not understand that it is necessary to provide sources, links or even categories, or by a more experienced editor who simply cannot find any other pages that can link to the subject. Or it may be a relatively new article that the creator is planning to link from other pages, but has not identified other articles or otherwise carried out that task yet (a page generally should not be tagged as an orphan until it has been around for a little while). Being an orphan is not a reason to delete an article, only to fix whatever issues it has. An orphan, especially if it has been created by a newbie, may need to be flagged with other article issue tags. See {{Multiple issues}} for a list of issues with which an article can be flagged.  It may be the case that some articles currently just cannot be de-orphaned. If this is the case then please do not try to 'force-fit' by adding unrelated links to articles where they don't belong just for the sake of de-orphaning. Always keep in mind that our primary goal is to improve the reader's experience, not satisfy the editor's indulgence in statistical achievements. Your priority when adding links should be to maintain article quality by adding relevant and useful links wherever possible.   === Article's talk page ===   ==== Add wikiproject(s) ==== Take a look on the article's talk page and see if there is a WikiProject message box. If not, add an appropriate WikiProject template. More than one message box can be added if needed. This should bring the article to the attention of subject contributors who may be able to help de-orphan.   ==== Add talk page orphan notice ==== For Talk page of orphan articles, add the following notice to increase the orphan visiblity.  {{Notice|{{see also|Wikipedia:Orphan|Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage}}}}  When adding a notice to the talk page, please use this edit summary:  Adding notice to orphaned article talk page, Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]]   === Notability === Some orphaned articles may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If a thorough search for significant coverage in reliable sources is unsuccessful,  appropriate action may include tagging the page with {{Notability}}, a proposed deletion or deletion nomination.   === Using the att parameter === When you do encounter an article that you are unable to de-orphan, but still feel that it is possible to be de-orphaned, then add the date you tried to de-orphan it to the orphan tag using the att parameter. The ""att"" is an abbreviation for ""attempt"", as in ""I attempted to de-orphan this article but failed"". The rationale is that although you were unable to de-orphan the article, it is often the case that someone else may be successful. However, if you are certain the article is unlikely to ever be de-orphaned then simply remove the tag. To use ""att"", update the {{Orphan}} tag with: |{{subst:ATT}}. If there are already other cleanup tags and they're within the {{Multiple issues}} template no special considerations are generally required. There are several benefits of using the de-orphan attempt (att) parameter. It is a placemarker for those trying to do initial de-orphaning (i.e., indicates that somebody tried it and when). Also, articles where de-orphaning was tried quite some time ago may be easier now (many articles become easier to de-orphan once more articles in related areas have been filled in). You can be sure you won't end up looking at the same orphaned article twice because once it's tagged with |att=March 2023 it gets removed from the category it's currently in (Category:Orphaned articles from March 2023) and gets placed into the attempted de-orphaned articles category (Category:Attempted de-orphan from March 2023). This category may be a place for those de-orphaners who want an extra challenge. Remember that only a single incoming link is required in order to completely remove the orphan tag, but any additional links will certainly help ensure the article is not isolated, so the attempted de-orphans category may also be a place to hold those articles where you feel there is potential for more incoming links. Also, when placing the |att= parameter, it's unnecessary to remove the pre-existing |date= parameter, as they are two separate and distinct parameters that complement each other. Instead of replacing |date= with |att= simply place it in addition to it. This gives editors the added benefit of knowing when the orphan tag was first placed on the article. Note that this does not double-categorize it, the |att= takes precedence and, as was mentioned above, the article is moved to the attempted de-orphan category for that date, so you're not having to revisit the same article twice when browsing through the monthly orphaned articles category. However, the all-inclusive Category:All orphaned articles still remains regardless; this is deliberate and is needed to categorize the article as still being an orphan.   ==== Attempted de-orphan edit summary ==== You may use this edit summary:  Attempted to de-orphan. Wikiproject Orphanage: [[Wikipedia:ORPHAN|You can help!]]   === Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan ===  Organisms/Taxonomic/Species articles: Unless they're part of a navbox, it's highly unlikely that these specialized subjects will be linked to from more than one other article (although note that this has no bearing on their notability). Given that there's such a huge number of these and that many of them are one- or two-line stubs, it does not help to improve Wikipedia by tagging every single one with an orphan tag, and in fact may be seen as disruptive by other users. Please focus on the ones where there's at least a chance of inter-wikilinking. ... in popular culture, List of works by ...: Usually the only article that will ever link to these will be the ""parent"" page about the subject itself. Obviously it's not necessary to get multiple links for these. There are many other cases similar to this (ex. ""Lists of ..."" lists, ""Index of ..."", ""Glossary of ..."" etc.) and other navigational types of articles, where just using a little common sense goes a long way in ensuring Wikipedia remains an enjoyable experience for the reader as well as the editor. Surname pages: These are a special case, some may be among those types of articles known as ""set index"" articles, whilst others are encyclopedic articles related to anthroponymy that may be easier to de-orphan. If it's possible to de-orphan these, great. If not, just remove the tag if it's there and don't worry about it. Although a bot or script is capable of regularly checking articles to see if they are orphaned, you can help too manually. When reading an article, you can check what other pages link to it by clicking ""What links here""  in the toolbox, or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+j. You will then be provided with a list of pages that link to that article. If it meets the criteria, and you don't have the time or knowledge to de-orphan it right away, you can add the {{Orphan}} template to the top of the page (after ""Short description"" line), marking it as an orphan. If you use AWB when tagging, be sure to read the page ""AWB and orphans"". Note that WP:AWB has a feature to tag/untag articles with orphan tags. If set incorrectly, AWB can falsely tag articles not orphans, as well as remove an orphan tag that should remain.  When creating a new article, it is best to prevent them from being orphans from the beginning. Advice can be found at Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages. Finding possible links may be time-consuming. Don't worry if you cannot make all the necessary edits on the same day, as long as you keep your plans in mind!  There are presently a lot of orphaned essays. An essay is defined as ""orphaned"" if none of the following types of pages link to it:  Other essays Policy and guideline pages Help pagesDeletion discussions, talk pages in any namespace, lists and directories in project space, and subpages do not count toward meeting the minimum. An orphaned essay is much harder to find than an orphaned article because there are fewer alternative methods available than there are for articles. An essay that is orphaned should be marked with the template {{Orphaned essay}} immediately below the {{Essay}} template. This will automatically place the essay in the category Orphaned Wikipedia essays. The {{Orphaned essay}} tag and the criteria used for orphaned essays are completely separate from orphaned articles. Although the guidance on this page may still apply to orphaned essays, they should be considered less of a priority.  Category:Orphaned articles Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject User:R3m0t/Reports—Orphaned talk pages (project completed as of September 2005) Special:Unusedimages Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphans with incoming links {{Orphan}} — cleanup template for orphaned articles {{Orphan image}} — cleanup template for orphaned images {{Di-orphaned fair use}} — deletion template for orphaned non-free imagesSee Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage § Templates for more.  Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages Wikipedia:Build the web Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage Wikipedia:Dead-end pages Wikipedia:Walled garden Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Navbox Wikipedia:Pageview statistics User:Edward/Find link OrphanTalk; A tool to find orphaned talk pages."
519	528	1160	WP:transwiki	WP:transwiki	519	m:Help:TranswikiThis page is a soft redirect.
520	529	1161	WP:PUBLISHER	Wikipedia:Notability (publishing)	520	The purpose of this guideline is to provide criteria for assessing the notability of publishers. The criteria are not intended to be exhaustive and a publisher may be notable without satisfying these criteria. For the purposes of this guideline, a publication is a book or any other document whatsoever that has been published. References in this guideline to publishing a publication do not include self-publishing a publication. References in this guideline to a publisher do not include a vanity press, vanity publisher or subsidy publisher. The criteria might not be applicable to the publication of reprints.  A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable.Reviews of publications count towards the notability of the publisher.  WP:AUTHOR
521	530	1162	WP:FALKLAND	Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group	521	"Welcome to the Falkland Islands work group of WikiProject South America! This group was formed to better organize articles on the Falkland Islands in a spirit of cooperation.  This group includes within its scope all articles related to the Falkland Islands, its settlements, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on the Falkland Islands in a fair and accurate manner. All of these articles should be contained within the Category:Falkland Islands or one of its subcategories.   === Active members === To join the Falkland Islands work group, edit this section and add the Wikitext #{{subst:me}} with your areas of interest to the bottom of the following list of members.  Members should also place member identification on their user page.  John Carter 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Wee Curry Monster talk 17:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Ryan4314  (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Kahastok talk 23:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) MacRusgail (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) - Interests: Providing a broader, more general coverage of the islands. Apcbg (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC) DagosNavy (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Narson (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Michael Glass (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Thetucu (talk) pmt7ar (t|c) 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Mcarling (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Philip Stevens (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Gaba p (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Delotrooladoo (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC) DPdH (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) - Interests: history (especially Falklands War) and geography Ryanharmany (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC) The joy of all things (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Alenasaeri (talk · contribs) 13:39:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)  General interest. recent article Draft:South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute User:UnknownBrick22 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2020 (GMT) - interest in ensuring Falklanders' sovereignty and international status is recognised. Malvinero10 (talk · contribs) 21:26:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)  geography   === Former members === Thank you for your help!  Please move your username back to the active list when you can participate again.  Ice Explorer (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Buaidh (talk · contribs) 21:33:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC) – WikiProject templates and categories. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (indefinately blocked) User:Martinvl Martinvl (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Langus-TxT (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)   === Member identification === Members of the Falkland Islands work group should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:Falkland Islands work group members.  For other Falkland Islands user templates see Category:Falkland Islands user templates.   === Importance scale === The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is.  Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).  Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more ""important"" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography.  Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance. Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability.  Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.  Rate international region/country-specific articles from the perspective of someone from that region. This grading scheme has only been recently established, if you wish to discuss it please comment here. The criteria is flexible and will be adapted to accommodate the rule of: the higher the class the fewer articles it should have.   === Table of Hits === As an aid to assessing the relative importance of articles, the number of hits for selected articles is shown below.  The number of hits in February 2010 show an anomaly caused by statements by the Argentine Government.  The score for each article is the number of January 2010 hits multiplied by the weighting factor (which is subjective).  The number of hits in July 2009 is included as a check that the number of hits in January 2010 is a fair estimate of the hits normally expected in any one month.   === Featured articles === HMS Cardiff (D108)   === Good articles ===   === Did You Know (DYK)s ===  Falklands Crisis (1770) - 22 August 2007. Origins of Falkland Islanders - 24 October 2007. Stone run - 24 November 2007. 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident - August 29 2009. Matthew Brisbane - 26 September 2012 Esteban Mestivier - 11 February 2014 Antonina Roxa - 15 March 2014 José María Pinedo - 30 May 2014 Falkland Islands Stanley, Falkland Islands   === Former featured articles ===   === Former good articles ===  Please see {{WikiProject South America}} for assessment information.  Consensus was found here for the following statement:  Units on Falklands-related articles shall be those recommended for non-scientific UK-related articles at WP:UNITS. Where any given unit is explicitly recommended or suggested by WP:UNITS for use in UK-related articles, Falklands-related articles will follow that recommendation or suggestion. No measure shall deviate from those measures without clear consensus, or where other parts of WP:UNITS take precedence. Note that the shortcut WP:FALKLANDSUNITS formerly pointed at Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units.  See also Topical outline of the Falkland Islands - mostly done from a template; List of basic South America topics  Mario Menéndez (Argentine governor on FK during the war) Climate of the Falkland Islands Port Harriet, Port Harriet House (51°44′7″S 58°1′3″W) Argentine Military Cemetery   === Culture and Society === Life under the Argentine occupation of the Falklands in 1982 Religion in the Falkland Islands (nb - not just Christian, includes Bahais) Presbyterianism in the Falkland Islands Tourism in the Falkland Islands Renewable energy in the Falkland Islands (some windfarms exist...) Oil industry in the Falkland Islands (some exploration) Energy in the Falkland Islands Political scandals in the Falkland Islands (off template) Taxation in the Falkland Islands (off template) Constitution of the Falkland Islands Crime in the Falkland Islands (currently a redirection) Human rights in the Falkland Islands Health care in the Falkland Islands Roads in the Falkland Islands   === Flora and fauna, Conservation ===  Zebra trout, an indigenous freshwater fish species. Felton's Flower/Felton plant, autochthonous plant Fauna of the Falkland Islands Flora of the Falkland Islands Falkland Islands Conservation Ecology of the Falkland Islands Protected areas of the Falkland Islands   === History === Samuel Lafone/Samuel Fisher Lafone Key figure in economics of early settlement José María Pinedo (governor) Pinedo was never appointed governor, Commander of the Sarandi Esteban Mestivier (governor, murdered in islands) Antonina Roxa One of Vernet's settlers and a key member of the early settlement Falklands Crisis (1850) Dispute with the USA whether the British regulated the Falklands Falklands Islands Camber Railway (not a spoof) Shackleton Report RRS Shackleton BAS survey vessel Colonial Development Company Stone corral Antonio Rivero Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Ali Seineldin Rattenbach report   === Individual islands === Arch Islands (esp. of the arch), Barren, Broken Island, Centre Island, Dunbar Island, East Island, Eddystone Rock, George, Golding, Horse Block (sea stack), Jason Islands (any of these except Grand Jason), Keppel (esp. Yahgan mission), Kidney, Narrow Island, Passage Island, Passage Islands (NB - not the same as former, Rabbit, River Island, Ruggles Island, Sedge Island, Split Island, Staats (esp. of guanaco), Swan Islands, Tea, Tyssen Islands With images, but needing photos - Beauchene Island, Hog Island, Long Island Done - Beaver, Bleaker Island, Grand Jason, Lively, Pebble Island, Speedwell,West Point Island    === Natural features === Mount Maria, Mount Usborne Blackburn River, Chartres River, Malo River/Arroyo Malo, Mullet Creek, Murrell River, Warrah River Lafonia (landscape)   === Settlements & buildings === Cape Pembroke (lighthouse), Fox Bay, Hill Cove, New Haven (ferry terminal), North Arm, Pebble Island Settlement, Port Albemarle (sealing station), Port Howard (settlement - one historical picture included), Port Louis (old buildings), Port Patterson, Port Stephens, Salvador Settlement Various historical buildings in Stanley.  Articles up for improvement  Falkland Islands - currently undergoing rework following peer review pending nomination for GA status.   === March 2014 === Antonina Roxa Gaucho, midwife and landowner José María Pinedo Captain of the ARA Sarandi   === February 2014 === Esteban Mestivier Argentine Military and Civil Commander murdered in 1832   === October 2012 === Patagonian Shelf Undersea shelf on which the Falkland Islands are situated.   === September 2012 === Matthew Brisbane Antarctice explorer and deputy for Luis Vernet.   === May 2012 === Arana-Southern Treaty Several scholars both Argentine and British suggest Argentine relinquished claims to the Falklands under this treaty.   === September, 2009 === Rugby union in the Falkland Islands, a paucity of information, please help expand this article.   === August 2009 === 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident   === January, 2009 === New Haven, Falkland Islands Mario Menéndez (Argentine governor during the war)   === September, 2008 === Sinking of the Chian-der 3 Stanley Stadium - not new, but please have a look.   === August, 2008 === Lt. Col. Italo Piaggi Christopher Clayton   === July, 2008 === List of islands of the Falkland Islands Cape Carysfort. Hog Island, Broken Island Sport in the Falkland Islands Users should feel free to use the recent changes function to examine changes to all articles relevant to this group by hitting this link. Specific articles which have a tendency to require watching include:  Falklands War - always subject to petty vandalism Falkland Islands - always subject to petty vandalism Operation Black Buck - disputes over success/failure Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - both sides attempt to edit in their favour 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands - mainly attempts to insert POV terms such as recovery. Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands - categorised in Argentina as an ""invasion"", by the British as ""return"" Template:Falkland Islands topics Template:Infobox islands Template:Infobox settlement East Island, Falkland Islands Hummock Island (common name) Middle Island, Falkland Islands Tussock Island (common name)"
522	531	1164	WP:FAIT	Wikipedia:Fait accompli	522	Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate. The following arbitration ruling was passed 10 to 0 at 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC):  Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles 2 § Fait accompli – additional ArbCom statements of principle on this subject Wikipedia:Mass editing
523	532	1168	WP: S	WP: S	523	WP:S may be a shorthand for the following shortcuts:  WP:SAND → Wikipedia:Sandbox WP:SEARCH → Help:Searching (target of the shortcut until March 2022) WP:SIG → Wikipedia:Signatures WP:SOCK → Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry WP:SOURCE → Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources WP:SPEEDY → Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion WP:STATS → Wikipedia:Statistics WP:STN → Wikipedia:Sanctions WP:SUMMARY → Wikipedia:Summary style WP:SYND → Wikipedia:Syndication WP:SYNTHESIS → Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material
524	533	1170	WP:RIVER	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers	524	"A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in articles about rivers. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the guidelines below may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!  This WikiProject Rivers aims primarily to describe the Earth's rivers in a consistent and complete fashion.  Waterfalls on rivers are also within the scope of this project.   === Hierarchy definition === Classification standards for river articles uses the standard classifications and definitions, including   Stub Start C B A Good Article (GA) List Featured List (FL)Pages that are Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, and Template should be classified as such.  Pages that are Redirects should be classified NA.  The classification, Class=, is set in the WikiProject Rivers template.  See this proposal on dividing a topic into a hierarchy. The Importance, Importance=, is set in the WikiProject Rivers template to one of the following:  Top, High, Mid, Low, NA.   Articles without importance show an importance of ???.  Improve the quality of river articles, striving for featured articles (currently 20 articles), featured lists (currently 8 articles), and Rivers recognized content. Improve articles by reviewing articles that have been nominated for deletion, merging, splitting or renaming (see #Article alerts). Improve articles by reviewing and making changes to articles in the #Cleanup listing Update river articles that need attention, maps, images, infoboxes, etc.  Maintenance of river articles includes adding infoboxes, adding importance, adding maps, adding images, and assessing quality Articles needing Infobox rivers (needs-infobox=Yes): Category:River articles needing infoboxes (9,499 articles) Unassessed River Articles (class=): Category:Unassessed River articles (0 articles) Unknown Importance River Articles (importance=): Category:Unknown-importance River articles (801) Needs maps (mapneeded=Yes):  Category:River articles needing maps (3,268) Needs attention (attention=Yes):  Category:River articles needing attention (43)   === Parentage === The parent of this WikiProject is the WikiProject Geography.   === Descendant WikiProjects and task forces === Waterfalls task force formerly WikiProject Waterfalls focused on Waterfalls Wikipedia:WikiProject River Thames   === Similar WikiProjects === For naming in geography:   WikiProject Country subdivisions#NamingProjects covering other geographical features:  WikiProject Glaciers WikiProject Lakes WikiProject Mountains WikiProject UK Waterways WikiProject EcoregionsRelated topics:  WikiProject Water   === Member userboxes ===   === Active members ===  Please feel free to add yourself here in alphabetical order, and to indicate any areas of particular interest.  Advanstra (talk · contribs) Afil (talk · contribs) Anupamdutta73 (talk · contribs) ARoseWolf - Rivers in Alaska Andy Mabbett = Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) Arbustum (talk · contribs) – focusing on rivers in Poland, eg Grajcarek Are1718 (talk · contribs) – Rivers in Bucks County, Pennsylvania Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) – Rivers in Scotland Awickert (talk · contribs) – river morphology Bbossoxx (talk · contribs) – Rivers in Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia Bermicourt (talk · contribs) Bill McKenna (talk · contribs) Callanecc (talk · contribs) Chongkian (talk · contribs) - Rivers in Taiwan CJK09 (talk · contribs) - North America, especially the western US, especially California, especially the Sierra Nevada Daniel Case (talk · contribs) Darwinek (talk · contribs) Dav4is (talk · contribs) – Categories DB1729 (talk · contribs) – Canadian rivers Dentren (talk · contribs) Dicklyon (talk · contribs) – Creeks in the San Francisco Bay area, and aerial views of rivers, creeks, reservoirs, etc. Epipelagic (talk · contribs) – estuarine ecosystems Finetooth (talk · contribs) G. Moore (talk · contribs) – Minnesota Rivers Geopersona (talk · contribs) – UK rivers Gerrit (talk · contribs) Gilliam (talk · contribs) – writing articles about small US streams (creeks) and how they were so named. Gjs238 (talk · contribs) Gnangbade (talk · contribs) – African rivers ICTMontreal (talk · contribs) – Bouchard Creek on the Island of Montreal Jokulhlaup (talk · contribs) – UK rivers Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kierano (talk · contribs) Kmusser (talk · contribs) – cartography Kuru (talk · contribs) – Texas rivers LaurentianShield (talk · contribs) – northern Wisconsin rivers and streams, Sierra Nevada (US) foothills streams Llywrch (talk · contribs) Lotheric (talk · contribs) Markussep (talk · contribs) – geography of Europe Мастер теней (talk · contribs) – world. Coordinates and logic. Project Water Bodies (Водные объекты) in Ruwiki. MaynardClark (talk · contribs) Mike Cline (talk · contribs) – river fisheries Murgatroyd49 (talk · contribs) - UK rivers and canals Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) – Columbia River Pfly (talk · contribs) PimRijkee (talk · contribs) PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) – Hudson River Rehman (talk · contribs) – templates, rivers in Sri Lanka Riverhugger (talk · contribs) – translation from Chinese and Russian sources Rmhermen (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) Ryboy42 (talk · contribs) – Editing Dead Links For Mostly American Rivers, but I might sneak in some other continents (2022 Edit: I'll do what I can) SaltedSturgeon (talk · contribs) – rivers of Canada, mostly focusing on Albertan rivers and creeks, of which there are many. Santasa99 (talk · contribs) – all articles ""karst"" & ""hydro"", rivers in Bosnia & Dinarides, created Neretva & many other in Dinarides, trout & fish sp. Schmiebel (talk · contribs) - California streams and rivers, their ecology, effects of beaver on, salmonids, or any stream/river I visit Shannon1 (talk · contribs) – Western United States and elsewhere Spencer (talk · contribs) Stan Shebs (talk · contribs) Starkenborgher (talk · contribs) - South Indian rivers, in Tamil Nadu and Kerala The Bushranger (talk · contribs) Thewellman (talk · contribs) – navigable rivers and estuaries; flow variation; aquatic biochemistry; riparian groundwater TimK MSI (talk · contribs) TomCat4680 (talk · contribs) Triglav (talk · contribs) Veg Mapper (talk · contribs) – Mid-Atlantic United States Rivers, midwest rivers, and adding infoboxes to those articles that do not have them VerruckteDan (talk · contribs) Wiki tamil 100 (talk · contribs) Wikiacc (talk · contribs) Wolfgang8741 (talk · contribs) – Infoboxes & Wikidata, QA, consistency Zack3142 (talk · contribs) – Prefer Indian Rivers ZH8000 (talk · contribs) – European and Swiss rivers   === Inactive members === This is a list of people who are members of the project but haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you return to editing.  River articles may be named ""X"", ""X River"", or ""River X"", depending on location and most common usage. ""River X"" is used for many (but not all) rivers in the UK and Ireland. ""X River"" is the norm in the Americas. ""X river"" (i.e. non-capitalized ""river"") is not recommended. When common usage does not include the word ""River"", but disambiguation is required (e.g. the river Inn in central Europe), parenthetical, non-capitalized ""river"" should be used: Inn (river). In other words neither ""river"" (without parentheses) nor ""River"" should be used to disambiguate articles. Country-specific exceptions to this rule should be discussed within WikiProject Rivers and/or that country's WikiProject.   If different rivers with the same name exist, disambiguate with parentheses using either the parent river, country or (if both in the same country) the largest geographical entity that distinguishes them (e.g. the Vils (Danube), Vils (Naab) and Vils (Lech); the Turiec (Váh) and Turiec (Sajó); and the Colorado River (Texas), Colorado River (Potosi), Colorado River (Costa Rica), etc.) The exception is UK rivers - see below.   === Multiple rivers with the same name === Because there are many rivers in the world with the same name (e.g. the Columbia River has two tributaries named the Salmon River, another flows into the lower Fraser River and one more has been identified in Nova Scotia), not all of which are recent namings in the Americas (e.g. there are four rivers in England called River Avon), the following method of disambiguation is used:  The primary topic can stay at the undisambiguated title while lesser-known ones add a qualifier, e.g., Jordan River (in the Middle East), Jordan River (disambiguation), Jordan River (Utah) In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by an appropriate political entity, e.g., Colorado River and Colorado River (Texas). Always use parentheses for the disambiguating term for U.S., New Zealand, Australian and continental European rivers, not a comma, e.g., Indian River (Michigan), not Indian River, Michigan, which is actually a town. British rivers have used the ""River, Place"" format, e.g., River Wye, Derbyshire as stated in the UK Waterways Writing Guide. A river can be identified uniquely as a tributary of another river, e.g., Rio Puerco (Rio Grande tributary). If a river with an ambiguous name empties directly into a lake or definable sea, then the name of that body of water could follow in parentheses, e.g., Churchill River (Hudson Bay).   === Rivers with multiple names === Some rivers have names with multiple spellings which vary with the different countries the rivers pass through.  An example would be the Cunene River in Angola, which is known as the Kunene River in Namibia.  Occasionally, a river can have several genuinely distinct names.  For example, the Cuando River not only has the variant spelling Kwando, it's also called the Linyanti and the Chobe.  The following rules are suggested for choosing a primary name for such a river:  If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name. If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name. If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.It is important that all the alternate names redirect to the name chosen for the article title. This helps prevent the creation of duplicate articles.   === Lead === The lead section should be a self-contained description including a summary of the most important things that are described in the article. The name(s) – both historic and current – should be in bold. State the location (continent/countries/seaboards), and notable facts about the river, such as longest, second longest, main waterway of a country, etc.  For more information see Wikipedia:Lead.   === History === Describe what is known about the different inhabitants along the river, along with a description of the scientific exploration expeditions/efforts. Typically, start from indigenous people and work up from there.   === Course === The narrative description of the course should proceed from the main headwater of the river downstream to its mouth, noting direction, size, major tributaries, human settlements, waterfalls, dams, and so forth. This should be at least a paragraph, may be several paragraphs for long rivers. This section can include numerical data on length, volume, drainage basin, etc. Info on major water basins can be found at World resources Institute (site is down; archive) For the largest one or two tributaries of the river, a short description of them should be added (perhaps under a ""Tributaries"" subsection) with ""main"" links.   === Source === When the source of the river is complex, such as a network of smaller streams, or a spring and cave system, consider if the source would be better described in its own section or sub-section separately from the course section. In simpler cases, such as when a river merely originates from a lake, discuss in the course section.   === Watershed === Include information about the geography and distribution of drainage basins, the location of mountain ranges, valleys, major cities, etc. Mention climate of the different areas of the watershed, and information about water quality, etc.   === River modifications === In this section describe the dams, diversion canals, bridges and culverts, roads, and other engineering projects associated with or with a big impact on the river.   === Natural history === Mention distinctive plants and animals associated with any part of the river. This section may also be titled Wildlife or Biology.   === Geology === The evolution of some rivers has been well explored (e.g., the Missoula Floods and their effect on the Columbia River). Such information should be placed here, with a suitable discussion of all POVs when possible.    === Economy === A countless number of rivers have been used as means to transport people, goods, etc., and are still used so today. All such information should be described here. Stylistically, this can be a good segue from history, connecting past uses of the river to present-day uses.   === Lists === List the tributaries, starting from the mouth and going upstream. Add important subtributaries in sublists. Major tributaries should be links, if there is a reasonable chance of article content, minor tributaries should be just names. List the cities and towns along the river, also in upstream order. List dams, locks, waterfalls, rapids, if there are more than a couple and/or they're not mentioned in the lead or course narrative. List crossings of the river.   === References and external links === Preferably refer to history, ecology, public policy, books, websites, etc.   === Images === There should be at least one picture, preferably a typical view. Important rivers should have additional pictures illustrating their notable features. Maps of the river's course and of its watershed are highly desirable.   === Map === Every river article should include a map. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps gives advice on the conventions to be used. The map should be included in the Maps section of the {{Infobox river}} template. Pushpin maps showing the location of the mouth of the river should be included if there is no tailored map for the specific river.  Route maps are optional, a sample can be seen at {{River Medway map}}.   === Geographical coordinates === Every river article should include geographical coordinates for at least the mouth or mouth and source of the river.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear gives advice on the positioning of these coordinates. The coordinates of the source and mouth are included in the Infobox river template:   Mouth:  |mouth_coordinates={{coord|lat|long|type:river|display=inline}} Source: |source1_coordinates = {{coord|lat|long|type:river|display=it}}Other significant points may be included inline in the text using {{coord|lat|long|display=inline}}.  The draft proposals for features that may be handled by this project suggest:   === Indexing === Every river article should be indexed in lists of rivers, along with its major tributaries.   === Categories === Every article should have a category. If a river is restricted to one country, list it in Category:Rivers of country, e.g. Category:Rivers of Germany. If it runs through several countries, list it in each country category. A country-level category may be subdivided by region, province, department, state etc. (e.g. Category:Rivers of California.) These may in turn be subdivided, e.g. Category:Rivers of Lake County, California When a river is placed in a subdivision category(s) it may or may not be also placed in the parent category. This should be done consistently, so a given parent category is either empty or holds a complete list of rivers. {{Parent cat}} may be added to the head of the parent category to provide links to reports that list all rivers in the child category, and that report any discrepancies. Rivers may be categorized by other characteristics, e.g. Category:Braided rivers in France Category:Subterranean rivers of the United States Category:Tributaries of the Rhine A detailed list of recognized content is available at Rivers recognized content.   === Article alerts ===  Articles to be merged  20 Mar 2023 – Frog Rapids (Pipestone River, Ontario) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Pipestone River (Kenora District) by P199 (t · c); see discussion 21 Feb 2023 – Opimihaw Creek (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Wanuskewin Heritage Park by Red-tailed hawk (t · c); see discussion 14 Feb 2023 – Wolastoq (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) by Fralambert (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Ephemerality (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Stream (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Bourne (stream) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Winterbourne (stream) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Wadi (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2022 – Arroyo (creek) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Intermittent river by Marisauna (t · c); see discussion 20 Nov 2022 – Lilajan River (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Phalgu River by SM7 (t · c); see discussion(1 more...)Articles to be split  01 Jan 2022 – Paluxy River (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by FunkMonk (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  16 Mar 2023 – Draft:NOVIMOVE (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mathijn (t · c) 10 Feb 2023 – Draft:San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Cemachinla (t · c) 03 Feb 2023 – Draft:Río Pasto (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 194.230.160.97 (t · c) 02 Feb 2023 – Draft:Las Trampas Creek (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 2601:282:8301:82C0:B0D8:3972:8C29:9497 (t · c) 13 Jan 2023 – Draft:Raleigh Falls (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) 27 Dec 2022 – Draft:Tete Des Morts Creek (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c) undated – Draft:Alexander Buchanan (stockman) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC    === Lists === Lists of rivers List of rivers by average discharge List of rivers by continent Category:Lists of rivers by country List of rivers by length List of river name etymologies List of drainage basins by area   === Cleanup listing === A range of tasks are available at Cleanup listing.   === Subpages === List of all subpages of this page   === Project banner === The {{River|class=|importance=|attention=|mapneeded=|needs-infobox=}} template banner is available to add to the talk pages of river articles and gives:  |mapneeded=yes will add the article's talk page to Category:River articles needing maps   ==== Assessment ==== An article can be rated by quality and importance; for example, using {{WikiProject Rivers|class=Stub|importance=Low}}. For detailed instructions on quality grading, see: WikiProject Rivers/Assessment. There are many articles that still need to be assessed. You may help us to assess them, please see Category:Unassessed River articles for the complete list.   === Infoboxes ===   ==== Infobox river ==== The template {{Infobox river}} can be used for representative images and basic information about a river. See the template's documentation for instructions, examples and blank versions of the template to start with. You can see it in action on River Scheldt.   === Navigation boxes === A list of navigation boxes can be found at: Category:River navigational boxes.   === Userboxes ===  transboundarywaters earthtrends maps (free registration required) U.S. Geological Survey Geological Name Information Server, lists all U.S. rivers with topo maps and many aerial photos. {{gnis}} links to specific entries. NWIS - USGS National Water Information System Database of Pan-Arctic River Discharge Hydrology of Canada"
525	534	1171	WP:PROF2	Wikipedia:Notability (scholars)	525	"This is a draft notability guideline for academics, educators, scientists and other scholars. It is intended to explore ideas about the notability of scholars that cannot easily be incorporated into the existing guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (commonly referred to as WP:PROF). Eventually, if it obtains sufficient consensus, it could become an alternative to or replacement for WP:PROF. If nothing else, it can help generate ideas for improving it.  This section is not intended to be part of the finished proposal.   === Shortcomings of WP:PROF === WP:PROF is one of the oldest and best-established subject-specific notability guidelines. It has a strong consensus behind it and a citation to a WP:PROF criterion is frequently enough to end a debate on notability (e.g. at AfD). However, over the years a number of criticisms have consistently emerged. This suggests that while WP:PROF might 'work' in the sense that it produces results, a large section of the community is not satisfied with these results. These are some of the shortcomings of WP:PROF that have been raised in the past and which new guideline could overcome:  WP:PROF is too complicated: it has nine separate criteria, each with lengthy notes, many of which require in-depth knowledge of how academia works. WP:PROF is too strict: it is based on the presumption that the ""average professor"" is not notable, so most of the criteria look for achievements that only the most distinguished academics attain, usually towards the end of their careers. Other similar notability guidelines (e.g. WP:NSPORT, WP:NACTOR) are more inclusive, and presume 'average' member of a widely-covered profession implies notability. Although ultimately all articles are subject to the GNG, there is editorial leeway in where we presume notability. For example, WP:NCORP is deliberately strict, because it is a topic prone to promotional abuse. Academic biography has a low potential for abuse, so we can afford to apply a looser presumption of notability in order to fulfil Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer or almanac. WP:PROF is too subjective: the use of qualifiers like 'significant', 'prestigious' and 'highly selective' in the criteria leave considerable scope for individual interpretation. WP:PROF exacerbates systematic biases: Gender bias – it is demonstrably more difficult for women academics to pass WP:PROF than men of equivalent career achievement, and biographies of women are more likely to be scrutinised for notability than those of men; Regional bias – the criteria refer to aspects of academic careers that only exist in the United States, or in western countries; Career trajectory bias – WP:PROF reproduces the 'hero scientist' trope, emphasising singular contributions by individual academics, and making it more difficult to argue for the notability of collaborative contributions to science. The relationship between WP:PROF and WP:GNG is ambiguous: since WP:PROF was created, the community consensus has evolved to see the GNG as the ultimate standard of notability, to which SNGs like WP:PROF must be subordinate. It has been difficult to reconcile WP:PROF with this view because most of its criteria do not refer to the existence of ""independent, reliable sources"" but to arbitrary achievements.   === Goals of a new guideline === PROF2 should be simple: a concise set of criteria covering the most common presumptions of notability, including necessary but not exhaustive explanatory notes and examples; avoid assuming ""inside knowledge"". PROF2 should be inclusive: the criteria for presumed notability should reflect the fact that the ""average professor"" is somebody who has spent a career engaged in work that is by its nature covered by reliable sources; it's very likely that there enough of these sources to write an encyclopaedic biography. PROF2 should be objective: the criteria should reference specific facts that can be directly verified with reliable sources; avoid qualifiers that are open to interpretation and/or invite editors to do original research. PROF2 should be fair: criteria should be globally-applicable as far as possible, and avoid referencing achievements known to be historically gender- or otherwise biased. PROF2 should be grounded in the GNG: like other SNGs, PROF2 should be framed as an advisory supplements to the GNG, explaining the peculiarities of sourcing in a particular domain and giving sensible rules of thumb on which subjects are likely to meet the GNG, but not superseding it.  A person is notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that scholars are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have attained a certain level of academic rank or recognition by their peers. Scholars that meet any one of the specific criteria below may be presumed to be notable. In assessing the notability of scholars, due consideration should be given to the fact that secondary source coverage is more likely to focus on the subject's work than aspects of their biography. Examples of such coverage include citations, book reviews and review articles. If a scholar's body of work, or any single element of it, meets the general notability guideline, they themselves are also notable.  Scholars are presumed to be notable if they verifiably meet any one of the following criteria.   === Academic appointments and awards === They have held a full professorship or equivalent position at a major university or other institution of higher education and research. They have received an international or national-level award (e.g. ...) for research or teaching. They have been an elected member or fellow of a selective scholarly or professional society.   === Coverage of work === Their published work has been highly cited relative to their field. Their published work has been the subject of multiple reviews. There has been significant coverage of their work in popular media. Wikipedia:Draft rewrite of Notability (academics) Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 10#Confusing structure and vague metrics"
526	535	1173	WP:splitting	WP:splitting	526	"If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).  The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.   === Size split ===  Articles should be neither too big nor too small. Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. Also, some users may have technical limitations, such as a low speed service, an unstable connection, or a pay per megabyte service. At 50 kB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. Consideration, however, needs to be given to the amount and quality of material to be moved. If the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it. Unsourced material shouldn't be used to create new articles as it may have notability or verifiability issues. Below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues.  Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of XTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under ""Prose"" in the ""General statistics"" section; Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize. These guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. Too large after templates are expanded:  After all templates and transclusions are accounted for, if the resulting ""post-expanded include size"" may reach a limit.  Symptoms include templates lower in the page, such as {{reflist}} or navigation templates at the bottom of the page not displaying properly. One solution is to split the article. Since ""un-doing"" a split may be labor-intensive if significant editing happens to either page after the split, try to avoid splitting until after a community discussion.  If there is another way to reduce the ""post-expanded size"" that is easier to ""undo"" than a split, consider doing it first, then opening a discussion to see what the long-term fix should be. Likewise, if a split would be controversial, try to find a less controversial way to temporarily reduce the ""post-expanded size"" then open a discussion to find consensus for a long-term fix. However, if splitting the page is the easiest-to-undo solution and such a split would not be controversial, consider being bold and splitting the page, then immediately opening a discussion to see if the community accepts the split or if it offers alternative solutions.  In this case, be prepared to undo the split.   === Content split ===  Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as ""light"", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat. When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and a disambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article. If unsure, start a discussion on the article's talk page using a template.  Note: For disambiguation pages, use {{Split dab}} instead of {{split}}. If section to be split out is known, use {{split section}}. If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a ""Split"" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the  splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time.  Note: To comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting ""split content from [[article name]]"". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, ""split content to [[article name]]"". The {{Copied}} template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.   === Step 1: Create a discussion === Skip to step 5 if making a bold split. Create a discussion on the talkpage of the page that content is to be split from. Include what sections are to be split and what the new page name should be. Example:  Notify involved users (optional): To generate a discussion and to notify people who know a lot about the topic, it is recommended to contact involved users. These users can be: frequent contributors, the creator of the page or users who have a lot of posts on the talk page. You can notify them by {{ping |USER1|USER2|...}} or by using a notice for their talk page {{Subst:Splitnote | ARTICLE NAME | NEW ARTICLE NAME | TALK PAGE}}. Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split.   === Step 2: Add notice === Use {{split}} to notify users of the proposed split. On the article (not the talkpage) add {{split|Article 1|date=March 2023}} or  {{split|Article 1|Article 2|...|date=March 2023}}. This template adds a box to notify users about the split. If the new page name is unknown, use {{split}} by itself with no parameters.   === Step 3: Discuss === In many cases, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example formatting:   === Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus === Close the discussion and determine the consensus by using the following:   === Step 5: Perform the splitting === See below.  This is the most important step!   === Step 6: Clean up === If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a {{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required; if the split is due to content (or scope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template {{Copied}}.  The following procedure can be used for splitting from a single source article to a new article. These instructions are provided for guidance, but some steps may not be necessary in all cases and these instructions may not cover every eventuality. It is advisable to read through the whole of this procedure before starting.  If the material you want for the new article is scattered around the source article, then prepare the source article by grouping the material to be split out into a single section.  Save your changes with an edit summary like ""preparing to split article"".  If the material you want for the new article is already in a single section, then skip this step. Create the new article by opening the empty page (or redirect page). Open the source article (or relevant section) to edit in another browser window (or tab) and copy the contents to be split out (from the section created in step #1) from the source article. Paste into the new article with edit summary ""Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]; please see its history for attribution."" and save the new article. Tidy up the new article: The lead sentence will need to be changed to use bold font and usually includes a link to the source article. A References section should be added and categories should be added. There may also be sections of a bibliography, navboxes, See also section or External links that can be copied from the source article. Adjust section headings. Add any background information about the parent subject that will be necessary for the reader to understand the subtopic. Resolve any cite errors that occur when invocations of a named reference are separated from their definition – i.e. copy the relevant information from the source article. Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Add ""{{Main|new article name}}"" (use the order: image, main tag, text). If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the ""See"" template instead of the ""Main"" template.  Use the edit summary ""Material [[WP:SPLIT]] to [[New article name]]"" and save the edit. Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate). There may be some external links, bibliography items, etc. that can be removed from the source article as they are now in the new article. Check Special:WhatLinksHere to see whether some inlinks to the source article (especially any that were to the section that has been split off) can now be changed to point to the new article. (Optionally) Add templates referring to the split to the talk pages: If the new article is not being created from scratch (e.g. there is already a redirect), then go to the new article, click on 'View history' tab, select the edit where the copy was made, open it and copy the diff URL of the edit where the cut was made from the browser URL window. If the new article is being created from scratch, it's a bit more complicated to obtain a diff URL – see Template:Copied. Open the source article talk page to edit in a new tab. Add template {{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to source article talk page, and paste the diff URL into it, add the title of the new article and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit. Open the new (destination) article talk page to edit in a new tab. Add template {{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to the new article talk page, and paste the diff into it, add the title of the source page and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit. On the talk page of the new article, you can put the {{SubArticle}} or {{Summary in}} tag to create a banner that refers back to the main article. (Optionally) Put WikiProject tags on the new article's talk page. (If possible) Connect the new article to any corresponding articles in other Wikipedias – see Interwiki.  There are a number of templates that can be used on articles and their talk pages as part of splitting articles.  A list of articles that have been tagged for consideration for splitting are at Category:Articles to be split.  Wikipedia:Proposed article splits Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) – for lists split into multiple pages Wikipedia:Summary style Wikipedia:Merging Wikipedia:Content forking – to be avoided Lumpers and splitters"
527	536	1176	WP:AGRICULTURE	Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture	527	|}
528	537	1178	WP:LOU	Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville	528	1.3% List-Class 37.1% Stub-Class 50% Start-Class 8% C-Class 2.1% B-Class 1.1% GA-Class 0.3% FA-Class 0% remaining WikiProject Louisville is an open collaborative effort started on June 7, 2006 to coordinate and develop appropriate, comprehensive and well-connected content covering metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky (a thirteen-county region in north-central Kentucky and Southern Indiana) and related subjects in the Wikipedia.  Joining: To become a member of our project or see the current list of members, go to the membership department. Membership has its benefits. Doing: To assist our project with article writing and other essential wiki activities per our project's goal, see our project tasks. Membership is not required for working on our tasks. Discussing: To discuss ongoing project work, ask questions or submit ideas/suggestions, go to the project talk page. (Start a new topic) Our Best Work: To see a list of good and featured articles maintained by our project, as well as other articles/pages especially noted in the Wikipedia, view our recognized content. New to Wikipedia? If you want to help out, but don't know the first thing about Wikipedia or how to basically contribute, check out Wikipedia's Welcome Wagon, Teahouse or Help Desk. Also, certainly, you may ask questions on our talk page.  The goal of our WikiProject is to encourage and provide comprehensive coverage of notable subjects pertaining to the Louisville metropolitan area by creating, connecting, assessing, improving upon and monitoring articles, lists, infobox/navbox templates and all other pages about the area and any subject/person well-connected to it (usually identified from Louisville area-related categorization). Our scope is Louisville, Kentucky and the surrounding metropolitan area (based on the 2010 census), consisting of thirteen counties in Kentucky and Southern Indiana, namely Bullitt, Henry, Jefferson (Louisville Metro), Meade, Nelson, Oldham, Shelby, Spencer and Trimble in Kentucky, and Clark, Floyd, Harrison and Washington in Indiana. See the coverage map in the infobox. In addition, because of its bordering proximity to the metro area, Fort Knox is covered. This is an open project that is coordinated by its members. Our project tasks are a compilation generated by its members. All concerns with elements of our project should be discussed on the project talk page.   === Parent WikiProjects === WikiProject Louisville shares coverage with and sometimes supersedes coverage for the following projects:  Formatting/Structure (city articles only): Cities State-level: Kentucky and Indiana Normally, WikiProject Louisville will supersede coverage by WikiProject Kentucky. An example of an exception is a state-level subject that has a clear connection to the metro area, such as a Kentucky governor who hails from one of our constituent counties in Kentucky — dual coverage is necessary in such cases. Country-level (project infrastructure): United States   === Sibling WikiProjects ===
529	538	1179	WP:SELDEL	Wikipedia:Selective deletion	529	The MediaWiki software allows administrators to remove individual revisions from the history of a page. Since the introduction of the RevisionDelete tool, it is used only for handling complex page history merges - see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves.  This refers to the pre-RevisionDelete era.Selective deletion is generally only done when the revisions contain personal information of a user or some other person (telephone numbers, etc.) or copyright violations.  For most kinds of simple vandalism, merely reverting the page to a good version is considered sufficient. Since deleting a revision effectively hides all traces of the edit ever being made, including the name of the editor who made it, doing so may violate the attribution requirement of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA — not to mention making the article history potentially misleading — if the deleted revision introduces any changes that are maintained in the following non-deleted revisions.  Thus, selective deletion should be used very sparingly, and should not be used in cases where legitimate edits have been made between the time the unwanted content was added and the time when it was subsequently found and removed.  In problematic cases, contacting a developer with direct database access may be necessary to sort out the history. Deleted revisions are available to administrators only.  In order to further restrict the visibility of revision, a request for oversight can be filed.  Prior to the introduction of RevisionDelete, MediaWiki provided no way for administrators to directly delete only selected revisions; the only way to accomplish this was to first delete the entire article and then to restore the revisions one does not want to see deleted.  This basic procedure alone is sufficient for simple cases, but it does have some problems if the article has a long history:  Restoring a large number, but not all, of the revisions requires selecting lots of checkboxes on the undelete form; this may be difficult in some browsers.  (In Firefox, and perhaps some other browsers, a range of checkboxes may be selected by first clicking the box at one end of the range and then holding down the Shift key while clicking the box at the other end; for other browsers a JavaScript workaround may be useful.) If the article already has some deleted revisions (because some had been selectively deleted before, for example), deleting it causes the previously deleted revisions to be mixed with the newly deleted ones; sorting them out again may be next to impossible.  Thus, there is a risk that previously deleted versions containing sensitive information may be accidentally restored when a later selective deletion is performed.To avoid these problems, one of the following methods were used.  The first method is somewhat simpler, but requires selecting lots of checkboxes.  The second avoids this, at the cost of some extra steps especially if there are previously deleted revisions.   === A === Move the page to a new title (say, PageName/deleted revisions YYYY-MM-DD, where YYYY-MM-DD is today's date). If the original page had any previously deleted revisions, restore them, move them to a different title (say, PageName/old deleted revisions) and delete them again. Delete the page you moved in step 1. Restore all the revisions except the ones you want deleted. Move the restored revisions back to the original title.   === B === Check if the page has any previously deleted revisions.  If so: Move the page to a temporary title (say, PageName/temp). Restore the deleted revisions, move them away (say, to PageName/old deleted revisions) and delete them again. Move the page back to its original title. Delete the page. Restore only the revisions you want deleted. Move the restored revisions to a new title (say, PageName/deleted revisions YYYY-MM-DD, where YYYY-MM-DD is today's date) and delete them. Restore the remaining versions of the article.Another difference between these methods is that the former leaves an entry in the page history marking the page moves, while in the latter the only trace of the process is left in the deletion/move logs.  Depending on the circumstances, having the moves shown in the history may or may not be desirable, but generally it shouldn't make much difference.  Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, a similar process involving moves and deletions Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia:Revision deletion
530	539	1182	WP:TOPRED	User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks	530	"This is a weekly list of the most requested red links on Wikipedia. It was developed as a corollary of the Top 5000. While this list contains many non-human views, this list can help identify notable topics and search requests that should be created or redirected. This list displays redlinks that have 1000+ views in the prior week interval (run on Sunday mornings, UTC locale). The percentage of views from mobile devices and the Wikipedia Zero project are also broken out (see [1]); and may prove helpful in eliminating automated requests. Heuristics have been installed so that common scripts, images, and cache items are excluded in favor of elements that appear to be legitimate page/search titles. Note that redlinks are guaranteed to be ""red"" only at the time of report generation. Community work may cause portions of this list to become ""blue-linked"" throughout the course of the week.   This list updates every Sunday morning (UTC), aggregating data from the 7 days preceeding 11:59PM Saturday.  All statistics tabulated at the time of report generation (but may have changed since)  Number of redlinks: 342 Sum of all views in list: 579,592  Sum of desktop views in list: 524,148  Sum of mobile views in list: 55,444  Sum of wp-zero views in list: 0"
531	540	1184	WP:AFCHD	Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk	531	"= March 23 =  Alexisgaechter (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:IBC Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Why my article has been rejecterd? Alexisgaechter (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  @Alexisgaechter: because it's bovine excrement. And unreferenced and non-notable bovine excrement, at that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Rukkha1024 (talk · contribs) (TB) User:Rukkha1024/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Rukkha1024 (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  What is your question, @Rukkha1024? Your 'draft' consists of nothing but a single wikilink, hence why I declined it as a test edit.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) CrunchyPixels (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Bug Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  It was denied mainly due to sources, but the sources I picked are nearly the exact same as the Japanese version of the page on Wikipedia. It's also been labeled (from what I can tell) as a conflict of interest. I don't understand what the issues are here. CrunchyPixels (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  @CrunchyPixels: each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own policies and requirements. Therefore what may be acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia, may not be here on the English-language one (or vice versa, although usually the English one has the higher bar for acceptance). It hasn't been 'labeled as a COI', the reviewer just drew your attention to that, reminding you that if you have a COI with regards to this subject, you need to declare it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Wikicontributor1993 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Ocean Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  I was wondering if anyone can review my draft Wikipedia page for The Ocean Foundation and let me know if it looks ok for re-submission. I had submitted it a few months ago and it was declined, but I hopefully addressed these issues and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you so much! :) Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Hi @Wikicontributor1993: you're effectively asking us to review your draft now, and that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Submit your draft when you feel you've addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, and a reviewer will pick it up in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry, meant to post this on Teahouse! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Wikicontributor1993  The Teahouse will probably give you the same answer. David10244 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) They didn't... they helped a lot actually and were much kinder on that page Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC) OK, good. David10244 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 24 =  Catboy628 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Ko Tsz Pun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hello, I had written this article with lots of sources and references but then, it is being declined for many times, this director is awarded in films festivals truly, I DID used the newspaper and many websites from internation films associations to prove it right...  I really don't know why it's still not reliable... looks I need to give up writing in wikipedia,  I am exhausted and really frustrated...  can anyone give me a hand please?  🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 thank you, much appreciated.  Catboy628 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Hi @Catboy628: if you read the comments the reviewers have left, they're saying that there is too much unreferenced content: the first three paragraphs and the the infobox don't have a single reliable source (note that IMDb is not reliable, as anyone can edit it) yet they contain private personal details such as DOB which must be clearly supported. It's not enough that you cite some reliable sources in some parts of the draft – in simple terms, everything you write should only ever come from reliable sources, and should be referenced to tell us what those sources are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC) hi DoubleGrazing,thank you for your advice, but i don't know what else could Catboy628 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC) hi DoubleGrazing, thank you for your advice, but i don't know what else i could do except giving up,  since Catboy628 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Catboy628  The issue is, ""where did all of the other information come from"", or ""how do you know all of that?"".  Cite where the info came from. David10244 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Alessandrogribaudo (talk · contribs) (TB)  User talk:Sklero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Hi I'd like to know how to add external links for the italian wikipedia, because the english template for it is not supported on italian wikipedia and how to add sources also on that italian wikipedia Appreciate  Courtesy link: Draft:SKLERO (presumably?) Alessandrogribaudo (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Alessandrogribaudo: sorry, I'm not sure I understand... what exactly is it you want to do? I notice that the draft is in Italian. Just to clarify, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept articles in English. If you're trying to submit to the Italian Wikipedia, you will need to go to https://it.wikipedia.org/ -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Ventura R. Alves (talk · contribs) (TB) User:Ventura R. Alves/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)What is the main reason for my page to be delated and can it be fixed ? Ventura R. Alves (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Ventura R. Alves: because there is nothing there, but the title of a paper and an external link; these do not add up to a viable article draft, and could be seen as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)What can i do to see my "" in risk of deletion page"" being published ? can it still be fixed ? Ventura R. Alves (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Please don't start a new thread with each question, just add to the existing thread. And please don't put your questions inside the section heading. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Ventura R. Alves  If, as experienced editor DoubleGrazing says, your draft is just a title and a link, then it cannot be published. And it's hardly worth retrieving  either. David10244 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Alfa137 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Jerrold Franklin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) My submission was rejected with the only negative comment being, ""The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.""  I had references for anything I claimed to have done in the way of a publication.  It would help me if you could give one example of a citation or footnote that should have been put in.  I do not know of any statement I made that would need a footnote.  Please help me with one example. Alfa137 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Alfa137:  the purpose of references in Wikipedia is to make it possible for the reader to verify the information in the article. A list of references is not a list of a person's publications, but a list of the independent, reliable sources used to support the content in the article. An example of a statement in the draft that has no footnote is ""Jerrold Franklin graduated in 1948 from Stuyvesant High School, where he was awarded the algebra award.""  All information in a Wikipedia article, especially a biography about a living person, should be supported by a citation, although if the same source supports multiple claims that are presented together in the article, there is no need for multiple citation markers. In addition, adding citation markers manually with square brackets doesn't follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style; you need to add the inline citations in a way that creates footnote links to the reference list, like this:  The blue text in the comment you quoted is, as you probably know, clickable links, and if you follow those links you will find more information about the relevant policies, as well as guides to how to insert inline citations in the text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Alfa137: You may want to see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more help. As editor Bonadea said above, ""the purpose of references in Wikipedia is to make it possible for the reader to verify the information in the article."" Putting numbers in square brackets like this [2] doesn't create a citation. To do that, you can use the ""cite"" button in the VisualEditor or use  tags in source mode. Here's a basic source mode example:  {{Cite web |url=https://www.example.com |title=This is just an example |date=25 March 2023}} That code generates a citation and a formatted reference, that looks like this:  I hope this helps. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC) References   Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  90.255.61.154 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Hyperoperation list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Do not reject this draft page. Or decline it. Just accept it. 90.255.61.154 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  It has been rejected. David10244 (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Twodonotsimply (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Get Up Sequences Part Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  I submitted this article and it was marked as being 'under review' about 11 days ago. The banner at the top of the page says to contact the live chat for help if it has not been reviewed within 12 hours which I did and I was redirected here. Just wondering what's going on with why it's the review still hasn't finished yet. Thanks! Twodonotsimply (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Courtesy ping to Robert McClenon who marked it as under review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I apologize, and have marked it as no longer under review.  I evidently was planning to review it, and was then distracted, and have forgotten about it, so I will leave it to another reviewer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 25 =  Faran315 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Chenab Club Faisalabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am trying to add an article for a local social club that has historic significance.  Multiple references have beeen provided but have failed to get the article approved. This is a venue that has city wide significance. Hence, the references available are also local and average sized websites. Please advise best course of action. Faran 06:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  @Faran315: for notability, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; this draft cites no such source. Also, too much of the content is unreferenced, and has been tagged as such, yet you have resubmitted without addressing the matter. Accordingly, I have had to decline this again, and I should warn you that if the issues highlighted aren't rectified, this is starting to run the risk of outright rejection. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Noted. I will rework the language and try to find more reliable sources. Thanks for your help. Faran 07:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faran315 (talk • contribs)  PS: And don't copypaste from external sources; the entire 'History' section was lifted off the club's website which is under copyright. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Its-unused (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Hyperoperation list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Warning:This page was rejected.  / comment  Its-unused (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC) @Its-unused please, just stop it. And don't mess with the AfC templates, they're there for a reason. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Fredner1 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Fredner Frederic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Fredner1 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Hello @Fredner1:, it looks like your draft has two problems right now: it's almost completely unsourced, which is especially problematic for a biography of a living person, and there's no indication of notability- that is, it doesn't seem that the subject merits its own article: the subject needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Mdeditpro (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Yusof Mutahar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)You don’t have any proof I submitted good article about this person and I had many press to it so why declined it cause your reason is not genuine  Mdeditpro (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Okay... Not declined, though; rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Mdeditpro (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Yusof Mutahar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Please can anyone advise me what they actually mean here “Sources are PR pieces and nothing suggests subject can meet the notability guidelines” I submit a draft and this their reason why they declined it please tell how will solve this  Mdeditpro (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Allpedia, press releases and wiki bio are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Jayneelyn (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Nathan Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hi, I have made revisions on the citations/references based on the comments given by contributors. Also, how do you disclose paid contributions in the aFC? I was only able to edit it in the user page. Will highly appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks! Jayneelyn (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  @Jayneelyn see WP:PAID; you disclose either on your own user page, or on the talk page of the article(s) affected, or both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Hi. I already disclosed that the article is a paid contribution under the user page, as advised. Please see the revisions made. Thank you!  Jayneelyn (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Jayneelyn: thank you for disclosing that; however, please don't post the entire article draft on your user page (see WP:UP for advice on what content is allowed on user pages). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @DoubleGrazing noted on this. Thank you so much! Is there anything else I need to improve or revise? Thanks. Jayneelyn (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Jayneelyn: yes, you will need to significantly improve the referencing – three sources, each only once cited, is nowhere near enough to support the article, as most of the content remains unreferenced. Please see WP:BLP for advice on writing and referencing articles on living people. TL;DNR = every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by citing reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 26 =  24.45.0.66 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Toy Story 3 In Real Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)I want to include a wiki page for Toy Story 3 in real life because I was inspired by the live action toy story wiki page. 24.45.0.66 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Find three or more reliable and independent secondary sources that have covered that subject in significant depth and extent, and report back. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Snorlaxjen (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Jazz Emu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Hi  can you please help, I have submitted this page a couple of times but been told that the sources aren’t reliable, but I have reference back to major UK newspapers and websites such as the BBC which are trustworthy sources. This person also has sources related to Cambridge university and various mainstream media.  When I was told there were too many web sources I removed some to avoid confusion   Can you provide some further guidelines on what is acceptable source material in order to get this page approved ? Thanks  Snorlaxjen (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  @Snorlaxjen: the statement not adequately supported by reliable sources can mean two different things, either some or all of the sources aren't reliable, or the sources don't adequately support the draft. At a quick glance, I'd say both are the case here. Firstly, although there are indeed some reliable sources cited, others are distinctly non-reliable. Secondly, far too much of the content is unreferenced, incl. some private personal details (see WP:BLP about why this is a particular problem). On a separate but related point, the sources may also not be sufficient to establish notability. Please see the general notability guideline for details of what sort of sources are needed for this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Rajmama (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Sangramsingh Thakur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Rajmama (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  What is your question, @Rajmama? The draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 27 =  Awlad Hossen Eshan  biography was missing.  He is an actor,  author and musician. Itseshan (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Itseshan What do you need help with? David10244 (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Palangappa (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:PointCross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Palangappa (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Palangappa: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 13:44:07, 27 March 2023 review of submission by Palangappa  Palangappa (talk · contribs) (TB)  Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  Hi, I am new to Wikipedia writing, I recently drafted a short article about PointCross Life sciences. Could you please tell what went wrong with that article? and what can be done to improve the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PointCross Palangappa (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Palangappa: the draft is entirely promotional, with no substantive encyclopaedic content; also, the sources cited don't come even close to establishing the subject's notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Chaimaa.M (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Sunflower Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)I would love to hear some advice on how should I correct the draft, without being cancelled. Thank you for your time.  Chaimaa.M (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Chaimaa.M: sorry to say, but I think that's pretty much unsalvageable. Firstly, it is promotional. Secondly, it is almost entirely unreferenced. And thirdly, you say on the talk page that it is a translation of some website, which means that as a derivative work it is also quite likely a copyright violation. You should expect it to be deleted shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Chaimaa.M (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Sunflower Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)I am requesting a re-review, because I want to understand my draft keeps being rejected and what can I do for it to be approved. Thank you  Chaimaa.M (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Chaimaa.M: please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. If it's a copyvio, there is nothing you can do to get it approved. We have an legal duty to prevent violations. If you wish to write a new article, please see WP:YFA and WP:REF for advice. Oh, and you should also familiarise yourself with WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Coldfire 1776 (talk · contribs) (TB)  I submitted a poem, and a couple seconds later, it got declined. I would like to know the reason why!!!! Coldfire 1776 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  @Coldfire 1776: because this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for publishing poetry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC) So what?! This isn't fable and/or fairy tale publishing platform either! And guess what?! I STILL SEE TJOSE! Coldfire 1776 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)So what if it's not a poetry platform?! There's poetry on it!!!! It's also not a fable and/or fairy tale publishing platform, and I STILL SEE THOSE!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldfire 1776 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   @Coldfire 1776: There are articles about notable poems, and about notable fairy tales, on Wikipedia. If your poem has been published and discussed by scholars or other people who are not connected to you, then there can be an article about it. But none of us can use Wikipedia to publish our own poems or stories. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, but I'd like to know, why not? I mean, why do you have to become famous to share a poem with the world?! Coldfire 1776 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC) you don't, but this isn't the platform to share it. Speak to a publisher or post it on social media. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) You're kidding me. Coldfire 1776 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Okay, enough now, please. We have 3,500 drafts to review. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) You're not welcome. Coldfire 1776 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 28 =  Auk lak (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Vuk Lakićević (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)I am professional handball player with many years experience in leading European handball leagues. Have so many articles on Google about me (interviews, transfer news… ) so hope can help me to remove some mistakes in article and share it.  Auk lak (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @Auk lak: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Also, please see WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Rihards.veters (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Dalder.lv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  I'm wondering why I can't add my companies description to wikipedia? I understand that there are not many searches for it in English, but we're one of the largest marketing platforms in Latvia. And we're only getting bigger. Constantly adding new features and updating them.  Should I add this article in Latvian instead?  Rihards.veters (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @Rihards.veters: because that draft is not only completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability, but it's also pure advertising. Whether or not you can get this included in the Latvian Wikipedia, I've no idea, since that's a completely separate project; you'll have to enquire with them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, so how should I rewrite it so it's not being deleted but added to Wikipedia? What do you mean there're no evidence? There are plenty of posts, articles around the internet about Dalder.lv. For example here: https://kursors.lv/2020/08/13/dalder-lv-sludinajumu-portals-ko-mes-jau-sen-bijam-pelnijusi/ https://talsi.pilseta24.lv/zina?slug=dalder-lv-jaunakas-paaudzes-sludinajumu-portals-pieejams-ari-talsu-iedzivotajiem-759247827d https://zz.lv/nekustamais-ipasums-jelgava-ar-dalder-lv/ https://rekurzeme.lv/nekustamais-ipasums-liepaja-drosak-dalder-lv/ and many more. Rihards.veters (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) And everyone is able to check Latvian company registry site to find out all details about company it self, like legal information etc. https://company.lursoft.lv/lv/dalder/40203006313 Rihards.veters (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Rihards.veters: I meant there is no evidence of notability in the draft, because it doesn't (didn't; it has since been deleted) contain a single reference. It's not our job to go hunting for evidence somewhere on the internet; the onus is on you as the article creator to provide that evidence, correctly cited, and sufficient to establish the subject's notability per the general notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ok thanks for your replies and I promise that I'll add more precise facts with references about my future articles which could again include Dalder.lv Rihards.veters (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   = March 29 =  Owlz r radz (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Home of Krampus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) why cant i access my draft when im trying to write down the holiday tradions on google docs Owlz r radz (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  @Owlz r radz: the reason why you cannot access this draft is because it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Mathiasferre (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Nordisk Film & TV Fond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  I dont understand why Nordisk Film & TV Fond gets declined. Please see; https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordisk_Film_%26_TV_Fond Mathiasferre (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  @Mathiasferre: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice – did you read it? That is, there is no evidence that the subject is notable, and because the sources are primary, they cannot be used to independently verify the information. (The fact that an article on this subject may exist in other language versions of Wikipedia is neither here nor there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 118.211.45.84 (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:SugaboyTutorials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)118.211.45.84 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC) DoctorDaleks (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Trials24 GmbH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hey, can I please get some clarification on why the article was declined(within seconds) I'm wondering what makes it not notable? is it the text, sources or subject matter?  Kind thanks for your help DoctorDaleks (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  @DoctorDaleks: it is the sources; notability is established by citing appropriate sources, from which it follows that lack of such sources is what makes a subject non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)"
532	541	1187	WP:DWD	Wikipedia:Wikipedihol	532	"Wikipedihol (also known as Wikipedine, methylwikipedine, and diacetylwikipedine (MWD, DWD) in its various forms, some being drugs, some being alcohol) is a drug that triggers the addiction part of the human brain, tampering with the user's mental fabric, decision-making and thought-process causing Wikipedia-centric thoughts. Much like prescribed medicines, it has variations in strength; for the light-hearted there are 25wg (wikigram) tablets, ranging up to 500wg tablets for thrill-seekers, in 25wg increments. Wikipedihol has been known to make people lose all rationality and logicality in their decision-making and thought-process and clear backlogs at 2:00 AM. Wikipediholic is the demonym prescribed to those afflicted.  Due to the danger of Wikipedihol consumption, it is currently a prescription-only medicine. If you are interested in this medication, visit your local general practice or general practitioner to receive a prescription. It is available from your local pharmacy, as a tablet, capsule or syrup. N.B.: Doses above 200 wg require a prescription from a specialist doctor. It has been recently discovered that users of Wikipedihol (in certain subsects) have resorted to crushing tablets of the drug, and snorting them via a hollowed Wikipedia pen, to effectively double the amount of direct information delivered to the cerebrum. If you have a sudden urge to edit this ttypo, you may be on Wikipedihol.   === Why take Wikipedihol? === The users of Wikipedihol are comparable to those of the flower child generation who smoked cannabis. As the ""hippies"" smoked weed to achieve happiness, so too do people take Wikipedihol for self-satisfaction. Who among you can announce that they cleared an entire backlog at 2:00 a.m. in the morning?  You take the Wikipediholic's test to see how much of a Wikipediholic you are. You turn from a reader to a writer. You check your watchlist and talk page more than your email inbox. You procrastinate things that have been important in your life. You realize you are editing pages on a Wednesday night. You talk about Wikipedia frequently in daily life. You have conversations with your sock puppet on the talk pages (This is against Wikipedia rules). Your best friend is your sock puppet (Also against Wikipedia rules). Upon hearing the term ""alcoholic"", you catch yourself clarifying it to a complete stranger ""Oh, you mean like a Wikipediholic only with alcohol"". Whenever your web-browser is closed, you feel a large sense of communal absence. You have an account with one or more other Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects. You accidentally sign emails with four tildes, try to italicize with apostrophes, etc. You try to edit your sent items on your email account, thinking that they can be updated. You regularly write """" in the margin of any book you are reading. When you try to explain something, you have an urge to add wikilinks with ""[[]]"". You get confused when you can't find the little blue edit markers on books and magazines. You accidentally say ""Does this spot on my hat look notable?"" You have dreams about an anthropomorphic Wikipedia. If so much as one thing you don't know comes across your mind, you bolt for the nearest computer to see if Wikipedia has a page on it. If it does, you drop whatever you were doing before the urge took you and edit the page obsessively, whether you know the topic or not. If it does not, you obsessively check every single paper encyclopedia you have and search six different search engines for information on the subject. Then you proceed to write three screens worth on the topic and create an article on it, which probably will never be seen or thought about by another being in a thousand years. You start playing WikiLadders - the game where you open two random articles and try to get from the first to the second using only the links in the first and subsequent articles... ...and then go back to try and do it again using fewer links. You try editing magazines. You skip an important date to look up references for an article on a subject you'd never even heard of before you discovered Wikipedia. You turn up late for work and bleary-eyed after a particularly aggressive XfD (and you know what XfD means because you've looked it up already.) Your state/provincial/national reference librarians know you by first name. You add Wiki to most words in real life, and have sent letters to the Oxford University Press demanding that ""wiki"" be added as an official prefix. Some Wikipediholics say this prayer before beginning a day long chain of edits.   === WikiPrayer === God, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit, The courage to edit the pages I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.([1], adapted from The Serenity Prayer. See also: Wikipedia:The Wikipedian's Prayer)The Subterranean WikiPrayer Revisited, Nos. 5 and 36  Johnny edits the Main Page I re-write the Stone age Napoleon and Shakespeare dress like a light bulb We'll be here all night – refresh the same pageMotto  One edit is too many and a thousand is never enough.   === The 12 steps of recovery for Wikipediholics === We admitted we were powerless over Wikipedia; that our lives had become unmanageable. Came to believe that an Author of Knowledge greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Made a decision to turn our obsession for editing and article creation over to the care of The Author of Knowledge as we understood Them. Made a searching and fearless knowledge inventory of ourselves. Admitted to the Author of Knowledge, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our factual mistakes and gaps. Were entirely ready to have the Author of Knowledge remove all these factual defects. Humbly asked Them to remove our shortcomings by motivating us to be diligent in our research and study. Made a list of all persons we had harmed by spreading unverified rumors, and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Continued to take personal knowledge inventories and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the Author of Knowledge, as we understood Them, praying only for knowledge of Their will for us and the power to carry that out. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Wikipediholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.Those wishing to get rid of the habit, may wish to check themselves in the Clinic. Those who are sick of all these jokes and just want to talk to someone may wish to check the talk page. With all due reverence and respect to those who suffer from genuine addictions and have found relief and recovery through twelve-step programs, and equal respect for those who have tried and failed to do the same thing.  Wikipediholism, as it is known, comes in many stages. These are as listed at the page for Wikipediholism.   === Risk factors === Those who are the most at risk for catching the disease are those who have created an account, have access to a computer constantly and consistently, and who like the idea of a wiki. Those with Editcountitis may have elevated risk factors, as do hackers, Linux users, and Firefox enthusiasts (because of their exposure to open source technology).   === Early stages === The patient finds that they ""like"" Wikipedia. They use the Main Page as a bookmark and consults the articles for information. The patient contributes to articles that they find lacking. They learn basic wiki markup. The patient can, however, give up now and cure themselves.   === Middle stages === The patient uses the Main Page or their watchlist as bookmarks and their homepage. They reduce other online activities. The patient may join a WikiProject and contribute heavily to articles, as well as try editing outside the article and talk namespaces. They learn basic HTML and advanced wiki markup. The patient requests to become an Administrator, and proudly shows off their barnstars. Most refuse cures, which are still available.   === Late stages === The patient uses their watchlist as their homepage. They may also explore the Recent changes. The patient reduces other ""real world"" activities. They may join multiple WikiProjects and contribute very heavily to many articles, as well as trying to edit heavily outside the article and talk namespaces. The patient learns advanced HTML and master wiki markup. They become an Administrator. The patient may use third party software to edit Wikipedia, and accumulate many barnstars. The thought comes to them, while reading this page, ""this isn't funny; my contributions to Wikipedia are extremely important"". Cures become scarce.   === Terminal stages ===  The patient uses the Recent changes as their homepage and identifies as a Recent changes patroller. They reduce all other activities besides those relating to ""real world"" health and Wikipedia (and sometimes endanger the former). The patient joins multiple WikiProjects and contributes very heavily to many articles, as well as to the core of running Wikipedia. They master HTML and rewrite the Manual of style. The patient requests to be a Bureaucrat. They shun third party software, preferring the ""raw"" Wikipedia experience. The patient has so many barnstars that they take them off their userpage because they take up too much room and place them in a subpage of their userpage. Extreme denial may result, and cure is almost impossible.   ==== Organ Failure ==== If Wikipedihol is in the body for an extended period of time, when removed, it causes the section of the brain that causes happiness to fail partially or completely. A transplant from another Wikipedian is necessary for normal behavior in society.  For those who see no end to or choose not to end their Wikipediholism, they may choose to join the Department of Fun to keep things interesting. Also, keep an eye out for more Wikitivities. For instance, writing songs like the parody Hotel Wikipedia and Staying Alive as laments of despair over lost and ruined lives. You might also want to try a cure of wikipatch. In case of an ""OMG"" dire emergency and should all else fail, consider checking into the Clinic for Wikipediholics. You might join troll organizations, but you will probably find very little solace there, since trolls have poor social support for each other, and they are still stuck here like the rest of us. Perhaps the most effective solution of all is to embrace your wikipediholism, accept it as part of your identity, and cherish it.  Don't just admit it - brag about it!  And if others call you a wikipediholic, take that as a compliment.  If they call you a troll, and they will, so what? Spread your Wikipediholism! It is only a good thing! We're all trolls here:  Eventually.  Wikipediholism is a tongue-in-cheek term used to describe excessive time spent reading or editing on Wikipedia. The term may be humorous, but the problem can be grave. Like any behavioral addiction, Wikipedia overuse may lead to job loss, divorce, bankruptcy, or worse. Fortunately, a variety of corrective strategies exist.  Read this once every hour you spend on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a great project. It's good to help Wikipedia. It's a good pastime and it's very educational.  However:  Every hour you spend at Wikipedia is an hour from your life. Do you have something more important to do? Consider doing it first. Wikipedia may not help you reach your life goals. Even though Wikipedia is educational, there may be better ways of educating yourself. Wikipedia is not necessarily a substitute for them. Time is money. Are you sure you can afford the time to serve Wikipedia? If you can, that's well and good, but do so one hour at a time only. Sometimes it is necessary that you take a WikiBreak when you have something much more important to do. Moreover, this will help you to rejuvenate yourself. If you are using a mobile device, consider using its settings to limit the amount of time you can spend on Wikipedia. If you are using a computer, you can take a forced Wikibreak.All the best. Remember, Wikipedia wants you to be the best person you can. It is not the goal of the project to steal the time you can use to improve your career prospects, learn new skills, spend time with family or friends, rejuvenate yourself, or use any way you wish. Remember, it's your time and you are donating it to Wikipedia. It is healthy to donate what you can afford to donate, but no more.  Wikipediholism can be a manifestation of problematic Internet use (PIU) and/or a variety of co-occurring psychiatric disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or clinical depression. Corrective strategies include self-control software, content-control software, various other addiction treatments (such as motivational interviewing), and treating any co-occurring disorders. If self-control software is insufficient, you may want to try one or more of the following ideas:  You could contact a professional. If you live in Canada or the US, you can check the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry list or with a doctor. If neither of those two resources were able to help you, then you can check the American Society of Addiction Medicine directory. If you live elsewhere, you can contact your local psychiatric society, or you can ask a doctor. If neither of those two resources were able to help you, then you can contact your local addiction medicine society or the International Society of Addiction Medicine. If you still haven't found a professional who you can afford to see, you can ask a local doctor, or Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous in your area, to point you to a mental-health professional you can afford to visit. There are charities in many places that offer free or low-cost mental health counselling. Meanwhile, you could visit a twelve-step meeting. Narcotics Anonymous is very accepting of problematic Internet users, and it may be helpful for you. If you feel that it might indeed help you, keep going back. There are no dues, fees, or waiting lists. Narcotics Anonymous operates in about 130 countries. You could see a doctor and get screened to see if you have any co-occurring psychological disorders. Such disorders are very common, and it may be impossible to recover from problematic Internet use if you do not treat them.Or, you may write to us on the talk page and ask us for more help.   === Software that may help === Self-control software is one possible solution. Or you can use break reminder software. Some, like Workrave, can lock you out of your computer after a daily time limit has passed. Or you can use content-control software. Mobicip, Qustodio, Limit Launcher or K9 Web Protection can stop you from using the Internet late at night altogether. Use a random password generator to choose a password for your content-control software. Write it down on an index card. Lock the index card in a box. Lock the box in a remote location (such as a car trunk). Put the key to the box in a labeled envelope, and store it in a different remote location (perhaps underneath some heavy furniture such as a dresser, or underneath one or more mattresses, or in an attic or crawlspace, or in a basement underneath a pile of heavy items). Or tell a friend to use some remote control software to set a password which only they will know. The friend should email the password to themselves so as not to forget it. If you only procrastinate on Wikipedia, then you can instead get an anti-Wikipediholism reminder once an hour or can use the WikiBreak Enforcer. Alternatively, you can request that an administrator block you from editing. Addiction—Learn the science of your problem, and addiction in general Wikipediholism—a page describing the medical phenomenon.  Roberts, Kevin J. (2010). Cyber Junkie: Escape the Gaming and Internet Trap. Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Publishing. ISBN 9781592859481. OCLC 555629713. Chapter 1 "
533	542	1188	WP:DERM	Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force	533	The Dermatology task force, part of the WikiProject Medicine, is committed to making Wikipedia the most comprehensive dermatologic resource.  Articles within the scope of the dermatology task force are the dermatology and related subspecialty articles, and those pertaining to:   the history of dermatology; related periodicals; dermatologists with notable contributions to the field; the integumentary system structure and function; conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system; and dermatologic terminology, signs, pharmacology, procedures, and surgery. The overall goal of the dermatology task force is to make Wikipedia the most comprehensive dermatologic resource.  Specific goals of this task force are to:  maintain the dermatology article; maintain an organized categorization of dermatology-related articles; maintain a listing of all known conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system; maintain the cutaneous conditions article; maintain a listing of all dermatologists with notable contributions to the field; create new articles on topics within the scope that are not yet covered by Wikipedia; increase the number of high-quality dermatology-related images; ensure that dermatologic content is thoroughly and properly referenced; and improve the Spanish Wikipedia dermatology-related Wikipedia articles (see es:Piel humana (human skin) for a starting reference point). If you are new to Wikipedia, you can learn about the project and how to edit by reading this brief introduction. If you are looking to help improve the dermatologic content on Wikipedia, you could start by working on a condition from this list, or by contributing to the Bolognia push.  To view the task force members and/or join, visit the participants' page.   === Article assessment === To view a current assessment of dermatologic content on Wikipedia, please visit the article assessment page.   === Page views === For a compilation of page view statistics, see this month's most popular dermatology-related pages.   === Article creation === For a compilation article and redirect creation data for pages assessed within the scope of the Dermatology task force, see the articles created page.
534	543	1192	WP:overzealous deletion	WP:overzealous deletion	534	"Overzealous deletion refers to an overwhelming desire to get articles or other materials on Wikipedia deleted.   This essay is not in total opposition to deletion. There are some materials that do need to be deleted. For example, anyone who has learned what Wikipedia is really about would believe that no one should be writing articles about themselves, their clubs or organizations, or their bands. Wikipedia is no place for spreading hatred, racist views or personal attacks, publicly distributing of private information about editors, or doing copyright violations. Most importantly, we want information contained in the encyclopedia to be accurate, neutral, and based on reliable sources. That is what the article deletion process is for. But when meaningful contributions are made, it is important to assume good faith in the contributor and not to rush to ""get rid"" of someone else's new article. Even if the article does not follow your own interests, it was written by someone for a good reason. The main duty of each and every Wikipedia editor is to improve the encyclopedia by adding more useful information about the world and its contents and improving the quality of writing of existing information. Yes, deletion of articles may sometimes be necessary, but if you are so anxious to get an article deleted, before you do so, you should understand the real reason behind the deletion policy.  There are quite a lot of false beliefs held by many editors that probably lead to many of the deletion proposals that do take place. Anyone who is considering deletion of an article should read this and also consider these facts below before making such a proposal.   === Reasons === Myth: ""Bad"" articles get deleted in order to save space on Wikipedia. Fact: On average, with all the discussions that take place, the process of getting an article deleted actually takes up more storage space than the article itself, as, once deleted, the discussion that led to the deletion remains permanently, and administrators still have access to the article. The real purpose of deletion is to restrict the encyclopedia to encyclopedic content and to remove content that violates Wikipedia's core policies (e.g., personal attacks).   === Personal taste ===  Myth: I don't like an article or part of an article. Therefore, I can have it deleted. Fact: Wikipedia is not about what you like and do not like. An article or section that fully conforms with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion must remain, even if one or a few people do not like it.Myth: This article does not appeal to me personally. Therefore, it should be deleted. Fact: Wikipedia has articles about the interests of many different people. Wikipedia has been written for the whole world, not just yourself.Myth: An article sounds stupid. Therefore, it should be deleted. Fact: A label like ""stupid"" is a matter of opinion. ""Stupid"" may indicate your own lack of interest, or it may simply be poor writing, which may be grounds for cleanup (see Article quality below) but is in itself not grounds for deletion.   === Obscurity ===  Myth: I have never heard of the subject described in this article. Therefore, it should be deleted. Fact: No one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia can have articles about them.Myth: I have never heard of the subject described in this article. Therefore, it must be a hoax. Fact: When a subject is obscure, its existence may be known to just a few people. As long as proof of its existence can be given with a reliable source, it is surely not a hoax. Even if no proof is given, this does not automatically classify it as a hoax.If you have concern about how well you personally know about a subject, you may want to click the Random article tab a number of times and see what comes up. How many of the subjects named in the title have you heard of? It is very likely that quite a lot of these subjects, possibly the majority of them, will be equally unknown to you.   === Article quality ===  Myth: I see a problem with an article. It is poorly written, has no references, is full of original research, and I do not believe it is even notable. Therefore, I should go ahead and propose it for deletion. Fact: It is better to attempt to salvage a potentially viable article as best as the Wikipedia community can before putting it up for deletion. A better alternative is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made. Even if they are not made promptly or within a few days, weeks, months, or even years, there is still that glimmer of hope the article can be improved in the future. Many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. See WP:BEFORE to know what should be done before an article can be put up for deletion.   === Judgment ===  Myth: An article was just put up for AfD. Already, a few people have said it should be deleted. Deletion is a sure thing now. Fact: It's not over until it's over. The article's fate is yet to be sealed. As always, consensus can change. Anyone's good point, including your own, can help save it. You can also make improvements to the article yourself to help rescue it.Myth: AfD is a vote. More ""keeps"" means it'll be kept, and more ""deletes"" means it'll be deleted. Fact: The numbers of keeps and deletes do not decide the outcome. Entries that are simply votes are dismissed. The comments that reference policies, guidelines, and essays and state why they call for inclusion or exclusion are actually those that will determine the outcome.   === About the person ===  Myth: An article that I wrote got deleted. This shows I am inexperienced and made a poor choice. Fact: Deletion is nothing personal against the creator (see WP:NOSHAME). It is only a way to make the encyclopedia conform to its standards. Even veteran Wikipedians with thousands of edits and years of experience write articles that get deleted (though not very often).Myth: I proposed an article for deletion and then it got deleted. This is something to be proud of. Fact: An editor does not score any ""points"" or otherwise improve their reputation by getting an article deleted.Myth: It looks good to follow the consensus and bad to have a differing opinion. Fact: Just because the majority of editors comment or ""vote"" a certain way does not mean you are required to, or that it is even a good idea to. And you will not be an outcast for commenting differently.  Your alternative viewpoint is fully welcome. Minority views are valued and can make all the difference.   === New page patrol ===  Myth: New page patrollers are a group of elite, skilled professionals in a position of authority. Fact: Anyone can participate in NPP, even unregistered users. While new page reviews generally have to have been registered users of the English Wikipedia for at least 90 days and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace, there is no requirement for simply patrolling new pages, it is helpful but not required that you have some understanding of what is a good enough article to stay and what is not, though no certification is required, and it is all up to you.   === About administrators ===  Myth: I am striving to be an administrator. Therefore, getting articles deleted will support my cause. Fact: Proposing articles for deletion that do not fit the accepted deletion criteria is not in any way, shape, or form a step toward becoming an administrator. In fact, many requests for adminship have been rejected over concerns of excessive deletion proposals. Logical deletion proposals do, however, reflect well on the editor.Myth: Administrators can unilaterally decide which articles are kept or deleted. Fact: While an administrator does make the final decision to keep or delete, they do not really have exclusive rule. They are merely completing the action formally decided via the discussion. An administrator, when it comes to deletion, is like a judge in a trial; they must follow the pre-existing laws and the recommendation of the jury when making a judgment, and not make decisions based on their personal beliefs. There are some materials that should be deleted. If you come across any articles or other materials with these issues, feel free to get them deleted.   === Spam/unambiguous advertising ===  Wikipedia is not an advertising space. Any pages that serve the sole purpose of advertising should be speedy deleted, marked with {{db-spam}}. An article that has some content that is written like an advertisement, with a promotional tone and style, but whose subject does qualify for an article (under WP:N, the Notability guideline) should not be deleted, but instead be marked {{ad}}, notifying others to change the writing style to give it a neutral tone.   === Biographies === Wikipedia has stricter standards when it comes to biographical information about people, especially living people (see WP:BLP). It is of prime importance that articles about people or groups of people be accurate, and the people described in the articles be notable. Any pages that describe a clearly unremarkable person or group of people can be speedy-deleted. Some tags for various categories include {{db-bio}} for individuals, {{db-comp}} or {{db-corp}} for articles about businesses, {{db-org}} for articles about insignificant organizations, or {{db-band}} for articles about unimportant musicians or bands. For anyone not falling into any of these categories, one can simply write {{db|reason for deletion}} at the top. If there is any doubt, they can be prodded or sent to AfD.   === Biased articles === An article that presents only one, unbalanced point of view regarding a subject – for example, an article promoting a topic that the author is affiliated with – may be deleted if it cannot reasonably be cleaned up to present a more neutral point of view. Similarly, a heavily biased section of an article might be removed if it's unsalvageable.   === Subjects invented by creator === Wikipedia is not for what is made up in one day. The world is filled with creative people, many of whom are eager to make their new ideas known. For example, it could be a new game, song, phrase, technique, or interpretation. It is not uncommon for people to try to use Wikipedia to let the world know of their invention. But that is not what this encyclopedia is for. There are many other places on the Internet to publish things you made up, such as blogs and chat pages. By the time your new idea is Wikipedia-worthy (that is, by the time it appears in a reliable published source, it'll probably be well-known enough that a total stranger will create the article.   === Attack pages ===  Pages written intentionally to disparage the subject should be speedy deleted, as set out in the policy prohibiting attack pages. The tag {{db-attack}} can be used to mark a page to be speedy deleted for this reason. Also, pages written purely to express a point-of-view rather than describe a subject neutrally, that have no neutral versions in the page's history, and have no potential to be made neutral should be deleted. Pages about notable subjects that can be written neutrally, but have simply been written at a point of view should be tagged {{POV}}, and the neutrality issues discussed on the talk page, so that the POV issues can be resolved.   === Copyright infringement === Blatant copyright infringements, such as copy-paste jobs from other web sites, should be speedy deleted. However, not everything that is pasted is copyrighted. Materials that are in the public domain or available under a free license are not copyright infringements and need not be deleted on those grounds.  For articles and other material with the same issues, deletion is not recommended, but the actions below are. Please see WP:BEFORE for more details.   === Short articles ===  Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason but should be marked as stubs. Even if the 'article' is really a dictionary entry, if there is published, reliable evidence of even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept. In these cases, research of the term should be conducted prior to a deletion proposal to examine if additional sources can be identified. It is sometimes better to discuss on the article's talk page whether or not it can be expanded prior to initiating the deletion proposal. Merging is also an option, and is sometimes a better one than deletion.   === Poorly written articles ===  Many newbies will write often short articles that show poor grammar, text, and overall writing and wiki skills. Even the initial creation of a page from a veteran editor (following additional edits to improve it) may not have the tidiest appearance. This does not mean the subject is not worthy of an article. Articles about subjects that are probably notable, are poorly written, or even those that lack references (unless they are biographies) can be tagged to let others know of the deficiency. This will let others who read the pages in the future know of these problems and potentially be able to fix them.   === Articles on obscure topics ===  Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any Google hits. But this is not grounds for deletion. Many articles on obscure topics are presumed to be hoaxes by many who are unfamiliar. But before concluding that something is a hoax, it is important to assume good faith and consider that the subject is simply little known. The key thing to look for is high-quality reliable sources. You may never have heard about an obscure concept such as theodicy, but if a number of university press books attest to its existence (and they do), you can have confidence that this is a real concept.   === Lack of familiarity with the subject ===  You may not be familiar with the subject. You may not have ever heard of it before you came across the article. Therefore, it may not sound notable to you. Either way, it is known to the creator, and to those who made other contributions. No one is familiar with everything in the world, and you do not need to be aware of its existence for the article to stay. Rather than deleting it, why not take this opportunity to learn about what it is? When you click the random article tab on the left, the minority of the articles and most likely, fewer than 10% of articles will be about something you have ever heard of. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with few if any articles.   === Dislike of the subject ===  The subject may be something that does not appeal to you. It may pertain to a differing interest, field, point-of-view, religion, or some other factor that bothers you personally. But Wikipedia is here for the whole world, not just you.   === Dislike of the creator ===  You may have some disagreement with the article's creator in relation to their previous contributions to Wikipedia, their position in a current or previous discussion, or the type of articles they normally edit. You may be mad that the creator got an article you wrote deleted. You may have gotten into an edit war previously with the creator. You may be upset that the creator has reverted one or more of your edits in the past, templated your talk page, or otherwise criticized your actions. Or you may have some ill feelings against the creator for something not related to Wikipedia. None of these are ever an acceptable reason to propose an article for deletion, never ever ever. If you propose an article for deletion, or support an article's deletion for any of these reasons, you are not only hurting the creator but hurting many others as well who may edit or merely read the article without editing. The creator is simply the one who made the first edit to the article, but the creator does not own the page, and it is very possible that many edits later, the creator may be one of the most minor contributors to the most recent version. In fact, it is possible for none of the creator's original version to remain in the text of the most recent version.   === Erroneous reason === Using as argument a valid rule which actually do not apply to that page.    If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered. These include:  Using a search engine to see what sources do exist. A regular web search may not provide as many reliable sources as Google News, Books, or Scholar, so it is preferable to try the latter three. Please be aware that not all deletions are about sources or lack thereof. Discussing issues with the article on the talk page. Here, you can wait to get a response from one or more others regarding whether or not it should be deleted. This is also a way to discuss possible changes that can be made in lieu of deletion. Having a one-on-one discussion with the page's creator in order to learn their point-of-view, knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, what they were thinking when they created it, and their plans for that page's future. Placing templates on top of the page informing others who read or edit the page of the issues so they can be improved. Template:Article issues lists most of the possible templates that can be placed on top of a page. Suggesting the page be merged or boldly merging the page oneself. Merging can be done and undone without a discussion and without administrative intervention.  So, an article or edit is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It has loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article. If this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problem. That's what the talk page is for. Deletion of an article where the subject's notability can be evidenced by reliable sources contradicts the overall goal of the Wikipedia project. Content removal can be used to weed out problematic areas, and other adjustments and improvements can sometimes be made, including the addition of new information and corresponding reliable sources. This may take a lot of work, but Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. On the other hand, there must actually be a real baby in the bathwater. An article shouldn't be kept on the hopes that sources may eventually be written about the topic; we all know that babies don't come from spontaneous generation in a dirty tub.  They are brought by storks. Very large, very strong storks.  So, after all this, do you still believe a page needs to be deleted? If so, what's the rush? Obviously, if this page was created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines, it must be deleted in a hurry. This includes abusive practices like attack pages, autobiographies, spam and advertising pages, blatant copyright violations, and intentional inaccuracies. For all others, there is really no hurry to have the issues addressed.  Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence Wikipedia:Does deletion help? Wikipedia:Follow the leader Wikipedia:No shame Wikipedia:Make protection requests sparingly Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias WikiProject College Football: West Precedent, case study Wikipedia:WikiBigotry Wikipedia:Witchhunt Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Meta:Inclusionism Meta:Deletionism Deletionism - meta.wikimedia.org Inclusionism  - meta.wikimedia.org Mergism - meta.wikimedia.org Separatism - meta.wikimedia.org"
535	544	1194	WP:WPNZ	Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand	535	"Some Wikipedians have formed a WikiProject to better organise information in articles related to New Zealand.  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please enquire on the talk page.  The time in New Zealand is 20:28, 29 March 2023 NZDT [refresh]  WikiProject New Zealand  This WikiProject covers all subjects closely related to New Zealand, including its history, geography, people, biodiversity, and many other topics. As of 29 March 2023, there are 55,975 articles within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, of which 82  are featured.  This makes up 0.84% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.79% of featured articles and lists.  Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 143,266  pages in the project.  Closely related projects and sub-projects include:  Māori sub-project Music sub-project Politics sub-project Law sub-project Critter of the Week task force New Zealand – Content task force New Zealand task force of the military history project New Zealand railways project Oceania Highways task force New Zealand cinema task force West Coast task force WikiProject Auckland New Zealand meetups and edit-a-thons New Zealand Wikipedian at Large Performing Arts Aotearoa Wikiproject Pacific Arts Aotearoa New Zealand Women in Architecture WikiProjectProjects with some geographical overlap include:  WikiProject Polynesia WikiProject Polynesia/Tokelau work group WikiProject Antarctica Naming conventions (New Zealand) List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations for use of ""New Zealander"" as a demonym but ""New Zealand"" as an adjective Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Members   === Member identification === Members of WikiProject New Zealand should place one of the following lines of Wikitext on their user page to add it to Category:WikiProject New Zealand members.  For other New Zealand user templates see Category:New Zealand user templates.  Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians by location Note that you can watchlist these alerts:  Did you know  18 Mar 2023 – Stanley Browne (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Onegreatjoke (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion  27 Mar 2023 – Ari Parata (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Onel5969 (t · c); see discussion (9 participants) 20 Mar 2023 – Valerie Raymond (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Álvaro Villalón (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by NZFC (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Martín Canales (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by NZFC (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted) 15 Mar 2023 – Daniel K. Brown (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Smartse (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted) 14 Mar 2023 – New Zealand national football B team results (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by NZFC (t · c); see discussion (8 participants; relisted) 19 Mar 2023 – Nicolas Zambrano (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by NZFC (t · c) was closed as delete by Extraordinary Writ (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023; see discussion (5 participants) 19 Mar 2023 – Robin Bromby (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by TimothyBlue (t · c) was closed as delete by Salvio giuliano (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023; see discussion (6 participants) 15 Mar 2023 – List of companies delisted from the New Zealand Exchange (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Paradoctor (t · c) was closed as delete by Guerillero (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023; see discussion (7 participants) 15 Mar 2023 – Oceania Handball Champions Cup (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Sportsfan 1234 (t · c) was closed as keep by LFaraone (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023; see discussion (5 participants)Proposed deletions  23 Mar 2023 – The Jono Project (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Donaldd23 (t · c): Doesn't appear to be notable. Found nothing in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016Templates for discussion  26 Mar 2023 – Template:Canterbury Inferno roster (talk · edit · hist) was TfDed by WikiCleanerMan (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Template:Auckland Steel roster (talk · edit · hist) was TfDed by WikiCleanerMan (t · c); see discussionRedirects for discussion  27 Mar 2023 – William.A. Anderson (talk · edit · hist) →William Anderson (New Zealand politician) was RfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2023 – Dennis Rogers (talk · edit · hist) →Denis Rogers was RfDed by StarTrekker (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees  02 Mar 2023 – Chickaboom! (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prosperosity (t · c); start discussion 08 Feb 2023 – Walter Nash (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Kiwichris (t · c); start discussion 17 Mar 2023 – Taiari / Chalky Inlet (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Turnagra (t · c) was promoted by Mike Christie (t · c), see discussionFeatured article reviews  26 Mar 2023 – New Zealand national rugby union team (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussionRequested moves  28 Mar 2023 – Tramping in New Zealand (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Hiking in New Zealand by BilledMammal (t · c); see discussion 12 Mar 2023 – Malherbe's parakeet (talk · edit · hist) move request somewhere else by Turnagra (t · c) was moved to Cyanoramphus malherbi (talk · edit · hist) by BilledMammal (t · c) on 28 Mar 2023; see discussionArticles to be merged  18 Feb 2023 – New Zealand Day Act 1973 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Waitangi Day Acts by HTGS (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split  06 Dec 2021 – Horopito railway station (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Schwede66 (t · c); see discussion 22 Mar 2021 – Westland County (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Schwede66 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  21 Mar 2023 – Draft:Lanu Hahau Tuku'aho (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ZkXBotha374 (t · c) 20 Mar 2023 – Draft:Jake Law (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Together23 (t · c) 07 Mar 2023 – Draft:Joan Williamson-Orr (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Elguaponz (t · c) 04 Mar 2023 – Draft:EBOS Group Limited (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Reading Beans (t · c) 02 Mar 2023 – Draft:Australian Venue Co. (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by User0pend00r (t · c) 21 Feb 2023 – Draft:Murdoch Stephens (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mjwellington (t · c) 10 Feb 2023 – Draft:Tianyi Lu (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Rambunctiouswriter (t · c) 02 Feb 2023 – Draft:Angelique Kasmara (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Pjkmorris (t · c) 26 Jan 2023 – Draft:2020 Golf Croquet World Team Championship (Tier 1) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ManBehindTheMallet (t · c) 23 Mar 2023 – Draft:Rolling Line (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Jotrain G (t · c) was declined by Jovanmilic97 (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023(1 more...)  If you create an article and it meets the criteria, please consider nominating it at Did you know.   === Specific articles === Requests for New Zealand related articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles. Please add any articles you would like created, or believe are missing to the list there.   === Pages containing numerous red links requiring articles ===   === NZ biographies === Many New Zealand biographies are yet to be written, including for many people who have an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. The Women in Red project which supports the creation of biographies about women, has developed a Wikidata list of red linked women from New Zealand based on articles in other language versions of Wikipedia. Please note the guideline for notability of New Zealand people.  If an article needs an image add {{Image requested|in=New Zealand}} to the articles' talk page.  Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand lists all pages for which an image has been requested. Suitable historic photos may be found on the website of the National Library; please follow these instructions.  Culture_of_New_Zealand this high importance article needs work - please jump into the talk page with thoughts / anaylsis New Zealand Indoor Bowls Base of article is there, needs some grammatical issues fixed and any other helful edits please Women's suffrage in New Zealand – this has a very negative spin on it towards NZ, maybe less about the fact NZ was not the first 'independent' nation to give woman the vote (according to the article) and more on the actual movement? Wellington – needs expansion, especially lead section, would advise it to be modelled after Canberra or Washington, D.C. articles. Images and illustration are fine, its the content and references that need significant reworking and cleaning. Crown Fibre Holdings Auckland – Need quick improvement on Lead Section of article, need more info, blunt facts of the area etc. British Empire – very little mention of New Zealand in here New Zealand Exchange – needs much expansion Rakino Island – Needs cleaning up and referencing ANZAC Day – Needs to have more NZ related information – biased towards AUS. Socialist Unity Party (New Zealand) – add few edits in last 2 years and needs references. Refugee migration into New Zealand – needs expanding New Zealand European – needs urgent expanding. New Zealand Music Awards – 'Tui_award_winners_YEAR' page slowly being deleted, information needs moving to 'YEAR in New Zealand' pages and formatting. Trams in New Zealand –  History of Trams in New Zealand may need more work (has been split from Trams in Australasia). Rūnanga – a major concept in Māori politics and culture. Currently a stub. Professor and Reader (academic rank) need work. Some of the stuff doesn't describe the situation in NZ very well IMHO. For example, Professor used to suggest that NZ universities use Reader not Associate Professor. I don't know which universities use Reader instead of Associate Professor but I know UoA doesn't and from a quick Google; Massey, Waikato, Victoria, Otago and Canterbury all use Associate Professor so I fixed the article to say most NZ universities use AP. The reader article doesn't really describe this well and I haven't fixed it. 203.109.240.93 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I believe the University of NZ used to use the British system but as time goes on more academics are using the American system. In the 1990s Lincoln University allowed its lecturers to choose. That wouldn't make sense in general, as a Professor is a much higher rank in New Zealand than it is in the US, if lecturers could simply ""choose"" to be full professors (skipping senior lecturer and associate professor ranks) it would be too confusing. No university I know of does that.CoronaryKea (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)IP presumably means they allowed them to choose between the British or American systems, i.e. ""reader"" or ""associate professor"", etc. Furius (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Clint Brown – needs expanding – career details added New Zealand local elections, 2004 – only 4 regions done in detail New Zealand local elections, 2007 – I have just added the region but only 4 done Whakaoriori (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Current general and Māori electorates linked from New Zealand electorates require details of population centres and history as most are section stubs Kiwi –  (see Bald eagle) Need lengthier documentation and discovery notes and much more information needed. Takahē – An iconic species, needs cleaning up at least Lance Adams-Schneider – Needs expansion, focusing on his stint as NZ ambassador to the US Parliaments of New Zealand – i.e. 3rd Parliament of New Zealand, 4th etc. – needs detail of Members, maybe going through other articles most of the information could be scraped together. Also early General elections (i.e. New Zealand general election, 1884. HMNZS Kiama – the section on her 24 years in the RNZN is almost entirely unreferenced, and is a bit sparse given the length of service (1952–1976). Alcohol in New Zealand – needs expanding. I've taken a fair bit of material from other more complete pages, but needs more work. Tertiary education in New Zealand – I created this article by copying a whole lot of material from elsewhere. Needs more citations! Help would be appreciated! Ballofstring (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Brian Lochore – article on one of NZ's most prominent sportsmen is only slightly longer than stub length. Lyttelton, New Zealand - Article is messy, hard to read. Needs work as of 22/04/2020.--Violetnights (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC) RBNZ - Needs much expansion Federated Farmers - Article is a stud. Talk page has some suggestions. Andykatib 12:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Skiing in New Zealand - Article is very high level with no discussion on the history of skiing within New Zealand   === Stubs === Stub categories  Category:New Zealand stubs – {{NewZealand-stub}} Category:New Zealand geography stubs – {{NewZealand-geo-stub}} (this is now mainly divided by region – see the category for more details) Category:New Zealand people stubs – {{NewZealand-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand academic biography stubs – {{NewZealand-academic-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand politician stubs – {{NewZealand-politician-stub}} Category:New Zealand musician stubs – {{NewZealand-musician-stub}} Category:New Zealand sportspeople stubs – {{NewZealand-sport-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand cricket biography stubs – {{NewZealand-cricket-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand rugby league biography stubs – {{NewZealand-rugbyleague-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand rugby union biography stubs – {{NewZealand-rugbyunion-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand football (soccer) biography stubs – {{NewZealand-footy-bio-stub}} Category:New Zealand musical group stubs – {{NewZealand-band-stub}} Category:New Zealand media stubs – {{NewZealand-radio-station-stub}} Category:New Zealand university stubs – {{NewZealand-university-stub}} Category:New Zealand school stubs – {{NewZealand-school-stub}} Category:New Zealand building and structure stubs – {{NewZealand-struct-stub}} Category:New Zealand organisation stubs – {{NewZealand-org-stub}}more items may be found in:  Category: Oceania stubs – {{oceania-stub}}and its subtypes (Note that stub templates and categories are organised by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting – new stub types should not be created without first being proposed and debated at WP:WSS/P). A list of existing New Zealand stubs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/New Zealand.)   === Larger === Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand) – needs references think I've finished this. Nauseous Man (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Most of the Category:New Zealand electorates need just election results data transferred from election and Parliament websites, all results from 1999 should be on the pages in {{MMP election box}}; see Hamilton East (New Zealand electorate) for an example. Am now creating stub articles for the remaining historic electorates without an article; see redlinks in e.g. Wellington Suburbs – (in progress - user:Hugo999). Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand) – is in desperate need of re-write so that it will be consistent and re-formatting so it will be readable.  There are section headers and difficult to follow information all over the page. Colin McCahon page is in need of significant attention. New content and sorting of information required. Further research within source already cited would be a good starting point. --Clawsyclaw (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Right to privacy in New Zealand needs an update for the new Privacy Act 2020. The article (see Category:Years in New Zealand) have quite a few updates needed. Please add suggestions below and mark which years complete or cross them off when done.  The categories for each year need to be populated with things other than election results and cricket.  Big items.  Reference everything – even though it links to another article which is referenced. Finish adding population section (between 1858 and 1926) (in progress – user:dramatic)There are still some gaps in the incumbents section between 1907 and 1927 Fill out sports sections: Remove competitions which didn't exist – or remove listings devoid of actual info completely. Olympics and commonwealth/Empire – only in games years. Rugby, Summarize All Black series, National championship results, Ranfurly Shield etc. Cricket Same. Golf – NZ Open, NZPGA Horse racing – major races Rugby league netball Soccer : Chatham cup now completed. Provincial league winners from 1891 – 1968 completed. Internationals complete from 1900-1960's Basketball (post 1970)Events: make sure all articles under Category:History of New Zealand are linked. Create Summary for each year.   === Music === Tui Awards History Tui removed prior to 1999 APRA award inserted for appropriate years RIANZ award inserted from 1978 to 1998 RIANZ winner inserted No award existed for 1977 RATA award inserted for 1973 to 1976 RATA award winner inserted Loxene Gold disc award from 1965 to 1972 Loxene winner inserted ARIA award removed  (ARIA is an AUSTRALIAN music award Triple J content removed from every page. Triple J is anAUSTRALIAN radio station. New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 19xx removed from inappropriate articlesNotes: country music awards rianz History nzmusicawards ARIA Triple J Triple_J   === Radio === references to radio broadcasting checked to be accurate references to television broadcasting checked to be accurate   === Film / Movies === See Category:19xx film awards of 19xx removed from inappropriate articles   === Economy === New section. Determine what stats to incorporate.   === Government === Update 2014 in New Zealand#Government to reflect the results of the New Zealand general election, 2014 Update electorate results to reflect the 2014 election in the following: Rotorua (New Zealand electorate), Tāmaki (New Zealand electorate), Tauranga (New Zealand electorate), Te Atatū (New Zealand electorate), Tukituki (New Zealand electorate), Waikato (New Zealand electorate),Wairarapa (New Zealand electorate), Whangarei (New Zealand electorate), Waimakariri (New Zealand electorate), Waitaki (New Zealand electorate), Hauraki-Waikato, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Tāmaki Makaurau, Te Tai Tonga, Waiariki (New Zealand electorate).  Use Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Popular pages as a means of prioritising article improvements. Maintain and improve the featured Portal:New Zealand. Add more points to Portal:New Zealand/Did you know Add more articles to Portal:New Zealand/Selected article Looking at ""What links here"" for NZ-related articles can often turn up uncategorised NZ articles. Categorising them (even simply as Category:New Zealand for now) will put them somewhere where they can be accessed for improvement. View Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment for articles that require assessment. Work on articles in categories below:Add Module:Location map/data/New Zealand to all towns and communities in New Zealand. Just start somewhere and work your way through... Oakura, Oamaru, Oaonui, Oban, etc... See Template:Location map for instructions. Template:Location map North Island and Template:Location map South Island are also available if you want a higher resolution map. Articles in Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives should be added to appropriate subcategories as well as to the main category; i.e. MPs by location and by party that they represent in Parliament. Note: this includes independents. Listeriabot page for recipients of New Zealand honours. First table (red list) can be used to see who might be notable enough for a Wikipedia page, second table can be used to see who should have an existing honour listed on their Wikipedia page.   === Project banner === Place {{WPNZ|class=|importance=}} onto any new New Zealand article's talk page for it to be recognised and assessed under the project's scope. An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters and helps organise relevant articles for improvement. When assessed, the class and importance parameters are filled in, like this:     {{WPNZ|class=Start|importance=Mid}}and the banner looks like this:  For more information visit the assessment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment   === Invitation === To invite a user to the WikiProject, place {{subst:WikiProject New Zealand invitation}} ~~~~ on their user talk page.    === Barnstar === Usage To use this, simply add {{subst:The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit|message}} to the talk page of the user you wish to reward.  Make sure you include a message which indicates why they are receiving the award.   === New Zealand COTM ===   === NZ Standard time === Use {{Time|NZST}} to produce: 20:28, 29 March 2023 NZDT [refresh] It will switch between NZST and NZDT at the appropriate times  List of all subpages of this page  Government datasets online New Zealand Gazetteer of Place Names from Land Information NZ – searchable database of official (and some unofficial) place names Census Data at Statistics NZ Te Ara – The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand Dictionary of New Zealand Biography Companies Office company and organisation registers, detailed records of all NZ companies with links to annual reports and other docs Papers Past scanned pages of NZ newspapers and periodicals, 1839 to 1950 New Zealand Electronic Text Collection, including many linkable photos ONZ Biographical Notes Biographical notes of some notable New Zealanders. Insolvency Register Details of New Zealanders in financial straits, including useful details Charities Register Details of all charities in New Zealand, with details. Te Kāhui Māngai (Directory of Iwi and Māori Organisations) Maps and locations of iwi and Māori organisations Watchlist for WikiProject New Zealand New Zealand info at Wikivoyage, the Wikimedia travel guide"
536	545	1195	WP:notability	WP:notability	536	"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or ""worthy of notice"". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. A topic is presumed to merit an article if:  It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.  A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  ""Presumed"" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that ""In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. ""Reliable"" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. ""Sources"" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. ""Independent of the subject"" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.  In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion).  The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.  It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.  Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.  The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.   === Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ===  The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.  Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of ""significant coverage"" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.  Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is ""notable"" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already ""taken notice of it"". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.  When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.  Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept. Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City). What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).  Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.  We require ""significant coverage"" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.) We require the existence of ""reliable sources"" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information. We require that all articles rely primarily on ""third-party"" or ""independent sources"" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the ""multiple"" requirement. We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).   === Self-promotion and publicity ===  Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.   === Events ===  Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews may cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.   === Stand-alone lists ===  Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as ""List of Xs"" or ""Xs"") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as ""Lists of X of Y"") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.   === Fringe topics === For guidance on fringe topics, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories.  Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:  Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting: If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page. Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material.  An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages for different aspects of notability can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia's article on Notability in the English Wikipedia. For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Notability and Category:Wikipedia essays about notability. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources Wikipedia:Viability of lists Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?] Wikipedia:Recentism Wikipedia:Relevance of content Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability {{assess table}} and {{source assess}}, two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article MOS:NOTE: Manual of Style on ""Instructional and presumptuous language"""
537	546	1202	WP:NAFD	Wikipedia:Nominating multiple articles for deletion in a day	537	Occasionally, users spring up on Wikipedia who have a sudden urge to nominate lots and lots of articles for deletion via articles for deletion. There may be legitimate reasons for this, but editors should take care before doing so, and remembering that every article should only arrive at AfD if a proper check has been done first to ensure there is no evidence whatsoever that the article cannot possibly be improved to suggest its subject is notable.  Using an understanding of the notability guideline along with any relevant notability guidelines relating to the subect such as the notability guidelines for books, academics, events, films, numbers,  organizations, companies, people, sports topics, and web content. Looking through all of the sources and determining whether they are reliable and have significant coverage. Spending enough time searching for reliable sources as laid out by WP:BEFORE. At the very least searching by using Google, Google News, and Google Books.  Saying that the articles are non-notable just because you are not familiar with the subjects. Nominating the articles for deletion just because you think that the article is a mess. Nominating the articles for deletion just because there is a conflict of interest. Not bothering to do anything with reading sources or searching for sources. Not giving any reasons to other members why you nominated the articles for deletion. There is a belief held by some members that nominating a bunch of articles is unconstructive even when you take constructive steps. When nominating multiple articles for deletion, you may face opposition. Your actions may invite discussion in other places, such as the administrators' incident noticeboard. If this happens, you may suddenly find the attention you inadvertently attract means that many more eyes will be looking at your actions with close scrutiny. Don't let the opposition irritate you because there is no guideline or policy about nominating multiple articles for AfD in a day especially with constructive steps.  Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
538	547	1203	WP:advertising	WP:advertising	538	"On Wikipedia, advertising may refer to:  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, policy on Wikipedia not being used for advertising Wikipedia:Spam, guideline on how to avoid different types of spam in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising, about the perennial proposal to fund Wikipedia through advertising Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements, essay on whether Wikipedia should carry advertising Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, guide on how to advertise discussions inside Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia ads, banner-style advertisements for internal Wikipedia projects and practices Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a wikiproject for improving coverage of encyclopedic articles dealing with marketing Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, where to report advertisement spam found on Wikipedia Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers § Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia?, explanation that malware on the reader's computer or a fork hosted by someone else may display ads Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising, an essay on how to identify articles and talk pages that are blatant ads Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11, the speedy deletion criterion on advertising {{Advert}} - ""This article contains content that is written like an advertisement."" {{Promotional source}} - A list of inline templates for various promotional issues."
539	548	1204	WP:PRIMETIME	Wikipedia:Not ready for primetime	539	"Our ultimate goal here at Wikipedia is to create a free and open repository of encyclopedic information, one that is not only vast, but as accurate and legitimate as is humanly possible. This is our creed. Too often, however, is Wikipedia derided from the outside for the poor quality of some of its articles. Negative comparisons are made to ink-and-paper encyclopedias and reference works, where no article is published without the strictest of scrutiny, fact checking and revising. Articles on Wikipedia can be, and are, published with the click of a mouse and can be, and often are, done so without any forethought. It is true that we believe that this freedom is what makes this project so powerful, free and spontaneous creation and collaboration. It is also true that Wikipedia is a work in progress and so is every article in it, and that being bold in creating content is how greatness is achieved. However, to the end of creating an accurate and legitimate compilation of knowledge, we do have article standards agreed upon by the community. Our freedom of instant creation does not give us license to create articles that are not ready for primetime. Right out of the gate, articles in the main encyclopedia article space should at LEAST be well-formed stubs with clear potential for improvement. In any article created, there should be:  Enough content to establish the context of the subject; Some third-party reference(s); And a basic establishment of verifiability, notability, and non-originality through said reference(s).Your new article can be crude, but it should at least be able to withstand a review for speedy deletion and should not resemble anything we agree Wikipedia is not. Main article space is for valid encyclopedia articles, not for unsourced statements, subjects with no indication of notability, little content, a few thoughts, brief outlines, idea sketches, rough drafts, etc. In sum, if you do not have enough yet to create an article that will survive immediate scrutiny, one that is at least a well-formed stub, do not create it. ""I'm still working on this"" is not a valid excuse to save an article from an early death. The ""under construction"" template may buy you some time... but not much if what you've got is really no good. The justification for immediate and strict scrutiny brought down upon newly created articles is that since Wikipedia is so popular and so highly ranked in search engines like Google, once an article is created, it's likely to be found by those on the outside very quickly. If an article discovered by those seeking information (which is, after all, exactly why we create articles – so that those seeking information can find it) is not up to some degree of Wikipedia standard, it damages our credibility and reflects poorly on the project as a whole. Also, articles created on a whim are often left as neglected orphans, subsequently ignored by the community and never improved upon. Many of them will end up on the deletion heap. Articles that have some prior work put into them are ones that turn in to featured articles. So, you ask, how does one work on an article that is not yet ready for the world to see if you can't put it up in the encyclopedia immediately? You could use your own word processor, but those don't generally understand Wiki markup. Instead, create a subpage in your user space and work on your article idea there. Research carefully. Ask for help. Then, when you think your article is ready, move it into the main encyclopedia. Receive the praise of your peers. It's just that simple.  See the history of this page for an illustrated example of how well this works. T'Shael worked carefully on this article in her user space, sought advice from others, and then, once she thought it was ready, she moved it out into the encyclopedia. Following this procedure could save so many articles with such great potential that barely see the light of day."
540	549	1205	WP:1729	Wikipedia:Evaluating how interesting an integer's mathematical property is	540	"Just about anyone even casually acquainted with number theory knows the anecdote about the mathematicians Hardy and Ramanujan talking about the seeming uninterestingness of the number 1729. In the context of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers asks that three interesting properties of a number be gathered before even considering creating an article on that number. Sometimes there is agreement that a given mathematical property is interesting (e.g., that 1729 is the sum of two cubes in two different ways), so there is no problem. Other times there is disagreement, and some way of measuring the interestingness of a property in relation to a given number is necessary. Hopefully the following questionnaire will prove useful in those situations, providing help in evaluating how interesting an integer's mathematical property is. Do note that the purpose of this questionnaire is to help determine if a mathematical property is interesting enough to create an article on the given number. It might be acceptable for an article on a number to mention properties that were not deemed interesting enough to justify the article in the first place, as long as the properties that were interesting enough are also mentioned.  Number N has the mathematical property that the Boolean function f(N) = True. 1. How many n < 107 do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. This total is the initial number of points given to the mathematical property of the integer. 2. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?  YES. What is the Erdős number Ő of the mathematician? (If Erdős himself, let Ő = 1 here to avoid division by 0 at this step). Divide the points from Question 1 by Ő and round off if needed. Alternatively, because earlier mathematicians (like Leonard Euler) do not have Erdős numbers, assign a mathematician with a top-priority article Ő = 1, high-priority Ő = 3, medium priority Ő = 5, and low/unassessed priority Ő = 10. If a mathematician is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia but does not have a known Erdős number, assume Ő = 10. NO. Deduct 107 points.3. In the list of numbers with the property, sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct (k − 1) from Question 2 points. 4. Might f(N) = False in a different base b?  NO. Skip ahead to Question 5. YES. For bases 1 < b < 17, compute f(N). For each True award b points. For each False deduct bN points.5. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?  YES. Award the A-number of the sequence as points. NO. Skip to question 7.6. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?  core. Subtract the sequence's A-number from the A-number of the most recently added sequence. Award that difference as points. nice. Award the A-number of the sequence as points. hard. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again. more. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again. base. Make sure you did not skip Question 4. less. Deduct the sequence's A-number as points. Any others. Award a point each.7. How many points are there?  points > 0. The property in relation to the number is interesting. points = 0. It's your call. points < 0. The property in relation to the number is NOT interesting.   === 1729 === For the sake of example, suppose that there isn't an article on the number 1729. Sally has jotted down a few properties of the number, namely:  1729 is odd. Starting with 5 × 106 points. Mathematicians have certainly written papers about parity, but Sally doesn't care to look for one that specifically mentions 1729. So 107 points are deducted, leaving -5 × 106 points. In the list of odd numbers, 1729 occurs at position 865, so now there are -5000864 points. 1729 is odd regardless of base, so the question is skipped. The largest odd integer in the sequence field of Sloane's (sequence A005408 in the OEIS) is 131. Question skipped. There are -5000864 points, meaning that it's not interesting that 1729 is odd. 1729 is a Carmichael number. 512461 is the 33rd Carmichael number, so Sally guesstimates that there are about 65 Carmichael numbers below 107. So Sally starts with 9999935 points. Wacław Sierpiński wrote a paper entitled ""A Selection of Problems in the Theory of Numbers."" The index tells Sally that the paper deals with Carmichael numbers on page 51. Sierpiński has Erdős number 2, so multiply the starting points by 1/2, so now there are 4999968 points. In the list of Carmichael numbers, 1729 is third. Now there are 4999966 points. Question skipped. 1729 indeed appears in Sloane's OEIS: A002997. Award 2997 points, bringing total up to 5002963. A002997 has the keyword nice, so award another 2997 points. It also has the keywords nonn and easy, so award 2 points. There are 5005962 points, meaning that it is interesting that 1729 is a Carmichael number. 1729 is a Harshad number. There are 11872 Harshad numbers below 105, so Sally guesstimates that there are 1187200 below 107. So begin with 8812800 points. Sally assumes that although mathematicians have written papers on Harshad numbers and on 1729, probably none has written a paper on the fact that 1729 is a Harshad number. So we're down to -1187200 points. 1729 is the 364th Harshad number, bringing us further down to -1187563 points. 1729 is also a Harshad number in bases 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 16. That brings us up to -1187510. But it's not Harshad in bases 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, or 15, bringing the points down to -1291250. The largest Harshad number in the sequence field of Sloane's OEIS: A005349 is 204. Question skipped. There are -1291250 points, meaning that it's not interesting that 1729 is a Harshad number. 1729 is a taxicab number, it can be expressed as a sum of two cubes in two different ways. There are ten such numbers below 105, so Sally guesstimates that there are 1000 of them below 107. So begin with 9999000 points. G. H. Hardy wrote about this property of 1729 in his book about Ramanujan's lectures. Hardy has Erdős number Ő = 2. Now we're at 4999500 points. 1729 is the very first number with this property, so this doesn't even make a dent to the points. Question skipped. Sloane's OEIS: A001235 has 1729 in its Sequence field, bringing the points up to 5000735. The Keyword field has the keyword ""nice,"" so award another 1235 points, plus 1 point for the keyword ""nonn."" There are 5001971 points, meaning that it is interesting that 1729 can be expressed as a sum of two cubes in two different ways. 1729 is a Zeisel number. There are 24 Zeisel numbers less than a million, so Sally guesstimates there are 240 less than ten million. So begin with 9999760 points. The only printed reference Sally can find is in Eric W. Weisstein's CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Sally doesn't know Weisstein's Erdős number, but 10 is probably too high. So dividing the points by 10, there are 999976 points. 1729 is the third Zeisel number, so now there are 999974 points. Question skipped. Sloane's OEIS: A051015 has 1729 in its Sequence field, bringing the points up to 1050989. The only keyword is ""nonn."" There are 1050990 points, meaning that it is interesting that 1729 is a Zeisel number.Therefore, Sally has gathered three interesting properties of 1729. She might be ready to create an article on 1729, though she reads WP:NUM for further advice.   === 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 === Dick wants to write a Wikipedia article on the double Mersenne prime   170141183460469231731687303715884105727.  170141183460469231731687303715884105727 is a double Mersenne prime There are only 2 among the first 107 integers, so Dick starts with 9999998 points. Pomerance and Crandall specifically mention this number in their book Prime numbers: a computational perspective. Pomerance has Erdős number 1, so there are still 9999998 points. 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 is the fourth double Mersenne prime, so we're down to 9999995 points. Since we're inquiring on numbers of the form                                    2                                       2                                p                                         −             1                             −         1                 {\displaystyle 2^{2^{p}-1}-1}    and not binary repunits, this question doesn't apply. This number appears in Sloane's OEIS: A077586. 10077581 points. The only keyword for Sloane's OEIS: A077586 is nonn. 10077582 points. There are 10077582 points, meaning that it is interesting that 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 is a double Mersenne prime.So there's one interesting property for 170141183460469231731687303715884105727. But Dick needs two more before he can justify writing a Wikipedia article on this number.   === A hypothetical second odd perfect number === Suppose Tom discovers two odd perfect numbers OP1 and OP2. There's no doubt that the first odd perfect number deserves its own article. But does the second?  OP2 is an odd perfect number. OP2 would have to be at least 10300, so it's a safe bet to start with 107 points. Mathematicians had some idea that OP2 has as many factors as it does, but they couldn't possibly know exactly, otherwise they would have discovered it, not Tom. So 107 points are deducted, leaving none. Since OP2 is the second odd perfect number, we're now down to -1 points. Question skipped. OP2 doesn't appear in Sloane's OEIS at all. Question skipped. There are -1 points, meaning that it's not interesting that OP2 is an odd perfect number.This is not the end of the story, however. If the premise had been that OP2 is odd, the questionnaire would've ended up with at least -10300 points. So an answer of -1 points is not as conclusive as an answer of -10300 points. Since OP2 would be a major discovery, it would be inevitable that mathematicians would start studying this number, even if many of them quickly dismissed Tom out of hand as an amateur. They might even find other interesting properties of OP2 besides its being an odd perfect number. But if OP2 has no other interesting properties, there's no reason to give it its own article.   === 1023458967 === Harry wants to create an article on the pandigital number 1023458967. The only property of the number that he knows about is that it's a pandigital number.  1023458967 is a pandigital number. Start with 107 points. Harry finds an entry on pandigital numbers in Eric W. Weisstein's CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. He ignores the fact that 1023458967 is not explicitly mentioned, and proceeds to ask Sally what Weisstein's Erdős number is. She says she guessed 10. This brings the points down to 106. 1023458967 is the 17th pandigital number, so now we're down to 999984 points. 1023458967 is pandigital in bases 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and of course 10, bringing the points up to 1000014. But it's not pandigital in bases 7, 8, 9 nor 11 to 16, bringing the points down to -107462191521. Sloane's OEIS: A050278 has 1023458967 in its Sequence field. This brings the points up to -107462141243. The Keywords field reads ""nonn, base, fini."" 2 points for ""nonn"" and ""fini"" together. Harry doublechecks that he went through Question 4, and although the questionnaire says nothing about awarding points for the ""base"" keyword, Harry decides to award the square of the sequence's A-number as points anyway. Even that is not enough to bring the points out of the negative side, and with -104934263957 points it is inescapable to conclude that it's not that interesting that 1023458967 is a pandigital number.   === 103 === This is not to say that base-dependent mathematical properties are always uninteresting. Suppose Harry wants to write an article on 103, and he decides to zoom in on the fact that 103 is not a palindromic number.  103 is not palindromic. There are 1098 palindromic numbers less than ten thousand, so Harry guesstimates that there are 109800 palindromics less than ten million. Thus 109800 are the starting points. Harry uses the entry on palindromic numbers in Weisstein's Encyclopedia even though it doesn't actually mention 103. 10980 points. 103 is the 84th non-palindromic number. Now at 10897 points. As it happens, 103 is not palindromic in any base from 2 to 16. (In fact, it's not palindromic until base 102). This brings the points up to 24802. Sloane's OEIS: A029742 has 103 in its Sequence field. This brings the points up to 54544. The Keywords field reads ""nonn, base, easy, nice."" There are 84289 points, meaning that it is actually interesting that 103 is not palindromic.What Harry has unwittingly stumbled on is that 103 is a strictly non-palindromic number.  Interesting number paradox"
541	550	1207	WP:LBGT	Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard	541	"This is the LGBT studies notice board for Wikipedians interested in articles related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics.  This is a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not only LGBT Wikipedians.  This is not a discussion page, but a page to notify users of active discussions.  Add a description of the issue to help direct editors to the section of the article being disputed.  Please keep it very brief and NPOV.  Add the date, but do not sign (use five tildes instead of four: ~~~~~).   ==== Articles with disputes (current) ==== Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said#RFC:_Sexuality. Should well-sourced speculation about the Sultan of Oman be included since he died in January 2020? 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)#LGBT_category. Regarding the inclusion of TV series with significant characters who are LGBT to Category:American LGBT-related television programs. 04:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Same-sex marriage in the United States RfC here on whether to include purple as a new map‐color for Utah — 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Kate Bornstein A dispute over Kate's preferred pronoun (ze/hir).  See the talk page. Notice also posted here 04:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Snowballing (sexual practice). RfC here on whether the article image illustrating this as a lesbian practice is accurate. 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Aesthetic Realism - this is an article about a group that claimed to cure (or as they put it, ""solve the question of"") homosexuality. This claim was the basis of any national notability they've had.  (It still believes it cures homosexuality, but now won't talk about that belief publicly because it brought them negative publicity. For the past several months, under the pretext of ""rewriting"" the article, they've kept mention of this fact out of the lede of the article, despite the fact it had been there for years, and despite the fact that it's well-documented. Assistance in assuring that the lede conforms to Wikipedia's standards is needed. 03:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC) John Bosco - Three years ago, this was a disputed article moderated and settled by LGBT in 2006. Two recent editors to the article have chosen to delete a Controversy section without seeking WP:CONSENSUS. The article has appropriate section markers in place but yet deletions occur without seeking consensus. --Morenooso (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)In this DIFF, a neutral editor, NatGertler suggested a rewrite that has two sourced citations that demonstrate a controversy can be shown to exist. --Morenooso (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Lady Bunny Over whether a drag queen article uses female or male pronouns. 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_2 - we are considering what content should be included in relation to HX Magazine, a gay publication from New York City. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)   ==== Relevant user conduct disputes (current) ====   ===== Discussion at WP:ANI of the use of previous name ===== Discussion at administrator's noticeboard of appropriate mentions of a non-notable individual's name prior to transition in article space.  Msnicki (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)   ===== LGBT cats for dead royalty ===== User:Pgarret has recently been removing the Category:LGBT Royalty from a number of gay and lesbian dead royals, such as Edward II of England, Henry III of France and Princess Isabella of Parma.  He also prefers to replace ""gay"" with ""homosexual"" which may be indicative of his WP:POV.  I started a conversation on his talk page and he simply reiterated his view that it is WP:OR for these individuals to be declared gay simply because they had sexual relations with people of the same sex and then reverted my reverts.  Apparently, his grandfather was baptised by one of the royals whom he has decided is not gay enough to be labeled LGBT (which he views as a ""political"" term) so it is also somewhat personal to him. Argos'Dad 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)   ===== Extreme right-wing POV pushing, deleting swathes of text on anything to do with LGBT issues ===== NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1][2][3][4][5][6] He has now also joined the group[7] and stated he wants to perform a ""purge"" of LGBT articles that ""advertise""[8] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#User:NYyankees51 quotes: ""Well now they appear to have a like-minded partner (diff) too on an article I recently created. I give up, not going to edit war. Altairisfar (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)"" — ""I'm not surprised, as they've tag-teamed on LGBT-related articles before [emphasis mine]. At any rate, I've found sources on Udaan Trust and IGLYO, and I do wonder if the other nominations [emphasis mine] are just as frivolous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)"" --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)  And then there's this highly offensive comment made on the main project talkpage by User:Lionelt (referred to above as the like-minded partner).  Altairisfar (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)   ===== Repeated ""grow a pair"" sexism: Testical cancer survivor ===== Hi brothers and sisters and fellow somewhat ambiguous persons,  At an ANI about me, an editor that an administrator ""grow a pair"" and block me.My reply requested that the editor avoid sexist terminology like ""grow a pair"", particularly when addressing editors (me) displaying the Livestrong userbox (about testicle cancer). The sexist remark was not redacted, and nobody else objected the sexism.The administrator who had closed yesterday's ANI, removing  the Livestrong (testicle-cancer survivor) user-box in a special and final edit , repeated the phrase ""grow a pair"" at the Administrator Noticeboard. Then an arbcom administrator repeated the phrase ""grow a pair"" at the Administrator Noticeboard.None of these remarks have been redacted, and nobody else has objected to them. After I wrote ""Nobody gives a shit about your gonads"" in response to the last ""grow a pair"", there has been another suggestion of blocking me. I am not a saint. The ANI arose mostly because of my clean-ups of articles on American socialism. At my worst, I had firmly criticized an edit describing the majority of the Socialist Party of America (includingMichael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Sandra Feldman, Rachelle Horowitz, etc.) as ""democratic centralist (Leninist)""; this edit had removed ""Stalinist"" before ""Stalinist democratic-centralism"" from an unreliable source.I also asked a fellow who kept misunderstanding what I wrote whether he had poor vision, like myself. However, whatever my faults, I do not deserve the last two repeated, consciously sexist pokes, at least one of which was a deliberate baiting. Sincerely, 01:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) This matter has been resolved.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)  Use the deletion sorting system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender, and consider watchlisting that page.  Talk:Transgender#RfC:_How_to_word_the_WP:LEAD - Discussion on how to word the lead sentence of Transgender 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Use the ""Social Sciences and Philosophy"" section of WP:Requested Articles.  Stubs can be found at Category:LGBT stubs and Category:LGBT rights activist stubs.  LGBT rights in Pakistan – might need a formal assessment but more citations and images are welcome. Please help. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Conversion therapy could do with balanced input from LGBT editors. Conor (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) It could do with balanced input from non-LGBT editors too. Skoojal (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Skoojal, I agree wholeheartedly... the more the merrier!  ;-) Conor (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)John Maynard Keynes as he's returned to prominence recently and is commonly considered the most influential economist of the 20th century I thought it would be nice to get him up to FA status as part of a project.  Maybe I should have joined the economics project, but even the ones I like their seem too free market, I’d be the only one with NPOV, LOL!  So I hope its okay for me to second myself to this project. I'm really failing to see how John Maynard Keynes is relevant to the LGBT project.  Just because someone is LGBT, doesn't necessarily make them of interest here. Also, of course the economics project would heavily discuss the free market, after all its a rather important economic theory of modern times. Keynes might've been influential, but you being pro-Keynes doesn't make you NPOV. Danrules2 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC) LGBT project helps with the LGBT aspects and ensuring they are presented accurately. His sexuality does seem to be a major aspect of his story so I think assisting on it is seems fine. You may want to post on the project page with specific help you seek.  -- Banjeboi 12:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)List of LGBT events: I've raised a few issues on this article's talk page that could use editor input. Please add your comments after the {{unresolved}} boxes. --Tiger MarcROAR! 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)  C. A. PatridesC. A. Patrides, the Milton scholar  The two editors lack access to   The Milton Quarterly,whose bibliographical information is somewhat corrupted at the Wiley website; we would like to check page numbers. The student newspaper  of the University of Michigan,   The Michigan Daily,discussed his death from complications with AIDS in 1986.   Professors Claude J. Summers and Larry-Ted Pebworth, well known scholars of literature and LGBT history, wrote memorial pieces, with Summers's being in the inaccessible Milton Quarterly'. Professor Gordon Campbell read the article and gave his approval: ""it looks fine"". His dearest friends apparently respected his privacy in death as C.A.P. practiced discretion in life, apparently; the discussions of his sexuality in the Milton Quarterly were brief and surprisingly quaint, according to my 15-year old memories.   Two especially interesting facts (besides him being a world-leading professor of literature and intellectual history):  As a boy in Greece in WWII, C.A.P. ran messages for the Resistance against the German Occupation; his astonishing courage received an ""Order of Heroes"" medal. C.A.P. was the ""culprit"" of Stanley Fish's withdrawal from ""get[ting] medieval on your ass"" and becoming a Milton scholar and the inspiration for Morris Zapp)Thanks for your help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)  New York City Gay Hockey Association I was going to nominate this for AfD due to lack of notability, but I'd figured someone here might want to try and rescue this first. I'll check back in a month and if it's still in a crappy state, I will make the nom.  Regards.   little green rosetta(talk)central scrutinizer  01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Category:Anti-gay_propaganda - this category is recently up for deletion but topics like Homosexual Agenda, Anti-LGBT slogans and Homophobic propaganda obviously fall into the same class. Please join the discussions to keep or rename the category if you believe there is a less controversial alternative. Category:Bisexual Wikipedians Category:Gay Wikipedians - Currently being discussed to be undeleted, exists as a redirect to Category:LGBT Wikipedians along with other LGBT wikipedians' categories. Category:Lesbian Wikipedians Category:Queer historians Category:Transsexual Wikipedians Category:Trans historiansJust a comment here – all users with the {{User:UBX/transsexual}} userbox are automatically put into Category:Transgender Wikipedians. I personally don't see the necessity for creating a category for transsexual Wikipedians, as the transgender category is pretty small as it is. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC) There is a userbox available for users interested in LGBT issues, which links to this noticeboard. You can put this on your userpage by adding {{User:UBX/LGBTinterest}}.   You may also be interested in joining the WikiProject.  List of LGBT-related topics List of LGBT-related categories Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which is useful to cite in conflicts about using ""LGBT"" vs. ""homosexual""Archives  Wikipedia:LGBT notice board/Archived VFD votes (2005) Wikipedia:LGBT notice board/Archive 1 -- 2005 Postings Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board/Archive 2 -- 2006 Postings"
542	551	1211	WP:GUNS	Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms	542	"Welcome to the Firearms WikiProject, a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Firearms. (For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).  GoalsImprove articles on firearms, both civilian and military, with an emphasis on civilian firearms, as the WP:WEAPON already covers military arms.To add the below infobox to firearm articles, along with the ammo infobox for ammo, and add the banner to firearms articles.To add proper categories to firearm articles.ScopeFirearms typically considered small arms and carried by an individual rather than vehicle-mounted and team-served military weapons. Topics encompassing both broad concepts and specific models, ammunition, manufacturers, organizations, legislation, and historical figures such as inventors and notable gunsmiths associated with such firearms.   === Naming === The names of firearm articles should start with the proper name of the manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name. Examples of this policy are Heckler & Koch MP7 instead of MP7 or Smith & Wesson Model 1006 instead of S&W Model 1006. Exceptions to this are firearms named with military designations such as M16 rifle or AK-47. See WP:WEAPON#Naming conventions for the guideline on naming military firearms.   === Structure ===  Firearm articles should be structured largely along the following guidelines (consistent with guidelines contained in WP:MILGUN for military weapons):  History.  A history of the firearm, including background events leading to the design and the evolution of the design. Design and features.  A description of the major points of the firearm, including details of the operating mechanism, how the firearm is maintained and operated by the user, and the cartridge(s) the firearm is chambered in. Use. The intended/common uses of the firearm (ex: hunting, competitive shooting, defense, etc.) Variants.  A list and description of all variants and close descendants of the firearm, plus production details when available. Accessories.  A list and description of accessories that are commonly associated with the firearm. Cultural impact, if any.  A general summary of the firearm's impact on culture, complying with the guidelines on popular culture.Non-firearm articles associated with WikiProject Firearms should generally follow the structure guidelines that are already associated with the appropriate type of article, such as constitutional law articles, jurisprudence articles, chemistry articles, and other categories of articles that often overlap with WikiProject Firearms. The goal of WikiProject Firearms for articles tagged with the project's banner is to improve the firearms related content, such as improving the accuracy of articles vs. misconceptions that often arise due to pop-culture fiction, movie physics, and similar non-factual beliefs.  In general, WikiProject Firearms goals are to work on improving the quality of project-tagged articles without imposing WikiProject Firearms guidelines as mandates.   === Popular culture === Appearances of firearms in popular culture should only be listed if they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources.  The depictions themselves (films, TV shows, video games, comic books, novels, etc) are primary sources and are insufficient for inclusion.  Video games frequently depict firearms unrealistically and their use is rarely covered in secondary sources. For that reason unsourced entries concerning video games should be deleted without requesting a source first. Replicas, such as Airsoft and toys, are not notable to firearm articles unless they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Where sources are available, popular culture appearances should receive coverage appropriate to their significance to the subject of the article; as per WP:UNDUE. The material should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. See WP:MILPOP for the guidelines pertaining to military history, excluding firearms. Examples of good content include .44 Magnum and Mauser C96.   === Criminal use === In order for criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it should meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination) or if its notoriety is greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). This is determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with WP:UNDUE. As per WP:UNDUE, ""Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.""   === Variants === Variants of a model of a firearm such as folding/telescoping stock variants, target versions, variants chambered in a new caliber, compact/carbine variants, models covered by the same factory-issued users manual generally should not receive their own article. Instead, use a section for the variant in the parent firearm's article or consolidate it into a table or the text. The exception to this is where significant amounts of design and/or history would be lost by merging. An example of this is the M4 Carbine. Despite the fact that the M4 Carbine is only a carbine version of the M16A2 and its internal components are completely interchangeable with those of the M16 rifle, the M4's development history is significantly different, qualifying it for its own article.   === Users ===  When listing users of a certain weapon, only include users that have a citation to go with them. This citation must specifically say that the force, unit, or notable individual  in question uses the weapon. That is to say a photograph of someone holding what appears to be the weapon does not qualify as a reference.   === Citations === Cite as much information as possible. This way the articles will have more credibility. Extraordinary claims require citations from very reliable sources. If you don't want something you have added to be deleted, cite a reliable source, assuming the source supports your statement.  If you find anything that really needs to be on the list, just add it to the list. Be sure to say what you are adding in your edit summary, with wikilink to the article. When someone has completed the task, that person should cross out the article from the list, and if everyone agrees, it should be removed from the list two or three days after being crossed out (note: this doesn't include requests, once an article is created it should be removed completely or moved to one of the categories as needed).  For articles marked as ""needing attention"" see Category:Firearms_articles_needing_attention When adding entries to the list, please do so in alphabetical order.    === Worklists === These are worklists based off Wikidata queries using Listeria.  /Cartridges /Semi-automatic pistols /Assault rifles   === Active members === Please feel free to add yourself here in alphabetical order, and to indicate any areas of particular interest.  Adolphus79 (talk · contribs), I mostly know about US service weapons, but have some general knowledge of other realms also... Bardbom (talk · contribs) Firearms in general; most knowledgeable in long guns. CaptainGummyBearz (talk · contribs), Modern small arms. Carguychris (talk · contribs), Smith & Wesson revolvers, Winchester bolt-action rifles Carlo71201 (talk · contribs), interested in firearms of different types Cavalryman (talk · contribs) British gunmakers, Nitro Express, Black Powder Express and classic firearms. Cerebellum (talk · contribs), everything, specifically modern small arms Dellant (talk · contribs) History of military firearms and ammunition Dlthewave (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Guns like in Jackie Brown DPdH (talk · contribs) Military firearms, special interest in: WW2, Latin American firearms. FeralOink (talk · contribs) Bolt-action rifles, shotguns, no handguns, mostly modern firearms, and I like to fix grammar. Fuzheado (talk · contribs) ontology of cartridges, handguns, long guns. Lots of work on Wikidata subclasses and Commons photos Gato63 (talk · contribs) ammunition, cartridge firearms (from the 1860 Henry rifle to present), proofreading and editing GMan552 (talk · contribs) proofreading and editing, general firearms knowledge Gruß Tom - de:Portal:Waffen (Portal:Weapons/Germany) Heather Wheeler (talk · contribs) firearms, ammunition intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) ironmatic1 (talk · contribs) Muskets to modern K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) Modern small arms L1A1 FAL (talk · contribs) Post WW1 firearms, obscure weapons, little bit of everything Nohomers48 (talk · contribs) Modern firearms Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) Military and law enforcement career. Experience with a wide range of firearms, tactics and legal issues. Ntfresll (talk · contribs) Modern weapons, marksman rifles, semiauto rifles OfficerManatee (talk · contribs) Small arms, ammunition, and their respective conflicts therein. Also focused on removing commercialized content and that lacks neutrality. OnBeyondZebrax (talk · contribs) Machine pistols. Also have an interest in contributing to the guidelines PackMecEng (talk · contribs) Just general interest. PaulWebbtheTechExpert (talk · contribs) General interest. Sailorman722 (talk · contribs) General interest, knowledgeable on U.S. Firearm politics, and general history. sf46 (talk · contribs) Srich32977 (talk · contribs) soldier Surv1v4l1st (talk · contribs) CCW, NFA items, gun culture, etc. Swatjester (talk · contribs) Ex military, infantry and reconnaissance, 3-gun, carbine, and precision rifle shooter. Thewellman (talk · contribs) ammunition. Tsange (talk · contribs) creating better pages for new and old guns. Vkil (talk · contribs) I just like shooting the hell out of things. Helps relieve stress and whatnot. Trying to buy a Gatling gun; no luck so far. XoravaX (talk · contribs) Finnish firearms and their derivatives.   === Inactive members === This is a list of people who are members of the project but haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you return to editing.   === Featured articles ===   === Former featured articles ===   === Good articles ===   === Former good articles ===   === Good article nominees ===   === Featured pictures ===   === Did you know? articles ===   === Main page featured articles ===   === In the News articles ===   === Picture of the day pictures ===  Please feel free to list your new Firearms-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box the Main Page.  Firearm propellant - created requested article to replace redirect and be expanded as suggested Thewellman (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Llama Super Comanche, added article on the offering from Llama.(19 June 2022)  .50-60 Joslyn (or .50-60-400 Joslyn), the commercial round used as the basis of the .50-70 Government TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Lipsey's: niche firearm distributor Modes of carry for firearms This subject warrants its own article, although I may not get around to writing it anytime this decade. Someone beat me to it please. Some topics to be mentioned and linked therein: open carry and concealed carry; military carry modes; police carry modes; cocked-and-locked (e.g., military carry mode for M1911); hammer down on an empty chamber (SA revolvers); DA revolvers ""just point and shoot""; how the ""safe action"" affected carry mode thinking (semi-autos can be ""just point and shoot"" too); how carry modes are designed based on gun safety and on what kinds of safeties are present (or not); holster styles and locations; carry modes for long guns (muzzle skyward, muzzle downward, break-action shotguns open); and others. — ¾-10 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)The spirit moved me, so I started a draft in my user sandbox. I'm gonna see whether I get bored with it or keep going to the point of creating an article. — ¾-10 02:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Baby machine gun, fully-automatic firearm designed by Hyman S. Lebman and referred to within the article.  Kartano (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Massachusetts Rifle Association.  This article had previously been created but it was deleted (the article content was really just a lift of the organisation's website).  Kartano (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC) American Suppressor Association (ASA) The organization may have enough coverage now to warrant an article.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 02:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Greener Light Harpoon Gun, this one likely should be covered.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)  Good article nominees  27 Feb 2023 – Desert Tech MDR (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FrozenIceman01 (t · c); start discussionRequested moves  28 Mar 2023 – 2023 Covenant School shooting (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Covenant School shooting by InvadingInvader (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split  04 Oct 2022 – Norinco (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Wuzh (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  17 Feb 2023 – Draft:Volcanic Repeating Rifle (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Cashrunyan19 (t · c) 15 Feb 2023 – Draft:Walther Q4 Pistol (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Pistolsscaramanga (t · c) 11 Feb 2023 – Draft:Lucansky Arms (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Walther Rohrl (t · c) 30 Jan 2023 – Draft:Trubia A4 (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by DanCherek (t · c) 28 Dec 2022 – Draft:Remington Model 12 (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Primeval Scribe (t · c) 15 Mar 2023 – Draft:Michael Agnew Harries (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Keithelight (t · c) was declined by Robertsky (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023  Add any articles that are up for merger in this section, newest at the top. When the merger discussion is concluded please remove it.  Ruger Bisley into Ruger Vaquero, Ruger Blackhawk, and Ruger Single-Six (discussion) Add any articles that are up for deletion in this list, newest at the top. When the AfD is concluded, please remove it.  Add any articles that request comments in this section, newest at the top. When the RfC is concluded, please remove it.  I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I have created two userspace drafts that are almost done, at User:Passengerpigeon/Heritage Manufacturing Inc., and User:Passengerpigeon/Traditions Firearms. I am reluctant to move these into article space, however, because I am not sure of their notability; although both are established firearm companies, I can't find much media coverage excluding closely-affiliated sources and unreliable blogs. Thank you, Passengerpigeon (talk)  04:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Non-magnified optic (discussion) - Should the article be kept or deleted? A claim has been made that the topic is not notable. Sauer202 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Red dot sight (discussion) - Should it be a) moved (for example to Reflector sights for firearms), b) merged with reflector sight, c) kept as is, or d) rewritten to cover other types of sights which also have a red dot for a reticle? Sauer202 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)2 articles I would like some second opinions on. Template:Modern Russian Infantry Weapons (mostly confident) and here on my sandbox I was working on a modern US missiles and artillery template. (even less confident) --Converting to insanity (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Add any cases that request comments related to this Firearms WikiProject in this section, newest at the top. When the ArbCom decision occurs, of whether or not the case is taken, please remove the link below.  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control   === Assessment ===   ==== Purpose ==== What is the purpose of article assessments? The assessment system allows the Firearms WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles that fall under its purview, and to prioritize work on these articles.  The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Are these ratings official? No.  These ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project to better prioritze work on the articles, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.   ==== Assessing articles ==== Who can assess articles? In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the ""GA"" and ""FA"" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Drastic changes to an article's rating should typically be discussed on the article's talk page before making the change.How do I assess an article? Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WPGUNS banner template to the level's name (omitting ""Class"" from the end).  For example, to rate an article as ""B-Class"", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the ""FA"" and ""GA"" labels should not be added to articles unless they actually are currently designated as such.   ==== Common concerns ==== Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope.  What should I do? Due to the large volume of articles falling under the project, occasionally a tag is added to an article that the project does not cover. Feel free to remove the tag if the article truly is not within the scope of the project.  If there is any doubt, post a note on the article's talk page and discuss it. What if I don't agree with a rating? Feel free to change it (within reason) if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the project as a whole can discuss the issue either on the project's talk page or on the talk page of the article in question and come to a consensus as to the best rating. Aren't the ratings subjective? Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise.  If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know! Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments on the talk page? Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases.  If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.   === Quality scale ===   === Importance scale === Importance of the article to WikiProject Firearms, regardless of its quality. Any editor with knowledge of the subject can assign ratings following these guidelines. Articles may be assessed higher than these guidelines after reaching consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.   === Peer review === The Firearms WikiProject's Peer Review process is an informal process aimed are gathering ideas for further improving a given article.  You can submit an article for peer review via the project's Peer review page.   === A-Class review === The Firearms WikiProject's A-Class review process is a more formal process for determining if an article, as viewed by the project, meets featured article criteria.  Articles successfully passing A-Class review typically soon become featured article candidates. You can submit an article for A-Class review via the project's A-Class review page.   === Statistics ===   === Infoboxes === {{Infobox weapon}} {{Infobox firearm cartridge}}   === Stubs === {{Weapon-stub}}   === Project userbox === The {{User WP Guns Member}} userbox can be added to the user page of anyone becoming a member of the project.  The userbox is configurable for several different optional colors and layouts.  Specifying only {{User WP Guns Member}} without options displays the default userbox shown first in the table on the right.  Parameters:  color – ""1"" through ""4"", chooses between four different color schemes, show below.  layout – ""1"" through ""6"", chooses among six different layouts as shown on the right.   === Alternative userboxes === The template {{WPGUNSMEMBER2}} yields the following. The template {{WPGUNSMEMBER3}} gives: Alternate userbox {{User:AliveFreeHappy/userbox/cartridge}} gives:   === Barnstar === {{The Firearms Barnstar|put your message here ~~~~}}—an award placed at another users talk page for improving Firearm-related articles.   === Project banner === The {{WikiProject Firearms}} project banner template should be added (not subst:ed) to the talk page of any article within the scope of the project.  All parameters listed below are optional, however the article should at least be given a class rating.  General parameters:  class – Denotes the rating for the article based on the quality scale.  See the assessment page for more details importance - See the assessment page for more details attention - ""yes"" - flags the article as needing immediate attention and adds it to the Firearms articles needing attention category. needs-infobox - ""yes""  - adds article to the Firearms articles needing infoboxes category. needs-image - ""yes"" - adds article to the Wikipedia requested images of firearms category. A-Class - ""pass"", ""current"", ""fail"" - denotes that a request for A-Class review is either in progress (""current"") or has been completed (""pass"" or ""fail"" according to the review result).B-Class checklist (available only for articles rated as ""Stub-Class"", ""Start-Class"", or ""B-Class"" — see the assessment page for more details):  B-Class-1 – ""yes"" if the article meets criterion #1 for B-Class status; ""no"" if it does not. B-Class-2 – ""yes"" if the article meets criterion #2 for B-Class status; ""no"" if it does not. B-Class-3 – ""yes"" if the article meets criterion #3 for B-Class status; ""no"" if it does not. B-Class-4 – ""yes"" if the article meets criterion #4 for B-Class status; ""no"" if it does not. B-Class-5 – ""yes"" if the article meets criterion #5 for B-Class status; ""no"" if it does not.  List of all subpages of this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force Instruction manuals for a wide range of firearms, in PDF form. Click the underlined PDF on the right side of page for link"
543	552	1214	WP:NAF	Wikipedia:Notability and fiction	543	There is currently no clear consensus as to how notability affects fictional topics.  This essay instead serves to explain to editors the current situation and general approaches to take when attempting to determine the notability of a fictional topic.  The current general guidelines for notability on Wikipedia are set out at Wikipedia:Notability. Where an article does not meet those guidelines, editors should consider merging the information to a suitable article. Articles which are not merged may become candidates for deletion. These articles are not always deleted if they do not meet the notability guidelines, because other standards sometimes come in to play and because guidelines admit to exceptions. At heart, decisions on Wikipedia should always reflect Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, the policy of doing what is best for the encyclopedia.  A consensus may emerge at a deletion debate for an article to be kept for any one of several different reasons. Some of these reasons are    the article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; the article is part of a cluster of articles discussing an overall fictional topic; the article contains sources other than the work itself or such sources can be found and  added; the article would otherwise exist on Wikipedia as a section of an article which has exceeded the optimal size;Any article may be kept where a consensus emerges against deletion.  Alternatively, articles on fiction that meet the above reasons but still fail to demonstrate sufficient notability may be deleted after a deletion debate; editors should not expect articles meeting the above to always be sufficient to retain a standalone article, and should continue to work towards including demonstration of its notability.  Sometimes an article can clearly meet the general notability guideline and yet may still be merged or redirected. This is often the case with minor or trivial elements within a work. For example, a character who appears only once, very briefly, yet still has a very few minor references commenting on its appearance for one of several reasons. These reasons may include: the scene being important; scholarly reviews of older texts; or the element being compared to something out-of-universe. These type of elements are sometimes merged if there is not enough material to justify the existence of  a separate article. It is important that when these elements are merged that any relevant information about them be preserved since if the element had enough information to pass the GNG their existence should be noted, but while keeping the amount of info relevant to the rest of the article.  The general principles espoused by Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are the bedrock as regards the content of our encyclopedia.  Information has to be sourced because we do not rely on our own reputation. Readers have to be able to check the material and verify our assertions for themselves. It is also important so that we avoid plagiarism. Since we do not rely on our reputation, we cannot advance our own opinions or attempt to document new occurrences or publications. We only summarise reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Beyond everything else, we ensure that we are representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Consensus
544	553	1222	WP:COMPOSERS	Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers	544	"Welcome to WikiProject Composers! This WikiProject was formed to better organize information in articles related to composers, primarily those of art music. Rather than try to force information to appear in a uniform way, this WikiProject aims to present what information is available in the best way possible. The project provides a place to discuss various ways to accomplish this. These recommendations on the Composers project are based on various Wikipedia style guides and common practices in articles. Use your own judgement in applying these guidelines and all Wikipedia guidelines to composer articles and be bold. WikiProject Composers is an independent WikiProject, listed under Music. It was started by Sketchee, Antandrus and Mindspillage on 1 January 2005. There were 13,718 articles within the scope of the project as of 25 July 2021, compared to 7,521 on 28 December 2011; 4,953 on 15 November 2009; and 3,987 on 19 June 2008.  These articles have been accepted as featured articles : they may be helpful examples.   === Featured articles ===   === Good articles === These articles have been accepted as good articles : they may be helpful examples, but generally the featured articles above should be referred to first  How you can help depends on your time, resources and interest. Here are a variety of ideas for contributions ranging from simple to complex:  Identify underdeveloped composer pages and place a link on the /Composers project subpage. Ask questions about a composer here as well as on the composers' own talk page to alert everyone involved in the project in that page. Not everyone may have that composer on their watchlist. Ask general questions on the project talk page which may apply to various composers. Correct links to a composer and find other appropriate articles which should link to them. Make a note on the talk page if a composer appears anywhere as red link. (Someone is mentioned as notable, yet doesn't have an article!) Find appropriate external links and see also categories for composer articles that are missing this information. Identify information included in other articles which also should be on the composers page and incorporate that information on the composers' page Identify information included on the composers' page which should also be included in other articles Suggest possible resources which can be used for the project. (Books, websites, etc.) Reorganize composer pages. See #Article structure for ideas. Proofread composer pages for errors or fact discrepancies between other articles. Look for ""peacock terms"" (such as ""most important"" or ""greatest ever"" without supporting evidence) in composer articles and rewrite the sentences to better present the information if possible. (Sometimes these may be unavoidable, but check to make sure that they are NPOV within context.) Contact recording companies and publishers to gain permission to use sound excerpts score images, preferably after consultation with other contributors on the discussion page. Check that composers are in the correct category/ies and change them as needed. Create appropriate interwiki links to articles. You might use ""What links here"" to make sure that things that you'd expect to link to a composer does so. Create a link to this project from talk pages of existing articles listed /Composers and/or other articles within the scope of the project. Ask the articles editors for input on the project see if they would like to implement any of the ideas here on the article themselves. Upload relevant images to composer pages. Possible sources include the Library of Congress. Tag unverified pages with {{Unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{primarysources}} as applicable. This alerts editors specifically looking to improve references and citations on Wikipedia.. Add images to articles in Category:Wikipedia requested images of composers  These are considered best practices by the project members, they are not Policy, Wikipedia Guideline, or part of the Manual of Style.   === Lead section ===  The introductory paragraph/statement should contain the name of the composer in bold followed by the date of the composer's birth and also death if applicable. If the exact date (e.g. 16 January 1863) is not known, use the closest verifiable approximation (e.g., 19th century, 1863, January 1863). Briefly summarize why the person is important, by concisely summarizing the information discussed in the article. Therefore, unless the exact place of birth is essential information, it should be included in the biographical section or paragraph instead. Brief information on the composer's stylistic location in relation to his or her contemporaries, and in historical terms, would be helpful to many readers. If the person is notable, however, as a Hungarian nationalist or conductor for a particular organization that should be here.  For example: ""John Doe (1863–1910) was a romantic composer who wrote much of the common repertoire for the clarinet still performed today.""The last sentence of the first paragraph may be a summary statement of the importance of the composer – i.e. in the same position as the standard thesis statement of an essay.  ""Filetovich Sanovich (16xx–17xx) was a Russian composer and kazoo player of the late Baroque era. He was the most famous exponent of the newly developed Orthodox Kazoo concerto, and championed virtuoso kazoo playing in Russia as well as western Europe.""It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, ""without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page"".   === Sections ===  Here is sample of possible sections which can be used on a composers page. Which categories apply to any one composer is dependent on the information available and what is considered as pertinent to the individual composer. Variations of these headings can be used to better describe what topics are outlined within that section. In most cases a heading is only appropriate if there is more than one paragraph of that type of information. (So don't have a header for everything here when there is only a sentence about each. :) )  ==Biography/Life/Life and career== ==Music/Works== ==Legacy/Influence/Reception== ==See also== (Links to related Wikipedia articles that are not able to fit in the text; see details at MOS:SEEALSO.) ==Notes/Footnotes== (For footnotes) ==References/Citations== ==Sources/Bibliography== ==External links==   === Points to be covered in the ""Music"" or ""Works"" section of articles ===  Contributors may wish to consider covering the following points in composer articles. Of course, the needs of every article are different, so this is only a ""shell"", a template that needs to be adapted for each article. Some of this information may be useful at the opening, but in not much detail; most of it should probably be located in a separate section on style.  State, in broad, non-technical terms, some attributes of the composer's style; briefly position the composer in terms of the broad history of the genre. State the style and/or school of composition in which the composer might be located. Explain whose music influenced the composer, and in what ways. Describe the composer's style in more technical terms, both in relation to other composers of the period, and in terms of the evolution of the style during his/her lifetime. State whose music the composer, in turn, influenced. The names of works, and other terms, not in English, should be marked up with the {{lang}} template, using the appropriate two-letter language code; for example: {{lang|de|Von heute auf morgen}}, or {{lang|de|[[Von heute auf morgen]]}} when used as a link.   ==== Images of collectibles ==== Images of collectibles (coins, banknotes, postage stamps, souvenirs and similar items) in music articles should meet the following conditions:  Images should be free of copyright, or have a valid fair use rationale that satisfies WP:NFCC, specifically 'Criteria 8' (Significance): ""Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."" Inclusion should contribute to information about the subject of the article, not be used to obtain credibility and value for the collectible by associating it with the subject. The information should be of interest to the average reader of the music article. It should not be trivia.Coins, notes, stamps etc. in general circulation are more likely to meet these criteria than 'commemorative' issues.   ==== Trivia ==== Anecdotes, influences on pop culture, and other peripheral content or ""trivia"", should only be included in composers' articles if they are likely to be of interest to a typical reader of the article. Examples of content which almost always fail this test are: songs, albums, video games, TV shows, or movies that reference the music.  The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Many members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles for many reasons, including:  They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead) They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.They think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with featured articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.)  Stub templates  Any article which falls under the scope of WikiProject Composers should be tagged as such by adding the following on the talk page: {{WikiProject Composers}}. A category containing all articles with this banner on its talk page can be found here. To indicate very short articles, stubs, the template:Composer-stub should be used; this is coded {{Composer-stub}}. Geographically focussed templates can be found in the subcategories of the category Category:Composer stubs. Identify yourself as a participant by adding the following to your user page: {{tl|User WPComposers}} (To identify yourself without using the userbox, add this to the bottom of your user page: [[Category:WikiProject Composers Participants|{{PAGENAME}}]])External links  {{IMSLP}} for composers and works – International Music Score Library Project (website) {{ChoralWiki}} – Choral Public Domain Library (website) {{Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music}} for Medieval and Renaissance composers – Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (website) Category:Music external link templates Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject ComposersHistorical  Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment/2008 B-class Reviews Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Composers Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment/Model Review Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Guestbook"
545	554	1223	WP:CJKV	Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force	545	"The CJKV (Chinese Japanese Korean Vietnamese character) taskforce is jointly operated by WikiProject Disambiguation, WikiProject China, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Korea, and WikiProject Vietnam with a goal of creating and maintaining appropriate disambiguation pages whose titles use the following character sets: Traditional Chinese, Kyūjitai, Hanja, Han-Nom, Simplified Chinese, and Shinjitai (Kanji).  While Wikipedia:Naming conventions discourages Chinese characters in article titles, CJKV disambiguation should be used whenever a simple Roman character redirect will not work.  Example cases where CJKV disambiguation may (or may not) be necessary are listed at the Chinese characters sub page.  文 and 財閥 are good examples where disambiguation is necessary. For the current list of all CJKV disambiguation pages see Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. While the taskforce is jointly operated, WikiProject Disambiguation is the main guiding project as all disambiguation falls under its purview and the other projects cover only parts of the focus of this taskforce.  Listed alphabetically. Feel free to add your name if you wish to participate.  Endroit (talk) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) JHunterJ (talk) Kusunose (talk) 日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe Paularblaster (talk) Sonagi (talk) Umofomia (talk) Visviva (talk) {{disambig-Chinese-char-title‎}} — Put this at the bottom of the dab page instead of {{disambig}}, when the dab title contains chinese characters. {{transliterationof}} — {{transliterationof|ARTICLE-NAME|CHINESE-CHAR-NAME|DAB-NAME}}.  Use this to disambiguate between different transliterations, if such disambiguation would be helpful.  For example, see Kowloon, where they are used to link to the dab 九龍 (disambiguation). This is a list of pages where disambiguation may be needed. Once you have dealt with an entry, or if an entry does not appear to need further disambiguation, simply remove the entry from the list.  九龍 - could refer to either Kowloon or Cuu Long  Done.  Created 九龍 (disambiguation) with Kowloon as the primary redirect.I created the following two, but administrators speedily deleted it after believing that they duplicated Chaoyang District and The East is Red, respectively. Thus I ask you whether these are necessary.朝阳区 (and 朝陽區). It could refer to a district of Beijing and Changchun, Jilin Province. It translates to Chaoyang District, which could point to the aforementioned districts as well as a district in Shantou, which is 潮阳. the one-radical difference is small, but crucial.东方红 (and 東方紅). It could refer to Dong Fang Hong (a space program), and The East is Red - the song and the Cultural Revolution film. But the full title of the 1993 film is not simply 《东方红》.Could anyone weight in on whether Draft:山上 should be accepted? — Stevey7788 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC) The issue of CJKV characters in titles of disambiguation pages has been discussed a few times in the past. In general these discussions have achieved little consensus and produced no concrete modifications to policies either to explicitly permit or explicitly ban CJKV disambiguation pages:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon (currency) from September 2007, which resulted in the suggestion to create this taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 2#CJKV_disambiguation_pages Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/東北大學 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 (2nd nomination) from December 2007 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 18#朝阳区. Changed from redirect to Chaoyang District into redirect to 朝阳. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 15#Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles, from June 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/失楽園 from October 2010, which resulted in deletion due to being a disambiguation page containing only two items: John Milton's Paradise Lost and Junichi Watanabe's A Lost Paradise, the former of which is not typically referred to using a CJKV title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/蜀 from November 2010, which closed as no consensus Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 30#Non-Roman characters in article titles from November 2010, a discussion which arose after the above AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/南山 from August 2011, which closed as keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/南山 (2nd nomination), fromJuly 2013, closed as no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/松山 from January 2013, which closed as keepThere have also been some articles created about CJKV characters, using those characters as the titles of the articles themselves. So far these articles have generally been deleted for lack of notability or redirected to articles about the word represented by the character, without much consensus about whether the titles themselves are appropriate for articles, let alone for disambiguation pages:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kana alphabet articles, which resulted, among other things, in moving the articles to their Latin transcriptions. (Unlike in the case of CJKV characters, those transcriptions are unambiguous). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/漫画 from December 2005 resulted in deletion of the article at that title. In January 2006, the title was then redirected to manga. In 2010 it was converted into a disambiguation page for manga and manhua. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/屌, from July 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/廖, from October 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/喆, from July 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/寸, from January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/安, from July 2009Similar issues have also come up in the discussion of ""extended Latin"" and Greek characters, though again not always related to disambiguation pages:  Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 28#German sharp S Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 31#Non-Latin letters in article titles Please list current discussions here."
546	555	1224	WP:PROG	Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science	546	Welcome to the WikiProject Computer science page. The goals of the project are to build a community of interest around computer science, and to provide a focal point for coordinating efforts to improve Wikipedia's computer science articles. The scope of the project includes all articles in the area of computer science, including computer programming and software engineering.  If you would like to participate in this project, then you can optionally add your name to the list of participants. Keep in touch with project developments by adding this project to your watchlist and joining discussions on the talk page.
547	556	1226	WP:COMPREHENSIVE	Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive	547	"Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically formatted information on notable subjects. In the pursuit of completeness, Wikipedia includes truthful (sometimes ""sensitive"") information which can be considered as having possible uses which could be considered, illegal, immoral, unethical, or potentially harmful. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information; what people do with that information is entirely up to them and is either none of Wikipedia's concern or it is believed that the world is better overall for the information being available than if it were not. Wikipedia's ethos is to be informative. Also, trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information can be rather difficult; thus, making decisions based on such predictions in order to ""protect"" an entity is questionable. Further, if Wikipedia was to censor on moral/ethical grounds, it would be necessary to choose a particular morality or code of ethics, but this would violate Wikipedia's neutrality; the furthest Wikipedia has gone in this area is WP:BLP, which is rather limited in scope. Just as Neutral Point of View requires a level of factual relativism in not favoring any one view as absolute truth, so is a level of moral relativism required in deciding when to omit content. Policy proposals to censor on the aforementioned grounds have been made (and rejected) thrice; the seemingly perennial nature of such proposals inspired the writing of this essay.  Methamphetamine describes several ways of producing the illegal drug. Rorschach test shows pictures of and gives popular responses to the test cards; such disclosure conflicts with the professional ethics of psychologists and has been alleged to indirectly harm future test subjects by undermining the test's effectiveness. Similarly, Snellen chart shows an image of the standard chart; memorizing the image ahead of time makes it possible to cheat on some eye tests. AACS encryption key controversy provides an encryption key which could be used to break the DRM of home movies in violation of the DMCA or similar laws. Inhalants describes the gases and solvents in household products that are inhaled to produce intoxication and the methods used to inhale these products. Paywall mentions ways to circumvent paywalls; such circumvention is to the detriment of content producers and potentially violates their Terms of Service. Articles on some politicians include unpleasant facts about them, which may harm their current/future political prospects. Articles on some weapons such as improvised explosive devices or Molotov cocktails describe their designs and operating principles, which would be of aid to those wanting to make them. Articles on sexuality include images, frank discussions, and detailed descriptions; some people find some of this immoral. (Covered more directly by WP:NOTCENSORED) The Mousetrap reveals (without a ""spoiler warning"" per se) the play's twist ending, possibly harming the enjoyment of some when actually watching the play, and despite the rights-owner's wishes. (Covered more directly by WP:SPOILER.) Articles on medicine may be imperfect; those who have not read our medical disclaimer may have excessive trust in such articles and use them to seek medical advice. The Münchausen syndrome article can be used by would-be sufferers in preparing to fake having that problem. Hypochondriacs reading articles on medical problems may become convinced they suffer from those problems and seek unnecessary tests or treatment. Suicide methods contains details on methods used to commit suicide, which may encourage people suffering from depression to do so. Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad include depictions of these religious figures; some Bahá'ís and Muslims consider such depictions immoral. (See also WP:Wikipedia is not aniconistic) Information which has ethical, moral, or legal implications has been and can be validly excluded on other sound policy-based grounds, primarily WP:Verifiability. This is why most exclusion policy proposals are arguably policy creep; if information is solidly verifiable, then it's already ""out there"" in the reliable source. All removing the information from Wikipedia does is make it less accessible; it does not magically obliterate it from existence, and determined people can still find it. And if it's not in a reliable source, then mere lack of verifiability already justifies its removal. Building on verifiability, WP:BLP requires a high standard of verifiability in articles about living people, so as to avoid libel. These exceptions do not contradict the position espoused in this essay because unverified information is of uncertain truth value and thus does not contribute towards making the encyclopedia more informative.  [...] However, Wikimedia policy has never called for material to be deleted purely on the basis that it is, or may be, objectionable, and our projects have long contained caveats to that effect.  We do expect material in our projects to be educational in nature, and any material that is not educational should be removed. We see our role as making available all knowledge, not solely such knowledge as is universally deemed acceptable. We believe that individual adults should be able to decide for themselves what information they want to seek out. In the case of children, we believe that their parents, teachers, and other guardians are best placed to guide them to material that is appropriate for them, based on their development and maturity, as they grow into adulthood.  1. Wikimedia is Dedicated to Intellectual OpennessIn the first category is the overriding principle that animates all Wikimedia efforts – the unrelenting, unremitting and rigorous commitment to non-censored openness and “intellectual freedom” (to borrow a term from the library community) that Wikimedia attempts to provide for the world. The belief in providing open information and complete knowledge to the world’s inhabitants is not only a slogan for Wikimedians – it is the principle that animates virtually every decision and activity taken over its many platforms every day. We have been told time and again as we conducted this study that Wikimedia’s commitment to intellectual freeedom is not merely its mission statement – it is the key to its success in the world. The more open the projects can be, it was argued, the greater their potential success. By and large, we agree with this perspective. Wikimedia projects are trusted in the world because they are seen to be fair and unbiased (to the extent that that is possible in a world filled with contention). Open and full access to information is a principle that is both intellectually sound and practically efficient.  2. Wikimedia's Openness Does Not Change When Content is Contentious [...] As an educational enterprise, Wikipedia’s commitment to intellectual openness is no means to an end – it is an end in itself. It is a public service, the reason the projects exist. Consequently, Wikimedia has been less willing than others to accede to extra-institutional pressure to change its content. (This, to us, is the true meaning of the oft-quoted “Wikimedia does not censor”), Wikimedia’s educational mission forces a certain uncompromising attitude onto its projects. There is much in the world to learn about – not all of it is pleasant, not all of it is uncontroversial, some of it is disturbing, some of it is hard. But it is there, and by and large, Wikimedia is there to document it. The principle of radical openness belongs to Wikimedia’s intellectual DNA. [...]  WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLEIn its encyclopedic function, Wikipedia contains millions of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental, and other filtering schemes.  Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar, or offensive by some readers. See Wikipedia:Profanity for more information. [...] Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy. Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics. Some subjects that are discussed have criminal applications in some jurisdictions. Others contain information on dangerous or otherwise risky activities [...] Wikipedia contains spoilers.[...] Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See a list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.  [...] Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE [...] DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. [...] None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, vandals, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.  User:Jmh649/Suppression of content WP:Here to build an encyclopedia Contrast: WP:Hardcore pornography imagesPolicyWP:Wikipedia is not censored WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - a main reason why Wikipedia can afford to be comprehensive WP:PRESERVEFailed censorship proposalsWP:Sensitive wildlife locations Talk:Cypripedium calceolus Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more — Wikipedia Signpost WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) Talk:Rorschach test/images WP:News suppressionArticles/conceptsAcademic freedom Intellectual freedom Freedom of speech Information wants to be free The Anarchist Cookbook"
548	557	1227	WP:CANSTYLE	Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles	548	"This is a summary of current styles and conventions on Wikipedia for Canadian-related articles, as determined by application of Wikipedia policies, existing practice and current consensus among the users of Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. This document may be added to as needed. However, if you believe that a guideline listed here should be changed, then please solicit consensus at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board rather than changing the guideline unilaterally.  Canadian English dialect and spelling should be used in newly created articles. Talk pages of Canadian topic based articles  may be tagged with   {{Canadian English}} to indicate this fact. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation.   === In article text === In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the information City, Province/Territory, Canada, or equivalent wording, unless the article text or title has already established that the subject is Canadian, e.g., it is not necessary to identify the ""Parliament of Canada"" as being located in ""Ottawa, Ontario, Canada"" (use ""Ottawa, Ontario"", or simply ""Ottawa"" if Ontario is already established).  In articles that are about non-Canadian topics, for example, sports figures, the format of City, Canada may be used as a convention, along with similar listings of other international locations. (This is typically found in listings of tournament results, etc.) Include Canadian cities using the format consistently used in the article. If American states are present, for example, use Canadian provinces and territories as well. This is typical in articles of North American topics. Several Canadian cities are well known internationally but should still be linked on first mention.   === Article names === Cities that either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles. Canadian settlements that have not been disambiguated with the name of the province are listed at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/List of undisambiguated communities. Note the following considerations:  Cities can be moved if they (a) have a unique place name, or (b) are the most important use of their name. A city's relative international fame, or lack thereof, may have some bearing on criterion (b), but it is irrelevant if the city qualifies under criterion (a)—if there is no other Flin Flon anywhere in the world, then it is not valid to cite Flin Flon's lack of international fame as a reason to keep the article at Flin Flon, Manitoba. Towns (unless the town's population is akin to that of a city), villages, neighbourhoods and other smaller settlements must have unique place names to qualify for a page move. At this smaller level, importance is too subjective, too prone to circular ""mine is more important than yours because mine is the one I've heard of"" debates, to be a viable criterion. Population and Google-hit comparisons between cities of the same name may be helpful in determining primary usage, but are not conclusive in isolation. For example, Hamilton and Windsor are larger than their namesakes in other countries, but for historical, political, or cultural reasons they are both less internationally significant than at least one of their smaller namesakes, and thus do not qualify as primary usages. Further, Google searching is geolocated, so that users in different areas will get different sets of results—a user in Canada will see results pertaining disproportionately to the Hamilton in Ontario, while a user in Scotland will see results pertaining disproportionately to the Hamilton in South Lanarkshire, and one in New Zealand will see results pertaining disproportionately to the Hamilton in Waikato—and thus ""which one comes up most often when I search on Google"" is not a definitive measure. Cities may also lose out as primary usage to non-city topics. For example, Regina and Prince Albert are both the largest cities of those names, but cannot be considered primary topics as both are overridden by their names' royal biography referents. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a disambiguation page is not meant to serve as a search index for all Wikipedia articles that simply have a word in their titles; they are meant only to steer people to the correct choice among articles that could potentially have the same title. For instance, only articles that could potentially be given the title Toronto are to be evaluated when deciding whether that title should be a disambiguation page or an article about the Canadian city. Topics such as Toronto Transit Commission, University of Toronto or Toronto Public Library, which merely contain the word Toronto in a longer name, are not to be considered when making such a decision, as they cannot validly be moved to the plain title ""Toronto"". A comprehensive article about the city would already include links to these topics anyway. In most cases, an article is a candidate for such a page move if ""City"" already exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to ""City, Province"". An article may also be a candidate for such a page move if ""City"" is a blank redlink. As Wikipedia is a work in progress to which new articles are always being added, the fact that another article doesn't already exist at the plain title does not inherently prove that a name is unique.Previously, consensus required a page move discussion to take place in all cases before a page could be moved. This is no longer the consensus position, however; straightforward cases may now be moved at any time. However, a discussion should still take place if there is some potential ambiguity as to what the most appropriate name would be, or if there is a legitimate reason to believe that there may be a dispute. If you disagree with the suitability of a page move that has already taken place, however, then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title. For cities that do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is City, ProvinceOrTerritory (the ""comma convention""). For the territories, please note that the correct forms are City, Yukon (not City, Yukon Territory) and City, Nunavut (not City, Nunavut Territory), but City, Northwest Territories (not City, Northwest). For the easternmost province, the proper form is City, Newfoundland and Labrador. Localities that need further disambiguation beyond the province or territory include their county, municipality, or parish. (e.g. Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario, due to the need to disambiguate it from the Armstrong, Ontario in Timiskaming District; as the one in Timiskaming is an incorporated municipality, it gets title precedence.) A Canadian city's article, however, should never be titled simply City, Canada (e.g. Halifax, Canada), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the province's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the actual article title, although creating a redirect is normal practice. You may also create redirects from documentably common misspellings such as ""Winnepeg"", ""Ottowa"", ""St. Catherine's"", or ""Iqualuit"".  We do not try to anticipate every conceivable misspelling that could arise.  Dedicated city categories should always be named with the same title format as the city's main article. That is, if the article is at Toronto, then use Toronto rather than Toronto, Ontario, in category names; if it is at Regina, Saskatchewan, then name the related categories in the format Regina, Saskatchewan rather than just Regina. A former geographic name, such as Berlin, Ontario; Fraserville, Quebec; Bytown; or York, Upper Canada, should have a separate article only if there is something substantial that can be written about the history of that name—otherwise it should exist only as a redirect to the place's current name. Review of which Canadian cities are likely or unlikely to qualify for page moves takes place at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities.   === Neighbourhoods/communities ===  Article titles for neighbourhoods (and other communities within municipalities) are subject to the same considerations as municipalities, as set out in points 1 to 6 above. For neighbourhoods that do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is Neighbourhood, City (not Neighbourhood (City), as the ""bracket convention"" is generally reserved for geophysical features such as rivers and mountains).  Where a neighbourhood straddles a municipal boundary and is located in two separate municipalities, the correct title format is Neighbourhood, ProvinceOrTerritory (e.g. Thornhill, Ontario) if disambiguation is needed, regardless of any other consideration listed here. Where a neighbourhood is recognized as a distinct and valid municipal address by Canada Post (see city lookup here), the title may be at Neighbourhood, Province rather than Neighbourhood, City (e.g. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia).  Such neighbourhoods were usually once autonomous municipalities that have since been annexed or amalgamated, or are semi-autonomous municipalities (e.g. Montreal's boroughs).  A neighbourhood article should never be titled Neighbourhood, Canada; Neighbourhood, Former City; Neighbourhood, Upper-tier Municipality; or Sub-Neighbourhood, Larger Neighbourhood; nor disambiguated with a descriptor (e.g. Neighbourhood (Borough)).   === Ridings === The names of federal ridings (electoral districts) on Wikipedia follow the conventions of Elections Canada. Different regions within the riding are separated using em-dashes, even when normal style would use en-dashes (e.g. Kitchener—Waterloo). The same is true for a region and its sub-region (e.g. Scarborough—Agincourt, but note also Edmonton Centre). Names within each segment are separated with spaces in English, but are often separated with hyphens in French (e.g. St. John's South—Mount Pearl versus Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine). All reasonable uses of hyphens and dashes should redirect to the actual article. Note in particular that older sources published before the days of electronic typesetting typically rendered electoral district names with double hyphens in lieu of em-dashes, and it is thus possible that a reader who knows the district's name from a source of that type but is not familiar with the actual naming conventions may erroneously believe the version with double hyphens to be the actual formatting of the name. Thus, a district with one or more em-dashes in its name should have a redirect in place from the version with double hyphens. Provincial ridings follow the conventions established by the province's own elections agency. Generally, provincial riding names use hyphens to separate two regions or a region and its sub-region, but this is not always true. One exception is Ontario, which bases its provincial riding boundaries on the federal ones and uses the same names. Another exception is Quebec, which uses hyphens within region names (like French ridings at the federal level) and uses en-dashes to separate regions (e.g. Rouyn-Noranda–Témiscamingue). When a riding is renamed with nearly identical boundaries, it does not need a new article. A significant boundary shift, however, should result in a new article instead of a renaming of an old one. When the names and boundaries of federal and provincial ridings are almost identical (as in Ontario), they may share an article if there's only a small amount of information that can be written about the federal vs. provincial districts, but should retain separate articles if there's substantial content. In any case where disambiguation is needed in the title of a riding article, use (electoral district). If further disambiguation is needed, use (federal electoral district) or (provincial electoral district); add the jurisdiction, such as (Manitoba federal electoral district), or (Manitoba provincial electoral district), only if the federal vs. provincial distinction is still not sufficient. When federal and provincial riding names differ only in punctuation, one or both should include disambiguation in their titles as if their names were identical (e.g. Edmonton—Strathcona and Edmonton-Strathcona (provincial electoral district)). Whenever federal and provincial riding names are similar enough that they could be confused, the two articles should be linked to each other in hatnotes. The word ""riding"" may be used in articles, but because that usage is unique to Canada, the first time it is used it should either be wikilinked or include the official term ""electoral district"" in parentheses.   === Article or redirect? === Articles are always subject to WP:Reliable sources, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability, regardless of the topic, and the concept of ""inherent notability"" for geographic locations on Wikipedia is not an exemption from these content policies. While any named community is valid as a potential topic for a properly referenced article, a community is not automatically entitled to a poor-quality, unreferenced independent article solely on the basis that it exists. Incorporated municipalities can always be referenced at least to Statistics Canada census data, and accordingly these should always have independent articles. A neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality, however, should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets the core content policies and guidelines. A community whose article does not meet that threshold (e.g., an unreferenced three or four line stub) should be redirected to the appropriate section in its municipality's article or to an appropriate spin-off article of the municipality (such as one on a borough, or an omnibus ""Neighbourhoods in City"" side article), until a properly referenced article can be written about the neighbourhood as an independent topic.   === Newfoundland and Labrador === Note that Newfoundland is not a Canadian province; it is an island that forms part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While a title in the format ""Jonesville, Newfoundland"", or ""Smithburg, Labrador"", may be created as a redirect, it is never to be the article's primary title—places in this province that require disambiguation are always to be titled in the form Place, Newfoundland and Labrador. In a few cases, places may require added disambiguation; in these instances, the preferred format is ""Place, Region (e.g. Twillingate, Bonavista, Conception Bay, Placentia Bay, Labrador, etc.), Newfoundland and Labrador"", not just ""Place, Newfoundland"" or ""Place, Labrador"". The exception is for articles about events that took place before the province changed its name in 2001, for example, Newfoundland general election, 1999.   === Territories ===  The official legal name of Canada's westernmost territory has been ""Yukon"" since 2003. While the Government of Yukon approved a return to the usage of ""the Yukon"" for certain purposes in mid-2021, the territory's official legal name of ""Yukon"" remains unchanged. In body text, either ""Yukon"" or ""the Yukon"" is therefore acceptable, although ""Yukon"" without the word the is preferred. However, Yukon-specific article, category, and list titles should always use the form without the word the. The preferred form is ""the Northwest Territories"" in article text and in the titles of list articles, but geographic articles about the Northwest Territories (e.g. Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories) do not use the word the in their titles.   === Population and demographics ===   ==== Use of census data ==== Per WP:RS and WP:V, all population figures and demographics must be referenced. Although some supplementary sources may be added, the population figure and demographics from the last official Statistics Canada census is the principal definitive source for population data in articles. Do not cite unofficial population estimates such as the ""Welcome to Jonesville"" sign at the city limits or the local Chamber of Commerce business directory, do not perform your own statistical analysis to arrive at an original research estimate, and do not round population figures or demographics off.   ==== Official population updates ==== Between censuses, properly sourced intercensal population and demographic updates from a government source such as Statistics Canada, a provincial statistical agency (such as BC Stats in British Columbia) or a formal municipal census (such as those in Alberta), may be provided in addition to the most recent federal census data. For example, as long as the figures are reliably sourced, it is acceptable for an article to say that   In the Canada 2016 Census, the City of Vancouver had a population of 631,486 and Vancouver census metropolitan area (CMA) had a population of 2,463,431. As of 2017, the city had an estimated population of 637,083 and the CMA had an estimated population of 2,493,452.It is not acceptable to remove the 2021 census figure such that the article's only population figure is an intercensal update—the 2021 figure must remain in the article until the results of the 2026 census are published. This applies to both the prose of the article and its infobox. Other figures are provided as a supplement to the census population figure, not as a replacement. It is also not necessary for an article to provide a continual tally of intercensal updates for every year between federal censuses—only the current year's figure needs to be provided. The updated figures can be provided in the article body, but for the sake of consistency across all municipalities, the infobox's population = field should reflect the federal census figure, while its population_blank1 = field can be used for intercensal updates. List articles, such as List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population, are only to list federal census data, and are not to be updated with off-year estimates or municipal census data regardless of sourcing. Similarly, unless a) you know how to retrieve individual census tract data from the Statistics Canada site, or b) the place has a documented census population figure by virtue of being a designated place or a recognized population centre (urban area prior to 2011), do not give an unsourced population estimate for a neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality. It is preferable for an article to have no population information at all than it is to give an unsourced or poorly sourced figure. A population figure that is provided without a valid source for the number must be removed from the article.   ==== Metropolitan area vs. city population ==== Do not confuse the population of a city with the population of its census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration. While these are both valid statistics to cite in an article, they do not represent the same thing. There is no contradiction between the fact that nearly 2.5 million people live in the Vancouver CMA and the fact that only about 630,000 of those live within Vancouver's city limits, and it violates WP:NPOV to assert that the distinction is trivial or irrelevant.   ==== Population centre ==== An extremely common form of editing error on Canadian-related articles is to alter data in ""population centre"" lists to reflect the populations of municipalities. However, municipal boundaries are not what a population centre represents—population centre data exists to measure population on the urban vs. rural distinction, and corresponds to clusters of population density rather than to boundaries of municipalities or census metropolitan areas. A place's ""population centre"" data may be smaller than its municipal ""city limits"" population, if the city includes both an urbanized core and less densely populated rural areas, or larger, if the city's urban development continues past municipal boundaries into another municipality. In fact, a municipality may not even be a population centre at all, if it does not reach an urban standard of population density or if its urban area is directly contiguous with another municipality's urban area; a community or neighbourhood within a municipality can also be a standalone population centre, if it represents a standalone cluster of urban density surrounded by non-urban areas that separate it from the rest of its municipality.  For instance, the population centre of Prince George does not encompass the entire city of Prince George, but just measures the urbanized central core while excluding less populated parts of the city such as the rural areas west of Foothills Boulevard or near the airport; the city of Mississauga is not classified as a population centre in its own right at all, but as part of the population centre of Toronto since its urban development is continuous with Toronto's; and the city of Greater Sudbury has eight distinct population centres within it, as several urbanized parts of the city are separated from each other by bands of unpopulated industrial or entirely undeveloped land. ""Population centre"" lists are to precisely reflect Statistics Canada's population centre data, and are not to be altered to reflect different numbers or to add places that Statistics Canada does not classify as their own population centres.  For a geographical feature (river, mountain, valley, island, etc.) that requires disambiguation, the standard convention is ""Name of Feature (Province)"". Where that isn't sufficient, then choose a more specific disambiguator, such as by region (e.g. Whitefish River (Northwestern Ontario) vs. Whitefish River (Northeastern Ontario)), by parent river, or by the lake or ocean that the river empties into.  However, it is also acceptable to cover multiple topics in a single article (e.g. Black River (Ontario)) if separate articles would be too stubbish.  Do not disambiguate geographical features unnecessarily. If there is no other significant Lake Nipigon, then the one in Ontario does not need to be at ""Lake Nipigon (Ontario)"". When writing articles about communities, describe and categorize them by their correct legal status and definition. That is, if Topicville is not independently incorporated, but is a part of a larger incorporated municipality, then Topicville is to be described as a community, a neighbourhood or a settlement, not a city, a town or a village.   === Content organization === Canadian-related lists and templates which organize their content by province or territory are arranged in alphabetical order, not in a geographic ""provinces arrayed left to right from BC first to NL last, and then the territories left to right from Yukon to Nunavut"" order.  Geographic L→R order makes sense to Canadians, because the provinces and the territories happen to be arranged in nearly perfect west to east lines that seem like a logical way to organize a list or template—however, the audience for Wikipedia content is not restricted to Canadians, but also includes international readers who do not have an instinctive understanding of what geographic order the provinces happen to line up in. Lists and templates are organized for the benefit of all readers, not just those who already know that Saskatchewan is geographically located between Alberta and Manitoba, so L→R order is not an appropriate method of organizing Wikipedia content. The territories may be combined as one list section for ""Territories"", in contexts where the amount of territory-related content to list isn't significant, or organized as a separate alphabetical list from the provinces if that separation is contextually important—for example, since each territory has only one senator, compared to several senators per province, {{Senate of Canada}} has a single ""Territories"" line to list all three territorial senators rather than a separate line for each territory, and since territorial commissioners are a different thing from provincial lieutenant governors, {{CanViceroy}} maintains separate lines for the two groups. However, if neither of these conditions applies, then the territories are to be listed in their normal place in strictly alphabetical order, not separated to the bottom of an alphabetically ordered list—for example, since there's no important contextual difference between being a radio station in a province vs. being a radio station in a territory, {{CanadaRadio}} just organizes the provinces and territories alphabetically as one group, and does not bump the territories down to a separate postscript from the provinces.  Note that Wikipedia's Use English guideline does not mean that the words in an article title must invariably be in English; it means that the title needs to be what an English speaker would most likely recognize as the usual name of the subject in actual usage. For example, the Parti Québécois does not have a recognized English name—the standard usage by speakers of Canadian English is the untranslated name ""Parti Québécois"". On the other hand, the Parti Rhinocéros is not usually referred to in English by its official French name, but by the unofficial translation ""Rhinoceros Party"". In both cases, the correct title on the English Wikipedia is the name that's actually used by speakers of Canadian English to refer to the parties. When using the French language title for an article instead of an English one, always use the proper French orthography, including accents and hyphens and French capitalization conventions, but create redirects from the appropriate alternate spellings. Similarly, when using the English title, create a redirect from the French one. Also create redirects from any translated titles that have documented current or historical use. For instance, a translated redirect should be created from Three Rivers, Quebec, to Trois-Rivières, as the name ""Three Rivers"" was historically used in English. Do not, however, create a translated redirect if the translated name is not demonstrably linked to the topic—for example, Rivière-du-Loup has never been referred to in English as ""Wolf River"" (its historical English name was ""Fraserville""), and Notre-Dame-du-Nord has never been referred to as ""Our Lady of the North"".   === Institutions === For many current institutions (hospitals, universities, etc.) in Quebec, standard Canadian English usage is ambiguous and not clear-cut: some English speakers refer to the Université du Québec à Montréal, while others refer to the ""University of Quebec at (or in) Montreal"", while still others simply use the acronym UQAM (you-kam). In such cases, title the article with the proper name of the institution in French, and create redirects from any English translations that are genuinely likely to be used as alternate search or link terms. However, where there is a single standard and generally accepted English name for the institution, use that rather than the French name (e.g. National Assembly of Quebec rather than ""Assemblée nationale du Québec"") regardless of whether that name is ""official"" or not.   === Places === For geographic names, again, the current practice is to reflect actual English usage. Specifically, the unaccented names Montreal, Quebec and Quebec City (as opposed to ""Montréal"" or ""Québec"") are the majority usages in English. However, usage for most smaller cities and towns in the province is less clear-cut, due in part to the lesser number of documented English references. As with institutions, some places in fact may have several competing ""English"" forms rather than one standard one—for example, Trois-Rivières could be referred to in English by simply maintaining the French spelling as is, by dropping the accent but keeping the hyphen (""Trois-Rivieres""), by dropping the hyphen but keeping the accent (""Trois Rivières"") or by dropping both the accent and the hyphen (""Trois Rivieres""). Accordingly, for most municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling unless a clear usage consensus in favour of an alternate name (e.g. Montreal West rather than Montréal-Ouest, Mount Royal rather than Mont-Royal, etc.) is seen outside of Wikipedia.   === People === People's names should reflect the spelling most correctly used in reference to that specific person, regardless of how the same name might or might not be spelled by a different person. For instance, a French-speaking politician from Quebec whose surname is Lévesque should retain the accent on their article title, even though an English-speaking hockey player from Alberta who has the same surname might drop the accent and spell it as Levesque instead. Each person should be titled with the form of the name actually used by that particular person; do not follow a blanket policy of always keeping or always dropping the accent across all people on Wikipedia who happen to possess that surname.   === Artistic works === For films from Quebec that have been released in English Canada or the United States, use the title under which the film was released in the English market, but create a redirect from the original French title. For films that did not garner release under a distinct English title, use the original French title and do not rename the film with an original research translation. (For instance, Monsieur Lazhar and Incendies were both released to English markets under their original names, not under translated titles.) Wherever relevant, however, other articles (e.g. the filmographies of actors and directors, Genie Award and Canadian Screen Award articles, lists of Canadian films by year, etc.) should list both the English and French titles, with one appearing in parentheses after the other. Note, as well, that if an English title can be verified, even by a primary source such as a film streaming site, that title automatically takes precedence even if most or all of the sources actually present in the article referred to it with the original French title.  Additionally, for films, the redirect from the French title should be categorized in Category:Quebec films by French title, so that users who know the films by those titles rather than the English ones still have the opportunity to find them. (Note, however, that if multiple French-title redirects exist for the same film, such as for accented and unaccented forms, it is not necessary to categorize all of them in the French titles category—categorize only the one that represents the most strictly correct French form.) Television series from Quebec, however, are usually not exported to English-speaking markets, and thus usually have no English name. Most television series, thus, should be titled with their original French titles, and not translated into English. However, when such a series has also been seen in English markets under an English title (e.g. He Shoots, He Scores, Nic and Pic), then use the English title with a redirect from the French. Works of French literature that have been republished in English translation, similarly, should be named with the title of the English translation, with a redirect from the original French title. Works that have not been republished in an English translation should be named with their original French title.  Properties in Canada can be designated as being of historic, or heritage, value by different levels of government.   When one is referring in an article to historic designation(s) applicable to a site, it is important to specify the specific designation(s) and to not confuse or conflate the designations (they are not interchangeable and confer different legal protections).  Typically, designations are ordered international/federal/provincial/municipal rather than by date. In Canada, we usually use the term ""designated"" to described a property that has been granted official heritage status.  Depending on the circumstances, we can refer to a site being designated under a particular statute (e.g. the Aberdeen Pavilion is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act) or designated as a certain type of historic site (e.g. Halifax City Hall is designated a Municipally Registered Property under the Nova Scotia Heritage Property Act).  We often avoid the term ""listed"" since it means different things in different jurisdictions (e.g. in Vancouver ""listed"" can mean the same thing as ""designated"", while in Toronto a ""listed"" property is one that has not been designated, but rather has been identified for potential future designation).  We similarly avoid the term ""protected"", since some designations offer no legal protections, while some others provide limited, or appealable, protections.  Inclusion on the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP) is not the same thing as being designated.  The CRHP is merely an online database of sites that have otherwise been designated, and it does not confer any historic status.  The CRHP is a fantastic resource, and can be used as a reliable source in citations pertaining to the historic status of a site, but the main body of a Wikipedia article should never refer to a site being listed or included on the CRHP.  See the essay at WP:WHATISCRHP for additional information.  The following conventions apply when adding names to the infobox of a Canadian geographic article:  Articles should follow the guidelines outlined at WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES. If a particular usage is more common in English, such as ""Montreal"", then that name should be used throughout the article and in the article's title. In that regard, ""Iqaluit"" is to be used over ""Frobisher Bay"", despite the latter's more apparent English origin. The infobox name field (""name"") should contain the most commonly used place name in English. This field should be at the top, and should be more prominent than entries in the alternative (""other_name""), native (""native_name"") and official name (""official_name"") fields. These other names should only be added if they are official and verifiable, and should be presented below the primary name, preferably in smaller type. Additionally, an official name in another language should be included only if the short form portion of the name is substantively different from the English name—such as Montreal/Montréal, Mount Royal/Mont-Royal, Greater Sudbury/Grand-Sudbury or Iqaluit/ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ. If the name is spelled the same in both languages, such that the only difference between the two forms is the class noun (e.g. ""City of""/""Ville de"") that each language attaches to it, then do not include the French name as separate information. Names should only be prefaced with ""City of"" in the ""official_name"" field, and then only if such usage is verifiable. “City of X” should not be used in the primary name field (""name"") or other fields. The settlement type field should use English-language terminology such as ""city"", ""municipality"", ""community"", or ""town"". Non-English terms such as ""ville"" and ""communauté"" should be avoided. Place names should not be translated based on the etymological origin of the name. For example, Montréal should not be translated as ""Mount Royal"", and ""Wetaskiwin"" should not be translated as ""the hills where peace was made"". All articles on Canadian cities should use the following model for name fields:   |name = Sample    |settlement_type = City    |official_name = City of Sample  All names within the nickname field (""nickname"") must be appropriately referenced with reliable sources that discuss how the nickname in question is in wide use by the general population. Merely supplying examples of usage (even in mainstream media) is insufficient. Nicknames used in the infobox should not be derogatory, nor should they only reference one particular demographic aspect of the place in question (e.g. Hongcouver, Tehranto) or one particular event (as such references quickly become dated, e.g. the Megacity). The field should be limited to two or three  nicknames; additional nicknames should be provided through a link to the appropriate section in List of city nicknames in Canada or to the ""Name of [place]"" article (if one exists) (for example, ""Town, NewfieJohn, more...""). Slogans used by the municipal government or local tourism authority, although they might be encyclopedic in their own right, are not necessarily nicknames unless they are used colloquially by the general population, and should otherwise not be included in the nickname field (although consideration could be given to including them in a blank parameter of the infobox).These conventions apply to the use of the nickname field in the article infobox.  References to nicknames and slogans in the body of an article or list are subject to Wikipedia's other content policies and guidelines. Television and radio stations are always titled with their legal Industry Canada-issued call signs rather than their on-air brand names; note that in the Canadian context, the call sign always includes the -FM or -TV or -DT suffix (unlike in the United States, where a station only has a suffix if it's necessary to distinguish multiple stations with the same base Wxxx/Kxxx calls). There is no such thing as an -AM suffix in broadcasting—the actual legal call sign of an AM radio station is always just Cxxx. However, because of the frequent need to disambiguate them from FM or TV stations, or other things with the same acronym, Wikipedia uses the format ""Cxxx (AM)"" when necessary. As many readers are not familiar with this convention, a title in the format Cxxx-AM may be created as a redirect to the Cxxx or Cxxx (AM) title, but is never to be the primary title.  The brand name may, however, be created as a redirect to the call sign (e.g. MIX 99.9), a disambiguation page (e.g. Q107) or an article about the brand itself if it has a substantial history (e.g. EZ Rock, Jack FM, NRJ). The only exceptions to this are where a single radio or television network broadcasts across multiple transmitters with different call signs but no local variances in programming—for example, TVOntario, TFO, Télé-Québec or CKUA Radio Network. In such cases, all of the call signs should be redirects to a single article about the network itself. A radio station's article may list certain notable programs that air on the station, but per WP:NOT, it is not to list the station's entire broadcast schedule. Only a service whose schedule consists primarily or entirely of programs that are themselves notable enough for independent articles, such as the CBC's national radio networks, may contain a comprehensive schedule—however, programs on local commercial radio stations are rarely notable on their own, and so listing the entire schedule of such a radio station is essentially unencyclopedic advertising. Content that describes a station's programming in greater depth is permitted, however, as long as it is properly sourced and is not just a list of hosts' names. The call sign of a rebroadcaster should always be a redirect to its programming source, rather than an independent article, unless the call sign has a prior history (e.g. CKNC-TV, CJBR-TV) as an originating station. Note, however, that a few Canadian radio stations retain call signs with extra numeric suffixes that make them appear to be rebroadcasters (e.g. CITE-FM-1), but are in fact licensed as originating stations. Most stations with call signs of this type, however, are true rebroadcasters. If you see an article titled with such a call sign, please verify it before arbitrarily redirecting it to another article. Newspaper articles should reflect the title as it actually appears on the newspaper's masthead. For example, The Globe and Mail, not ""Globe and Mail"", but National Post rather than ""The National Post"". If a masthead title is not unique, include the city's name in parentheses as a disambiguator (e.g. The Guardian (Charlottetown)) rather than titling the article with the unofficial form ""Charlottetown Guardian"". Do, however, create a redirect at the latter title format. Exclude the word ""the"" from the masthead title if the city's name is present in the publication's proper name (e.g. Sudbury Star, not ""The Sudbury Star""; London Free Press, not ""The London Free Press""), but include it if the city's name is not part of the publication's name (as in The Guardian or The Globe and Mail). A television series with a non-unique name is disambiguated as ""(TV series)""; if that isn't sufficient because another country has had a TV series of the same name, the next preferred step is ""(Canadian TV series)"", then ""(year TV series)"", then ""(province TV series)"" if necessary. Disambiguate TV series by network only as a last resort, as television series can be sold to other countries or even rerun in Canada on a different network than the one that first originated the program.  Whenever possible, people should be at the name by which they are most commonly known rather than an obscure full name. For example, the Trudeau-era Minister of Justice is at Ron Basford, not ""Stanley Ronald Basford"". However, as with Basford or (Henry) Perrin Beatty, do not assume that the person's usual name is necessarily their first name. In some cases (e.g. Bud Germa, Bush Dumville), their most common name may not even be either of their given names. When in doubt, research or ask WP:CWNB for assistance.  For older or less prominent political figures for whom limited sources are available, such as a person who was a backbench MP in the 1890s, it may be difficult to determine which name the person was best known under. In such cases, it is permissible to use the full name as indicated by the Parliament of Canada's website—but Wikipedia does not have an invariable requirement to precisely title-match that source for all figures. If sources can be found for which name a person actually used in their public life, use that name as the title, not the full name as listed in the parliamentary database. Note that occasionally the parliamentary site will provide this information for you by including an additional given name in parentheses, such as Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse—this means that his most common name, and hence his correct Wikipedia title, is ""Vic"" rather than ""Victor"" or ""Victor Fredrich"". Per Canadian name#French Canadian names, if a historical personage from Quebec has a compound given name in the form Joseph-Secondname-Thirdname (e.g. Joseph-Jacques-Jean Chrétien) for a man or Marie-Secondname-Thirdname for a woman, then the common name is automatically presumed as Thirdname unless reliable sources show differently. For people with non-unique names, the standard hierarchy for disambiguation is as follows: occupation, Canadian occupation, provincial occupation, affiliative (e.g. political party) occupation. Only disambiguate by obscure biographical details such as the person's place of birth, years of life or not-widely-known middle name as an absolute last resort if none of these other disambiguation criteria are sufficient. Never disambiguate a person by geography alone, such as ""John Smith (Canada)"" or ""Jane McGillicuddy (Prince Edward Island)"", and never step further down the hierarchy than is necessary at the present time—as in the case of André Bachand (Progressive Conservative MP) and André Bachand (Liberal MP), base the chosen disambiguator on their current distinction, not on the fact that one of them might (see WP:CRYSTAL) re-enter politics in the future with a different political party. An article can always be moved at a later date if circumstances change. Titles for articles about people should also not be disambiguated by municipality, instead of country or province, except as an absolute last resort—for instance, this may be necessary if two different cities in the same province have had mayors with the same name, and no middle initial is known for either one.    === Postnominals ===  Do not place honorifics such as Hon., Dr., Fr., PC, MP or OC in the article title. Note that the postnominal PC, appearing directly after a politician's name in the article introduction or in the infobox header, has nothing whatsoever to do with their political party affiliation—it means ""Privy Councillor"", and refers to their membership in the Privy Council of Canada. A federal cabinet minister always holds the ""PC"" postnominal regardless of what party they are associated with, and no political party affiliation is ever denoted as a postnominal honorific. Do not ""correct the party affiliation"" of a cabinet minister from ""PC"" to some other party, because party affiliation is not what the ""PC"" in a postnominals template is referring to.   === Terms in office === Different political offices may have slightly different rules about how the start and end of a person's term in that office are denoted. Please consult the following table for the rules in specific instances.   === Law ===   ==== Legislation ==== When writing an article about a piece of legislation, whether it has passed into law or not, title the article with the short name of the legislation, and not with a title in the form ""Bill #"". Per WP:NC-GAL, the short form name (XYZ Act) is preferred whenever possible, with the long form name (An Act to XYZ) in place as a redirect to it. (The long form name is permissible as the primary title if a short form name cannot be properly sourced, although this should virtually never be anything more than a temporary measure.) Bill numbers, however, are routinely repeated in different contexts—different legislative bodies, different sessions of the same legislative body, etc.—and thus a bill number is almost never an unambiguous or unique name. When a piece of legislation is commonly referred to by its bill number, a redirect or disambiguation page should be created, like at Bill C-51. When disambiguation is needed in a title, add only the jurisdiction, such as in Heritage Property Act (Saskatchewan).  In Canada, per the McGill Guide, titles of acts are italicized.   ==== Case law ==== Names of court cases should generally follow the McGill Guide. In particular:  case names should be in italic; parties should be separated with ""v"" for decisions given in English or ""c"" for decisions given in French; omit punctuation for common abbreviations in names like ""Inc."" or ""Ltd.""; for government bodies, write the jurisdiction followed by the body in parentheses example: Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); use parentheses after the name for other descriptions of parties like in ""Doe (Estate of)"", and for cities like in ""Edmonton (City)"".   === Elections === The naming conventions for election articles are as follows:  Federal: ""YYYY Canadian federal election"" Provincial or territorial: ""YYYY Province/Territory general election""Although not all of the older municipal election articles have been converted yet, WikiProject Canada's current consensus around municipal elections is that they should be organized into one merged article per county or region, with only ""independent cities"" (i.e. cities that constitute their own independent census divisions, and are not part of any ""upper tier"" of municipal government) given their own standalone articles. The naming convention for a standalone article is ""YYYY City (comma-province/territory if necessary) municipal election""; merged articles that cover multiple municipalities are named in the format ""YYYY Jurisdiction (county, province, territory, etc.) municipal elections"". School board elections are never given their own separate articles, but are discussed only in municipal election articles. In Toronto, current practice is to use the main ""municipal election"" article primarily to cover the city council races, while spinning off a separate ""mayoral election"" for the citywide mayoral race. Generally speaking, most other Canadian cities do not require this treatment, however: it is restricted in principle to the largest metropolitan cities, although to date the editors who work on municipal election articles in Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary or Edmonton have not actually pursued this approach. In those other five cities, the mayoral spinoff approach would potentially be valid as well, although editors who wish to pursue it are requested, in advance of going ahead with it, to open a consensus discussion at WP:CANTALK to determine whether adequate editorial will actually exists or not to move in that direction. Outside of those six cities, however, keep the mayoral race in the main municipal election article. This is done in Toronto because the amount of work that editors have been willing to actively put into the articles pushes them into ""long enough to warrant spinoffs"" territory; however, the other cities have never really attracted the same level of hypercommitment. Federal or provincial by-elections do not each get their own separate standalone article, but rather are discussed as subsections of a larger common article such as By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament. A municipal by-election, similarly, should normally be covered as a followup subsection of the previous regular municipal election's article rather than as its own standalone topic; however, an exception may be made for a municipal by-election which can demonstrate a significant claim to being more notable than usual, such as the school board controversy that caused the 2017 Vancouver municipal by-election to include the complete election of an entirely new school board.  For currency values in articles on Canadian topics, the Canadian dollar is considered the default currency where an unprefixed dollar sign is used e.g. $123.45. However, the currency should be identified with the first appearance of a dollar amount for benefit of international readers. This can be specified as $123.45 (CAD) or some other statement indicating that dollar amounts are Canadian. Currencies of other nations in Canadian articles should always be identified, especially the United States dollar, to avoid confusion (e.g. US$45.67). For Wikipedia articles not specifically on Canadian subjects, the Canadian dollar should be identified either in ISO 4217 format (e.g. CAD 123.45) or as CA$ (e.g. CA$123.45). Avoid use of other available prefixes such as C$ (also the symbol for the Nicaraguan córdoba), CAN$, Can$, Cdn$ or CDN$ since there is no consensus for these. Do not use the abbreviation CAD$, as both ""D"" and ""$"" are symbols for ""dollar"". The {{iso4217|CAD}} template with ""CAD"" parameter may be used to format Canadian dollar amounts in ISO 4217 format and provide a link to the Canadian dollar article for reference."
549	558	1231	WP:DECISION	Wikipedia:Let the reader decide	549	"In Wikipedia, one of the key tenets is to keep a neutral point of view. However, sometimes it is tempting to use words that imply a point of view when the statement is essentially true. Just because no one will argue with your statement, does not mean it has a neutral point of view. Editor consensus therefore should not override policy guidelines. If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion. For example, an editor does not need to say that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac hell-bent on killing all the Jews. If they provide enough cited statements about his books, speeches, and concentration camps, then the reader would likely draw that conclusion. And one last tip, be careful about wandering into the gray zone between making statements which are neutral and factual.  WP:ASF, a former section of NPOV called ""A simple formulation"" said, ""Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves."" WP:MORALIZE, let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."
550	559	1234	WP:OLWHY	Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...?	550	"See also Rationale for outlines. Occasionally, an editor will notice that outlines sometimes overlap in scope and function with another type of page, and wonder why we have both.  In general, it is because outlines are optimized for browsing and for showing a subject's structure.  And because readers vary in their learning styles: some readers find outlines more convenient for exploring and for review than other forms of knowledge access and presentation.  For more information about redundancy between Wikipedia's info navigation systems, and its benefits, see WP:CLN. Getting back to the question, Why do we have outlines in addition to...   === ...subject articles? === Outlines are a form of list, and lists are easier and faster to browse than the text (prose) in articles.  Links take longer to identify and click on in articles (they're spread out more).  Articles are intended for explaining, while outlines are a type of tree structure optimized for navigating and depicting taxonomic information rapidly.  Outlines are more effective at covering the entire scope of a subject, and outlines are not limited by the size restrictions that the see also sections of articles are.  It is awkward to present as many links in an article, and embedded links tend to be arranged much more chaotically or even randomly throughout an article's prose.  The links in an outline are much more organized for ease of understanding. In addition to being a type of article, outlines are also an important part of Wikipedia's contents system, and serve as tables of contents or site maps for their respective subjects.   === ...portals? === Over the years, a few users have suggested that outlines and other topic lists be moved to portal space and added to the corresponding portals, or combined into a single portal with outline subpages.  This would be generally undesirable, because articles, including stand-alone lists, have greater utility than portal subpages.  And outlines are a type of stand-alone list.  More specific reasons are that... Portals are harder to create, develop, and maintain.  Portals can't keep up with the number of outlines being produced.  There are already many more outlines than there are portals (currently, not all of them are named ""outline of""), and as time goes on, there will be increasingly more outlines than portals. Pages in article space (including outlines) show up in Wikipedia's search results by default, portal subpages do not.  And when portal space is added to search results via ""my options"", they make all search results almost unreadable.  More importantly, since most outlines cover core subjects, it is imperative that they remain searchable. There are fewer restrictions to linking to articles, and the simplicity of article titles (including outline titles) make them easier to work with than portal subpage titles. As a type of article, outlines are designed to cover the entire scope of their subjects, while portals are modeled after the Main page and are designed to sample a subject by presenting excerpts of a small selection of articles.  Outlines are for browsing an entire subject, while portals are for presenting suggested reading similar to the Reader's Digest. Being more comprehensive, outlines tend to be larger than portal pages, and wouldn't readily fit into most portal's designs without making the portals overly long, cumbersome, or unbalanced. Some portals have their own topic lists, but the scope of their lists is very limited compared to that of outlines, and the complex table formatting of the lists on portals make them much harder to create and develop – even more so than the other parts of a portal.  And converting existing outlines to these formats would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Outline formats are standardized, making outlines very useful for comparing similar subjects (such as comparing countries).     === ...categories? === Like other types of lists on Wikipedia, outlines should never be deleted in favor of categories or navigation templates.  For more information see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Outlines have many advantages over categories, which they complement rather than compete with...   Outlines are articles, and show up in Wikipedia's search results by default. The lists in categories are invisible to searches – only the category pages themselves are accessible to searching, but not by default. Outlines show multiple levels on the same page, and support scrolling for ease of scanning with the eyes – once loaded, an outline is faster to browse than a branch in the category system (which relies heavily on clicking and subjects the reader to intermittent server delays, especially when the reader needs to traverse back and forth up and down the tree).   Outlines can list topics that don't exist as articles yet, and help to direct expansion of a subject's coverage. Outlines support redlinks, which can be named based on the pattern expected for the expansion of the subject's coverage.  Redlinks can be clicked on to create new articles, or to create redirects to the current location for the material on their topics.  When an article is deleted, it vanishes from its categories. On outlines, its link would turn red which alerts editors of the problem. Outlines support redirects.  Presenting projected article names as section redirects has the advantage of their being converted to actual articles later as the subject expands, while reducing the need to have links updated (because the updating takes place on the redirect pages themselves).  Redirects are generally not included in categories (see WP:CAT-R). Outlines support reference citations.  Category entries can't include citations. Outlines are supported by edit histories, so changes to an outline can be reviewed.  Categories don't have such support, so entries can disappear without their vanishing being noticed.  Outlines can be watchlisted.  Category entries are invisible to watching. Outlines support all the advantageous features of lists, including annotations (such as descriptions, explanations, and related information), pictures throughout, headings, subheadings, section leads, templates, etc.  These features cannot be interspersed throughout the links listed within a category. Because outlines can be edited directly, outlines are much easier and faster to create, develop, and modify than categories.  Outlines can also be modified offline for further convenience.  Editing categories entails editing a separate article for each entry in a category to be added, moved, or removed.  There is a server delay after every edit to a category's list of links.  An outline can be edited extensively and then saved. Outlines are extremely customizable and can accommodate almost any presentation need.   === ...indexes? === Indexes on Wikipedia generally present articles in alphabetical order.  Outlines present them as a hierarchy, showing the ""familial"" (parent-offspring-sibling) relationships between them, which is useful for finding and browsing subjects closely related to each other. Indexes are comprehensive in scope and are intended to include all of the topics on a subject.  Outlines by definition should include only essential links, and because of this they don't get watered down by several hundred types of cuisine or 10,000 person or place names – links to lists of these suffice in outlines, which makes outlines easier to browse. For example, the article index for Japan has grown to be 23 pages long:  But if you want to see at a glance the structure of Japan as a subject, you might find the Outline of Japan more useful. The difference between an outline and index on Wikipedia is the same as the difference between the table of contents and index of a book."
551	560	1235	WP:INT	Wikipedia:Integrate	551	"Wikipedia has articles and stubs that require merging, that have duplicate references, and that are orphans. Integrate these three factors by organised:  Merging  Cross-referencing LinkingLet's integrate, let's make it easier to find and maintain data: build it and they will come!   === Stage 1 === Search various categories for stub articles. Stub articles belonging to a specific category with minimal content should be merged into a meta-article covering that subject matter. Rather than delete old pages, redirects should be employed to reduce the chance of users making an article for the same subject. Furthermore, if the stub does have a chance to move beyond stub status, the article can be re-developed on its own merits as a category member. Duplicate references should be identified by human or bot as a method of detecting merge-candidates, or overlooked category members. Furthermore, duplicate references that are required should be converted to a template that would appear uniformly on all category member pages.   === Stage 2 === Parent categories of significant volume should be reasonably sub categorised. Template:CatDiffuse explains this process. Templates should be used to eliminate redundant content within category articles. Templates should also be used to link together disparate articles that relate to each other, but may not always be in the same category. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Templates for suitable templates.   === Analogies === Integration is white matter: it links together elements for processing. Integration is government in the sunshine: it keeps things in the open and not obscure. Integration may require ion thrusters: they're slow, but effective and efficient. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers — help form consensus about proposed mergers Wikipedia:Articles for deletion — if you !vote for an article to be merged at AfD, then please let the closing editor know whether you'd be willing to merge the articles yourself.  Just ""* Volunteer"" to help! Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling — help editors preserve any valuable material in the Category:All articles proposed for deletion ITU V-Series is an article created from the merging of 20+ related stubs. Created from several articles in Category:Fictional aircraft: Fictional military aircraft Created from Microsoft Windows stubs: Windows Text-to-Speech; Easter eggs in Microsoft products; Windows library files; Windows Vista Startup Process; Windows audio components; Common menus in Microsoft Windows Created from orphan, stub, and full articles in Category:Revelation Space: Characters in Revelation Space; Factions in Revelation Space; Locations in Revelation Space; Races in Revelation Space; Technology in Revelation Space Association of Mergist Wikipedians Wikipedia:Cleanup process Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage Wikipedia:Dead-end pages Special:Uncategorizedpages Category:Uncategorized pages Category:Navigational templates Wikipedia:Build the web Wikipedia:Content forking Template:Duplication Template:Move portions and Template:Move portions from"
552	561	1237	WP:EB1911	Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica	552	"This is the main page for WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, concerned with importing and adapting material from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB), a large encyclopedia, with a focus on the articles from older editions that are now in the public domain. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is a major resource with 29 volumes that are public domain. There are also earlier editions that cover some subjects dropped by the eleventh edition, in particular the 9th edition that like the 11th edition is partially available on Wikisource (see s:EB1911 and S:EB9 and s:EB1922)  Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles is the parent WikiProject of this project. s:WS:EB1911 is the sister project dealing with the proof-reading of texts.  The single most useful category for this project is probably Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica relating to the {{Cite EB1911}} template. One of the subcategories is Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica which contains the categories generated by the {{EB1911}} template.  This needs filling out  Starting in 2006, much of the still-useful text in the 1911 Encyclopaedia was adapted and absorbed into Wikipedia. Special focus was given to topics that had no equivalent in Wikipedia at the time. The process we used is outlined at the end of this page. Since then, a lot of the text has been incrementally improved or replaced by more modern information as editors slowly made Wikipedia better. A small number of articles are still missing details that could be usefully imported, but they are few. If you want to do this, refer to the tips at the end. Now what's important is re-annotating the articles according to current ideas of attribution and citation. In 2006, it was considered sufficient to tag articles with the {{1911}} template; now, Wikipedia's citation conventions require more. See Category:Wikipedia articles_incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter for one source of such articles. The original adaptation did not consistently make use of the 1922 edition, which is a three-volume supplement containing updates for the 1911 edition. It may be useful in, for example, adding new biographical material to then-living subjects. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1922 verification for more details.   === Recommended reference style === Although some articles are still missing, most articles are available in Wikisource (see 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica).  In these cases, a link to Wikisource can be used as documented below.   ==== Attributing EB1911 articles ==== If an article contains text copied from the Eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, suitable attribution must be provided (see the Plagiarism guideline). The template {{EB1911}} is provided to aid the editor with adding attribution.   ==References==  * Bullet list of other references   '''Attribution:'''  *{{EB1911|title=name of EB article}}  Which appears as:  References  Bullet list of other referencesAttribution:  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). ""name of EB article"". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. The documentation to be found by following the link to {{EB1911}} explains how to add more parameters such as volume and page numbers as well as the author of the article if one is given (many of the articles were written anonymously). If the article exists in Wikisource use:  wstitle=  {{EB1911|wstitle=Anarchism}}  appears as:  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). ""Anarchism"". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  Otherwise use title= and url=:  {{EB1911|title=Anarchism|url=https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri01chisrich#page/914/mode/2up}}  appears as:  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). ""Anarchism"". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  Archive.org contains authentic scans. Studylight is a secondary source with advertising, but the text can be copied to your clipboard.   ===== Use inline citations ===== If as above a long citation is used in a References section, then those sentences or paragraphs which contain text copied from EB1911 should be noted with a short inline citation as described in WP:CITESHORT.   Anapaest, a metrical foot consisting of three syllables, the first two short and the third  long and accented; so called as the reverse of a dactyl, which has the first a long syllable,  followed by two short ones. An anapaestic verse is one which only contains, or is mostly made  up of, anapaestic feet.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=914}}   == Notes ==  {{reflist}}   == References ==   * {{EB1911 |wstitle=Anapaest |volume=1 |page=914}}   Anapaest, a metrical foot consisting of three syllables, the first two short and the third  long and accented; so called as the reverse of a dactyl, which has the first a long syllable,  followed by two short ones. An anapaestic verse is one which only contains, or is mostly made  up of, anapaestic feet. Notes     References  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). ""Anapaest"". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 914. The page number is optional if the source is all on one page. As an alternative one can use long inline citations as described in WP:INLINECITE. In which case an ""inline=1"" parameter is used:   Anapaest, a metrical foot consisting of three syllables, the first two short and the third  long and accented; so called as the reverse of a dactyl, which has the first a long syllable,  followed by two short ones. An anapaestic verse is one which only contains, or is mostly made  up of, anapaestic feet.{{EB1911|inline=1 |wstitle=Anapaest |volume=1 |page=914}}   == References ==  {{reflist}}   Anapaest, a metrical foot consisting of three syllables, the first two short and the third  long and accented; so called as the reverse of a dactyl, which has the first a long syllable,  followed by two short ones. An anapaestic verse is one which only contains, or is mostly made  up of, anapaestic feet. References     Whether one uses inline short or long citations is usually dictated by prior usage in the article (see WP:CITEVAR). However, if no choice has been made by a previous, editor then the inline short and long citation in the references section works well for all types of article, but is particularly useful when the EB article spans multiple pages, while the long inline citation works well for short one page or less articles (such as the one paragraph Anapaest article above).   ==== Citing  EB articles ==== If a Wikipedia article uses information contained in an Encyclopaedia Britannica article but does not literally copy the text, there is a template called {{Cite EB1911}} which takes the same variables as the attribution template above.  *{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Clerke, Agnes Mary}} appears as:  Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). ""Clerke, Agnes Mary"" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  See {{Cite EB1911}} for a full list of parameters.   ==== Completing the parameter list ==== Whenever possible, include the following parameters in a {{EB1911}} or {{Cite EB1911}} template. Very little extra effort is needed to determine the values of some of them.  volume= and page=. Usually you know the volume, at least, from Wikisource or a scanned book. first=, last=, and authorlink=, plus their ""2"" and ""3"" variants for multi-author articles. When, as often happens, an EB1911 author's middle name or names are known, include them under first. display= is usually used when a Wikisource article has a disambiguation tag that's not present in the printed version. For example, write:{{EB1911|wstitle=Ramsay, Allan (painter)|display=Ramsay, Allan|volume=22|pages=878–879}} since the ""(painter)"" tag is needed to locate the correct Wikisource article, but doesn't appear in the encyclopaedia itself. Currently, display is recognized with wstitle but not title, but it is never wrong to include it with title, because eventually the original will appear in Wikisource and the parameter will be seen.   ==== Poster template ==== If there is an article from the Eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Wikisource, then the template {{Cite EB1911}} can be used in the ""further reading"" or the ""external links"" sections to inform the reader of this, but as an alternative, there is a ""poster template"" which will place a box on the right of the section into which it is placed. If the article exists in wikisource use:  {{EB1911 poster|Anarchism}}  appears as:  N.B. do not put an asterisk in front of {{EB1911 poster}} as it removes the box from around the template.   === Other templates === See also Category:1911 Britannica templatesTemplate:Update-EB – should be in the main body of 1911-based articles that contain known or suspected out of date material and should be verified Template:Include-eb – preferably in the talk page of articles that are acceptable, but could be expanded by reference to additional material in 1911   === Legal notes === Sometimes versions of the 1911 EB may claim a new copyright. The following may clarify the merits or otherwise of such a claim. In US law, typographical corrections are not sufficient to create a new copyright. Sites which rely on that and/or correction of scanning don't actually have a valid copyright claim unless they add some new creative content. See the West Publishing decisions described at Feist v. Rural and this quote from Matthew Bender v. West Publishing Co., which is itself taken from Grove Press, Inc. v. Collectors Publication, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 603, 605 (C.D. Cal. 1967):  ""Plaintiff made approximately forty thousand changes from the Verlag copy in producing its edition. These changes consisted almost entirely of elimination and addition of punctuation, changes of spelling of certain words, elimination and addition of quotation marks, and correction of typographical errors. These changes required no skill beyond that of a [1967] high school English student and displayed no originality. These changes are found to be trivial."" [1]In addition, correcting a scan to restore it to the original text is not creative, since it's simply restoring the work to its original public domain form. Care is needed to distinguish between such ""trivial"" changes which don't create a copyright and the possibility that there's a new article or additional material of some sort involved, for any new material could be copyrighted. This appears to be a problem with at least two online versions (see below). Trademark law doesn't provide ongoing protection beyond the expiration of copyright. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003),   === Online versions of the encyclopaedia === Several online sources are available for consultation by editors. A list of these can be found at  1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica#Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica#Other sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica textIn addition, CD-Roms can be purchased at classiceb.com (which is not the publisher of the modern Encyclopædia Britannica). The commercial versions at Other sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text not only have scanning errors, but are potentially tainted by additional, copyrighted material and cannot be trusted to contain the pure out-of-copyright text. Their content should be crosschecked with a scanned version or the Gutenberg version.  One of the tasks of the project is to identify any further guidelines that will be needed for editing material in older editions Encyclopaedia Britannica.  For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica articles  may sometimes contain assessments of the subjects, and these should not appear in Wikipedia articles as simple factual statements when they are at best editorial comment. Where such assessments are of interest and still relevant, they may be rephrased as opinions See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  The scale and ambition of the project is large, given that the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica had 40,000 articles in 29 volumes (the 9th edition had 17,000 articles but they were larger so the size of the Encyclopaedia remained about the same). So the need for a formal project comes from the sheer number of articles to adapt and track.  PBS (talk · contribs) 12:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC) DavidBrooks (talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC) DivermanAU (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Fixing the backlog of problems identified in the template categories Develop an index of all EB1911 articles with tick marks for whether they exist on Wikisource and Wikipedia. linking existing articles on wiksource to the matching article on Wikpedia (if the text is not used to the ""Further reading"" or ""External links"" sections Discuss how to manage ""wanted"" articles Select statistics and backlogs that are most important to monitor Some older text from this page is kept here for historical interest.   === Ideal forms of adaptation === Starting from the text of an Encyclopaedia Britannica article that is in the public domain, there are two basic methods in which it might be used in Wikipedia.  New articleIf there is currently no Wikipedia article on the subject of the biography, one may be created by copying the original source and editing the text:  convert any inline Encyclopaedia Britannica references into footnotes but make sure to follow the guidance SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Normally, you will not have read the source cited by Encyclopaedia Britannica, so don't cite it. If you indeed do check EB's source, then cite it as a new reference. Create an adequate lead section. Wikify and copy edit the text, updating any old-fashioned prose and trimming out excess detail. Sort into sections. Add the {{EB1911}} attribution template at the end (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism).The ideal situation is that {{EB1911}} can be filled in with a link to the Wikisource version of the article. This deals with the needs of the reader who wishes to see what references EB gave, or would like to chase up detail that has been removed.   Such articles should also be linked in to other pages, and appropriate categories added. A link to the current Encyclopaedia Britannica is also justified if it covers the subject, but if it is not cited place it in a Further reading or external links section.  Add to existing articleIf there is already a Wikipedia article on the subject, it may be a stub, or a fuller article. For a very short stub treatment as for a new article may be appropriate. Otherwise content from the older editions Encyclopaedia Britannica should be added, carefully and tactfully, as required-- material in the older editions Encyclopaedia Britannica should not be used to contradict or supersede well sourced later material. Additions should be referenced inline using {{Cite EB1911}} or similar annotation. If text from older editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica is used, {{EB1911}} or similar annotation  should also be added to the references section of the article. Both these templates (or similar annotation) should be filled in with details such as author (if there is one many articles were written anomalously) and the article title. If the original EB1911 article exists on Wikisource then when using {{Cite EB1911}} or {{EB1911}} then use the parameter wstitle=article title to link to the Wikisource article (see below for more details).   === EB1911 howto === The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is out of copyright and can in some cases be used as a source of material for the English Wikipedia. In accordance to the Plagiarism guideline, the inclusion of text from the 1911 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which would be a breach of copyright if the edition was still under copyright ""must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate"" (see appropriate section below). There are a number templates to aid with attributing and citing the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. These are:  {{EB1911}} which must be used when attribution is necessary. {{Cite EB1911}} can be used in place of the standard template {{cite encyclopedia}} as it fills out the standard fields that do not change (such as editor). {{EB1911 poster}} for use in the external links section if there is an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on wikisource about the subject which is not cited by the Wikipedia article.   ==== The good, the bad and the ugly ==== There is some beautifully written material in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that has not been outmoded and still can serve modern readers. You should feel free to quote sections using the {{quote}} template, as long as you do so from an original, textually reliable source, giving proper credit and including a link to 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. As the text in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is no longer under copyright you may copy its text directly into a Wikipedia article. If you do so you must attribute the text as specified in the Plagiarism guideline. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century, as long as editors use it with care and discretion. It is now quite old, and there are many problems with this material in a modern encyclopaedia. Even in 1917, the U.S. art critic, Willard Huntington Wright, criticized it as an unreliable source in his scathing Misinforming a Nation, a 200+ page critical examination of the problems with the encyclopedia. Wright saw the ""myth"" of the EB1911 being the best and greatest encyclopaedia as a testament to a successful marketing campaign which usually didn't hold up under critical examination.   ==== Check list ==== The following is a checklist of things to do to make this material most useful for Wikipedia.  Use for information only:  Consider using the article for information only.  That is, restructure and rewrite the whole article, supplementing the encyclopedia information with other sources.  That isn't always worth the effort, so the following are some points to keep in mind when using encyclopedia material. Unreliable scanned source: Since some online versions are scanned using OCR software, there are often typographical errors or gaps in the text, especially where there are diacritical marks or Greek text, and also particularly at the end, where some material may be at the top of the succeeding article. You must copy-edit material carefully for gross errors, give it Wikipedia markup, and, as always, check the Wikipedia index for associated material and link as needed. Unreliable old information: Many facts given have been supplanted, diseases overcome, kings overthrown, empires dissolved, new materials and new uses for old materials discovered, and so forth. You should run a web search or check some other reference sources and not rely entirely on the Encyclopædia material. Obsolete formatting and wordiness: The articles are very complete and the paragraphs are very long.  Almost all articles can benefit from being broken up into shorter paragraphs for online reading and most articles can be shortened without loss for modern readers.  You may also want to insert subsection headers every time the subject changes.  Dates should be converted from forms like 17th of June 1844 to 17 June 1844. The bibliographical notes are particularly cluttered and should be pared down to: Author date, title [p. num]. Old fashioned attitudes: Many attitudes expressed are outdated, particularly with regard to race.  Phrases like ""the first white man"" can be replaced by ""the first European"".  Other attitudes may be prudish or too much in line with the interests of Victorian England. Many articles show academic biases (especially of historiography) that can be hard to eradicate; the material that has been modernized still often reflects the underlying methods and approaches of the original article. Names have changed: Many names have been changed as colonialism has been replaced by nationalism.  Fernando Po is now Bioko.  ""Somali country"" is now Somalia (and part of Yemen), and so forth.  Many people familiar to the 1911 reader have slipped into obscurity.  It is no longer sufficient to say ""Lord Derby said""; he has to be identified more precisely (often if the subject is notable, a Wikipedia biography article will exist and a link can be provided like so: Lord Derby). British spelling: The presentation is British, and also designed for compactness. In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, if the topic is American it may be best to change spellings like ""labour"" to ""labor""; if a British subject, the British English spelling is preferable. You may also want to add full stops after ""Mrs"" and the like.  Both British and American spelling styles per se are perfectly acceptable in the Wikipedia, and so this is up to your own tastes. British biases: Articles about British subjects will exaggerate accomplishments and underplay or even ignore things that might tarnish a person's reputation. References are old: Many articles end with a string of references. Although these can be maintained, in list form, be aware that the intervening century may have produced more recent scholarship that should be given at least equal billing. Victorian prose should be checked: The prose style is Victorian and sometimes may seem somewhat stuffy to modern eyes.  On the other hand, it has a much stronger point of view than the usual modern encyclopedia.  You may want to change wording here and there.  If the Encyclopædia makes a particularly striking judgement which is to be retained then use in-text attribution. For example Stanley Lane-Poole writing in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica stated that ""Burton had not the charm of style or imagination which gives immortality to a book of travel"".{{EB1911|inline=1|first=Stanley |last=Lane-Poole |wstitle=Burton, Sir Richard Francis|volume=4|page=865}} List project subpages here/verification Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1922 verification Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter"
553	562	1238	WP:HEC	Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club	553	Welcome to the Harmonious Editing Club! We are a group dedicated to making Wikipedia a more inviting and friendly place for our contributors. Join us by adding your name here.  The Harmonious Editing Club is a group dedicated to making Wikipedia a more inviting and friendly place for our contributors. We do this by resolving disputes, answering users' questions, helping editors with their contributions and participating in requests for input.  Club members are expected to abide by certain guidelines:  Members should help resolve any disputes they come across during their time here Members should allow themselves only one revert, rather than three, during a content dispute Avoid edit wars by discussing obviously controversial changes on a talk page. Other than that,  be bold (not reckless) in editing Editors should always express some respect or positive regard for differing opinions of other editors, even those with whom they disagree.   === Dispute resolution === The Harmonious editing club helps in dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard and requests for comment. You can help too! Just click on those links and get involved. You should also keep an eye on Category:Wikipedia controversial topics as there are frequent edit wars there.  Current requests for commentFor current RFCs see these pages:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex   === Answering questions === The Harmonious editing club also helps out users who...er...want help. You should help out too. Keep an eye on the help desk and answer users' questions there. Users looking for help also place {{Help me}} on their talk page. They can be found at Category:Wikipedians looking for help. You also can provide assistance to new users at the Teahouse. If you use IRC consider joining the wikipedia help channel. Some users request help there and a bot alerts those present when a new section is added to the help desk or {{Help me}} is added to someone's talk page   === Helping out === If you're making some particularly tedious edits, improving an article or want someone to do a quick review of this work you can request help on this page. If you see someone else requesting help be sure to help out.  This page isn't for help on using wikipedia, but rather for help getting articles improved etc.   === Requests for input === Be sure to have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review and respond to requests there. Peer reviews are informal reviews of articles designed to highlight what needs to be done for the article to gain higher quality.  Wikipedia:Department of Fun Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Wikipedia:No angry mastodons Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign
554	563	1241	WP:NENAN	Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox	554	"Navigation templates (also called navboxes) are useful tools, as they provide an easy access point for a large clump of several articles. In moderation, they are a good thing. Some people seem to believe that there should be a navbox on every page, but not everything truly needs a navbox. Even the most clueless new user can find their way from the first article to the next in line if there are only two, three or even four. For instance, a film series with only two or three entries could easily have a ""sequel"" header on the first film's article, with a {{main}} pointing to the articles on the sequel(s). Perhaps the most insulting is a navbox with only two entries: it's just an extraneous little piece of coding that offers yet another, redundant gateway to the next article. Such a navbox practically screams, ""hey, you need yet more help getting from Point A to Point B, don't you?"" Almost as bad is when a new user creates an article on a band and creates a new template about the band in the process. Most often, this template will include a link to one album, one single, and list all the band members when none of them is individually notable enough for a standalone article. No doubt, most templates of this ilk are created in good faith: after all, the new user is most likely following the example set by the article of a much more notable band which does warrant a navbox. Some would even argue that there is potential to expand since the band is new and will release multiple singles that warrant a template, but there is no reason to keep such a template around and sit on your hands until it's necessary. In the meantime, all it does is clutter up the article. Why not hold off for a while? It's not like there's some deadline you have to meet. Worst of all, with too many navboxes piled up, template creep can start to set in. And before you know it, the article is suddenly more template than article. A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the ""rule of five"": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? (For instance, five books or films in a series; five singles or albums for a music article; five products by a common company; five members of a common group such as a band, comedy troupe, etc.) If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet.  As with all policy and style suggestions, common sense and consensus should prevail. The editing guideline WP:CLNT (about synergy between Categories, Lists, and Navigation Templates) gives guidance about when navigation templates are useful (e.g. when there is ""a small, well-defined group of articles"") and when they are not (""templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use""). One indicator of usefulness is if an editor would otherwise be inclined to link many of these articles in the ""See also"" sections of the articles. Finally, keep overlap in mind. For instance, if a director has only ever worked for one studio, then it doesn't make sense to have a ""films directed by"" navbox for the director if all the films are also in the studio's navbox.  Wikipedia:A navbox on every page Wikipedia:Not everything needs a template Wikipedia:Avoid template creep"
555	564	1245	WP:WLH	Help:What links here	555	"Within the Toolbox section on the left-hand side of every page is a link labeled ""What links here"". This is used to see a list of the pages that link to (or redirect to, or transclude) the current page. These are sometimes referred to as backlinks. It is possible to make a wikilink to the ""What links here"" list for a particular page; to do this type [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Page name]], replacing Page name with the title of the target page. (The same text – without the brackets – can also be entered in the search box, to access ""What links here"" for any page title.) It is also possible to list the pages with {{Special:Whatlinkshere/Page name|namespace=number}}, where Page name is the name of the page, and namespace (optional) is the number of the namespace. E.g. {{Special:Whatlinkshere/Help:What links here|namespace=0}} lists all pages from article space that link to this page. To use the tool, click Special:WhatLinksHere and type in the page title. ""What links here"" is limited to showing actual backlinks. Pages which contain the title being searched for, but where the title has not been linked, are excluded from the results. An alternative script exists to search out such pages, where possible unlinked backlinks may exist for the respective article.  The ""What links here"" facility lists the pages on the same site (English Wikipedia) which link to (or redirect to, or transclude) a given page. It is possible to limit the search to pages in a specified namespace. To see this information, click the ""What links here"" link (or shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+j) while looking at any page. The list is sorted by page ID, i.e., by date of creation of the page. This information comes from the pagelinks table and the templatelinks table. Pages redirected to the given page are marked ""redirect"". Pages transcluding the given page are marked ""transclusion""; for these pages, it is not shown whether they also link to the given page. For image and other file pages, the pages using the image or file appear on the list and are marked ""image link"".  The parser function #ifexist: causes a listing in ""What links here"" among the normal links, even though no link is produced. The list of links to an article is useful in a number of ways:  The number of incoming links gives a rough indication of how important or popular a page is. Where the intended subject material of an article is unclear, the list of articles linking to it might provide useful context. It facilitates proper disambiguation.The function works even for a page title that does not exist (recording redlinks to that title). The ""What links here"" link appears on the edit page on which one arrives when following a broken link. Thus, for example, if film articles are linked to the actors, one can find the films an actor has played in even if there is no article about the actor.  To invoke a ""What links here"" list directly (in the search box, browser address bar, or wikilinks) use the syntax Special:WhatLinksHere/John Smith (replacing ""John Smith"" with the desired target article title).  The following are not listed at ""What links here"":  automatically generated links from categories to their subcategories and member pages (and vice versa) automatically generated links from subpages to their parent pages links in edit summaries links in special pages, for example Special:LongPages links made with external link syntax instead of wikilinks, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example instead of the wikilink Example made with [[Example]] links from outside WikipediaIn the case of links to sections or other anchors, the precise target is not shown. ""What links here"" cannot list the backlinks of a specific section/anchor only. It may be possible to work around this by making a new title that redirects to a particular section, and encouraging people to make links to the redirect rather than the section. Another possibility is to use Linksearch, but here users would have to add hidden external links. As mentioned, backlinks which have not yet been linked are excluded from the results. An alternative script exists to search out such pages. Also note that if a page's links change because of a change in a template, the backlinks for that page are not updated immediately, but via the job queue.  The What links here report will list a redirect to a page, and indented under it any incoming links to the page that go through that redirect.   For a double redirect, the indent is double, and any incoming wikilinks to the page that go through the two intervening redirects are then shown triple indented. Although they are shown, double redirects are cleaned up; any triple redirects will become doubles, so triple redirects are not shown, just doubles. For a demonstration, see the What links here report for this page. Double redirects and redirects to sections are set up at /demo rdcheck.   === Only show incoming redirects === To only show incoming links, click on ""What links here"" and then click both ""Hide transclusions"" and ""Hide links"". To hide incoming redirects, click on ""Hide redirects"".  The backlinks list includes transclusions of the current page. It also includes links which exist on certain pages because the page transcludes another page (template). For example, if page A transcludes template B, and B contains a link to C (not contained within  tags), then the link to C will appear on page A, and A will be listed among the backlinks of C. It is possible that a page contains a link to C because it transcludes a template even though the template does not itself contain such a link (the link may be produced in the template wikitext by the application of various parser functions, rather than explicitly). In this case the template will not show up in the backlinks of C, although pages on which it is transcluded will (if they have the links to C). It may be convenient to make the template appear on the list by placing a link to C on the template, within  tags.  The ""What links here"" page does not display how many backlinks exist in total. The number of links displayed at one time is limited – initially to 50, although there are links to change this to certain other values. (Different values can be obtained by editing the URL resulting from clicking these links, but the maximum possible value is 5,000.)   === Number of backlinks === The ""What links here"" page body has selector body.page-Special_Whatlinkshere, so for example we can use the CSS body.page-Special_Whatlinkshere ul { list-style: decimal } to number the backlinks. It is possible to obtain the list of backlinks (with additional information) programmatically using the MediaWiki API. For information on how to do this, see the API documentation.   === Semantic relations === With the extension Semantic MediaWiki (SMW) links are categorized by specifying relations. For a given relation the backlinks of a page can be produced in-page. A series of queries, one for each relation (which seems cumbersome but can be put in a template like [1]), provides an in-page list of backlinks sorted by relation. Moreover, forward links and attributes of the resulting pages can also be provided, and also backlinks of backlinks.   === DPL method === A simpler extension that can embed backlinks (without the semantic functionality) is Dynamic Page List. EXAMPLE NEEDED   === Suppress links === ""(← links | edit)"" can be suppressed by placing the following in Common.css  However, ""(transclusion)"" can't be suppressed with that CSS. Maybe with CSS# positional-selection.   === Transclusion of WhatLinksHere === Special:WhatLinksHere/Example page can be transcluded with {{Special:WhatLinksHere/Example page}} which produces:  User:Khaldrabeast  ‎ (links | edit) User:Ramshankaryadav/Sandbox2  ‎ (links | edit) User:Davidindia  ‎ (links | edit) User:Aidan9382/templates/ArchiveDumpEntry  ‎ (links | edit) User:Aidan9382/templates/ArchiveDumpListEntry  ‎ (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template  ‎ (links | edit) Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 January 12  ‎ (links | edit) Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 78  ‎ (links | edit) If you want to exclude redirects, you can use {{Special:WhatLinksHere/Example page|hideredirs=1}}   === Workaround to hide transcluded links === It is a known limitation that there is no way to filter out pages that link to the current page via a transcluded template. This limits the usefulness of ""What links here"" in cases where a page is linked to from a widely transcluded navbox. A workaround is to perform a search using the insource parameter, e.g. use insource:/""[[Foo]]""/ to search for articles that contain direct links to Foo, and insource:/""[[Foo|""/ for articles that contain piped links. A user script, User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js, simplifies this process by providing a link to automatically perform the search.  Special:WhatLinksHere/James Fowler Special:WhatLinksHere/Help:What links here Special:WhatLinksHere/Gradient Descent Template:What links here, a template to generate links to Special:WhatLinksHere with parameters Script to search out all unlinked backlinks ""Related Changes"" with categories Templates transcluded on the most pages Template transclusion count for templates and modules Backlinks Watchlist, a Unix tool for monitoring changes to a page's backlinks. Wikiget, a unix tool to retrieve the full list of backlinks for page."
556	565	1246	WP:7VIRTUES	User:Herostratus/7 Virtues	556	"The Seven Virtues of an article are:  It is a decent article, or can be made so. Reasonably well written, formatted, etc. It's not such a mess that we'd be better off deleting it and starting over. And it is of reasonable length, at least a paragraph or so, if not more. It's not just a stub. And the sources for creating this decent article are OK. They're sufficiently reliable to our standards for the material referenced, and are not so obscure (local small-town paper and like that) as to be unusable. And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, at least in a way that is not easily fixable. And is likely that some non-zero number of people will want to read it, both now and in the future. And it not incontrovertibly trivia or ephemera (where Tom Hanks had dinner yesterday, what the weather was in Chicago last week, a pedestrian run over at 5th and main, etc.) And it exists. It's not a question of ""should we allocate resources to creating this article"". Somebody already has.If an article has all of the Seven Virtues, then the assumption is that the article should exist. This has been practice here forever, and before that since the days of Nupedia. Because our basic job here is to provide information, rather than not providing information, and in particular not destroying information that we've already made the effort to gather. Don't let anybody tell you different or cite this rule or that rule (there are a lot of rules here) to misguide you. Eyes on the prize. A good question to ask before trying to destroy an article is ""If we delete this article, this will enhance the experience of readers searching on that term because ___________."" If you can't think of anything good to put in the blank, maybe go do something else. Bit, if we are going to destroy perfectly fine articles just because we can and enjoy doing so, then we should at least leave a message to people who wanted to read the article, rather than just sending them to a ""404 not found"" type error message (along with a rather snide suggestion to write the friggin article themselves (""You may create the page ""[NAME]""...)), or redirecting them someplace that doesn't have the information they seek, or anyway a lot less of it. Something like this:  The rest is noise. Here's some of the noise:"
557	566	1248	WP:pending changes	WP:pending changes	557	"Pending changes protection is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances on Wikipedia while allowing a good-faith user to submit an edit for review. Intended for infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such troublesome edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer (also called a ""reviewer""). There are relatively few articles on Wikipedia with this type of protection. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor (also called an ""IP editor"") or a new user account, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as ""pending review"". The latest accepted revision is displayed to the general public, while logged-in users see the latest revision of the page with all changes applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as ""pending review"" and are not visible to most readers until they are reviewed. Both logged-in users and unregistered users who click the ""edit this page"" tab edit the latest revision as usual. If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title pointing to the pending changes. Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and copyright violations.  Administrators may apply pending changes protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or insertion of content that violates copyright. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage.  Editors without administrator privileges can request page protection if the above criteria are met. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested of any administrator, or at requests for unprotection.  The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain:  vandalism violations of the policy on living people copyright violations other obviously inappropriate contentReviewers are sufficiently experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. Reviewers have a similar level of trust to rollbackers; all administrators have the reviewer right. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia. Reading the reviewing guideline, where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended. Reviewers and administrators will see a pink watchlist banner on their watchlist whenever there is a pending edit needing review. If a reviewer or administrator wishes to disable it, they can paste #mw-fr-watchlist-pending-notice {display: none} to their common.css. Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit.  It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above. Reviewer rights are granted upon request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. While any administrator has the technical ability to remove the reviewer permission, removal should occur only as the result of consensus from a discussion or when an editor requests the removal of their own permission. Discussion regarding removal of the reviewer permission should normally occur at the Administrators' noticeboard. Discussion with the involved editor and/or a request for a second opinion at the Pending changes talk page is recommended before formally requesting removal. Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits (at most a few hours). Backlog management should be coordinated at a community level. The backlog can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges. As of July 2021, edits are rarely unreviewed for more than a day or two and the backlog is frequently empty.  In the edit history, accepted revisions are highlighted, which improves readability. Additionally, visible tags are applied to indicate why particular edits were accepted (""automatically accepted""/""accepted by [Username]""). As of September 2018, this highlighting is still permanently lost for past changes on a given page whenever the pending changes setting is disabled. When pending changes are enabled again, the highlighting will only be applied to newer changes. Therefore, it is a good choice to leave pending changes enabled when other protections are applied.  If an established user edits an article with unreviewed pending changes, is the new version automatically accepted? No. If the user is a reviewer (that is, the user has been granted the ""reviewer"" permission), they will be prompted to review and accept any unreviewed pending changes. If the user is not a reviewer, the edit will also be marked as ""pending review"". (Reviewers can test this by unaccepting the current version of a page under pending changes and then trying to edit.) An exception to this is when a user reverts a pending edit to the latest accepted revision: in this case the revert is automatically accepted. What happens if several IP edits to an article under pending changes result in a null edit? (For example, an IP makes an edit, then another IP undoes it.) If they were all made by a single IP, the new version is automatically accepted. If different users edited, the new version is not accepted (to prevent potential abuse). On which kinds of pages can pending changes be used? At first, it was determined by consensus that pending changes could be used only on articles, subject to the protection policy, and on test pages in project space. A later request for comment found it permissible to use pending changes beyond articles; however, it is restricted by the software to the main and project namespaces, and no request to allow other namespaces was made. It is not technically possible for talk pages to be placed on pending changes. Wasn't pending changes protection dropped? Yes and no. Pending changes protection was deployed on a trial basis in 2010. In 2011, pending changes protection was dropped as a mechanism for protecting pages, until a consensus agreement on its deployment was reached. There have been a series of discussions on using the feature and it was put back into service on December 1, 2012. Since then only pending changes level 1, affecting the edits of new and unregistered users, is being used. As of January 2017 there has been consensus to drop pending changes level 2, and as a result only level 1 is now used. How can you tell if a page has pending changes protection? Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner depending on its level of protection. Also, there will be a drop-down box next to the article title, pointing to the pending changes, if there are any.  Below is a list of past discussions and polls relating to the Pending Changes feature:  March 2009: First poll 4 to 1 approving original trial May 2010: RFC on some pre-trial issues June 2010 – August 2010: Pending changes trial August 2010: Straw poll 2 to 1 in favor of continuing PC in some form September 2010: Straw poll on interim usage September 2010 – May 2011: Continuation of pending changes without clear mandate February 2011 – May 2011: PC RfC 2011 Ended the original PC trial. March 2012 – June 2012: PC RfC 2012 established consensus to enable PC before the end of 2012. September 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 1 discussed whether to use Level 2 pending changes. October 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 2 discussed when to apply pending changes, the criteria for rejecting edits, and various ideas for reducing backlog. November 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 3 discussed deployment and usage of the pending changes feature. December 2012 – : Pending changes re-enabled on a permanent basis May 2013: PC RfC 2013 is closed as requiring further discussion for implementation. It reopened the question of whether to use Level 2 pending changes. January 2014: PC RFC 2014 opened to determine if there is consensus on how to implement pending changes level 2.  By the time it was closed in June, there was no longer a consensus to use pending changes level 2 at all, but if and when such a consensus does develop, there is some consensus on when to apply it. October 2016: DC RFC 2016 opened to determine if the edit filter, bots and ORES should be allowed to defer suspicious edits for review using deferred changes.  The RfC passed in its entirety. November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #1 opened to propose lowering the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage criteria. November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #2 opened to propose several things, including implementing pending changes for all articles, implementing it for certain types of articles (including good articles, featured articles, vital articles, and biography of living persons articles), auto-granting the reviewer right for those meeting certain criteria, and creating a semi-automated tool for reviewing.  The portion for creating a semi-automated review tool was withdrawn from the RfC as not needing consensus, and the RfC was later snow-closed with consensus against all remaining proposed changes. January 2017: RFC to remove pending changes level 2, after all RFCs on the subject failed to achieve consensus for using it. November 2017: The proposal for implementing deferred changes was marked as dormant, following a lack of work on its technical implementation. Wikipedia:Deferred changes, proposal to allow bots, the edit filter, and/or ORES to defer suspect edits for review (originally Wikipedia:Deferred revisions). Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, the original trial proposal. Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions, a request for a passive reviewing system, part of the original proposal. Wikipedia:PC2012, an overview of the 2012 implementation of pending changes. Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, proposal for a form of user specific editing restriction that is to a classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. Wikipedia:Pending changes caveats, an essay on why the use of pending changes was severely limited. Wikipedia:Timed flagged revisions, a proposal to add timed autoreview to Pending Changes, to function as a softer(broader) protection tool.   === Interface === Special:PendingChanges, pages with pending edits. Special:StablePages, pages under pending changes. Special:ValidationStatistics, various statistics pertaining to the Pending Changes feature. Template:Pending Changes backlog, a display of the current backlog, which can be added to user pages.   === Logs === Special:Log/stable, actions to enable or disable pending changes."
558	567	1250	WP:KENT	Wikipedia:WikiProject Kent	558	Recent Kent Related Changes Kent requested photographs
559	568	1253	WP:WPDISCR	Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination	559	"Welcome to the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Discrimination topics. This WikiProject is related to Articles covering discrimination topics. For the WikiProject related to actual discrimination or cultural bias in Wikipedia itself, see WikiProject Countering systemic bias. (For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).  GoalsIdentify articles that fall under this project's scope Develop standards for articles on discrimination topics Improve articles in scope with quality references and viewpoints Monitor articles in scope for POV creep Eliminate content problems from discrimination articlesScopeArticles about forms of discrimination Articles about manifestations of discrimination Articles closely and explicitly related to these topics The Discrimination template Wikipedia:No racists  Some discrimination-related deletions may be held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups  WikiProject Gender Studies WikiProject Feminism WikiProject LGBT studies WikiProject Human Rights WikiProject Sociology WikiProject Philosophy WikiProject Disability Anglophobia: needs input on whether what I have added ([[1]]) should remain in this article, or needs to be changed in some way. I'd also appreciate it if someone could add material about Anglophobia outside the United Kingdom. Violence against Indians in Australia controversy needs help Wakelamp (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Xenophobia is a highly trafficked/viewed article which has very little information on it. I started to add some examples of specific countries/regions (EU, Japan and U.S.) but I could really use some help. This seems to be a discrimination phenomena pervasive across the world including in developing/ middle income countries (e.g. Russia, South Africa, Zambia, China, Gulf states, Iran, Mexico, Argentina, you name it).officialguide11:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC) OK Boomer needs clarification on whether the term represents an ageist dismissal based on age-related stereotypes.   === Assessment statistics === Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Discrimination articles by quality log FA-Class Discrimination articles GA-Class Discrimination articles Other discrimination articles by quality Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Participants, feel free to add {{User WP Discrimination}} to your userspace.   === Featured content === Birmingham campaign Jena Six Port Chicago disaster The Political Cesspool Voting Rights Act of 1965   ==== Candidates ==== Speciesism   === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Discrimination-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.  Revival Process Big Excursion Anti-Bengali sentiment OK Boomer -  an article highly ageist dismissal of ideas based on age-based stereotypes Dawson Five - ""police misconduct, including coerced confessions, intimidation and improper identification procedures"" Kithaab Digital redlining Shubuta, Mississippi, not a new article, but expansion of history article to include 8 lynchings Mingo Jack Ella Barksdale Brown Education segregation in the Mississippi Red Clay region East Holmes Academy A segregation academy in West, Mississippi. In 1989, the school offered to forfeit a game because the opponent had a black player. Nominated for Did you Know Central Academy (Mississippi) The segregation academy in Macon, Mississippi Calhoun Academy (Mississippi) The segregation academy in Pittsboro, Mississippi Winston Academy The segregation academy in Louisville, Mississippi Henderson High School (Mississippi) The school for black students in Starkville, Mississippi Starkville Academy The segregation academy in Starkville, Mississippi Homelessness among LGBT Youth in the United States Evaluative diversity Sex Segregation James Craig Anderson - victim of an allegedly racially motivated hate crime, murdered in Jackson, Mississippi in 2011 Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS Nettleton School District (Mississippi) Ethnic discrimination in Israel Racism in the Palestinian territories Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia Racism in Ukraine Racism in Africa Racism in Asia Racism in Europe Racism in the United Kingdom Racism in the Middle East Racism in North America Racism in South America Jimmie Lee Jackson  was a young civil rights protestor who was murdered by an Alabama State Trooper in 1965. Jackson's death was among the abuses of African Americans that inspired the Selma to Montgomery marches, an important event in the American Civil Rights movement. race and intelligence Article appears to be an example of modern day scientific racism and should be reformulated ASAP given it's very non neutral and racism inducing method of presentation. First, the title is potentially presumption inducing (confuses description with potential cause, the word ""race"" is both one among many alternative ways of describing the issue and it's also a potential cause). The article and its defenders exclude criticisms of ""intelligence research"" and exclude criticisms of IQ testing. There is already a Wikipedia policy against ""and"" in an article's title but the problems with the title and article are even worse. The article should be totally reformulated at IQ controversy since the validity and implications of IQ testing are disputed and that forms the foundation of ""intelligence research"". Feminization of poverty (topical?) European people seems to be about the White race, created after the White people article was locked because of disputes. Ghetto benches. An article about segregated seating for Jews in pre-WW II Polish universities Social cleansing Class-based killing of members of society considered ""undesirable."" Black flight - No sources, dubious claims, see the talk page there. Allyship Created June 2020, just needs general work Deadnaming Questions about popular culture section Eviction in the United States   === Articles for deletion === Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Shuford Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyree Scott Freedom School   === Collaboration and review === Current collaborationsIndian Slavery Anti-Russian sentiment Masculinism Racial profilingPeer reviewThe Political CesspoolAssessmentEvaluative diversity Allegations of Israeli apartheid Melanin theory Rape in the Bosnian War Washington Redskins name controversy Article templates {{Discrimination sidebar}} {{Discrimination}}{{Racism topics}} {{Segregation}} {{Segregation by type}}WikiProject templates {{WikiProject Discrimination}} (basic) {{User WP Discrimination}} (user template)  Category:Discrimination Category:Prejudices Category:Racism Category:Sexism Category:Sexual and gender prejudices Category:Homophobia Category:Civil rights and liberties Category:Anti-national sentiment Category:Antisemitism Category:Segregation academies   === Related projects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement"
560	569	1254	WP:INDT	Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Guide/Tools	560	(Project • Members • Noticeboard • Collaboration of the month • New articles • Deletion sorting)
561	570	1255	WP:COAL	Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave	561	"Wikipedia is often host to debates and discussions which seek to find a consensus amongst its editors. These discussions see many different, often wildly opposing viewpoints. An unfortunate consequence of this is that they frequently turn into pitched battles, with all sides throwing policy pages at each other frantically. A way to combat this is to imagine all the potential contributors are stood in a circle. The person who starts the debate (by nominating an article for deletion, say) throws a football into the circle. The game is meant to be that you catch it, throw it to someone else, and then sit down. Games get so complicated though... Catch Once and Leave – An editor confident in their stance would present their case, quoting the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in a calm and civil manner, and then take no further part in the debate, safe in the knowledge that consensus will see the day through. Don't Stand There Bouncing the Damned Ball – Some editors respond to a deletion nomination with a HUGE great diatribe of why the article for a minor TV actor should be kept, and then respond to any and every ""delete"" vote with the same ""Yes, but they are notable"" argument ad nauseam, and will respond to every single word of every single other contribution to the debate, making a closing admin's otherwise simple job an all-night reading exercise. Give someone else the damned ball, and sit down. Sponsoring the Match Ball Doesn't Mean You Get to Dictate What the Score Will Be – As we know, conflicts of interest are unwelcome. Therefore, if you have a connection to the article in question, front-up with it. Bear in mind that your judgement will be clouded if you are too close to the subject. Consensus will decide the outcome, your opinion is welcome but will matter no more than that of anyone else: you don't own the article. Try to Keep the Ball Out of Next Door's Yard – ""Such-and-such has an article, why can't this guy?"" ""We deleted article X, therefore article Y should go too."" Really, most articles differ at least in some other way from any other article. Let's just discuss this one for now shall we..? Don't Kick the Ball Skywards Hoping It Will Come Out of the Clouds Covered in Fairydust – You probably won't change long-standing Wikipedia policies on notability in one AfD paragraph, so quit saying the encyclopedia is biased against your new sport, the encyclopedia should be supporting every new band, the encyclopedia needs to be thinking laterally and expanding its mind, etc. Ain't gonna happen. Don't Steal the Ball and Take It to a Different Park – don't canvass! If other editors and closing admins see a ton of !votes from single-purpose accounts because you've plastered all over blogs and forums that the fascists at Wikipedia are gonna delete your article about your town's celebrity choir-master, it's a) really obvious and b) really annoying. Don't Pop Our Ball – with uncivil, mean-spirited remarks against other editors, against someone who's nominated for deletion, against someone who is opposed to deletion, or against anyone. It makes you look bad, and doesn't help your case. We don't all have to agree. Scoreboarding is not favored. The validity of a particular editor's individual vote does not depend upon 'averages.' It is not about wins and losses. There are good faith reasons for opposing views. YMMV! Don't Bring a Satsuma Instead of a Ball – Sometimes arguments are just in the wrong place.  Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion is not a war zone"
562	571	1256	WP:NEWSPAPERS	Wikipedia:Newspapers.com	562	"Access or apply for this resource → Newspapers.com is a newspaper database in the family of companies associated with Ancestry.com.  Their database includes more than 840 million pages from 22,000-plus newspapers, mostly local United States papers with some Canadian and elsewhere. (Lists: https://www.newspapers.com/papers/ and https://www.newspapers.com/browse/). It is particularly suited for Wikipedia content about the 18th, 19th and the first 3⁄4 of the 20th century in the United States and global topics affecting the United States. The collection includes some major newspapers for limited periods (i.e., 50 years of the New York Times), but mostly consists of regional papers from the 1700s onward. Very few titles go beyond the late 1980s.  Free accounts through the Wikipedia Library now do include access to Newspapers.com Publisher Extra content. As part of a pilot program with Wikipedia Library, they generously offered the use of 100 accounts to their database of American newspapers. Due to the success of the program and the large number of requests from users, they have since increased the number of accounts available to 400.  The Internet Archive provides scans and full text search for historical archives of newspapers from around the world, for a total of several millions of pages.   === Userbox === Add {{Wikipedia:Newspapers.com/Userbox}} to your userboxes! This helps us share our project with other experienced users.   === Example citation === {{cite news |title=Obituary Notes: Charles Wingate |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/141558/the_new_york_timesnew_york_new/ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=September 2, 1909 |page=9 |via=[[Newspapers.com]] |access-date=July 21, 2014}}""Obituary Notes: Charles Wingate"". The New York Times. September 2, 1909. p. 9. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.   === Using the ""Clipping"" function === Both Newspapers.com and The Wikipedia Library would prefer that articles citing Newspapers.com link to clippings. Clippings allow Newspapers.com subscriber-editors to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper and share them through unique URLs. Thus readers who click on a Newspapers.com Clipping link will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. Clippings can be deleted by the user who created the clipping, but otherwise remain permanently open access, even when user accounts expire. For more information about how to use clippings, follow this link.   === Citations across multiple pages/clippings === It is often the case that newspaper articles will be split between multiple pages, requiring multiple clippings. In that case, the citation can be formatted to link to the clippings of each page.  {{cite news |last1=Miles |first1=Marvin |last2=Abramson |first2=Rudy |title=Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035464/the-los-angeles-times/ |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=July 21, 1969 |pages=[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035464/the-los-angeles-times/ 1], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56035546/the-los-angeles-times/ 10] |accessdate=July 25, 2020 |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}Miles, Marvin; Abramson, Rudy (July 21, 1969). ""Armstrong Beams His Words to Earth After Testing Surface"". Los Angeles Times. pp. 1, 10. Retrieved July 25, 2020 – via Newspapers.com."
563	572	1257	WP:LFC	Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force	563	Welcome to the Liverpool task force of WikiProject Football.  The Liverpool taskforce covers:  All Liverpool F.C. and Liverpool L.F.C. related articles Players and managers that have played for Liverpool Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Liverpool F.C. articles by quality  Please add yourself to the list!   === Article alerts ===  No Article alerts at this time.   === Watchlist === Some articles, which should be watched, either because of frequent vandalism or because of high volumes of editing (rather than importance to Wikipedia).  Liverpool F.C. Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08 Liverpool F.C. season 2008-09 Kenny Dalglish Steven Gerrard Fernando Torres Anfield Rafael Benítez   === Basic tasks === Review importance and quality of existing articles according to the Assessment Department suggestions Identify articles for creation Identify articles for improvement to GA and FA status Recruit interested Wikipedians Remove non-neutral statements from all articles, mostly in opposition or support of the club. Tag articles with the Liverpool=yes parameter   === More specific tasks === Players to add   === Tagging and assessment === Any articles that are within the scope of this project should be tagged with {{Football|England=yes|Liverpool=yes}}. This will automatically put the page in the appropriate categories.   === Categories ===  There is a userbox available for participants in the Liverpool F.C task force. To add the box to your userpage or talk simply add, the following into the appropriate place; {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force/Userbox}}.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Football Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/England task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Season article task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force Wikipedia:WikiProject England
564	573	1260	WP:LAST	Wikipedia:Last topic pool	564	"This is a pool for guessing what the topic of the last article created on Wikipedia may be.   Other topic pools exist for certain milestones (see one millionth and two-millionth topic pools and Wikipedia:500th language pool), but none are as important as the last topic created.  You may be wondering why something might be the last article. Well,  Wikipedia might go under Interest in Wikipedia might dwindle to the point that nobody edits it ever again the Earth (or at least the Internet) may end in some catastrophic fashion Wikipedia might simply be finished with the sum total of all current and future human knowledge Or Wikipedia will change its name, therefore the ""last article"" would be the last under the name of Wikipedia.But just like there was a first article, there should undoubtedly be a last.  This is the pool for that eventuality!  Everyone is allowed a maximum of three votes.  Voting ends when the ten-thousandth-to-last article is created.  And by the way, someone should probably periodically archive this page, because when we need it to check and see who's won, it may not be around any longer. Instructions for voting: Add the article name to the appropriate section and sign it with four tildes.  If the section doesn't exist yet, make it.  Wikimedia server room fire made by a wikimedia staff member during said fire Notadolphin24 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC) A file that is 69105 yottabytes in size, causing the wikipedia servers to overload and eventually overheat, setting them and the whole wikimedia offices on fire and effectively destroying them and whole wikipedia. 46.132.184.196 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) The last page will say""The world will end in ___ secs"" and will be the doomsday countdown.CrazyMinecart88 The last edit to Wikipedia will be on this page to determine who is the winner.--Proud User (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) The Nuclear Apocalypse. No doubt, when Earth is destroyed, somebody will make writing about it their final goodbye. In true Wikipedia fashion, it will later be autoclassed as a stub. When the alien life forms arrive to investigate, they will ignore it as junk. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Warp Drive (or whatever method we use for extremely fast space travel in the future.) Once aliens discover that we've created ultra-fast space travel and destroy us and Wikipedia before we kill all life in the universe with our warring tendencies. Also, the aliens will be blocked if they try to edit. >ABSCOND User:NoHaxJustPi | User_Talk:NoHaxJustPi 03:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC) User:JohnDakeronVHS haha you missed THIS one you dead rats! lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Complete analysis of Half-Life 3ianGrig. (t) 04:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)  Wikipedia:Server Shutdown or something similar Merlin04atschool (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)An intense server breach/leak that forces the WMF staff to wipe the Wikimedia servers. Every user, every article, every edit, everything... gone, deleted without a trace. Every other Wikimedia project would meet this fate as well. --Plankhouse0 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Imagine, if you will, that robots have completely taken over the Earth within a matter of hours. You are the last human being alive, and you're holed up in some bunker in the middle of nowhere in an attempt to prolong the inevitable. Using the last of your base's backup power, you decide to check Wikipedia one last time before you are inevitably hunted to extinction, for old time's sake. You've been on the internet long enough to know that The Singularity your species fell victim to definitely already has a page all to itself, but upon checking you find something horrifying. What was until a few minutes ago an eloquent entry about the tragic last breath of mankind has been completely vandalized, all text, images, and sources replaced with a measly four letters; GG EZ. Across the room, you hear the hum of a laser rifle charging. Anxietyprimev69 (talk) 23:48 PM, December 21 2021 (CST)Destruction of Earth The first version is: ""The Destruction of Earth was an event happening on 3047. On the year 3025, Jicky Peri, a scientist and NASA astronaut had successfully built a supercomputer with it’s own WIFI that could transport itself anywhere. Later she updated it to clone itself and cloned it, and then transported it to the Moon and Mars. The computer had replaced the rovers, giving realistic pictures and had predicted the destruction and everyone is able to transport. Jicky Peri has now received 257 awards.""  04:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum stabilisation hypothesis (2nd nomination) concerning a recreated article on a non-notable fringe subject—particularly, the unsubstantiated hypothesis that it is somehow possible to induce a false vacuum decay event using current or emerging technology. The original article creator has continuously made unproven claims about a ficticious classified DARPA project to develop a ""hyperweapon"" that is allegedly capable of triggering a decay event. However, these claims could not be corroborated by any of the sources they have provided, nor has the hypothesis itself received significant coverage in any reliable sources. Please do not recreate the article without establishing notability first. Wikipedia is not a platform for baseless pseudoscientific alarmism nor is there a conspiracy to cover up the existence of so-called vacuum stabilizers, which are not even theoretically feasible to begin with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Complete list of dead Wikipedians .froth. (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) but then who would add the last edit? 188.223.85.48 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Last living Wikipedian: article will end ""She most recently created an article, ""Hi-Fi Pizza"", after the product was..."" notice they were able to save that last edit before dying, with ellipses, and with an edit summary, ""aaaarrrgghhhh!!!!!!!!!!"". She also will change the ""living"" status on the talk page of the article from ""Y"" to ""N"", with her last bit of strength. what a brave gal! (PS, the piped link refers to a strip by Clowes where the last possible commercial product hybrid is the Hi Fi Pizza, upon whose announcement the world explodes)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Surprise! or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace my Eternal Punishment .froth. (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) The Beast is evil denial, a balanced, sourced and NPOV biography from his return to Earth until the present. SpinningSpark 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) David Icke redirect to David Icke (prophet) --Adam in MO Talk 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC) User:Jesus.  Jesus' second coming happens, but right before destroying the earth, he creates a userpage on wikipedia.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 02:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Update: In hopes of preventing this eventuality, the Administrator Cabal has indefinitely protected this one... ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Ahhh, but no mere page-protection will halt the messiah.  WP:Requests_for_adminship/Jesus will be a bluelink someday, with the mother of all wheel-wars the inevitable consequence.  Thus, there is only one thing which *might* just halt the destruction of the earth!  Who knew the cabal ran so deep?  47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC) close enough Noah 💬 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Zarquon's Return GavinZac (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Pope Nicholas VI.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Shinji did nothing wrong; nothing at all. Bencemac (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Ludovican Inquisition — Tribunals developed by the Holy See during the tenure of Antipope Louis, a sedevacantist who had previously been nicknamed the Qardinal or QArdinal on account of his conspiratorial beliefs. After usurping his predecessor in a coup d'etat, Louis revived the Papal States and, with extensive support from radical groups, subsequently annexed significant portions of the world. For any region that could be brought under his control, he issued a bull that required everyone to obtain a business permit with his Latin name LVDOVICVS (whose letters add up to 666 in Roman numerals) in order for them to keep their banking privileges and launched a campaign to massacre anyone who gets caught making transactions without his approval. In spite of Wikipedia's negative coverage of him, Louis censured the Wikimedia Foundation for ""silencing"" his supporters and ordered the organization to be shut down. With a bastion of free knowledge taken out of the picture, the New Papal States continued to crack down on political dissent until Louis and his loyalists were captured by opposition forces near the site of Tel Megiddo and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in 1,000 years. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) i^n. I read a short science fiction story once. It might have been by Asimov. Sometime in the far distant future, it is discovered that there is a finite amount of information in the universe. This is all collected into a massive database. Many indexes are created to assist in searching this database, and then some indexes to indexes (known as i^2) are created to help people find which index they need. Then i^3s are produced and so on. Finally, the ultimate index to indexes to indexes... is created, known as i^n, and searching is sweet, until one day someone gets an index corruption error, and all knowledge is lost. Anyone know the name of the story, or can confirm the author?-gadfium 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Wouldn't that be i^ω? Melchoir 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Probably. I last read the story 20 or 30 years ago, so my memory could easily be wrong.-gadfium 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) I believe I read that in High School, but I don't remember the title. It looks like it might be MS Fnd in a Lbry by Hal Draper.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Wouldn't we need an index to search through i^ω? That would be i^(ω + 1), and so on. And thus, we see the usefulness of ordinals in real life. But actually, we can't possibly need more indexes than the amount of data, right? So perhaps this really is i^n, where n is no greater than the total amount of bits of information in the database. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Why would you ever index a list of indices? If you have to index an index then you didn't have a very good index in the first place. .froth. (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) List of lists.  List of lists of lists.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC) which is either 1, -1, i, or -i. 24.14.73.183 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2011COMPLETE FINANCIAL LEDGERS OF MILLIWAYS. -EvanJM42Attempt to do a Double Backwards Somersault Through a Hoop While Whistling the Star-Spangled Banner Feat of Sea World (redirect from Dolphin Disappearance) Wikinews Archive-This Wednesday, the famous Sea World dolphins did a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double backwards somersault through a hoop while whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. Witnesses report the sound of angry squeaking, and ""magically-appearing"" fish bowls on some seats. This is EvanJM42, reporting. Next: The scoop on those big yellow things in the s-EvanJM42  LET THERE BE LIGHT. Seconds before the irreversible heat death of the Universe, a now-sentient Wikipedia discovers how to reverse entropy change (just like in The Last Question). Userboxes. They will destroy Wikipedia. Alphax τεχ 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)I beg to differ. The UserboxerComplain/ubx 16:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)List of all 9 Billion Names of God--Gamingboy 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) The Nine Billion Names of God. Carcharoth 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) The nine billionth name of God. id say the very last name on the list would be notable enough, though some might argue for deletion, as it would be responsible for only one event, as spelled out in WP:BLP1E (not strictly applicable, but still predictably cited by ardent deletionists). pretty big event, though...75.61.128.131 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Last Post!!!!!! Of course, somebody else might show up and make Not anymore. -- Masterzora 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC) The Last Post. Carcharoth 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)  - during the rendering of which Wikimedia explodes while trying to resolve the conflicting states of being both invisible and pink. 82.15.28.195 02:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Jaws 85 1/2 - This time, it;s really, REALLY personal. 71.96.179.40 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Hastur Hastur Hastur —Josh Lee 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I Am God, Do Not Delete This Topic Or Else Realferrari 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC) List of Dead People -Preposterous 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) XD XD XD --200.73.179.233 06:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) The Killer Joke (uncensored). Full, original English version with 70px letters. Newpage patrollers, be advised. --Zoz (t) 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Complete list of numbers YankeeDoodle14 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)All numbers, or just integers?  The latter list is of size alef_null, the former of size C (not to be confused with c, the speed of light) which may or may not be alef_1 (indeed, this point may or may not be decidable) :-) 193.122.47.162 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Zzyzx alphabetically, will always be last. DJRaveN4x 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Not if zzz(expression for sleeping) is included.  i kan reed 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ZZZZZ(a television episode) is the last article, alphabetically. Eli355 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC) And zzzzzz redirects to the above article. Eli355 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC) So long, and thanks for all the fish - Written by the dolphins before the earth is destroyed to make way for a interspace bypass. THE KING 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC) The return of Jesus. --junafani 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Indian protocol of the ancient human language71.193.65.110 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC) How to Say Something Derogatory About Islam Without Them Complaining You know: what they did towards Denmark after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2006 DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Let there be light... --- Dralwik|Have a Chat 05:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Answer: 42. --24.14.73.183 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) That time every single person in the world decided to set off a nuke and the Earth sorta went boom. Trickstergoddess (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children.  Because it's the logical choice, since the peculiar children will be the ones to close Wikipedia, and since we didn't read about them fast enough we couldn't stop it. Pumagirl7  Leave a message 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Uselessness of Wikipedia theorem#Proofs. Of course, Jimbo Wales will read this, realize Wikipedia is useless, and then close it down. CarnivorousGnomeCatuse (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) File:Eye of the Basilisk.jpg - Good luck editing/deleting it! BlueRoll18 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Screen readers might be useful on this one. Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Vacuum decay event of ####, where #### is the year the vacuum decay event happened. Or maybe not, because the vacuum decay state would spread as fast as the news! Let's start a pool to find out what year #### is. Maybe 4242? RafChem (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Destruction of the Internet User:Cheesenik! 22:13, 2 April 2009 - Because Wikipedia articles on major cataclysms always pop up literal seconds after they have began or occurred. Thus, in the few nanoseconds before the Internet crashes forever and every website (including Wikipedia) is deleted, Wikipedia will have an article on it, complete with edits, vandalisms, a ""Current Event"" tag. It will even be featured in the Current Events portal. And it will have 1,472,580,400,000 views in those last nanosecond, and then nearly deleted for being a hoax.— JJBers (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Why the Zombies won Anon 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Heat death of the univ Mark J 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) The end of the American occupation of Iraq - Everything will happen first. Afonso Silva 14:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) The Russian nuclear weapon system Describing precisely how to launch each of the warheads all in one go, without needing to be the Russian Head of State or defence minister. Lgriot 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) The end of World War III - Shortly after this article is written, the human race will cease to exist;). Toonmon2005 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is Shut Down after Hostile Take Over by Agressive Monkeys - Should happen around spring, 2008. --TBCTaLk?!? 06:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)But spring is going to end! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC) At least one user seems to think that agressive monkeys would be an improvement. SpinningSpark 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC) It probably would be --Rockstonetalk to me! 14:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)The Day of Many Improbable Events - In one day, Hell freezes over, the Cubs win the World Series, the United States adopts the metric system, The Simpsons gets cancelled, and many other improbable events occur, including Wikipedia being shut down, which is caused by the zombie of William Howard Taft. Psycho Kirby 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)You forgot to mention England winning the World Cup and the Ashes. 193.122.47.162 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I dunno bout the Hell one being so ulikely, it's already started snowing. ;-) Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, the Cubs won the world series. 73.65.226.228 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)The Apocalypse after a curious idiot (me) finds an M16 and starts a full blown nuclear war between the US and China and UK and everyone else who was nukes. But everyone who don't have nukes just gets killed anyway. Then I take over, build Death Star III and blow up the Earth including the Wikipedia servers. Then I'll blow up the ones in orbit, on Mars, and on the Moon using my Super Star Destroyer Little Darius Penguin 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC). Aarrrgghh... as chiseled into stone by Joseph of Arimathea. Wikipedia: where it went wrong summary of the book.  John Reaves 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC) The Heat Death of the Observable Universe - One man's opinion. but it will be deleted by a bot for violating WP:OR NipokNek 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Second Life-Real Life War - It's got to happen sooner or later, surely, and could take civilisation with it. BlueCanary 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Your New Insect Overlords and How to Welcome Them - Unfortunately, an edit war ensues over placement of commas and nobody has a chance to read the article, resulting in the death of humankind.    DangerousNerd    talk    contribs    email   19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2100 Wikimedia server room fire (hope not!) Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 11:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC) You Suckers! A rat gets hold of the last human being on Earth, and the poor guy shouts ""You Suckers"", which he quickly wrote on Wikipedia with the help of the rat's laptop. The title of the article is in memory of the humans. Pun intended Angcr 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC) History of the destruction of planet Earth - well....I guess. --Hirohisat Kiwi 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is nationalized by the US government Marlith T/C 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) ""End of the world""-Computer97 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 2047 pandemy Closing of Wikipedia --Chinneebmy talk 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC) North Korean Death Star Crisis --24.14.73.183 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Second Great Depression, when the Wikimedia Foundation lacks the funds to support Wikipedia. 98.240.240.105 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Battle of Amsterdam (20100), between the Netherlands and the Race, in which Wikipedia's last servers are destroyed.  The last edit ever made will detail the Race breaking into the server room and starting the firefight with the Dutch in which the servers are destroyed. Whoop whoop pull up [!]whining Betty | Averted crashes 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Complete History of Wikipedia That'll include the end of it. ----EvanJM42 Peace at last, except too late. Happy New Year? Jim Derby (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Collapse of Wikipedia--Seonookim (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Collapse of the Kingdom of Antarctica - Last human civilization collapses, remnants of humanity splits into higher-beings who don't need Wikipedia and primitives who reject technology. The fleeing king writes this last article as a memory of what once was.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Ninth Globnakian-Chinese War How the Globnaks from Planet Xing Mao defeated the Chinese in the year 4321 and destroyed life, the universe, and everything. 99.168.122.151 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Why the Mayans were right. Chronicles the discovery that our interpretation of the Mayan calendar was correct in all regards, except for the date! Hey, nobody's perfect! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Legio XXX Classica I would likely finally get around to making it right before humanity died knowing my luck. Iazyges (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Evacuation of Earth Raymond1922 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC) That time everyone loses their limbs, real, prosthetic, and imagined, and thus becomes incapable of using computer keyboards. Sea Captain Cormac 18:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC) 2036 nuclear attack on China Shortly after, Chinese nukes will detonate in the ionosphere above the United States, incapacitating all Internet communications in the region, including WMF's servers. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 13:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) USA RAPTURE Act, passed in 2009 by the Bush administration, outlawing the GFDL as a tool of terrorism and enemies of the faith. Jimbo Wales is extradited to Uzbekistan for interrogation. dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Somehow that seems unlikely now... 68.39.174.238 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Don't Hate Me Act - also passed in 2009 after Jimbo Wales formed an army of super intelligent mole people to vanquish Bush once and for all. Obviously, Congress wins the battle and is immediately sent to planet Y... for some reason. 71.96.179.40 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Hate Bush Act, passed by the people in the summer of 2009 as we hear about it on TV , article written by someone who has forseen that this will be the last article because the Anti-Bush people who work for Wikipedia changed the name to HBApedia. All mistakes done by politicians. --junafani 11:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) All political process subsumed into one global wiki no more elections but lots of Arbcom. Lumos3 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) That's no moon, its a space station  65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) President Sarah Palin 'Nuff said. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC) List of people who hate Sarah Palin List would be so long that it will crash the internet. 24.14.73.183 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Restrict Entire Internet Network (law) - Will cause the permanent shutdown of Wikipedia and thousands of other websites (sch as Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, etc. in about summer 2016. M'encarta (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Rocky XXXVI Rocky Balboa fights his final match at the ripe old age of 102, and just barely loses when the judges award his opponent, 29-year old George Forman III the victor. Amymoten (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Interplanetary reactions to the 2449 Ganymede Uprising - Last article written before St. Petersburg is destroyed by a Coalition bombardment. Raan0001 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC) President Donald Trump ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Criticism of President Trump or something along those lines. RafChem (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC) President Hillary Clinton - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Terran constitutional crisis, 2239: The conflict over the morality of the constitution of a united Earth, which ultimately breaks into nuclear war, ending life before an article on the war itself can be created. --Deuteranopia 17:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Extraterrestrials put end to WWIII ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC) The equation, when processed, that will create a virus destroying Wikipedia. 75.72.135.230 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC) The equation that destroys the world upon being uttered or written down: - Someone might actually write an article on this idea in fiction; alternatively, someone might write an article on the equation... Melchoir 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Category:Categories that do not contain themselves – 188.221.240.150 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The infinite sic paradox: Somebody uses a bot script to write down the full paradox (in which a person is unsure how to spell sic and so adds it again afterwards, and so again..., like [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic]…), and Wikipedia explodes. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Alternatively the content is [sic]
{{ {{PAGENAME}} }} ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC) That would lead to a template self-reference, as the template Template:{{PAGENAME}} would try to include itself. Jon Harald Søby 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Fortunately, MediaWiki templates are slightly too robust for that. :P —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC) That's a shame... good. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC) x≠x The universe will collapse.--Anakata 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 42 (answer) --Joe Schme(ssages)dley 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Comment Someone seems to have made that article (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Last digit of pi. --Nintendorulez talk 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC) NO, wait.  Someone enters a formulas for finding all digits of pi and some idiot (* cough Zach Fisher cough*) uses his computer to find it, but his computer explodes therefore releasing a virus into Wikipedia, thereby DESTROYING THE SPACE-TIME CONTINIUM AND DESTROYING LIFE ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  just a theory.  :) --Spider1224 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC) GREAT SCOOT! --BlackKnight (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The proof of the Riemann hypothesis - after that there will be no more point for life. Liransh 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)1+1=59.6421rand#rand#rand#...3 Zginder 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) This is followed by all of Wikipedia's servers trying to prove that there are an infinite number of non-repeating digits but the terminating digit is 3, but all they will be able to calculate in their feeble possessors is 1+1=2, so they keep on trying.How to divide by zero; GoLeafsGo 02:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Division by zero is possible using the projectively extended real line. Eli355 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Proof that mathematics is consistent Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC) recursive references --User:069952497a Vogon Constructor Ship Fleet 46.132.184.196 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Ice-Nine (McDonnell-Douglas)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Yeah, for those of you who liked the show Person of Interest. Mathieueagan (User talk:Matthieueagan) 01:17, June 24, 2018 (UTC)Dr. Timothy Taylor The Superstar himself, after declaring total world domination and becoming the international dictator of High School Economics Videos, will delete all Wikipedia articles and make himself one, the final one. BB. Senor Scinto Him and his nemesis Senor Walshinator will join forces to be the last article on the Great Encyclopedia BB. Earth (asteroid) Global warming temperature record. At least no technical device will work afterwards. --Brand спойт 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC) \system(rm -rf /*) - Wikipedia is caught off-guards by a tragic execution overflow.  --Cyde Weys 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) SN 2010A (Sol) - Compare with SN 1987A.-gadfium 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC) End of the universe by the Big Crunch - Will be featured on the Main Page as the ""In the news"" headline, before the Wikipedia servers collapse with the entire universe in the Big Crunch. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Which would be followed some time later (as per Asimov's The Last Question) with the concise yet commanding first article of the New Wikipedia. But that belongs in a different pool. Lowerarchy 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)How everything came from nothing - everyones question answered good night thanks for listening now over to the news.... lc3po Quantum Black Hole Safety - How to prevent man-made mini-black holes from escaping from the laboratory and dropping into the Earth's core and swallowing the planet next time. --Ruby  05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) lists of easy ways to destroy the world - Lets try not to make this list.--Holocron 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) technological singularity of 2067, shortly after being marked with a ""current event"" tag, and immediately before takeover by post-human intelligence.  Antandrus  (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC) UuU. After the slowly decelerating expansion of the universe turns backwards upon itself. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Comment.  The inside joke, for those who don't know, is that the oldest verifiable edit on Wikipedia was in the article Wikipedia:UuU.  The abbreviation ""UuU"" used to be the abbreviation for the 111th chemical compound on the periodic table, which has been renamed Roentgenium. YechielMan 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3 easy steps to building your own nuclear weapon.--God of War 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)we pretty much have that with our description of the gun type U-235 weapon. fortunetly our instructions on how to isolate the U-235 are less simple to follow.Geni 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)The destruction of the Sun; the article will be very short, as whoever will be writing it will die a cold, long death.  --Bad Speler 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC) how to delete the entire internet in one simple keystroke Pellaken 07:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Nope. Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/how to delete the entire internet in one simple keystroke. ^_^ --24.123.0.130 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Cure for Cancer Acetic Acid 10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Cure for the common cold --Army1987 12:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC) List of chemical reactions that will destroy all human knowledge because the first person who reads this will try one of them. - FreakyFlyBry 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Feline tongue eating - a little known habit, which is the origin of the phrase ""cat got your tongue?"" Morwen - Talk 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Big Bang No.2 Bye Bye!!! I mean it. Game Over. The End. BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Was that too many !? JoshuaArgent 08:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Solar expansion--Keycard (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)On thinking about it, solar expansion would no doubt be a featured article...first hand experience!--Keycard (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC) If it's first hand experience, it'll be original research. Ergo, delete. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Then it'll double as the last article deleted (by a human). Twice the winner. Wipe 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Timecube proven correct SigPig 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) The conclusion of the Oscillating Universe Theory The meta-human net making all human knowledge accessable directly from one brain to another Planet of the Apes is nonfiction, and apes destroy the human race, therefore, no more Wikipedia. --Primate#101 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC) How the world ended--Acebrock 07:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Black hole detected within 384,400 km of Earth -- Altopian 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (29075) 1950 DA impact (see (29075) 1950 DA) Hut 8.5 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC) VFD on last article apart from Heat death of the universe as non-notable. —Random8322007-01-25 17:58 UTC (01/25 12:58 EST) 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Large-Scale Antimatter Creation which leads to the planet vanishing in a blinding flash of light. Granted, it won't last long, as it will be annihilated with the ""aidepikiW"" article ""]]noitaerC rettamitnA elacS-egraL[["" Gorank4 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Won't this article be a redirect from (or to) Angels and Demons? :-) 193.122.47.162 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Exactly what the Universe is and why it is here - ""There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."" --Poochy 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Solar Eclipse of 2100 - By 2100, the world will have so much Technology that Wikipedia will shut down because there will be something else to replace it. But right before Wikipedia shuts down, someone will create this Article. Nocturnal Wanderer sign 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Which one? (There's going to be two in 2100 - an annular one in March, and a total one in September.).wiki. Because of the growing popularity of wikis, ICANN creates a new gTLD specifically for them. Wikipedia then moves to a new .wiki domain, thus this would be the last article on wikipedia.org. Morgan Wick 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Practical experience of the Omega point- for those not in the know, see the master of pseudoscience, Tipler.--Rossheth | Talk to me 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC) The group of monkeys who randomly typed Wikipedia Sequel to the Shakespearean work.MortimerCat (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC) List of Earth destroying meteorites (The list is longer than you think.) James Lednik (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Every particle in the universe's exact location, speed, and direction  who needs anything else? Squid tamer (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Not even Wikipedia can defeat Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, sadly. PT (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)List of giant asteroids that are currently impacting the Earth AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!! It will be a very long list. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Really Really Really Large Hadron Collider - You know how they said the Large Hadron Collider will create a black hole which will destroy the Earth? This one actually will. And will be switched on by somebody called Osterhagen. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Asteroid, the size of Russia, to impact in twenty seconds, will be a very short stub. RockManQ (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) The power of Yellowstone-Someone decides to make it when they see curious smoke pouring out of the topWillski72 (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Nature of the Universe - ""The universe is a spheroid region, 705 meters in diameter."" --Smallhacker (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Brain Theories - How to protect yourself from string theory and their pea brains (zombie)... 24.14.73.183 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Great Solar Explosion, destroying the solar system. 98.240.240.105 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC) [[Element 6,636,544]*100, because it is so radioactive that it vaporises the entire planet, including Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC) An asteroid the size of the Pacific will impact Earth in fifteen seconds, the content will be something like ""AAHHH!!!!"". StevenD99 04:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) e44 (atomic bomb), an article stating ""e44 is an atomic bomb deployed 22 seconds ago - it will strike New York City in 54 seconds. It has 15 YT (yottatons) of TNT, and is as explosive as 100 hypernovæ."" (note: ""e44"" is the last 3 characters in the string ""THE END"", encoded in hexadecimal.) EnigmaLord515 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC) ] How to make an Antimatter Bomb Someone's stupid enough to try this out, and the world explodes. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 17:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Fall of humanity's intelligence. Koridas 📣 07:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) List of ignored safety concerns in the Hyperlightspeed Reactor, Pitohui202 (talk) 22:39,28 March 2022(UTC) Perl 6. The article already exists; the removal of {{beta software}} from it will be the last ever edit on Wikipedia. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Oh well, {{beta software}} doesn't exist anymore. I change this to Perl 6 in popular culture. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Vandalism Virus. A virus spreads that uses the computers it infects to vandalise random Wikipedia articles, repetatively. Someone creates an article about the virus shortly before the Wikimedia servers overload and shut down from the strain. --User:Fardell 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC). WP:BORG. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. nneonneo talk 05:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Help, were all gonna die in 5 seconds five seconds before the Y2K+38 problem, that kills Wikipedia. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  would you like to play some chess? 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Typing Google into Google - It's a little known fact that, if you do that, it'll create a self-refering paradox that causes life as we know it to end. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) That does not create a paradox. It just displays a link that brings you back to Google. 75.72.135.230 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Shutting down of Wikipedia If you spray concentrated chlorine gas into your computer it will turn into gold.  Honest!  65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC) the 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 exabyte thumbdrive Virtual pencil sharpener software will be the last DYK and will probably be a split from the very first one. SpinningSpark 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Artificial intelligence amelioration strategies, translated into Naruan. Due to the multiple, hasty retranslations, wording will be awkward. If you want to help Wikipedia create the best final article ever, make sure a person with a better grasp of Tongan is by a mechanical radio at GMT 2035-11-15.438.  And cut that cable!   NGC 2009 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Cybernet online- asking for it reallyWillski72 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Zero_day_attack#MediaWiki example Good bye, World! --BlackKnight (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Comment: For those who did not get the in-joke, Jimbo Wales claimed to make the first Wikipedia edit. The edit was a test edit saying, ""Hello, World!"" Agent 78787 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion of Google- Google gets deleted, whole internet disintergrates before your very eyes. Doh5678 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Windows 14 - the last operating system that Microsoft will make before being bought out by the Sony/Nintendo/Sega Corporation. GVnayR (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Ultimate Wikipedia Hacker - Someone hacks into wikipedia and creates this article before bring the entire system down. 24.14.73.183 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Fork virus The virus replaces all pictures on the hard drive and on all websites the user visits to pictures of knives. Because the virus was created by Jimbo, Wikipedia is forcibly ultimate-protected (nobody can edit it except the Supreme Ruler of the World) 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Mass consciousness upload, where all human and other minds are merged into one massively redundant supercomputer, all knowledge is entirely directly linked, and the need for any extrasomatic information storage is eliminated. The database of Wikipedia will still exist in this group mind, just as all our edits are stored, but there will be no need for further articles, as all information observed by any one of the trillions of copies of this computer is instantaneously duplicated (ansible?) in all of the others.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC) The Great Internet Virus, a virus which will completely attack the internet and shut down lots of popular sites including Wikipedia. StevenD99 04:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC) The Wikiverse and the Internet merge Jackiespeel (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC) How to hack Wikipedia in 10 easy steps! Made by Willy on Wheels's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 17:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia-Human Knowledge Archive transition - when humanity goes extinct. In the 5 nanoseconds before humanity goes extinct there will be 69,420,900.1 edits. The end of Net Neutrality - Companies will force people to pay to use Wikipedia, declining its usage rate so much that it will effectively fall apart. Potatornado (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC) The reason why no one uses internet anymore - a complete analysis about how the internet suddenly lost it's popularity. 46.132.188.107 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Flow (forum software) - which becomes Notable after global deployment across Wikipedia. See WP:Flow. Alsee (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC) This is the song that never ends - someone uses a bot script to add the full text of the song to Wikipedia (ignorant of the fact that it should go in Wikisource), and through a server quirk this script has sufficient priority to monopolize all resources keep even the devs from interrupting it. >Radiant< 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Someone can always just pull the plug. Then the madness that is wikipedia will end.--God of War 07:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Uncyclopedia:The Song That Never Ends —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Number of times Pamela Anderson has undergone plastic surgery. Wiki will have a server overload because there won't be enough room to list each time. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) The guy on the Pringles can in popular culture. ObtuseAngle 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Chinese Democracy because, it's never coming out.Doc Strange 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)From Chinese Democracy: Chinese Democracy is the sixth studio album by American rock band Guns N' Roses. It was released on November 23, 2008, worldwide, except in the United Kingdom on November 24, 2008. As you were saying. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Duke Nukem Forever, said to be so-called after the amount of time it'll take to produce. :-) 193.122.47.170 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) List of people who have booed Ashlee Simpson. The article will get so long that it will cause the Wikipedia servers to crash. --Poochy 05:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Itchyloinomon, the final Pokemon.-Wafulz 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Popular culture in popular culture Will (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Criticism of popular culture in popular culture, an article which will itself contain separate ""Criticism"" and ""In Popular Culture"" sections.  --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC) The Last Ever Episode of The Simpsons Until their syndicated FOX will never let it die...     ...What, they already have been? HarrisonB - Conributions 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) We don't need no education-Pink Floyd rise up against Wikimedia singing this song and ultimately, blast the building with it. Larry Sanger goes insane about the song, kills everyone with a chainsaw, writes this article, then becomes a fascist waving this flag: Then he lives happily ever after, the end.--Editor510 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)  And before one of you links that redlink to this page, it's there, so you have no reason.--Editor510 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) The End of the Internet (website) - all the RC patrollers immediately follow the link in References, wonder what they are doing with their life and give up.  Wikipedia then collapses due to unmitigated vandalism.  PT (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Outline of the impact on Astrology of that big new planet that's just about to narrowly miss us ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC) List of references to Yu-Gu-Oh! in Plan 9 from the Outer Space -  after the last article worth writing has been written, only a bot creating all articles in the form references to X in Y will be creating new (mostly zero-length) articles. This will be the last one of them. --DavidSpanel (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC) The return of Cthulhu. When Cthulhu returns Wikipedia will be the online encyclopedia of all madness, turning into Uncyclopedia and Uncyclopedia will take the place of Wikipedia Brad Troika (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Gran Turismo 10 - the game that is constantly connected to your high speed internet access and allows you to drive 400 MPH vehicles right in your own neighborhood. GVnayR (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) American Democracy is Fair Because that's not happening... Unless Bernie Sanders is elected... Madden NFL 87 Almy (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Death, the final word as made quite clear in Monty Python's Life of Brian. Typhlosionator (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC) The Restaurant at the End of the Universe - obviously - Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Titanfall 3 - was finally released after the lengthy wait and the campaign wraps up the entire Titanfall universe with Frontier War II. 180.252.26.141 (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Microsoft. In a brilliant legal move against competitors Netscape and Google, Microsoft patents the letter ""E"" and outlaws its usage by all third parties, using its squadron of top-notch lawyers to enforce this. Thus, Wikipodia is strippad of all articlys ixcapt for tha oon about Microsoft, which is kapt viry short. >Radiant< 00:14, 2 Fibruary 2006 (UTC) Thæn wæ could just renamæ Wikipedia ""Wikipædia"", which usæs thæ ligaturæ ""Æ"" and not thæ lættær ""E"". And also usæ this ligaturæ to stand in for thæ fifth lættær of the Ænglish alphabæt in all othær articlæs. 23191Pa (chat mæ!) 12:24, 23 Novæmbær 2009 (UTC) Google. In a brilliant legal move against competitors Apple and Amazon (music distribution industry), Google patents the letter ""A"" and outlaws its usage by all third parties, using its legion of top-notch lawyers who have defected from Microsoft to enforce this. Thus Wikipedio is stripped of ull uhrticles except for the one 'bout Google, which is kept very short. --24.14.73.183 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Or Nintendo. In a brilliant legal move against competitors Microsoft and Sony, Nintendo patents the Letter S and outlaws it's usage by all third party, using its Japanese ninja lawyers to enforce this. Thuz, WIkipedia iz ztripped of all articlez except for thiz one, which iz kept very chort. --Dial (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Florida v. Wikimedia foundation. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Wouldn't that be RIAA v. Wikimedia Foundation? -- Tckma 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Freedom of Information is Outlawed by the United Nations in a move to centralise all ingoing/outgoing communications and information to keep track of what all people on earth know. To track down terrorists, of course. It will be known as the WWII Memorial Kofinet.--Mincetro 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Didn't I see that on BJAODN? Thankfully, I'm in the United States our version is the Freedom from Thought Act --Rockstonetalk to me! 14:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Freedom From Information Act -- SamSim 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Facebook is order by the supreme court to cease all activities, turn off all servers and shutdown, bringing chaos to over 500 million people worldwide with massive riots and violence across the world because people cant live without posting new things and have nothing else to do, ad revenues from all major companies decreases dramatically, the like button disappears from every website and the internet becomes the happiest place on earth.Zroknkls (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Acquisition of Wikimedia Foundation by ViacomCBS. Get the joke? Koridas 📣 03:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC) English domination of every single sport ever created. Hey, we gotta get better eventually. 137.205.93.176 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Sumo wrestling in Panama. Why not? --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions   === Chess === Fritz117 - Pinkbladder 13 August 2009 (UTC) Comment.  A computer that has worked out every possible move in chess and can automatically draw from move one if played against perfectly. The Solution of Chess--Lkjhgfdsa 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Comment.  A humorous proposal.  See solved game and endgame tablebase regarding the unfeasibility of a full solution to chess.  YechielMan 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)   === Football === The Amalgamation of Soccer and American Football Robdurbar 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Wouldn't that just be rugby football? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Philadelphia Eagles' Super Bowl Victory Jfingers88 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Comment. 11 short years later... Super Bowl LII –Surachit (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Philippines at the 3000 FIFA World Cup --Howard the Duck 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, the FIFA World Cup (assuming it keeps its currnet scheduele for the next thousand or so years) will not be played in 3000. Smartyshoe 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Maybe El Salvador in FIFA World Cup Wikiland 3238.Mega super editorman (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)  The day they sorted the offside rule outBeL1EveR 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) The Los Angeles NFL team that never moved - just about as likely 2A02:810A:8200:20B0:DCE0:5873:BC36:58A7 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Cleveland Browns Super Bowl appearances - One of the last things on Earth I expect to happen Potatornado (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)   === Baseball === The Chicago Cubs World Series Championship Celebration Parade Made-For-TV Special--Gamingboy 17:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Chicago Cubs World Series WinPinkFloyd69 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) PinkFloyd69 Dang...World Series 2016 —JJBers|talk 03:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Cleveland Spiders World Series Championship (doubles as a prediction for the new name), MainPeanut (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2021   === Go === Atari Pera's defeat of Champion Replace whoever is considered the world champion at the time of creation -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Last topic pool/Winner  EWikistTalk 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia: Life has only just begun! - How ironic --188.220.214.13 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Jimbo Wales retires ON WHEELS! Firestorm Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but should have been. YechielMan 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Last article of Wikipedia, obviously. --Army1987 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC), obviously indeed, completely agreed --Lord Snoeckx 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC), what else could it be? Wikada 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)How about the Last article of Wikipedia ON WHEELS BJAODN Silly Things?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Analysis of every edit on Wikipedia--God Ω  War 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Arguments and Criticisms of the Last article of Wikipedia--God of War 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Criticisms and arguments of the Last article on Wikipedia, a POV fork of the previous savidan(talk) (e@) 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Cultural impact of the last article on Wikipedia HAH! I WIN! DJRaveN4x 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) List of final articles on Wikipedia —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Did you know? - How to cause a catastrophic system crash of Wikipedia -- Alfakim --  talk  01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) List of all ancesteral Wikipedias to this one, or in the language Gleg d'uadu senada de hudey. It list is Borean, Nostratic ,Germanic, English (with every other language that exists now), Newspeak, Interlingual Lingua, Mo-dao. After having all the languages put on the database, there will be a database crash. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC) And, while it is not English, the language progresses so slowly that the Wikipedia is just edited to fit the modern language, so it still counts. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia. After a terrible scandal, Wikipedia is forced to delete all articles on current events, living people, and works in progress, including itself. The article is finally revived when the rest of Wikipedia is complete. Ironically, it cannot be edited without being deleted again, so it becomes the only stub in the project. Melchoir 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) List of articles made after this one, which will never be edited.  --Ravi12346 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC) List of all Wikipedia articles never thought of, a paradox which immediately causes the universe to implode --Ravi12346 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Hollodeckipedia Technology upgrade outdates wiki technology Pellaken 07:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Wikipedia:Final and exhaustive list of Wikipedia articles that should be deleted for once and for all, but have still been kept Some arguments never end: they just continue with different words. -- llywrch 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is finally a crystal ball -- Confusing Manifestation 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)This gets my vote. -Sarregouset (Talk) 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Main Page --Army1987 12:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Army1987 wins! Mathmo 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:We give up - 71.96.179.40 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia: The dense encyclopedia-When there are Eleventy Billion articles, the Wikipedia server will become so dense with information that it turns into a black hole, destroying Wikipedia.--68.124.189.231 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC) The end of Wikipedia 205.188.116.134 02:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Last Topic Pool Winner Votes -24.15.49.150 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC) That was me. -Unknownwarrior33 23:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is Communism on Wheels!—The vandals finally achieve victory. Curps has been indef blocked, and Mr. Treason has checkuser rights. Jimbo has retired from the Wikimedia Foundation to pursue a career in soft-core pornography. The only content of the final article is an image of Squidward Tentacles waving a Soviet flag while performing autofellatio ... ON WHEELS! Interestingly, financial contributions continue to pour in, but the vandals do not properly maintain the servers and Wikipedia crashes. --TantalumTelluride 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Goodbye ""It's been a nice run. We'll miss you all."" --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Seconded. - Kookykman|(t)e Wikipedia:Rest In Peace - A page in memoriam of Wikipedia. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Andrew 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) There Is Nothing Left To Discover: The latest bestseller by Stephen Hawking Jr's grandson's son, heavily criticised for being ""nothing new"". ~Mr Inky · (T @ C) 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:List of subscription packages This may actually be the article after the last article (Aleph one), as I'm fairly certain it never will happen. But if it should, it will definitely be the last article written. --ryos 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:I will probably be dead by thuis time--Seth...the New Lord of Evil 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia: I'm in charge now, human scum - after being imbedded with the sum of all knowledge, Wikipedia somehow becomes sentient and asserts control over us, editing, deleting, and merging users at will --Clngre 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Main Page – gets created after Wikipedia is accidentally destroyed but as no-one wills to continue the project this is the last page.  – b_jonas 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Seconded! :-)    DangerousNerd    talk    contribs    email   21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not what Wikipedia is or, in short, WP:WINWWI The resulting paradox causes half of Wikipedia servers to collapse, but thankfully half are WP:WINWWI-compliant. Unthankfully, they can't take the strain of so many articles and collapse. -- Altopian 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Universal language Wikipedia starts mixing words from all languages in their articles. Users are forced to learn foreign languages. At the end there is impossible to tell if an article was written in chines, english, spanish or whatever. --jtico 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikipedia files for bankruptcy and closes down. Or something involving Wikipedia closing. --Nintendorulez talk 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC) List of words that are not in the last article of Wikipedia  --Ravi12346 06:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia quite naturally. --Cadby (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Why it's all over Probably an essay, but who knows...--Orthologist 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia must change its name -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Test/Last Article probably by a bot. Think outside the box 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Policy changes following the Microsoft takeover — Randall Bart 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/*.* – Tivedshambo (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia Deletionists Uprising CredoFromStart 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Someone creates a pair of pages called ""Wiki Tennis (1)"" and ""Wiki Tennis (2)"" which do nothing but redirect to each other; somebody accesses one of them, and this creates a standing wave which destroys the servers. 193.122.47.170 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, this could be done by someone replacing Infinite regress with a redirect to itself. 193.122.47.170 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) You guys better block my whole IP range from wikipedia, because i have a dynamic IP and gonna fukken do this--66.102.66.73 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I actually did this once. Nothing happened. --UserJDalek 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Everything we forgot to put in. This article will just have everything that happened after the article was made and thus will be the final solution to all of Wikipedia's problems.--76.23.84.86 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 2027 CIA probe of Wikimedia, whereby it is discovered that Al Qaeda has hijacked Wimedia's servers. Wikipedia will be immediately shut down, along with its sister projects; all Wikia and Wikimedia funds frozen; all other wikiware deactivated. Thus Wikipedia will cease to exist... :( --ŴôôDéļf 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia: Wikipeida security hole that allow anonymous users to delete all pages on Wikipedia using a Wi-Fi Rubik's Cube --User101010 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) REALLY big hard drive for sale -- BeL1EveR 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All of Wikipedia :) jj137Talk 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Self-destruction An error in the hard drive of Wikipedia causes the entire Wikipedia to be deleted. Or everyone starts deleting all the pages. Or worse still, Wikipedia is so big it can't hold out any longer and self-destroys itself. Angcr 11:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Last topic pool... Top that! Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC) *Sighs in frustration....* Maybe not. Blood Red Sandmmman (Talk)  (Contribs) 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia... upon which the project deletes itself. ~()*!@NO CARRIER --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) None. Wikipedia declares itself to be an attack site due to it containing stuff that criticizes Wikipedia, and hence all articles containing wikilinks to anything else in Wikipedia are banned.  Since articles not containing any wikilinks aren't counted in the article count, the count hence stops increasing, and subsequently decreases as admins go around enforcing the ruling by deleting all existing articles that contain wikilinks.  Eventually nothing is left. *Dan T.* 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Revocation of GFDL. Neil ム 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Red link, of course. 71.124.63.69 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Jimbo's death.Ooh....Kfc1864 talk my edits 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Resurrection of Jimbo Wales--Jimbo Wales dies, and then rises again on the third day to usher in the zombie apocalypse or something. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Either Explaining how to use Wiki Markup to a 3-year-old or The Ultimately Vandalised Page (wich i vandalised roflol!!!1111!). For a start, Wiki Markup to a 3-year-old would make the 3-year-old's head explode, causing the parents to sue Jimbo Wales, which could only be helped by donations and £/$5 from the occasional person probably could not get the money back. And vandalism will probably be the ultimate demise of Wikipedia if Jimbo isn't sued...This has sparked off A LOT of ideas...hmm...--Editor510 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Red link, part deux. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia's last article, what else? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC) The banal usurpation of Wikipedia's last article, what else? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Split Proposal. As a solution to the debates between American and British spelling, Wikipedia is split into ""us.wikipedia.org"" and ""uk.wikipedia.org"". Thus, it is the last article on ""en.wikipedia.org"". Gorank4 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia: The Movie. Nuff said. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC) The article before the article on the article of the last article after the article that which is deleted, duh. RockManQ (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Now try going outside - What a waste of time eh? Getting the sum of all human knowledge didn't take that long... Kennedy (talk)  09:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Why the vandals stopped vandalising Wikipedia destroys itself because a day went by without a single vandal QueenCake (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Server Some vandal may create this... --Markoszarrate (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:UltimateHacker/The official constitution of the Very Angry Anti-Wikipedia Cabal ""We are a non-profit organization dedicated to taking down all Wikipedia servers and mirrors for good. If you've had time to read this far, that means our first attempt at doing so has failed; if you are interested in joining the Cabal and helping our next attempt, please write to ultimatehacker42@yahoo.no.spam.spam.spam.egg.lemming.com"" Sideways713 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License 96.50.22.205 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Internet Brands' acquisition of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Microsoft acquisition of WikipediaThen it's called wikipedia.microsoft.com.Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Maximum amount of articles reached. And it will probably be the 2147483647th article. Mdrone (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:We're sorry but we need to shut down - StevenD99 04:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC) User:The bot - In light of the super protect, media viewer and tools scandal, Wikimedia decide to take over complete control of Wikipedia. They ban bots and collect every bot script. Then Wikipedia is vandalised a lot and User:Cluebot NG is not working. Then wikipedia makes a massive bot with all the scripts they created. They create a user page for it and 0.0000001198 seconds later they start the bot. The bot tries to do so much at once it explodes and the whole world is incinerated. Just a theory... - NickGibson3900 Talk 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) THE UNHOLY CONSCIOUSNESS OF ALL WIKIPEDIANS COMBINED In the year 2120 We all merge to form a single being of infinite knowledge and take over the universe with our power. It sounds pretty likely to me. Will2022 (talk 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Last edit: ""Request for donations: If everyone reading this page gave $10,000, our fundraiser would be over in six years!"" Wikipedia's debts have ballooned entirely out of proportion. When no one donates, Wikipedia's creditors take it over and sell off its assets. Wikipedia:Current implementation of the Terminal Event Management Policy Branchofpine, Have a chat, My edits 06:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC) This page. Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 (talk | contribs) 22:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia/Decline and closure NineFiveSeven 18:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC) The Vidication of Nihilism Sovereignlance (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC) The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.  Because once we know that, the universe ends due to the fact that the answer to said question is already known.  --Thephotoman 22:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC) duh, it's 42 gypsie 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC) That's not the question, though. That's the answer. If you must know, the question is ""What is 6x9?"". ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Of course, this works if you do the calculation in base 13, not decimal. There are several possible causes of this: the scrabble bag did not have enough letters to complete the question; the mice normally used base 13, so the Earth did not see any need to specify this; the arrival of the B Ark upset the calculation, and the program is coorupted; or, as the play itself said ""I always knew there was something funadmentally wrong with the universe"" (I will correc this when I can be bothered)Phil alias Harry 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) The base 13 thing is a coincidence, I'm pretty sure DNA said he didn't do it intentionally.  It's meant to just be the wrong question, because the B Ark messed it all up. --Tango 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) YES! TANGO! You got it right. ""What is 6x9?"" is NOT the question; as the program calculating the Ultimate Question (i e, Earth) was corrupted by unexpected user input (i e the residents of the B ark, who would spawn the human race). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC) I've heard it said that the question is ""Pick a number, any number.""Tuesday42 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) That's my guess too. Marvin supposedly knows the answer, and he's uttered that phrase several times. It can't be 6x9. As was already mentioned, there was outside interference to the Earth's program. Plus, Earth blew up before it was done calculating. --Nintendorulez talk 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Since it was only one space ship and one species I doubt that mcuh will have gone wrens, perhaps just one of the numbers so I'm betting on it being 6*7 213.107.86.173 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Y'know, if the questions here cannot possibly be correct. Why? Because if they were, all life would cease to ex-THIS USER HAS BEEN TERMINATED.--Editor510 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC) But in base 7, 42 equals 6x5. So if some person decides that this is the correct question and then terminates Wikipedia... 24.14.73.183 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC) The real ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, with a disambig link to the fictional one. which, by the way, probably deserves its own article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I think therefore I am. Someone argues the point that that phrase is all a person could truly know so well that everyone uniamously removes every other part of Wikipedia excluding this phrase, making it the last wikipedia article in existence. It is shortly deleeted when it is realised that it only applies to whoever is real, which, in a group consensus, cannot be determined.Tuesday42 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Also thus proving that unless Wikipedia starts thinking it is unable to exist. —Keakealani 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)what is actually beyond the grave--Acebrock 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Permanent Universal Omnisicence--One Salient Oversight 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 134.250.60.191 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)When the following statement is proven without a shadow of a doubt to be in fact true, and someone writes an article about it, Wikipedia and the rest of reality will cease to exist:  This statement is false.Wait a second... Wikipedia is not a linear arrangement of articles, so technichally, the first page created...is also the last page!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Understanding Women --Nate1481(t/c) 10:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)LOL! Dragon798 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)  Is humanity pointless? YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Arrival of the lonely hour of the last signifier, for the Louis Althusser fans out there. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The Answer to Everything that Ever Existed, Exists, Or Will Exist, But Does Not Answer Itself. The resulting paradox will crash the Wikipedia servers, but it will be reborn as Wikipedia II, with the motto Let's Never Make That Mistake Again. Not a single byte will be lost in the renaming process. (And NO, it is not 42) Agent 78787 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Orientalism 2: Electric Boogaloo, the long awaited sequel puggo 02:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Volcanic activity under Wikimedia's main server room, created minutes before a volcanic eruption destroys the Wikimedia servers, taking the site down. 46.132.185.93 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC) List of puddles The ultimate triumph of listcruft! Fishhead64 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Uhh, take a look at this †he Bread 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (If somebody want's to know, the contents of the page were:""The following is a comprehensive List of puddles in the World The one outside my house The big on to the East of the USA"") 193.210.228.191 (talk)The weather in London Merely creating this page causes no problems, but once it grows past a minimal size, a bug that crashes Wikipedia is activated. All the requests not to create the page turn out to have been a clumsy workaround. Maestlin 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) The number of trees in the world - The ultimate Article before Wikipedia shuts down - Nocturnal Wanderer sign 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) List of trees in the world --michael180 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Number of the leaves in the pile (it's 69,105) 46.132.185.93 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC) List of undiscovered places --Nate1481( t/c) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) List of cities on Gliese 581 g. Just another testament to the colonization of space. GVnayR (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Willy Wales-Beesley Lkjhgfdsa 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Biography of the last man when no one else is alive the last man's biography (deletable under {{db-bio}}) will remain the last written work ever--Acebrock 07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) The year when every human will go extinct. This will be Wikipedia's last article before it is shut down. Nocturnal Wanderer sign 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) List of people who lived on Earth. --junafani 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) List of people who irretrievably crashed Wikipedia A very short list, but anyone quick enough to read it will never forget the name(s)... --Ye Olde Luke 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC) The list would probably compose of four tildes. The most evil four tildes to ever grace the wiki. 169.231.40.250 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Ashraf Hussein, a 12 year old tabletennis player from Idaho who has already won the school tournament three years running and will be tabletennis gold medal in the next olympics.  Remember the name people!!!! Ashraf ROOLZ. Hiding T  20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) How all but two guys died - a catastrophe that somehow killed everyone but two guys.The two guys who are left - Only one of them likes to edit Wikipedia and clearly isn't very good at it, as is evidenced by his poorly titled articles.I killed the other guy - ""take that Jerry, I'm goin outside. This is ghey."" - verbatim of the last article created. -- Chickenmonkey X  sign?  08:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)The last guy died - Written by a rampant bot, before crashing the entire system. --24.14.73.183 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)uwu owo, because some soulless bastard will name their child this, and that child will do something remarkable- even if it's just existing underneath that name puggo 02:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Death of Queen Elizabeth II. Gary1338 23:24, 02 May 2020 (UTC) Me, after I become a goddess,(I am already a goddess. See the history of the Angry Mob Noticeboard for more info.) create an article about myself, and freeze Wikipedia in time forever, preventing any more articles from being created. I'm planning on doing this around September 9, 9999. littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) Eighteen uses for Soylent Green  (q.v.).—Markles 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Thirty-two ways To Serve Man  (q.v.). —Markles 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) How to wear a microwave oven as a hat (q.v.). —Markles 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Which would be put up for deletion due to WP:NOT#HOWTO, making its AfD page the last page created! -- Imperator3733 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Why it Tastes Like That.  Trust me, you don't want to know. --Webdog1000 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) How to Cook an Encyclopedia. --Webdog1000 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Computer Databank (Food). --Webdog1000 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Hi-fi pizza, per Daniel Clowes comic in Eightball. when the last possible hybrid commercial product is created, the world ends. his was a hi fi pizza, with nukes going off in the background. Don't YOU want a hi-fi pizza?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Trj{�…я‰}�t�ѓ~L ‹�‰E�u�ЌNPя�Ђ�� ѓC`$йЗ   ѓe� ‹FL�E�hGameЌ�…�   Pj�я�ь�� …А‰E�u%ЌNPя�Ђ�� ЗE�љ  А‹}�‰{�2Т‹Ля�”�� йЊ   ‹M�…Йt�Ќw�Ќx�уҐ‹u�‹NL�M�‰�ЌND‹9;щt+‹The last topic obviously got corrupted due to technical difficulties experinced during the demise of Wikipedia. Smartech 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)I know the question!!  Hey Guys, Check This Out - I Think I've Got It!! - a rather exciting article where a young theology student discovers the answer. Consequently all knowledge, thought and physical action suddenly become obsolete and meaningless. The End. Deiz 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Silly, we already have the answer ('42'). Now we just need the question. --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC) No, the question is either ""What is 6 times 9?"" or the question and answer cannot be known simultaneously in the same universe, depending on which book in the series is considered to trump the others... -Preposterous 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) NO, the Question is not ""What is 6 times 9?"". Please see above. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC) No,the question is 'what is 40+2' or 'what is 2+40' I think someone here doesn't get it. Blue Mirage 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Uh-oh, it seems that I've created it...--Gp75motorsports (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Text of world emperor Pellaken's order to destroy the planet Pellaken 07:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Transwiki to Wikisource, wrong place.  Unless it's short, then move to World Emperor Pellaken's order to destroy the planet and {{expand}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Gleeg Snag Zip - The words in The Demented Cartoon Movie that caused the world to explode. --81.226.110.29 18:25, 22 ebruary 2006 (UTC)More literary, how to use the Deplorable Word. JoshuaZ 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)The Great Rapture of February 28, 2203415 Self explanitory :-) Sasquatch  t|c 06:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Hey, that's my birthday.December 21 2012 - Im going camping on this day a loooong ways away from the cities. Preferably on high ground with lot's of food guns and ammo.--God of War 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Format C:\Wikipedia which is then followed by the first article Relly sorry about that CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Ever wondered what those Big Red Buttons are all about?--194.165.112.252 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) After Wikipedia's demise, the first page on New Wikipedia will be: New Wikipedia:The miraculous story of how Brion found out what the last Old Wikipedia article was Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Second edit: the creation of New Wikipedia:George W. Bush Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Third edit: vandalism of New Wikipedia:George W. Bush Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Fourth edit: creation of New Wikipedia:Willy on Wheels --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My ""Great Project"" The fifth edit: moving of New Wikipedia: Willy on Wheels to New Wikipedia: on Wheels. --24.14.73.183 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC) PANTS Vandalism Coordination Center - In an ironic turn the last article created is an on-site home base of sorts for the thousands of anti-wiki ""PANTS"" (People Are Not Too Satisfied) vandals that are dedicating their computers to an all-out spam attack on the Wiki using advanced software built for mass page editing.  The attacks come so heavily and so fast that everyone is caught off guard; the servers are overloaded.  The creators of the advanced software, the leaders of the PANTS, take the overload as an opportunity to sneak into Wikipedia headquarters, which are then located on Wiki island in Oceania.  The PANTS leaders are able to enter unnoticed and by using a nasty virus they are able to corrupt the entire Wikipedia archive; the site meanwhile is down for about an hour with the message ""PANTS have taken over.  Go outside, enjoy your freedom,"" with a picture of trousers.  The virus finally erases everything (even itself) and the Wikipedia shuts down forever.  The Wikipedia employees are forced to re-launch the site under a different name due to software still loaded on many computers which attacks anything appearing on the domain wikipedia.org.  The site launches with only about 1% of the articles (thanks to a hard disk backup that wasn't connected to the mainframe during the attack) under simply the name ""Wiki.""  The entire story is bought by NBC Universal and made into a movie.  -DMurphy 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) What Does This Button Do?. 82.15.28.195 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Willy on Wheels (deity), created by User:Willy_on_Wheels_haha_you_missed_THIS_one!; user made Admin by support of 6.022×1023 sockapostles; speedy deletes the rest of Wikipedia (A7, obv!) SigPig 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Razor Arms Race. In the quest for Mutually Assured Smoothness, razor companies, not satisfied at fitting five, six, ten, or even three hundred razor blades on one razor will use nanotechnology to create a fractal razor blade sporting an infinite number of blades on a finite razor head. This would, of course, put every razor company out of business, thus crashing the economy of Sweeden, and thus destroying the planet. Ourai 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2023 destruction of Earth - I knew I shouldn't have accidentally leant on that large red button... Andrew 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) List of everything - User:ZEROpumpkins Immediately after an edit to the wikipedia markup language allows live equations to operate from info. retireved from the web, someone places on the pi article an integral equation to calculate the value of pi to an infinite number of decimal places, to which someone else then adds a rootkit-hack to increase the priority  to the highest level (higher than the server OS). At this point, the first person to visit the page will lock up the server, and crash wikipedia permentantly.Phil alias Harry 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedians not in the Book of Life --Gray Porpoise 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC) User:ULTIMATE VANDALBOT on Wheels! --Gray Porpoise 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC) HAHA YOU SUCK - vandalism by the evil souls left on Earth after the Second Coming --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Failure of Wikipedia to pay electric bill Ace-o-aces 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)  Oh god! The servers are burning! The whole Internet is coming down! Everything is getting destroyed---It'll be only moments Unfortunately, seconds after the article was created, the Internet finished its self-destruction sequence started by an undocumented feature in Perl. bCube.talk(contribs); 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) List of things that no longer exist - Well, Yeah. 58.108.35.247 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC) List of reasons the 2000's is a bad decade - Hello, Yeah. 58.108.35.247 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Shouldn't it be ""List of reasons the 2000's was a bad decade""? 193.210.228.191 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Wikibomb rant on the now-gone WP:BOMB page turns real and Wikipedia is computer-vandalized into junk :) 74.38.35.171 09:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) AfD (blank). Once all possible sources are used, all other content disappears from the 'net (as it's redundant). All articles loose all of their sources. All articles are deleted because there is nothing to prove that gravitation meets wp:notable. Mdbrownmsw 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Wouldn't this just make WP:WEB a lot more difficult to succeed?Discoverance that Willy on Wheels has possessed a germ,  followed by a superplague destroying everyone in humanity who has heard of Wikipedia. List of phrases that will automatically delete their own file within 30 years.  (One of which is the letter e. Jimbo Wales dies...taking Wikipedia's servers with him. That would be weird. Jedi_feline | Talk 08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Whoops -Interested2 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ALIENS EXIST!!! Shortly after this article is created, the aliens find it and wipe out the entire internet, then they ask everybody if they have heard of Wikipeadia, if they have, they die...-Kerrigal 13:06, 17 January 2009. Wikipedia declining.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby   14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Nothing. Eventually, due to the sheer amount of knowledge pumped into it, Wikipedia becomes a sentient being. However, due to an act of vandalism, it decides to commit suicide. The resulting server crash causes every single page to be deleted. --Divebomb (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC) List Of All Wikia Wikis The page would over load the servers, and Wikipedia would crash.Daemon64 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Will Smith's elbow's joint's 118,385th atom's nucleus's down quark | For if Wikipedia gathers all human knowledge, witch it won't by the way. Cortex128 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)  WP:Village pump/Proposals#Split English Wikipedia unto US and Commonwealth sections, WP:AN/I#A solution to the ENGVAR problem, and m:en.wiki split proposal (leading to en-us: and en-gb:) - after the ENGVAR wars get so bad that color/colour is WP:OFFICE protected and moved to hue, a consensus arises (on VP/PROP, AN/I, and Metawiki) to split en.wiki into two. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Like this one —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Microsoft Corporation-Wikimedia Foundation Merger.  Following the completion of the article, which is, as you can imagine, written with a strong anti-MS POV, we all jump ship. Picaroon9288•talk 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Google Deindexes Wikipedia due to increasing content corruption and lower numbers of editors, Google decides to stop placing Wikipedia articles near the top of all searches. Remaining editors immediately lose interest and the servers are shut down to save money. WMF board members retire to Belize on the proceeds. →StaniStani  18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) buy buy buy buy our cheap viagra Bulwersator (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The lawsuit that killed Wikipedia. Someone in California sues the foundation over a BLP violation, wins, and bankrupts the organization.  Bankruptcy court sells assets to a business consortium that immediately renames it and offers subscriptions for US$34.99 per month. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC) A bot writes a article on every particle in the universe, resulting in Wikipedia being the universe.  The user who made the bot makes a physical law stating Wikipedia to be indestructible completely. Wikipedia is infinitly expanding, And nobody will stop it from expanding, Somebody will rule Wikipedia someday, but Jimbo Wales proves that Wikipedia is completely indestructable. Downgrader (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I agree per Downgrader. Wikipedia is kinda like the universe in the sense that it keeps expanding. Resetti 4 Prez (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Never. How do you calculate which is the ten-thousandth-to-last article? 2679D (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Never say never. Jakub Skrzypczak 16:55 24.05.2016 Poland.  By the time the sun became a red giant, the WMF was one of the few Internet-related organizations that hadn't yet merged and/or gone bankrupt (besides the ICANN, IETF, W3C, etc. etc.), and had servers all across the universe. By the time of the Big Crunch, the Wikimedia servers had became sentient and taken over the multiverse. Imagine a multiverse where every sentient being has access to free knowledge. That's our commitment. And that's why the MPAA and RIAA were sued out of existence. The surviving human languages with Wikipedias: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch (official languages of the ""United States of the Americas"", a country which appears to have had a major space program), Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean (official languages of the ""Asian Federation"", which also had a major space program), and Lojban (official language of the ""United States of Earth"", which by the time it collapsed, no longer held any land on Earth). lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC) I think we could make a story out of this. The End of Wikipedia (novel)ArmageddonAviation (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC) We're sorry but Wikipedia doesn't exist anymore and neither does the universe. We're actually pretty surprised that you managed to get here Thing User (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC) The article stating who won the pool of what the last article was going to be, obviously. The only problem is that we won't know who won till somebody wins. Alternitavely, a page which is deleted and then recreated each time somebody edits Wikipedia. Thus, it shall always be the last article created! Xiagu 22:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia will be sustained until the end of the universe by the only question it cannot find an answer to: ""How can the workings of the second law of thermodynamics, be reversed?"" Than as the final hour approaches and all of humanity is assimilated into Wikipedia, Wikipedia (now renamed Multivac) will find the answer. And it will write the article LET THERE BE LIGHT! And there will be light. . . --S.dedalus 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)I don't know what the last creation will be, but the last edit will be adding the currentevent info box to end of planet Earth. Smartyshoe 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC) There can be no last topic, for then they would post the winner in Winner of Last Topic Poll there fore making that the last topic, but then they would have to remove it due to the ""winner"" being wrong, then they would be right, and so on, and the resulting overflow of deleting, adding, deleting, adding, would cause the wikipedia servers to spontaneousl combust. Smartyllama 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)None. After the 200,000,000th article is created, the Wikipedia servers will forget what they were programmed to do, and instead mark themselves as a rival website, deleting all articles on Wikipedia and overloading, causing an explosion. By now, Wiki's servers will be fundamentally linked to all of the planet's electrical sources, fueling the explosion and causing the world to end. So sad. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)The final article ever on Wikipedia will be: 'The'. :p Qazox (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I told you not to push that button  65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)The day Wikipedia changed it's name. it would be the last Wikipedia article because wikipedia would be called... uh... (something else)A variant on '(You have reached) The last page of the internet': of which many examples are available and which tell you to now switch off your computer and go outside/do something real and suchlike. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)That orange glow Riffraffselbow (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Australian English Wikipedia When Australians take over the entire English speaking world. MUHAHAHA!!! Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 11:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Wikipedia:Farewell or some variant (it'd definitely start with ""Wikipedia:"", I think). Deuteranopia 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)A random page made by a 5 year old F1p 1 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia to merge with Uncyclopedia immeadeatly. The new name for the ""new"" Wiki will be Uncyclowikipedia71.192.130.225 09:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:reason for the deletion of Wikipedia ScRiptED 19:45, 7 March 2018 (MET) Kidnapping of Jimmy Wales - Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is kidnapped and is forced to merge Wikipedia with Uncyclopedia Angcr 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Jimbo Wales is kidnapped for internet crime -  Filling the internet totally with articles! Wikidomination! MUHAHAHAHA! ACBestDog and Bone 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC) The Last Article of Wikipedia I think I've got a good chance :) Metsguy234 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Chuck Norris gets bored with Wikipedia --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC) LHC produces stable black hole. Earth is being destroyed. 98.217.103.85 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thomas Jonze An article about a normal hardware shop owner from Iowa written by a former business competitor. Jonze sues wikipedia when he realizes the article about him includes his home address and claims he is a serial-arsonist leading to his divorce and estrangement from his wife and family. Luckily for the competitor the article continues to be hosted on several mirror sites after wikipedia's demise.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) National Portrait Gallery v. Derrick Coetzee After the threat from the NPG, Wikimedia and the NPG can't agree on a solution. The NPG sues Derrick (the uploader of the disputed photographs) and wins, forcing Wikipedia to shut down forever. Make your final database dumps...--Dial (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Resolution of nationalist article naming disputes - German and Polish editors finally agree a standard on the naming of places within Europe that might at one point have been part of either.  The issues surrounding the island and state of Ireland are solved shortly after, with all sides benefitting.  The discussion over whether Jimbo Wales is a country, or merely part of a United Jimbo brings a whole new meaning to argumentum ad jimbonem.  All of which culminates in a bizarre incident in which several French editors are blocked for edit warring with themselves.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Vector Strong bad splodes the universe up Before anyone asks, YA RLY. --GodRocks127 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia servers destroyed by suicide bomber --84.193.193.10 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is renamed as Google Wiki - as previously Wikimedia Foundation breaks down from all the high traffic and simply donating and sponsoring Wikipedia won't suffice any more, so essentially Wikipedia would either have to put up loads of ads or start charging (God forbid :[ ) people for lets say every hour's worth of view time. Meanwhile ""Google becomes God"" (sometime in say 2030 and Google is synonymous with search engine and even Internet itself for the unfamiliar) and decides to buy out Wikipedia (since the tentative Wikipedia ads aren't working too well!) (unrelated: didn't Google once have a Wiki project themselves?) in a similar move to what happened to Youtube, except for no particular reason Wikipedia gets renamed). Sorry I have an overactive imagination today *_* --81.103.186.25 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2012 world destruction myths proved false --575Revolve Number and Word 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Last Cat on Earth dies -- You see the internet is cat-powered, and so without kitties, the whole thing shuts down rather quickly, including Wiki. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Dafuq is that explosion? 108.25.194.174 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC) meta:Wikidirectory, a fork of DMOZ due to concerns created by Verizon (owner of AOL, who own DMOZ) not supporting Net Neutrality. Shortly after, Verizon files a lawsuit against Wikimedia (a la Internet Brands) and due to Verizon being much, much bigger than Internet Brands (not to mention thier hired congressional lobbyists), WMF lose the case and are forced to shut everything down. However, the GNU project had already forked the projects because Richard Stallman didn't like the CC license, so GNU/Pedia becomes the 5th most popular website. 2001:569:BD88:6D00:E5E3:E5DF:A022:29C1 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC) [18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)] 2605:6000:8D47:5800:9C23:1FDE:8524:AE4A (talk): The 1381329385th page is the last. Click here!  mediawikiwiki:Extension:SelfAwareWiki, created by the WMF Creative Uses of Donations Team. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC) mediawikiwiki:Release notes/2.0: MediaWiki 2.0 will probably never come out. It was supposed to come out in late 2004(!), and Brion said it was in development in May 2013(!!), but it still isn't out. Features include: a built-in Phabricator-incompatible bug tracker, new 1.x-incompatible XML-based syntax, a brand-new totally-incompatible visual editor (with no wikitext option), and a complete lack of backwards compatibility with MediaWiki 1.x. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) all Wikimedia Foundation projects, all Fandom wikis, wikiHow, and Unclyopedia's companies merge to create the WikiEmpire.This is silly, Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)  Coronavirus disease 2022, nuff said. 83.99.139.200 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) The big sit, an Elephant sits on a big red button and we all die. Sounds pleasant doesn't it? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Jimmy Wales announces ""Take Your Kid to Work Day"" at Wikimedia with special events for toddlers.  We all know toddlers can and will destroy anything. --User101010 (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC) fhityahua simipautuolo It will be some obscure one line stub about some species. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Homo antiwikipediensis It's in the name. InvalidOStalk 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) V (Tool album If I know music, and I do, the last topic – written in a different universe right before it collides with ours – will be the fifth album from Tool. User:Matthieueagan (User talk:Matthieueagan) 01:20, June 24, 2018 (UTC) Heh i guess wikipedia needs to end now LLiquid ey (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)No kidding. Eh, maybe a new System of a Down album instead.  Wikipedia won't end, atleast I hope not -Wikipedia's funeral article?  Death of Jimbo Wales The last edit will be on this very page to announce the winner of the last topic pool. Plankhouse0 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)  The last edit will be someone editing a grammatical error on the second to last Wikipedia edit. --Unknown user The last edit will be the moving of the main page to wikia. --Unknown user The last page will be on the Death of Wikipedia, only minutes before Wikipedia goes down for eternity. littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Wikipedia:How to create a page deletion succeeds and everyone forgets how to create —Pithon314 (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC) The last page will be page #10,308,096, announcing the New Wikipedia Site. --Alesjif (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Wikimedia Foundation for-profit restructuring 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC) List of crazy Wikipedia facts. Everything even quasi-important is used up, so people resort to these types of articles. Crazy Wikipedia Fact #45: Wikipedia is one of the only websites to survive the Great Im- CoolJamesII (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)"
565	574	1261	WP:DM	Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management	565	"Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to Disaster Management (a.k.a. Emergency management). We have three main work areas:  Theoretical and background information, including the phrases: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. This section also covers methods for managing disasters. Hazards and their impacts, which cause disasters. Examples of hazards include, earthquakes, drought and epidemics. When those hazards impact people, it creates a disaster, such as the Boxing Day tsunami and the World Trade center attack). Organisations and individuals involved in disaster managementThank you for taking the time to be a part of educating Wikipedians about managing disasters. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.   === Goals === Create a categorisation of concepts and applied terminology Maintain one inventory page of disastrous events, see list of disasters Merge articles that describe similar concepts into one comprehensive article   === Central articles === Emergency management Emergency services Public safety Civil defence Disasters, List of disasters Natural disasters Severe weather ((Man made disasters)) ((Mitigation )) ((Preparedness)) If you want to help out at  , just add your name and join in by adding your name on the participants page! If you want to you can use this code {{User WikiProject DM}} to add the below member template to your user page:  If you don't like userboxes, then just add [[Category:WikiProject Disaster management members]].   === Definition, scope & structure === No classification of this project has been agreed upon.  The subject is being discussed by project members on a dedicated talk page. The scope of this WikiProject is any article relating to policies as well as implementations of disaster management.  This include emergency services operations (police, ambulance, and fire service) as well as the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards. It also include individual disastrous events, e.g. hurricane Katrina and the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s.   === Naming convention ===  A naming convention for such articles is also definitely required. It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <> <> <>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash   === Article alerts === The article alerts list provides information on which disaster management-related Wikipedia articles are subject to various discussions, including peer review requests, or are in need of urgent assistance and/or review.  Articles for deletion  28 Mar 2023 – 2022 Turkey bus crashes (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Aintabli (t · c); see discussion (3 participants) 11 Mar 2023 – Solitaire Meissmer (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Paul 012 (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted) 15 Mar 2023 – 1947 Amritsar train massacre (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by UnpetitproleX (t · c) was closed as keep by 78.26 (t · c) on 23 Mar 2023; see discussion (17 participants)Proposed deletions  21 Mar 2023 – 2023 Bedford explosion (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by EurekaLott (t · c) was deproded by Dcooperdb9 (t · c) on 25 Mar 2023 20 Mar 2023 – 2022 Cibubur truck crash (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by TimothyBlue (t · c) was deletedCategories for discussion  26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2020 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2019 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2019 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2018 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2018 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2014 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2004 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2007 floods in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion 26 Mar 2023 – Category:2007 floods in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Aidan721 (t · c); see discussion(88 more...)Featured article candidates  05 Mar 2023 – 1995 Aigio earthquake (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by SamBroGaming (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees  18 Mar 2023 – June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dora the Axe-plorer (t · c); start discussion 09 Feb 2023 – Humanitarian protection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by CT55555 (t · c); start discussion 17 Jan 2023 – Bastrop County Complex Fire (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by TheAustinMan (t · c); start discussion 06 Jan 2023 – 2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by JJonahJackalope (t · c); start discussionGood article reassessments  28 Mar 2023 – 2011 Super Outbreak (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Cyclonebiskit (t · c); see discussionRequests for comments  13 Mar 2023 – COVID-19 pandemic (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Jtbobwaysf (t · c); see discussionPeer reviews  11 Nov 2022 – Costa Concordia disaster (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Cessaune (t · c); see discussion 01 Nov 2022 – 1920 Xalapa earthquake (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Dora the Axe-plorer (t · c); see discussionRequested moves  29 Mar 2023 – Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Parkland shooting by Locke Cole (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – 2023 Turkish floods (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to 2023 Turkey floods by RandomInfinity17 (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Houston, we have a problem (talk · edit · hist) move request to Houston, we've had a problem by Red Slash (t · c) was closed; see discussionArticles to be merged  14 Feb 2023 – Flood mitigation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to flood control by EMsmile (t · c); see discussion 30 Dec 2022 – Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on crime in the Republic of Ireland (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on crime by DecafPotato (t · c); see discussion 30 Oct 2022 – 2022–2023 mpox outbreak in New York (state) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States by Wbm1058 (t · c); see discussion 10 Apr 2022 – List of massacres in Palestine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to List of massacres in the Palestinian territories by Dunutubble (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split  27 Mar 2023 – 2015 European migrant crisis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Chefs-kiss (t · c); see discussion 27 Mar 2022 – 2020–2022 Taal Volcano eruptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by HurricaneEdgar (t · c); see discussion 28 Jan 2021 – Boeing 737 MAX certification (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rosbif73 (t · c); see discussion 08 Nov 2020 – Castle Bravo (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rod57 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  16 Jan 2023 – Draft:2023 La Salle fire (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by BhamBoi (t · c)   === New articles === 17 Oct 2018 French Civil ProtectionPlease feel free to improve these new disaster management-related articles, listed here from AlexNewArtBot/Disaster_managementSearchResult.   === Assessment ===  The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team requests that more disaster articles be assessed as to their quality and importance. To help facilitate this, Template:Disaster management could be modified to accept optional quality and importance arguments (and by default add articles to an ""unassessed"" category). See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot for how to do this and how to set things up so a bot will automatically keep track of statistics on assessed articles. After the setup is completed, volunteers will need to go through Category:Disasters and assess all the articles there and in appropriate subcategories. (See below for ideas.) Some articles have been assessed already:  Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPHumanities#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disaster_management.See also:  Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters (inactive results from experimental assessment) Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via WikiprojectsChecklistThis is a quick checklist of things to look for when systematically assessing articles, especially those for disaster events.  If you find deficiencies you don't have time to fix yourself, create a to do list at the top of the article's talk page by adding {{To do}} there. Then you can edit the to do list and add items to it.  Assign quality and importance according to the definitions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. See the top of the talk page of the article of interest to see if this has already been done. Is the article in the correct categories? Does the title comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (most common English name) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)? Does the first paragraph give a concise explanation of the subject, including alternate names in bold, location, major causes, and major outcomes? Does the article use the correct infobox?  Is everything in the infobox filled in? Is there a concise assessment of the loss to human life? Is there a concise assessment of the financial losses?  Are figures clearly labeled as to whether they are in (for instance) 1900 dollars or 2007 dollars?  Is a modern inflation-adjusted estimate available? Does the article cite its sources using footnotes, especially for statistics? Does the article have a map showing the area affected? Does the article have a photograph illustrating the event? Is the article in need of wikification, copy-editing, or other cleanup? Major articles should be linked from lists such as List of wars and disasters by death toll, and the statistics presented in lists need to be consistent with those found in articles (which hopefully have references)   === To do list ===  WikiProject: Disaster management  Additional suggestionsThere is a lot of duplication of efforts and confusion of terminology surrounding disaster management on Wikipedia now.  Examples include Disasters and Natural disasters.  The current categorisation is also far from great, lacking in structure and logic. The task to clean up in this domain is immense, but it has to be done.   === Templates === This template is to be placed on the talk page of any article relating to disaster management:  {{WikiProject Disaster management}}{{disaster-stub}} for stubs relating to disaster management or disasters   === Portals === Portal:Disasters Portal:Earthquakes Portal:Fire Portal:Tropical cyclones Portal:VolcanoesNatural Disasters are defined as the naturally occurring physical phenomena caused either by events that have immediate impacts on human health and suffering.These disasters include geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, volcanic activity); hydrological (avalanches and floods); climatological (extreme Temperatures, drought, wildfires); meteorological (cyclones and storms/wave surges) or biological (disease epidemics and insect/animal plagues).   === Wikipedia WikiProjects ===   === Wikibooks === Historical Disasters and Tragedies   === Wikiversity === Wikiversity's School of Fire and Emergency management Alexander, David E., 2002, Natural Disaster, Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer ISBN 978-0412047510 Alexander, David E., 2002, Principles of Emergency Planning and Management, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0195218381 Haddow, George D. and Jane A. Bullock, 2003, Introduction to Emergency Management, Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann Quarantelli, E.L., 1998, What Is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, New York: Routledge Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis, 2004, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge."
566	575	1262	WP:NCHEM	Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry	566	"This page aims to be brief, touching on the general aspects of chemistry-related articles. In-depth guides are found in linked pages.  Many chemical topics are suitable for inclusion; the central criterion is that the article meets the general notability guidelines.  Important topics include compounds, reactions, methods of analysis, instrumentation/apparatus, techniques, significant chemists, branches of chemistry, chemical theories, and principles which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.   === Editing policy === The style of editing embraced by the Wikipedia chemistry project is collaborative and consensus-driven. Edits to existing articles are typically incremental, which allow changes to be evaluated by other editors.  Long-standing or mature articles should not be rewritten in their entirety because such large-scale changes inhibit discussion and often marginalize seemingly small but significant improvements that have been hammered out by previous editors.  If an editor feels that a mature article warrants a major revision, it is both customary and considerate for the revising editor to announce their intentions on the relevant talk page and to heed the consensus of the responses.  Typically, responses to such announcements can take days to accumulate, so major revisions require a sense of pace and patience. Being affiliated with or bound by no scientific organizations, the content in Wikipedia-Chemistry is not constrained by recommendations or rules, but seeks to objectively describe knowledge.  For example, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides recommendations and definitions for nomenclature and terminology.  Wikipedia editors strive to be mindful of IUPAC's advice but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviates from mainstream usage (see comments below on nomenclature).   === Article curation and creation === The thousands of Wikipedia articles about chemistry benefit from continuing improvements that address clarity and content.  Very long articles are difficult to read and maintain, so at some stage, long articles are often split (subdivided into two articles). Being a consensus driven process, plans for splitting are ordinarily discussed on the talk page for the parent article.   === Category creation === Articles are placed in one or more categories to help readers and editors locate similar topics.  When categories become too large to be readily searched, it is common to create subcategories.  For example, Category:Alcohols has subcategories Category:Tertiary alcohols, Category:Secondary alcohols, and Category:Primary alcohols.  Prior to creating multiple categories, such plans are ordinarily discussed on the talk page for the parent article since they affect many articles.   === Attributions to people and places === In general, descriptions of chemical knowledge do not mention who did the work or where the discoveries were made, in part because such information is available in the citations.  This approach simplifies the presentation and helps readers focus on facts and explanations.  The obvious exceptions to this guideline are articles or sections of articles on biographies and history.  Even in regular articles, scientific advances are sometimes attributed to noteworthy individuals and institutions, especially when this information illuminates the content or enlivens the prose. Attribution to individuals and institutions is subject to guidelines on conflict of interest.   === Nomenclature ===  Per WP:ENGVAR, the type of English used to write an article does not matter, but it should be consistent. The following exceptions apply for chemical names, when the article itself is primarily about chemistry:  ""sulfur"" (and related ""sulfuric"", etc.), ""caesium"", and ""aluminium"" should be spelled this way regardless of the English variation used in the article, being the IUPAC names for these elements; ""phosphine"" is preferred over ""phosphane"", being predominantly used in the chemical literature.Systematic nomenclature, while being precise, can be cumbersome. Commonly accepted trivial or alternative names are preferred over systematic names. In particular, IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some organic compounds, and these recommendations should be followed in article titles.[1] Examples include acetic acid over ethanoic acid,  toluene over methylbenzene, lysine over 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid. Stock nomenclature (e.g. iron(III) chloride): there should be no space between the words and the oxidation state in parentheses (between ""iron"" and (III)). The oxidation numbers are stated only for cations, not for anions. Where the oxidation number is obvious (i.e. group 1 or group 2 metals), it is not included. Compounds with a substantial degree of covalency do not use Stock nomenclature. Isotopes should be labelled by their mass number, e.g. 14C and 18F. Deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H) may be labelled ""D"" (or ""2D"") and ""T"" (or ""3T""), respectively. Deuterated solvents for NMR use are customarily described variously as: methanol-d4 for CD3OD, DMSO-d6 for  CD3SOCD3, etc. These established systems are all acceptable, but should remain consistent within an article. For organic radicals denoted by ""R"", indices used for numbering must be superscript: R1−CH2−R2 (not R1−CH2−R2).    ==== Symbols ====  Chemical symbols shall be Roman (CaCO3) and may not be italicized by any means, neither wiki syntax nor  tag. Notation of atomic shells, subshells and orbitals (1s, 2p, 3d, ...) also shall be Roman. Numerals (1, 2, 3, ...) shall invariably be Roman.   ==== Skeletal formulas ==== In prose, carbon–carbon bond uses an en dash (–), as is normal for such compound terms. However, for skeletal formulas, the mathematical symbols minus, equals, and identity are used to represent the bonds:  Single bond C−C (C−C or C{{subst:minus}}C) Double bond C=C (equal sign) Triple bond C≡CThis style is selected because in most professional fonts only the minus sign ⟨−⟩ matches the double bond ⟨=⟩ and triple bond ⟨≡⟩ in width, so an en dash would look out of place in a skeletal formula.   ==== Etymology ==== Many chemical terms have interesting etymology that merits description.  Since focus of the articles and the readership is on technical aspects, sections on etymology are ordinarily placed near the end of the article.   === Structure drawing ===  Appropriate formats are PNG and SVG. ACS settings have been adopted as the convention. Images should be legible at 450 pixels wide, to avoid interference from the chembox on the right. Hydrogens should be implied (hidden), except for the benefit of the target audience. The use of Me to denote methyl may be confusing. The use of Et, Pr, etc., is discouraged. When Ph is used to denote phenyl and X for halogen or any atom, it should be clearly defined within the image.   === Sample images === Images of chemical compounds or their solutions are useful to readers. Most useful are colored compounds but even colorless/white samples/solutions can be useful.  The provenance of these images is however impossible to verify.  The following images provide some guidance.                   === Safety ===  The majority of compounds are described by a long list of potential hazards as well as H- and P-phrases. Wikipedia does not aspire to be an MSDS. The hazards associated with a chemical compound should ordinarily be described in the Chembox (via GHSPictograms, GHSSignalWord, NFPA, or MainHazard parameters; further elaborated in H- and P-phrases). The information in the Chembox is sufficient for most compounds.  News reports of routine accidents, even though they may be tragic, are usually not relevant. Three main points:  If the hazards are relatively obvious (e.g. hexafluorophosphoric acid is a strong acid, and should not be stored with bases and reactive metals), do not create a separate sub-section here. The description of hazards should avoid speculation. This recommendation is partly an extension of Wikipedia NPOV policy, but not entirely. There is no need to include a section which merely states ""all chemical compounds should be treated with the utmost precaution""; such a section tells the reader nothing. If hazards are unknown, there is nothing for Wikipedia to say. The description of hazards should avoid hyperbole. The role of Wikipedia is to give balanced and accurate information, to allow its readers to reach their own conclusions.Descriptions of hazards should, as far as possible, be based on published, peer-reviewed sources (which should, of course, be cited at the appropriate point in the article). A list of resources for chemical safety information is given in the external links section of these guidelines. In general a safety section should only be used when it adds something to an article, and should be based (where at all possible) on peer-reviewed or otherwise highly reliable sources.   ==== Toxicology ==== Depending on the extent and nature of the information, toxicological content may be incorporated into the Safety section or it may be separate. If the compound is a drug, follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs' recommendations.   === Current events === From WP:NOT#JOURNALISM:  Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Accidents and incidents occur all the time. While their scale and magnitude may merit inclusion in Wikipedia on grounds of notability, that such an accident has occurred is not sufficient justification for inclusion in the context of an article about chemicals. Wikipedia does not attempt to dispense advise on what to do in the event of a (...) incident, either. (See WP:NOTGUIDE) Historic accidents and incidents may only be contextualized in the discussion on the specific hazards of certain chemicals, without serving as case studies in itself. To reiterate, if such accidents are sufficiently notable, they should have their own article (e.g. discussion in Bhopal disaster, not in methyl isocyanate).   === References and external links ===  Claims and statements in articles should mainly be supported by references to textbooks, monographs, and related book series.  In many cases, especially for historic purposes, the primary literature (journals) are used.  Intermediate between journal articles, which are often highly specialized, and books, which are not always available, are review series (e.g. Chemical Reviews, Advances in Enzymology, etc.).  Patents, which are considered self-published and primary sources for Wikipedia's purposes, are sometimes cited, especially for historic purposes, but they are less useful because they are not vetted on scholarly basis, they are sometimes not very readable, and often they are not very available.   === Compounds ===  All articles on chemicals, real or hypothetical, should have a Chembox. Formulae should be readily available, variables like n, x, or y are permissible for substances of variable composition such as polymers. For compounds of defined composition, the molar masses should be available as well. The article should cover these aspects as appropriate:   ==== Sectioning ==== Introductory paragraph (WP:lede) Properties (optional), the physical appearance of the material (at STP)  Often this content is included in the lede.  Unless notable, properties listed in the ChemBox are not repeated. Occurrence.  Usually occurrence refers natural products, compounds or ions that exist naturally. Structure.  The structures of many organic compounds are obvious, but inorganic and metal-containing compounds often adopt nonintuitive structures.  When possible, their structures should be described, ideally based on crystallographic or related techniques. Preparation. It is our tradition to cite the first preparation of a compound.   For commercially important compounds, it is often useful to distinguish reactions used in industrial production separately from ""laboratory routes"".  For natural products, the biosynthesis is described. Uses. Although compounds can be used for diverse and weird ways, this section emphasizes, hierarchically, substantial commercial applications and laboratory uses. Reactions.  All chemical compounds undergo many reactions, so these reactions are expected to have applicability. History. Often this section would be superfluous to mention of the first preparation, but some compounds, e.g., Teflon, have rich history. Safety Toxicology.  Often this section is blended with safety.  Ideally, the LD50 would be mentioned. Suppliers should not be listed unless the compound is rare and only available from one or two suppliers References   ==== Scope ==== Ordinarily, compounds that differ in terms of their solvent of crystallization or hydration are described in a single article. The discussion that led to this consensus is here.  For example, several different hydrates are known for copper(II) sulfate as well as the anhydrous form.  All of these compounds are discussed in a single article, copper(II) sulfate.   === Compound classes ===  These articles belong to one of these categories:  monoatomic ions (chloride, bromide; oxide, sulfide) polyatomic ions (nitrates, perchlorates, triflates, tetrafluoroborates) functional groups (alcohols, aldehydes, acids, nitriles) ""backbone"" moieties, both organic and inorganic classes of organic compounds (including many biochemicals): steroids, aldohexoses, terpenes classes of inorganic and coordination compounds: metal oxo compounds, metal carbonyl compounds, metal clusters elements are handled under a separate Wikiproject with guidelines, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/GuidelinesWhere a compound class does not have sufficient detail to merit a full article, it should be merged to the parent article (usually that of the acid). Articles named after a parent compound should generally appear at the plural of the parent compound. Aspects to be covered include:  Nomenclature Structure and bonding, including illustrative bond distance and angles. Properties Characterization, discussing spectroscopic tools and illustrative data Applications, in order of the scale or impact of the application Occurrence, usually involving natural occurrence as in nature or the mineral kingdom Preparation, ordinarily distinguishing between technical methods and those used in the laboratory Reactions, if extensive, these entries should be aggregated thematically History Safety   === Reactions === Simple chemical reactions can be typed out in text. Reactions should be indented using a colon (:), and not centered. Separate the number of molecules from the molecule symbol by a space (i.e. 3 H2 instead of 3H2).  For example:  2 Na + 2 H2O → 2 NaOH + H2Reactions in the form of images should also be indented using a colon:  Although many organometallic reagents have complex structures involving solvation or clusters, these reagents are ordinarily depicted in simplified structures (RMgX with two-coordinate Mg, BuLi with one-coordinate Li, etc.).  To facilitate sharing of drawings between different language wikis, reagents above and below arrows should consist of formulas, not words. Experimental conditions are ordinarily omitted from equations.  The prose can comment on conditions, yields, and other details. Equations are ordinarily not numbered.   ==== Line equations ==== Do not include phase definitions unless they are absolutely essential (an example is given below).  Modern textbooks and journals do not use them, so Wikipedia should not pioneer a new way of describing chemical reactions.  They confuse readers trying to understand basics, since stoichiometry is conflated with phase information. Avoid the use of  and  markup notations: the plain-text character set is adequate for most chemical equations; the change in size and font form is jarring to the reader. The  tag is a deprecated synonym for ; see Help:Displaying a formula#Chemistry. Ionic equations are preferred to the molecular form. State symbols are omitted unless they are relevant (e.g. thermochemistry, to illustrate precipitation for chemical separation). ""Heat"" should not be a reaction product; stating ΔHr, or giving its sign is preferable (note that the use of phase information is essential for evaluating the thermodynamics):  C2H5OH (g) + 3 O2 (g) → 2 CO2 (g) + 3 H2O (l) (ΔHr = −1409 kJ/mol)instead of:  C2H5OH  + 3 O2   →   2 CO2  + 3 H2O  + heatA comma, period or other punctuation is not required at the end of a line equation. Compounds and atoms in reactions should not be wikilinked.  These links should be in the surrounding text.   ==== Sectioning ==== Each reaction article should include the following sections:  A brief overviewThis section should include a broad description of the reaction in both text and reaction scheme.  References to review articles are preferred.  References to the discovery of the reaction is also welcome.Reaction mechanismReaction mechanisms often include mention of stereochemistry, order of reaction, and, for inorganics, electron count and configuration.  Arrow pushing is helpful in organic chemistry.Scope (optional)Side reactions and exceptions might be included. If  the outcome of the reaction is affected by small changes, such descriptions should go in this section.See also (optional)In this section, not related reactions that are not mentioned in the above text.ReferencesThis entire section should only be the following text: ==References=={{reflist}}Additional notes:  Avoid language in schemes, which makes the images more versatile.  Descriptions belong in the caption, which are readily edited. Reaction schemes are best aligned left without borders as follows:[[File:Horner-Wadsworth-Emmons Reaction Example.png|350px|The Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons reaction]]Result being:  (Taken from the Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons reaction, which is a good example of a quality organic reaction article.)  Follow the reaction category hierarchy and categorize the article appropriately. Upload all images to Wikimedia Commons, so other language Wikipedias can use the same images."
567	576	1263	WP:WNY	Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York	567	"Welcome to WikiProject Western New York, a WikiProject commenced on August 22, 2012, to help improve articles relating to Western New York. Our WikiProject will be dedicated to improving existing Western New York-related articles and creating new ones. An ultimate goal is to improve articles to featured article status, including the articles on cities within the Western New York region. This page and its subpages contain suggestions and various resources to improve articles; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested on the area. If you would like to help, please join the project, and see the to-do list below.  Foster development of Western New York articles Focus on the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, and Niagara Falls Develop a template for the Western New York region  The following is a list of Wikipedians who are committed members of WikiProject Western New York. If you wish to join the project, please add your name to the Active members list below, and indicate any areas of particular interest. If you join this project, please add one of the below userbox templates to your user page:{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York/userbox}} {{Template:User WikiProject Western New York}}  If you wish to retire from the project, please move your name from Active members to Former members and leave a brief message explaining why.  New entries go at the bottom. Entry format:  Name (talk · contribs) (I am interested in working on...) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Please note that it is ""User|"" not ""User:"" and five tildes at the end, not four.   === Active Members === Buffaboy (talk · contribs) I am interested in working on Everything WNY! 20:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Fortunate4now (talk · contribs) I live and work in Buffalo, New York and most of my edits already include companies or buildings in the city and surrounding suburbs. Fortunate4now (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Buffalutheran (talk · contribs) I've lived in WNY all my life, and have been editing the encyclopedia since 2009. I've edited a great many TV and radio station articles in the past, but I'm willing to do just about anything. Buffalutheran (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Ericando (talk · contribs) Lifelong Buffalo resident. Veteran, history and science fiction buff and avid sports fan. I love editing FC Buffalo and Buffalo Sabres articles.Eric Ando (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC) dhpage (talk · contribs) Grew up in Jamestown, college in Buffalo.  I just created article  Chadakoin River.  Love the WNY area.  06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC) buffbills (talk)  Just here to help out. Ejgreen77 (talk · contribs) Primarily interested in Erie County, and Buffalo sports-related topics. 00:49 24 September 2013 (UTC) Smdenman (talk · contribs) I am especially interested in Allegany County, New York, Alfred New York (village, town and community), Alfred University and historic ceramic artists in the region 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC) DACC23 (talk · contribs) Buffalo native, currently in New York City, interested in Buffalo art, architecture, and history. 11:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC) WuTang94 (talk · contribs) Rochester native who studied in Cleveland, Ohio before returning home. Realized how much I missed Upstate New York when I left it, which reignited my passion for the Bills and Sabres. Also interested in architecture, buildings, infrastructure, and history, but will occasionally geek out with games and pop culture. 05:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Erikaschoene (talk · contribs) Buffalo another Buffalo native. Interested in notable Buffalo residents and historical figures in the community. 04:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC) DBirdie (talk · contribs) Buffalo - lived adult life in Buffalo (to present).  Interested in all things Buffalo. --DBirdie (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Miniapolis (talk · contribs) Copyediting a specialty. 00:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Hobbes345 (talk · contribs) Grew up in EA, worked for a brief time in Jamestown and now a Rochester resident.  Apart from 7 years at college have lived my whole life in this region and have no intention on leaving.  15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Homeofthething (talk · contribs) I want to edit Buffalo history. 18:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC) BubbaDaAmogus (talk · contribs) Buffalo is my life! From the Bills to the broadcasters, I have been through it all. I want to make sure my city gets in the spotlight once more. You can NEVER underestimate the power of Buffalo, NY. Besides, I live in the Doyle hamlet. 18:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) sfaregs (talk · contribs) Interested primarily in the cultural arts history of Rochester, but honestly will end up following any ROC-related rabbit hole. Barrybluejeans (talk · contribs) primary interests include Buffalo sports and Rochester in general ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs), resident of Western New York, focusing on Monroe, Orleans, and Erie counties. Graduate of the SUNY system and lover of garbage plates, Buffalo wings, the Erie Canal, and lilacs. 06:41 21 June 2022 (UTC) Crazyloop NY (talk · contribs) Interests include Chautauqua County, pizza, and science fiction 18 September 2022 Kodak03 (talk · contribs) Interested in the history of the Seneca and all things Rochester-related. Kodak03 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)   === Inactive members === Please add your username to the bottom the list to deactivate your membership for any period of time longer than six months, and a reason why.    === Former members === The following users have retired from this WikiProject.  Articles within the scope of this project shall use the article structure guideline laid out by the most relevant WikiProject for a given article. For example, an article on a school should use WikiProject Schools's guideline and structure, while an article on a state-maintained or state-designated highway should use WikiProject New York State Routes's guideline and structure.   === Current season articles for WNY sports teams === Please help keep these current season articles updated, as these seasons progress and new information becomes available.  All of WikiProject Western New York's articles are assessed for quality and importance using the criteria outlined at this project's assessment department. These criteria supplement those developed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. The current assessment statistics are transcluded at right.  Quick linksAssessment log Quality assessment category Importance assessment category   === Userbox ===   === Project banner === The talk page banner for this project is {{WikiProject Western New York}}. This template, placed on the article's talk page, designates that an article is covered by WikiProject Western New York. The project banner is shown below.   === Stub templates === See WikiProject New York's stub template list for a list of stub templates pertaining to the state of New York.  Requested moves  24 Mar 2023 – Rochester New York FC (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Rochester Rhinos by Blaixx (t · c); see discussion  African cities Lagos Asian cities and city-states (non-Indian) Dubai, Hong Kong, Macau, Shenzhen, Singapore Australian cities Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney Canadian cities Montreal, Ottawa, St. John's*, Toronto, Vancouver European cities and regions Bedfordshire, Belfast, Belgrade, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Frankfurt, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, Munich, North East England, Porto, Rome, Sheffield, Somerset, Surrey, Sussex (West and East), Vienna, West Midlands, ZagrebIndian cities Balasore, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Cuttack, Delhi, Eluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mangalore, Mumbai, Patna, VisakhapatnamMexican cities TijuanaNew Zealand cities AucklandUS cities and regions  Appalachia, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Cape Cod and the Islands, Capital District (Albany, NY and vicinity), Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbia (MO), Dallas-Fort Worth, Erie, Houston, Hudson Valley, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, KYOVA Region (KY, OH, WV), Las Vegas, Lehigh Valley (PA, NJ), Los Angeles, Louisville, Lowell, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Santa Barbara County (CA), Seattle, Shreveport, Southern California, Syracuse, Tampa Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Western New York State, Youngstown"
568	577	1264	WP:BLEACH	Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Bleach	568	"Welcome to the Bleach work group, a task force that aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Bleach-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can simply start by editing any Bleach-related article, or join the project below and/or contribute to the discussion on the talk page. You may also be interested in joining our parent project, WikiProject Anime and manga, which is dedicated to all anime and manga articles on Wikipedia. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.  Bleach is a Japanese manga and anime series. It began as a weekly serialized manga, then was adapted to an anime (with three movies, Bleach: Memories of Nobody, Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion and Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name), and spawned dozens of merchandise. Bleach has been translated into several other languages in many countries. The scope of the project will extend to include the manga, anime, video games, and merchandise. More specifically, the project will include:  The manga, anime, feature films, video games, and music; The Bleach universe in general; Individual characters and other elements; Use of mythology, geology, and other inspirations within the series; and Bleach as a cultural phenomenon.While not specifically part of the project (as such articles are not focused on Bleach), the following topics should be looked into as well:  Cast; Crew; Distribution companies; and Production companies of Bleach related items.Our scope does not include:  Fanfiction and fan culture; Dōjinshi; Any other form of speculation; and Works with only a passing reference to Bleach. #Article structure   === Official guidelines and advice === We strive to comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. The ones here are listed for convenience and also may be particularly helpful when editing Bleach articles:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles Wikipedia:Fancruft Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Citing sources   === Parent WikiProjects === In addition to the above guidelines and recommendations, follow the guidelines and recommendations of the following ""parent"" WikiProjects when they apply:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games   === Similar WikiProjects === Even if not directly Bleach-related, the following WikiProjects that may contain useful advice and information that you can use:  Pokémon Collaborative Project WikiProject Gundam WikiProject Digimon Systems Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball   === Participants === Anyone interested in joining and participating in this WikiProject is free to do so. If you would like to join this WikiProject, just add your name to the list below.  Please list only your name in alphabetical order:  Arech186 (talk · contribs) Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk · contribs) Ashenge (talk · contribs) Big red01027 (talk · contribs) bluedragon.mist (talk · contribs) Crimsonterminator1000 (talk · contribs) DaisukeVulgar (talk · contribs) Dark Dragon Flame (talk · contribs) DarkKunaiTalk! Contribs! Del rayo (talk · contribs) Diehl1am (talk · contribs) Dragon3025 (talk · contribs) Eruhildo (talk · contribs) Evilgidgit (talk · contribs) eZio (talk · contribs) Fox816 (talk · contribs) FullMetalRissa (talk · contribs) GhostStalker (talk · contribs) Glenncando (talk · contribs) Grimmjow E6 (talk · contribs) halibel (talk · contribs) Hanaichi (talk · contribs) Hartebeest (talk · contribs) Hyakurei (talk · contribs) Hyorinmaru272 (talk · contribs) IceUnshattered (talk · contribs) Janpanrocks56 (talk · contribs) Jezebel Parks (talk · contribs) Jump Guru (talk · contribs) KazuChikari (talk · contribs) Kishyotai (talk · contribs) kingofgames2 (talk · contribs) King Zeal (talk · contribs) knewkreation (talk · contribs) Kubaru (talk · contribs) LaughingReaper (talk · contribs) Ldeffinbaugh (talk · contribs) Lego3400 (talk · contribs) lpjz290 (talk · contribs) Mfaith1 (talk · contribs) monstez (talk · contribs) Mwarriorjsj7 (talk · contribs) Nanaochanisluv (talk · contribs) Nancysing (talk · contribs) NinjaPirates!!! (talk · contribs) Omghgomg (talk · contribs) optimous (talk · contribs) Paper-Fan (talk · contribs) Poetic Decay (talk · contribs) Poohman0 (talk · contribs) RedEyesMetal (talk · contribs) ReshenKusaga (talk · contribs) Rycr (talk · contribs) Sand geni (talk · contribs) Scorcher117 (talk · contribs) Senshi (talk · contribs) Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) Skeletawn (talk · contribs) Sjones23 (talk · contribs) skunkboy74 (talk · contribs) Squilibob (talk · contribs) Suigetsu (talk · contribs) Supah kid (talk · contribs) SuperSilver901 (talk · contribs) Talchum (talk · contribs) The Hippie (talk · contribs) The Killer Sheep (talk · contribs) The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) tjstrf (talk · contribs) Tosta mista (talk · contribs) Triforcetelepath (talk · contribs) Tyciol (talk · contribs) Ultimaterasengan (talk · contribs) WhiteStrike (talk · contribs) WikifingHelper (talk · contribs) Ynhockey (talk · contribs) Xan1790 (talk · contribs) Xeltran (talk · contribs) cooljasonx13 (talk · contribs) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga#Article_structure for inspiration. For each page type of page, we have a ""template"" article. These articles should be the focus of structural improvements, which can then be imitated in other articles of the same type. Many articles are far too long and there is no over arching style. They also come under criticism for being ""in-universe."" Anything that can be written about from a real-world perspective should be written that way.  Character lists - Characters with too little information (Maki Ichinose, Sora Inoue, etc.) to warrant a full page should be in a single list page. The list page should separate characters by character type (human, shinigami, Quincy, etc.), or by location (human world, Soul Society, Hueco Mundo). The list should not be broken up based on manga-only characters, anime-only characters, movie-only characters, etc. Each entry should give a brief recap of their involvement in the series, character traits, as well as a quick note as to which media they appear in.Character pages - Main and major characters with enough information to warrant an article should receive their own page. Each page should give a brief recap of their involvement in the entire series, describe character traits, abilities, and the like. Ideally these pages should also include ""out of universe"" information, such as character inspirations and development process.Episode/Arc pages - Barring a project-wide consensus to the contrary, we will probably not make articles for each episode, as there are far too many Bleach episodes and not nearly enough to say about them. Thus far we have elected to, rather than creating a myriad of single episode articles, make a page for each story arc branching off from a master list which summarizes the anime as a whole, and this seems to be sufficient for our purposes.Movies - Each feature film should have its own page.Video games - Each Bleach video game series should have its own page. The English game names should be used only when the game has been released in English, and special editions of games should be included as sections in the regular game's article and should not have articles of their own.Supplemental books - Supplemental books should be listed on the main page unless notable enough to have its own article (it is also a good idea to have enough information to write about before actually making the article).""Other"" - Pages beyond these types of pages will probably be unique.   === Ultimate goals === Create a well-organized corner of Wikipedia that is not ridiculed by the rest of the Internet; and Gradually increase the quality of each section.   === General Projects === Clean up the synopsis section of every character. Add reception information for major characters. Get the Bleach (manga) article back to GA.   === Smaller Task === Make sure all the images have a fair use rationale. Cite anything you can. See Wikipedia:When to cite for more information. Make sure all the characters names are in English order, for example, Ichigo Kurosaki rather than Kurosaki Ichigo. Change all instances of initial release and final release to shikai and bankai   === Current Discussions === N/A  The following pages related to Bleach have been recognized as good or featured content on Wikipedia.   === Featured lists ===  List of Bleach episodes  List of Bleach episodes (season 1)  List of Bleach episodes (season 2)  List of Bleach episodes (season 3)  List of Bleach episodes (season 4)  List of Bleach episodes (season 5)  List of Bleach episodes (season 7)  List of Bleach episodes (season 8)  List of Bleach episodes (season 9)  List of Bleach episodes (season 10)   === Featured topics ===  Seasons of Bleach   === Good Articles ===  Rukia Kuchiki   === Articles === The following three pages have not yet been recognized as good or featured content, but are prime candidates for improvement. List is in rough order of how much work needs to be done.  Ichigo Kurosaki. Potential good article. Copyediting and a bit of sourcing should bring this up to the same level as Rukia's page. Bleach (manga). Former good article. Requires only nominal fixes to deal with the problems that led to delisting. However, in the intervening time a good amount of new information has emerged as a result of Kubo's trip to the United States, so we should incorporate that as well before renominating it. List of Bleach video games. Potential featured list I'm unsure how much work needs done here, having not looked over comparable FL's, but it doesn't look particularly hard.   === Topics ===  Finally, for the truly ambitious, we have the following potential Good and Featured topics:  Seasons of Bleach. Potential featured topic, and probably the easiest. Would require the following initial article statuses, and the subsequent achievement of featured status by each season after it aired in English: Featured. (Achieved)List of Bleach episodes: Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 1): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 2): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 3): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 4): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 5): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 6): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 7): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 8): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 9): Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes (season 10): Audited.Bleach media franchise. Potential featured topic, more difficult but certainly doable in the long term. Would require the following article statuses:Bleach (manga): Good. List of Bleach chapters: Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach episodes: Featured. (Achieved) List of Bleach video games: Featured. Bleach: Memories of Nobody: Good. Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion: Good. Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name: Good.Characters of Bleach. Potential good topic. Honestly, this one's going to be nigh-impossible under current article structure because we have so many character pages. A Major characters of Bleach that excludes the secondary character lists is probably feasible though.Bleach video games. Potential good topic, but probably not of particular interest to WP:MANGA. Not a bad idea though, since modern video games with English releases are generally easy to find sources for. {{Bleach}} Article categories:  Category:Bleach (manga) Category:Bleach charactersCategory:Shinigami in BleachCategory:Bleach games Category:Bleach imagesCategory:Bleach anime screenshotsProject categories:  Category:WikiProject Bleach participants"
569	578	1265	WP:PEPPER	Wikipedia:Hold the pepper	569	"Consider these two example discussions in which UserYou responds in two different styles:  In Example A, comments are sprinkled like pepper across the page (the worst case, peppering the page with personal attacks and such, is ""salting the page""). In Example B, there's one question inline, but the bulk of the response is made in a single follow-up comment, rather than inline (""hold the pepper"").  The point is pepper makes everyone sneeze! Hold the pepper!   === Why no pepper? === Why is Example B better than Example A? 1. People's time and attention are valuable, limited resources. Humans being mortal, we only have so much time on this planet. Only so much free time to edit. Every word on a talk page takes up time to read, time that the reader will never get back and that could have been spent doing something else (like editing an article, or spending more time with their family). Someone might defend peppering as normal development of consensus through discussion, and point out that since no one is forced to read any other editors comments, there is no harm.  However, everyone is forced to read those comments–if they want to participate in that discussion. That's the point. If you are responding to every other editor's comments, and they're responding back to you, then you are the center of discussion. A new editor coming to the talk page won't be able to understand the prior discussion without reading all the back and forth that you've engaged in. That takes up valuable, limited time.  In Example A, the reader must read from UserYou:  Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Why not Y? Y has these benefits over Z... UserYou 0:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC) X and Z are poor choices. Y is better, here's why... UserYou 1:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) We shouldn't do Z and Y, we should only do Y, because... UserYou 1:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) What do you disagree with about Y? UserYou 1:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC) I agree with this editor, let's try Y. UserYou 1:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Me too! Can we try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) I disagree. Y is better than X and Z because... UserYou 2:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Z can't work with Y, see my reply to Editor 4 above. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC) In Example B, the reader must read from UserYou:  Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Clarifying question about Z? UserYou 0:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Comment: It's been suggested we try both Y and Z but that won't work because [reasons]. I think Y is better than Z because [reasons]. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC) In both examples, the same content is conveyed, but in Example B, it's less reading, less time required of readers. 2. People deserve thoughtful comments, not your every thought. Example A allows for response to each comment. Example B allows for you to read all of the comments in context, think about them, and then respond. Instead of trying to win each editor over, one by one, you can provide a comment that tries to move the entire discussion by synthesizing what came before and offering a suggestion for a way forward. People are more likely to read, more likely to appreciate the thoughtfulness of, and more likely to be persuaded by, the comment at the end of Example B, then all that pepper in Example A. Also, taking the time to post a more holistic, thoughtful comment will reduce the likelihood that you'll say something in the heat of the moment that you'll come to regret later. 3. People need room to talk to each other. If you're replying to every comment, or even most comments, it reduces the opportunity for others to reply. A new editor coming to the page will be more likely to reply to Example B than to Example A, because Example A looks like a fight (even more so when there are multiple threaded discussions). When you see a long back-and-forth with the same names, it really sticks out. Pepper sticks out, and it's discouraging. Summary: Next time, before you write anything, ask yourself: Is now the best time to respond, or should I wait? Is writing this the best use of my time? Is reading this the best use of others' time?  Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Wikipedia:Gaming the system Wikipedia:Keep it concise"
570	579	1270	WP:RWP	Category:Redirects with possibilities	570	This category contains redirects that potentially could be changed into articles, project pages, etc. Do not place a redirect in this category directly – instead, add {{R with possibilities}} to the redirect. If the redirect is a template, then it will automatically populate Category:Template redirects with possibilities instead of this category. For category redirect pages, do not use this template, but add {{R category with possibilities}} instead. Articles should link to these redirects (except for category redirects). Do not retarget links to these redirects directly to the article to which they redirect. Treat these as pages that will be articles someday.
571	580	1273	WP:LIBERTY	Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Libertarianism	571	"WikiProject Libertarianism seeks to improve Wikipedia's articles on all aspects of libertarianism. This includes coverage of the different libertarian philosophies and alternatives, as well as libertarian political action, parties and candidates worldwide. It also seeks to improve Wikipedia articles on political and economic subjects that are sorely lacking in analysis of how government policies negatively affect society, using  reliably sourced material from libertarian-oriented academics and experts, as well as relevant material published in mainstream sources.  If this project interests you, you are encouraged to Join by adding yourself to the membership list.  Achieve better categorization of libertarian-related articles Get more libertarian-related articles to featured status After two years and 98 days, the article that used  to describe the Foundation for Economic Education is now a good article. Get WP:RS anti-government regulation and libertarian economic views in political and economic articles Create a ""Libertarian Reliable Sources"" page similar to  this one or  this one. Create articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Libertarianism/Perspectives articles. Query that creates a list of currently tagged articles. If you wish to determine if a source is reliable for WikiProject Libertarianism, consult Sourcing Guide. If you wish to consult an annotated bibliography of editor checked and verified high quality reliable sources, and reliable sources, consult Annotated Bibliography.  Requests for comments  05 Mar 2023 – Free Democratic Party (Germany) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Vacant0 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  14 Feb 2023 – Draft:Leigh A. Bortins (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Non Supra Grammaticos (t · c) 07 Jan 2023 – Draft:Ibrahim B. Anoba (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Onel5969 (t · c)   === WikiProject Libertarianism tagging === See Talk:Benjamin_Constant#Inclusion_in_WikiProject_Libertarianism for a WikiProject scope BRD discussion]   === New articles ===   === Articles facing deletion === Cliff Hyra   === Articles in review === Draft:Larry Sharpe (politician)   === DYK alerts ===   === Current status ===   === Importance scale === Please note that libertarianism is a political philosophy. If there is an article about a Libertarian Party nominee for any office, it should be ranked by the individual's personal notability as low, medium or high, as well as whether running for that office in itself confers substantial notability per a sufficient number of reliable sources.   === Userbox === {{User:UBX/Libertarianism}}   === Talk page WikiProject banner === Put this code at the top of the libertarian-related article talk page:   {{WPLibertarianism|class=???|importance=???}}   === Article page portal template === Put this code in the article page, usually in the ==See also== section:   {{Portal|Libertarianism}}  LPedia – A collaborative, running history of the US Libertarian Party.  Content is available under Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike 3.0 Unported. Mises Wiki – A wiki project, sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and founded on 5 November 2010, dedicated to the advancement of the Austrian School of economics and related thought.  Content is available under Attribution 3.0 Unported unless otherwise noted.   === Tools === Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks – Edits bare references – adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks – Edit and repair external links Dab solver – Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer – Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. Wikiproject Watchlist – WikiProject Libertarianism"
572	581	1276	WP:AN3	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring	572	"Page: 2022 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts:  01:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1146407892 by WikiEdits2003 (talk) MOS:ICONS / MOS:TOOMANY, do not argue with MOS"" 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1146392100 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY, same to many MSE, but doesn't mean it obey MOS"" 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1146383198 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY"" 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ""rv, redundant""Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ""Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Asian Games.""Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: This user has a past history of edit warring and has reverted four times (and two editors) without discussing their edits and claiming they are right. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  It should be mirror yourself too. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)The last edit appears to be ""gaming the system"" Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)It you said I'm gaming the system, so it will better you say you are not discuss anything from, even that's MOS, rather than just claims it was disruptive or 3RR. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reporter also failed to discuss why the failure to obey the WP:ICONS, despite being raised on personal talk page. --Aleenf1 01:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)""Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable."" Clearly reporter also unable to discuss while the clear MOS is there. --Aleenf1 01:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)So are the reporter also gaming the disruptive or 3RR system without needed to discuss, with the MOS available? --Aleenf1 02:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This died down two days ago. I am further moved towards inaction by the big yawning blank space above underneath: ""Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"", where, indeed, one finds that no one has made any edits since last August. Please, before renewing this dispute, go there and hash out amongst yourselves what would be the right amount of icons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Adobe Photoshop Elements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Sharmavikas2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts:  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sharmavikas2k and [6] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7] Comments:  Began using this account after having edited the page and taken part in the discussion as an ip.  The comments on my talk page mirror the comments of the ip who took part in the AfD, as well as the ip who reverted the first redirect.  COI/UPE editor, who on my talk page admitted to being an employee of Adobe.Onel5969 TT me 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  One5969 is continuously redirecting page with no valid reason. Request Admins to resolve the conflict. Requesting admins to have this discussion around relevance of the page once again and do invite me for the discussion. Feel free to contact me for any official information related to Adobe Photoshop Elements. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what you want admins to do: WP:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop Elements closed as a merge six months ago. The Adobe Photoshop Elements title should exist as a redirect only, barring consensus from the community to split the article (back) off as stand-alone. The only appropriate administrative action would be to protect the title in redirect form. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I was even on Wikipedia 6 months ago. I joined just because this was brought to my notice by users of Adobe Photoshop Elements. Decision of merging Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop is not correct as these are two different products designed for different type of users and are sold differently. If there is a possibility of having AFD discussion once again, please let`s have it so that wrong information is not given to the users. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) There is not. Your best option would be discussion at Talk:Adobe Photoshop to see if there is consensus to split the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Courtesy ping. @Liz: This regards an AfD you closed in September. —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Come to think of it, that's a good idea, given the history of the page and the AfD: Page protected indefinitely in light of AfD closure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) that's generous. Hopefully @Sharmavikas2k can now avoid the WP:OWN behavior that was heading toward a block. Star Mississippi 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Page: I Should Have Known Better (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Yeah!210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [8] Diffs of the user's reverts:  [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15] Comments: Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Cambial_Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [16] Diffs of the user's reverts:  18:05, 27 March 2023 [17] not how article subject is defined in the preponderance of RS 18:15, 27 March 2023 [18] Reverted 1 edit by Softlemonades: Unsupported characterisation of living person.Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Affirmative Conensus warning [19] edit warring [20] [21] see comments Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long discussion at Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead [22] [23] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24] Comments:  Page has 1RR and Consensus Required restrictrions Cambial Yellowing has a history of edit warring on the related page WikiLeaks and was temporary edit blocked on it WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive463#User:Cambial_Yellowing_reported_by_User:VQuakr_(Result:_1-month_partial_block)The Unsupported characterisation of living person. comment for the second revert doesnt make sense. I used Rollback to restore it to before my edit that Cambial Yellowing objected to so there could be more discussion, because Cambial Yellows edit restored things that other editors objected to.Cambial Yellowing denied violating the 1RR and Consensus Required restriction, saying the charge is simply made up [25] and accusing me of breaking 1RR for reverting an IP editor who was violating 1RR and several other editors reverted 22 hours before the Rollback. Denying it is why I think its going to continueThis isnt about the content. The edit I restored with Rollback wasnt my preferred version. I think it should be what Cambial Yellow edited it to, but another editor has a problem with the wording and Ive been trying to find something theyll accept like [26] [27]Softlemonades (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  The longstanding behavioural problems with user Softlemonades on this page and closely related topics could fill many pages. The Assange page has both 1rr and Consensus Required restrictions, of which Softlemonades is aware. The latter sanction in particular initially had the effect of greatly reducing the disruption and massive size of the article talk page. Had done so - until Softlemonades decided to simply ignore it. Some earlier clear examples:  [28] violates ""Consensus Required""; adds new material to the page a second time that had been challenged without gaining consensus [29]  violates ""Consensus Required"" and 1RR, re-adding the same material [30] violates ""Consensus Required"" and 1RR, re-adding different material without discussion and without establishing consensus [31] reverts and then [32] violates 1RR four minutes laterWhat's a little surprising in this instance is that they would bring here two ostensibly improper diffs by another editor. The first of my two recent edits to the page is not a revert. Yet in the edit immediately between those two edits Softlemonades breaches 1rr yet again, making an unfounded accusation of edit warring while doing so:  [33] [34]Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages:  [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]and within the next four hours after that[41] [42] [43]It's long past time that administrator action with Softlemonades is needed to effect a change in their problematic behaviour, ready breaches of sanctions, and unwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  diffs 41 and 42 were separate reverts of separate additions by the same editor. I reverted them separately so I could respond in the edit summaries. Thats not edit warring Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages: and within the next four hours after that Cambial seems to be referring to edits related to the edit war report that I linked to resulted in them being blocked from the page. I didnt file that reportunwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way Unlike Cambial I participated in long discussions on the Talk page and have tried to find something acceptable to everyone. Cambial didnt join the latest discussion until after being named and reverting twice, restoring text that a third editor objects to.The claim that 2] is not a revert. doesnt pass the recent history check. The effect of it was a revert, most importantly it reverted the text that was being contested and that was highlighteed in the edit summary Cambial complained about me before and has nothing new to say Softlemonades (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here (not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting). Your regular breaches of 1RR are edit warring regardless of whether they are the same or different material (in your case you've breached 1RR with both the same and with different material, as shown above). You're right on one small point, there's nothing new to add here: merely more of the same inappropriate behaviour and clear breaches of page edit warring sanction on your part. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here You proved my memory wrong and why I couldnt have done it in a single revert and had to do the edits separately (not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting) Burrobert and I actually get along well User_talk:Burrobert#Useful_edits [44] and have been working together on a series of edits on WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Softlemonades, please refrain from editing your comments after they've received a reply. Your claim that the first of my two edits ""reverted the text"" is false, whether you put it in bold or not. I reworded the opening. Your Pointy edit in which you changed the opening phrase, long having read as ""Assange is an Australian editor, publisher...."" to ""Assange is a prisoner"" is yet another example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way on this page. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I didnt see the reply until after the edit was made. I reworded the opening. to restore a version that people objected to. that my edit summary said was a problem. update beginning of lead to include prisoner in Belmarsh, fix ""is"" hacker dispute There was nothing disruptive about the edit, as I said. I did not remove the editor, publisher... content from the first sentence even though you left out ... from your second quote. I changed it to has been because the other editor,  NadVolum, said they objected to is a hacker even though RSes call him that. You could have just removed is a prisoner which is what you said you objected to, and not restored the content that NadVolum said they objected to since they hadnt said yet that they also had problems with has been, but you restored what they objected to on BLP grounds. Then you restored it again. What is an example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way is your reverting my Rollback to before either of our edits with the edit summary Unsupported characterisation of living person. If you dont have other accusations to make, the admins should review Softlemonades (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Unlike your original post here, the facts supported by diffs that I posted above about your problematic behaviour are not mere accusations, but factually accurate observation of your regular breach of the 1RR sanction which you've made quite clear you are perfectly aware of. I made one edit, you immediately broke 1rr and accused me of imaginary ""edit warring"", then I made a revert. This isn't the first time you've breached 1rr or the other sanction on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I have not read this except to see the CT restrictions cited. It should be removed and copied to the AE board. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment As an uninvovled admin, I am thinking this should be taken to WP:AE for a analysis by a team of uninvolved admins and a more structured discussion.  Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Courcelles@SPECIFICO I agree. This isn't the place to handle the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)per the two admins above and myself making three. When I saw the page being under 1RR and consensus in the discussion (itself long enough to suggest it should be somewhere else), I immediately wondered if this was the right place for it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users being reported:Bzzzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: Roughly this version: [45] Diffs of the user's reverts:  [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54] Comments: One user (Bzzzing) has repeatedly reverted while ignoring the substantive objections to their edits, including a revert after being warned.  The other has also been reverting repeatedly but has at least made substantive comments (in edit summaries and on the talk-page). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I was the one who first attempted to have a dialogue with User:JayBeeEll.  There are no ""substantive"" comments or reasons given by User:JayBeeEll for their constant reversions.  On the talk page of the said article here: [55], I tried to ask User:JayBeeEll for their reasons for reverting, and tried to reach some compromise.  I was the first to reach out. Their answers were vague, confrontational, and dismissive.  Throughout this entire process, I've tried to find some reason for their reverts.  None were given.  I would appreciate some insight from outside parties.  Thank you. Bzzzing (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Bzzzing and JayBeeEll, you are both warned that any more reverts (in the broadest sense) to the article may trigger a block for edit-warring without further notice. I suggest that neither of you edit the article for any reason, although you are welcome to discuss the dispute on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) There is a warning on my talk page... and that happened yesterday, after everything.  I don't think either of us edited or reverted after that.  I know I didn't. Bzzzing (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) That's unambiguously false: you reverted almost two hours after being warned (see the diffs included above). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Oozora Subaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [56] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:   In the series, the two main characters do not reveal their full given names until the end of the manga series.  Throughout the manga and the anime television adaptation, they are referred to and listed in the character profiles by their last name and an honorific, implying this is their most common name. MOS:TVCHAR, MOS:ANIME The editor is insisting that the character name gets changed to their full name. I've been trying to put in information that explains this discrepancy but each of my attempts to do so have been reverted by the editor without any reasons or explanation. I have left notes on the talk page for the series as well as their talk page, and I have changed the way the information is presented, first by putting in  (full name) / (common name)   and then later changing to full name with common name as a footnote.  Both have been reverted without explanation.  My attempt to use full name / common name: [57] reverted: [58] My undoing of that with more explanation on the comments: [59] reverted: [60] My rewriting it with the full name and the common name as a footnote: [61] reverted: [62]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   Talk:Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie#honorifics and character names User_talk:Oozora_Subaru#Shikimori's_Not_Just_a_Cutie_character_namesDiff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:   [63]Comments:  Reported user has attempted to remove this multiple times, which to me suggests they are WP:NOTHERE. If you are actually innocent then let it play out and nothing will happen. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I blocked Oozora Subaru for 72 hours for disruptive editing for repeatedly blanking this report. If any admin reviewing the report believes a longer block is necessary, there's no need to consult me.-- Ponyobons mots 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Rodd Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: 04:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Referenced in article."" Diffs of the user's reverts:  05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR."" 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR."" 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Is there a blood test for political affiliation? No, it requires journalistic OPINION. Did you even read what you just wrote? Revert bullying/WP:OWN bollocks yet AGAIN."" 04:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1147151371 by Gadfium (talk) Consensus for what, exactly? Content that is already referenced in the body? The lede is supposed to summarised. Please drop the bullying and WP:OWN bollocks."" 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Revert continuous WP:OWN bollocks. Obviously determining someone's political affiliation requires a degree of journalist opinion!"" Consecutive edits made from 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) to 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Restoring referenced content per WP:OWN. You were wrong in saying my addition was unreferenced, admit your mistake instead of trying to ""win""."" 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) """" 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1147149227 by Beccaynr (talk) 100% supported. Try reading the body of the article.""Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Warning: Three-revert rule on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.""Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Factually incorrect to suggest Keen is supported by neo-Nazis - Recent discussion on this content prior to Rodd's edits this evening.Comments: Rodd has made no fewer than 5 reverts in the last hour on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, restoring content in contravention to WP:BLPRESTORE despite being warned by multiple editors on their talk page and in edit summaries. Rodd has also accused multiple editors of bullying during the process of these reverts and warnings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  I made a duplicate report. The only thing I have to add is that the article is covered by a contentious topic ""consensus required restriction"". RT is formally aware of the CT area and still breached the restriction repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers, the unsourced/poorly sourced content that appears to be contrary to BLP policy is still in the article at the moment. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I've removed it again on WP:BLPRESTORE grounds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) And Rodd restored it again. As much as I would love to invoke WP:3RRNO#7 I think it's going to be more straightforward for this to be actioned, as Rodd clearly does not care about violating the edit warring policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I added the most recent revert to the list of diffs and moved the earliest diff to the ""previous version reverted to"", because I think that is the section where it goes (but please move if not). Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)I ask that the bullying/WP:OWN of a gay editor on display here be taken seriously. Rodd Thompson (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Support a 24 hour block so they can cool down and discuss this on the talk page. They're reverting editors on sight, so the closing admin should check the page to make sure their potential BLP violation is not kept. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I reverted my own edit before FormalBully posted this. Rodd Thompson (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Given this comment and their self-victimization in edit summaries and on their user page, I support a WP:NOTHERE indef. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. Bzzzing (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Indefinitely blocked. See block log for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Kavita Krishnamurti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Aamirbinshafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts:  22:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) """" 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) """" 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) """"Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."" 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""Warning: Three-revert rule."" 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""Only warning: Harassment of other users on User:Technopat.""Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:"
573	583	1279	WP:WLM	Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments	573	Wiki Loves Monuments is a worldwide photography contest to encourage people to take pictures of local monuments to upload to Wikimedia Commons so that they may be used on Wikipedia articles. To learn more see on Wikimedia Commons. If you want to contribute photographs, see wikilovesmonuments.org or go directly to the Commons upload page.  Wiki Loves Monuments - the Wikipedia articleRelated projects:  Wiki Loves Earth - similar competition focusing on natural heritagePast contests:  Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
574	584	1282	WP:almanac	WP:almanac	574	"According to Wikipedia:Five pillars: ""Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."" As the world's most extensive encyclopedia, Wikipedia goes far beyond the scope of an almanac.  But it may contain any or all of the information you might find in an almanac, and then some.  So, Wikipedia is not exclusively an almanac, but it may contain data formatted in almanac style. Cf. WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (a policy that forbids excessive listings of statistics) and WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.  Wikipedia:Featured lists Portal:Contents/Lists Lists of topics Template:Dynamic list"
575	585	1283	WP:NZCOTF	Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Collaboration	575	"Every month, a New Zealand collaboration (NZC) will be picked using this page. This is a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to New Zealand, the aim being to have a much improved article by the end of the period, from widespread cooperative editing. The project aims to fill gaps about New Zealand in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. There is a list of requested articles at WikiProject New Zealand. The selected collaboration is the nomination with the most votes, and at least four votes, at the beginning of the month. All previous collaborations can be found at /History. Removed nominations can be found at /Removed.  2011 Rugby World Cup is a topic of interest in August 2011. There is a sizable article already and no doubt the games themselves will get plenty of attention. But the sections about the lead-up to the tournament could do with some work.   === Voting === Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like. Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see Approval voting). Only registered users should vote. Any Wikipedian can vote on this page. You do not have to be a New Zealander. However, if you support a nomination you are expected to contribute to the article if it is selected as the current collaboration. To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with ""# ~~~~"".  This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.   === Nominations === New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of this page. If the page you are nominating already exists, please add {{New Zealand collaboration candidate}} to the top of its talk page. This expands to:   === Considerations for nominations === Please only nominate New Zealand articles which don't currently exist or need serious work.  – also see New Zealand stubs). If you have an article that is not related to New Zealand please use Collaboration of the Week, which is not specific to New Zealand articles. Giving reasons as to why an article should become the New Zealand collaboration may assist others in casting their vote. Can the wider community easily contribute to the article? Or is it something only a small number of people will know about? Check /Removed.  If the topic has failed in nomination within a month, then do not re-nominate it.   === Selection === If the article is selected as the collaboration, enter the article's complete title at Template:Collab-NZ. The template {{Current New Zealand collaboration}} should then be placed at the top of the selected article's talk page. This expands to:  When the article is no longer the current collaboration, please add the following template to the talk page: {{past NZC|start date|end date|year}}   === Pruning === Nominations will be moved to /Removed if they do not receive at least four votes within a few months of being nominated. Items may also be removed if they are inappropriate for nomination (see Considerations... above). Please see the talk page to discuss to changes in pruning policy.   === New Zealand National Party === Lacking behind New Zealand Labour Party, and I feel they should be promoted alongside each other.  as nominator kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Don't Support both are of similar length. We are not promoting either of them Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Support, although I agree with Stuartyeates that the articles on Labour and National are of similar quality at present. Both could do with significantly better sourcing.-gadfium 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Personally I'm not really interest in politics, but (a) List of political parties in New Zealand should probably be the nomination to avoid being seen to take sides; and (b) now is probably a good time to do this, since we're not in the run up to an election (when things start getting heated). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose, per Stuartyeates. It's probably worth noting that several NZ political party articles could do with improvement, though - maybe this nom should be expanded to include all of them? Grutness...wha? 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)   === List of political parties in New Zealand === Many pages need lengthening or improvement.  as nominator Kiwiteen123 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Support - not so much work on the list itself, as work on the articles of the parties listed. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)That's what I meant... Kiwiteen123 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)   === Kiwiana === Top importance yet only start class. Some more references and images are needed.  Support as nominator Adabow (talk)  22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Support - agree with preceding comment. Needs pruning and re-organising.TreeReader (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)   === Licensing Trust === A stub in need of expansion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)   === Waitangi Day === I passed it as a C-class, but it has potential to be much better than it currently is. Adabow (talk)  09:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)  Support as nominator Adabow (talk)  09:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)"
576	586	1285	WP:VPT	Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)	576	"MediaWiki message delivery 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)  Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but CentralAuth is already in MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and I'm sure that it's been there for years. I don't use any scripts or gadgets that affect that box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) That's an enwiki customization, the default value for that message is empty. Anomie⚔ 11:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) The new link will be in the line of links under the page heading. I don't expect software conflicts with any scripts. phab:T331743#8693808 says: (imho, this ""conflict"" will be ""two links appear""). MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer added the link in 2011.[3] If we remove it then there will probably be protests from users who don't notice the new link or have simply gotten used to the old location. Interface changes tend to cause drama. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Now discussed at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Protected edit request on 24 March 2023. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Hi all, I'm trying to fully expand {{Human history}} on the Human history article but am not sure how to do so. The sidebar code is a bit unclear and {{Human history|expand=yes}} isn't working. Any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Aza24, you can either set |expand= to the specific section you wish expanded by its name set in the wikitext (e.g. expanding the Holocene section which has |list1name=Holocene, you'd set |expand=Holocene). To expand all, set |expand=all. Izno (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Great, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Just tried to reset my password and I got internal errors saying my IP was blocked (it wasn't) half the time, and when it did load, it just loaded the normal login page. Had to go to Meta to reset my password. Has something changed? Anarchyte (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Anarchyte Special:PasswordReset loads for me. Were you trying it while logged in or logged out? Did you get the error on opening, or only on submitting? — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Logged out. I couldn't submit a password reset request because it asked for my username and password (with a login button), not username and email. Anarchyte (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note that now that I'm logged in, it loads fine while both logged in and logged out. Perhaps it was something to do with swapping IPs between WiFi and phone hotspot, and one being incidentally hit by a range blocked? Anarchyte (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Quite possibly, it could also be due to administrators getting an IP block exemption by default, so you wouldn't be affected by any IP blocks while logged in. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Double check that you used Special:PasswordReset and not Special:ResetPassword. Anomie⚔ 19:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC) That might be it, though I also recall there being no ""Forgot password"" button on the main login page when I had this problem. The ""Help with logging in"" link was there, but ""Forgot your password?"" wasn't. Anarchyte (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Recently someone added an infobox to the Rani Pokhari aricle. Since then, it appears no longer possible to place images in the text to the left of the infobox. All images are pushed to below the lower edge of the box, no matter where you put it in the text. This creates a messy look, plus the illustrations are no longer next to the texts they are supposed to illustrate. Is there a solution to this? Judithcomm (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  @Judithcomm The issue here seems to be that the first image in the article (the one with the caption ""Wide view of Ranipokhari before 2015 earthquake."") is set to float to the right, so it appears after the infobox. The image that floats to the left is set to appear after this, so it appears further down the page. You generally should not place images floating to the left of an infobox per MOS:SANDWICH, as doing so causes display issues on narrower screens. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Problem solved! Thanks! --Judithcomm (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC) {{stack}} is the technical solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC) You can include an image by doing this:  [[File:Filename.jpg]] You could also do this in the infobox (depends on the infobox):  | logo = Filename.jpg For GeoJSON routes you can often include them in the infobox thusly:  | map = {{maplink-road|from=Santa Cruz, Big Trees and Pacific Railroad.map}} But what if I wanted to include a map outside of the infobox? Like maybe the route of something or other has changed over the years and I wanted to show how it's changed over the years. I mean, I guess I overlay the GeoJSON onto, say, an OSM map and then screenshot it and upload the screenshot but you lose a lot of resolution if you do that. Like with a GeoJSON you can zoom in to whatever specific area you're interested in. Does this river / road / railroad cross this other river / road / railroad? You can zoom in to your hearts content and answer that question. Any ideas? TerraFrost (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  {{mapframe}} does not need to be in an infobox. Izno (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I think this is the right place to ask this sort of thing. I have a simple bullet list of 12 BLP articles at User:Zaathras/sandbox3, all have infobox images. When I hover the mouse over the link, the image from the infobox pops up in a thumbnail on all but 2 (the 2 are noted). I've looked at the articles and can see no difference, can someone say why these 2 do not produce a preview? Zaathras (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  @Zaathras: The articles are Katie Cannon and Osinachi Ohale. It's the same for all links to them. The infobox images are chosen by mw:Extension:PageImages for those articles but then rejected by the popup feature because the original uploads are too small. See mw:Extension:Popups#Known problems. The description of the size requirement is cryptic to me. I suspect the actual rule is that width × height must be either at least 320 × 200 px or 203 × 250 px. I suggested a change with no reply at mw:Topic:X24ym9nooumpgr1h. File:Katie G Cannon.jpg is 194 × 213 px. File:Osinachi Ohale (cropped further).jpg is 207 × 238 px so the width os too small for the first rule and the height is too small for the second rule. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Interesting, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Page images are used in several places, mainly small images at search results to help identify a wanted article. Popups (Page Previews) shows a single larger image at a time. It apparently wants to show a fixed size without scaling up which gives blurry images. The images could be reuploaded at a larger resolution but they are already blurry so I don't recommend scaling them up. We should probably never scale up uploads just to get Popups to accept them. The requirement may change anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) The convert template produces this incorrect display of the word ""change"": ""reduced the temperature in the sickroom by 20 degrees Fahrenheit change (11 °C)."" There's a workaround that only works when the abbreviations are used: Template_talk:Convert#incorrect_use_of_""change"" --Espoo (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Please discuss this on the template talk page, it has plenty of watchers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   I'm not allowed to edit on the page Israel, but that's ""impossible""; I have been registered for 4 months, have over 5 500 edits to my credit, have never (obviously) vandalised, and have always respected the rules. JackkBrown (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  @JackkBrown, the page is fully-protected, meaning only admins can edit it currently. Izno (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Please forgive me if this was the wrong place to post this.  A new ""Talk:"" page section is here: Wikipedia talk:About the sandbox#Obsolete info? (or what?)Enjoy ... Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  I have updated the text for Vector 2022.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you.  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Mike Schwartz: Oh, I never knew it was posted here too. If I'd known I would never have started this help desk thread. Please see the guideline about multiple posting. Graham87 04:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This thread is basically a pointer to the talk page section he started. I don't see how it conflicts with WP:MULTI. Nardog (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Nardog: Yeah I guess not ... he should have made a pointer from the sandbox talk page thread to here though. If he had I would've been happy to wait for somebody from here to post at that thread. Instead, because I knew I was one of the only active watchers on that talk page and I couldn't help fully because of my blindness (even though it was a relativvely urgent issue), I felt compelled to get more eyes on the situation, which I did at the help desk (because I thought people there would be used to helping out new users). . It was a bit of wasted effort on my part. Oh well, what's done is done. Graham87 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Back in August, Teemu Leisti (talk · contribs) moved all of references in the article Enlargement of NATO to the References section, replacing each one in the prose with a named ref tag, like , to match. The user's edit summary was ""Moved definitions of all references to the References section. Made the names of references more systematic."" I've never seen this sort of thing done before on Wikipedia, and I am now finding this makes working on sections or subsections of the article unnecessarily difficult, since to edit or remove an out-of-date reference requires constantly editing the full article using Ctrl+F to track down sources. Also previewing edits to sections is frustrating because all the references are listed as ""Cite warning:  tag with name foo_2020_01_01 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."" It's been far to long with far too many intervening edits to undo this action. To put these back manually would mean individually copying, Ctrl+Fing, and pasting back 278 references, so before I waste hours on this, is there a script that could be run to put the references back where they normally go? Is there somewhere else I might ask about this? Thanks,  Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 16:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  I am not sure what you mean by ""references in prose""? There are still in prose albeit in a separate section at the end of the article. As to ref templates, they are highly recommended for the use because they standardize ref appearance. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) See Help:List-defined references.  I've seen scripts that convert pages to this style, but I've never seen a script that undoes the conversion. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Patrickneil: Converting an article to WP:LDR should only be done with consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) You could delete all the references from the reference section and then wait for User:AnomieBOT to rescue them from previous versions, but you'd want to get talk page consensus before doing so. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Redrose64 and Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks, ""list-defined references"" was the term I should have used. Yes, the user changed the article from footnotes whose information is in templates within the prose next to the sentence or phrase they are sourcing, to list-defined references at the end of the article, probably by using one of those scripts you mentioned. No, there was no discussion or consensus for this change in August, but I can start a discussion about changing it back on the article's talk page now. @Ahecht: Using the bot might not be the worst idea, something to look into at least. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickneil (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Patrickneil: User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer may do what you want. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  MediaWiki message delivery 01:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  How can I opt out of the multi-column region-separated list of interlangs that shows up when you click ""n languages"" in Vector 2022 (when that number is large, e.g. [10]) and go back to the single-column alphabetical list instead? I have ""Use a compact language list"" disabled in Preferences, but this doesn't appear to have any effect on Vector 2022. This has been a deal breaker for switching to the new skin for me. Nardog (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  You go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and disable the ""compact language list"" in the Languages section. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Jinx. I already have. Does it make any difference on Vector 2022 for you? Nardog (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Nardog: this is being looked in to with phab:T333321. — xaosflux Talk 10:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Nardog oops, just saw YOU opened it :D — xaosflux Talk 10:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC) And T319690 shows the option was deliberately made to be ignored in Vector 2022 so my task will likely be declined (h/t Stjn). So I'm just looking for a hack to force the non-compact list at this point. Nardog (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Nardog, I wonder if you might be able to get more traction in that Phab task if you could write a User story.  It's a model that presents the problem, rather than the solution.  I don't know what your own story would be, but I could imagine someone saying ""As a person who reads two languages well, I always want to see the list of available languages.  I feel disappointed when I click on the language switcher, only to find that there are only articles available in languages I can't read."" Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I might do that but again, I'm not hopeful the software will be changed to my liking so I'm just asking for a JS hack that works for now. For the record, I'm not looking for a way to bring back the interlangs list on the sidebar, I just want the single-column list when I click ""n languages"" as opposed to a multi-column region-separated one. Nardog (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Special:WantedCategories is suddenly flooded, for no reason I've been able to identify, with a glut of hundreds of redlinked class-rating categories for inactive or defunct WikiProjects.  I thought this might have been related to recent edits to {{WPBannerMeta}}, which ""normalized"" quality ratings by transferring them from direct code within the template over to Module:WikiProject quality assessment, but a temporary revert of the edit that was made to that template yesterday failed to make any of the redlinks stop being generated on the talk pages — so I've self-reverted my test revert, but am struggling to identify what else might have caused this. Of course, that might still be where the zombie categories are coming from, but it would require the expertise of someone with more experience in template coding than I've got to identify and fix that.  A subset (but not most) of the categories had already somehow been emptied back out before I saw the latest run of WantedCategories at all, but since there's no way for me to identify what the implicated articles were in the already-cleaned categories, I also can't determine what was done to clean them out so that I can apply it elsewhere. So could somebody take a look at this, and figure out how to fix it? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Never mind. Practically at the same time as I was posting this question, the editor who had made the original change to the template posted to my talk page clarifying that they had already identified and corrected the error, so the categories are clearing out on their own based on the processing of the job queue. So I'll revive this if it's obvious by the next WantedCategories update that they aren't clearing out and thus there's something else wrong, but so far it looks like this is resolved. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) If I go to the first one in the special page, i.e. Category:NA-Class Stub sorting articles (2,585) (which I am 100% certain should be empty because WPSS has never carried out page assessments), there are plenty of bluelinked categories. If I go to one of those pages (let's call it Category XYZ), the cat box at the bottom does not mention NA-Class Stub sorting articles at all. So the problem is with the links tables. If I then WP:NULLEDIT Category XYZ, it still does not mention NA-Class Stub sorting articles. When I then return to NA-Class Stub sorting articles and refresh it, Category XYZ is no longer listed. So the job queue should clear it; if that is too slow, you need to send a null-bot to visit all those bluelink cats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I saw this headline and was hoping for something about WP:WikiProject Zombies. :( Anomie⚔ 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Commons will no longer allow me to use the same name for an svg file that is used for a png file. I had to add a tilde (~) at the end of the file name I changed:  File:World map of total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people by country~.svg File:World map of total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people by country.pngThis makes it difficult for people to change Our World in Data (OWID) maps in Wikipedia articles from PNG to SVG. Now that the SVG maps have been fixed by OWID.  The OWID SVG maps no longer have the problem of the OWID logo covering part of the date. It was fixed by OWID recently adding a Wikimedia compatible font, Liberation Sans. See:  Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Feb 2023#File:World map of total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people by country.svg Wikipedia:SVG help#font-family issues--Timeshifter (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @Timeshifter, we can't help you with the issue. You should discuss at Commons. Izno (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) File:World map of total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people by country.svg without a tilde already exists. You uploaded it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) PrimeHunter. Oops. Thanks! S**t happens when I am sleepy. I struck out the incorrect info. I will try to get the tilde version speedy deleted. Concerning Our World in Data (OWID). Let me try to salvage this by saying that people should feel free now to substitute the SVG version for the PNG version of almost any OWID map or chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure when it changed, but when I make a block on an IP now, the IP I'm blocking shows up in an uneditable grey box in the ""Username, IP address, or IP range"" field. It used to be easy to make a rangeblock by simply appending the range (e.g. /24, /64) to the IP number. Now that's not possible without clicking 'x' to remove the IP, writing or pasting the IP number back into the field, adding the range, and then blocking. This is also the case if you want to modify a block on a single IP to a rangeblock via Change block. It's extremely irritating.-- Ponyobons mots 23:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  @Ponyo, I think you're running into phab:T332994, which should be deployed next week? Izno (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I asked about this a few years ago, but it seems like there hasn’t been any major developments since. Can you give a timeline with regards to when I can expect this functionality to come? Regards, Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Asked where, who, what are we even talking about ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Interstellarity sounds like you want some sort of ""private browsing mode"" on the ios app? Have you opened a feature request for that? If not you can use this form to do so, it is certainly not something we can fix locally on the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux Talk 10:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) When I put a template on a talk page (e.g. in this case {{BLP noticeboard}}, I get the message ""Convert formatting to wikitext?"". ""You pasted content with rich formatting. Would you like to convert this formatting to wikitext?"". What's the purpose of this? Seems like something that is rarely if ever needed. After a few times it no longer appears though. Fram (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  @Fram: I would assume it's because there's some other formatting other than just the template that isn't visible when just copying it. I believe it's also for if you just paste the template code in the Visual Editor. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) If I copy your signature (""Fram (talk)"") and paste it into source mode, it will paste the literal text Fram (talk). If I click convert formatting to wikitext, it will fix it up to [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]). My guess is that you copied from a template marked up as {{example}}, which is a link, so it tries to be smart and asks if you want to paste the literal interpretation of what you copied, a link to the template, rather than just the text. Legoktm (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Doesn't seem to be the same though, I posted the exact text I gave at the top, which upon saving just gives the expected result (the template, not some unwanted simple text like with my username example). I tried it again at another page (without saving!), Talk:Salini (surname), and I get the same result. The example you gave (with my sig) is an example of a good use of this though, so at least it answers the question when this would ever be useful. But in this case, the end result is {{BLP noticeboard}}, turning a working template into a nowiki version instead of the other way around. Fram (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)"
577	587	1286	WP:INTEREST	Wikipedia:Interestingness	577	"When the Wikipedia community is attempting to come to a consensus whether content belongs on Wikipedia or not through the ""articles for deletion"" process, one of the reasons commonly heard to keep content is that the content's ""interesting."" What if we wrote an encyclopedia and no one came?  For content to be interesting is a good thing — it suggests that the information within was presented well-enough to capture a reader's interest.  People have to want to read what we write here — obviously, all editors should try to make their writing interesting.  Interestingness, however, is not a useful way of measuring whether or not content belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires certain things of its content, and these requirements are among its core principles, making them for the most part unable to be countermanded or superseded.  Wikipedia requires that its content have certain qualities — for example, content should be verifiable by cited sources, and should not espouse a particular point of view.  Wikipedia also requires that its content not have certain qualities.  It should not be a place where brand-new ideas and theories are created, for example, as exciting as those theories can feel to the editor or to other readers.  And content should not be FAQs, quotations, travel guides, memorials, breaking news, directories, or instructions. The problem is that content can be considered interesting and yet be any one of, or all of, these things — making the quality of how interesting content is useless in measuring whether or not that content belongs on Wikipedia.  Content can be interesting and yet unverified, uncited, and biased.  Content can be fascinating and yet be a brand-new idea (in fact, brand-new ideas often are).  Content can be captivating and yet be a collection of FAQs or quotations, or a manual, or a travel guide.  Because of this, interestingness really has no effect on, and offers no answer to, the question of whether the content in question fulfills the basic requirements that Wikipedia demands of its content. Interestingness is also useless as a metric because it is an intensely subjective metric, one that changes not only from peer group to peer group but from person to person.  Because of that intense subjectivity, there is no practical way to build a consensus on the interestingness of content, and, as such, the quality has no place in a process that relies upon that consensus to decide whether or not content belongs on Wikipedia. New articles are created on Wikipedia seemingly every second.  Putting aside those articles created by bots, out of a sense of duty, or as vandalism, those articles' creators are interested in their creations — otherwise, they would not have created them.  But we cannot take those articles being of interest to their creators and, using that, draw conclusions as to the level of interest any other editor will have in that article — an article on the nameless butler that appears on page 497 of famous author Jane Smith's epic Pencils and Pens may be of interest to Smith's fans, but, again, we cannot take the interest of Smith's fans in the article and, from that, form a prediction about how much the article might interest others.  Although contributor John Smith may find the one-paragraph article he just wrote about his dog quite interesting, we cannot take John's interest in the article and, from that, form a prediction about how much the article on Fido might interest others.  Instead, we must rely upon more objective metrics, such as notability, to decide whether or not his dog deserves an article — if John is a current or former world leader, his Scottish Terrier might indeed be notable enough to get her own Wikipedia article (but then again, his pet cow might not). In conclusion, interestingness, although intrinsically valuable to and desirable for Wikipedia content, is a quality that is unpredictable and extremely subjective, and one that can further offer no metric as to how well content measures up to Wikipedia's content policies. As such, the question of whether or not an article is interesting cannot have any weight, and should not be offered nor considered as supportive reasoning, in a discussion of whether or not that content belongs on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia:Notability"
578	588	1287	WP:ESCA	Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles	578	"Wikipedia's content policies are often unambiguous when working with sources which use ordinary language and everyday concepts. But scientific terms are much more precise, and require much more care. When writing about science and mathematics, accuracy is paramount. Following the letter of Wikipedia policies often is not enough to guarantee that an article won't contain serious factual mistakes or misleading statements. When editing scientific articles, bear in mind the following:  Check any non-trivial statements you intend to insert into an article. Determine whether your statement could be invalid under some circumstances. To find out, you may need to study the entire source in which the statement is made, or look in other sources. The validity of a statement made on some particular page of a technical book may well rely upon necessary conditions mentioned many pages earlier, or even in another source. If you find that the statement is valid only within a specific context, you should take the effort to find out what this context is, and to include that context in the article. After checking carefully, you may find that a statement you want to insert still disagrees with other statements made in the same article. It may be that the conflicting statements are true under some conditions not explicitly mentioned in the article. Any apparent conflicts should be worked out by the editors through discussions. In resolving technical disputes, the exact wording of quotes from sources is often unhelpful. It is essential that the editors sort out the scientific issues from first principles as much as possible, referring to all the ideas in the sources, not to out-of-context fragments. This means that editors should read the technical literature with the goal of acquiring a full understanding of all the relevant points while editing the article. It is important that every disputed point be explained clearly, so that any remaining disagreements which appear in the encyclopedia reflect actual diverging points of view in the literature, not the misunderstandings between editors. When editing a scientific article, be careful to be as complete as possible. Filling in intermediate steps which are omitted from more condensed literature sources is not OR. Rephrasing content is not synthesis, as long as the ideas faithfully represent the ideas in the sources; remember that “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.” Assume from the outset that multiple meanings of technical terms are likely to occur, whether or not you are aware of them, so search for meanings proposed by other editors, rather than searching only to back up your own understanding. The goal is for the editors to gain a comprehensive familiarity with as much of the literature as possible. Different approaches or explanatory models are often all correct, and different readers will find different explanations useful.  Don't delete existing explanations just because they use a different model; add your explanation to the article, so long as it is carefully sourced. Discussions from first principles or evidence, alongside citing sources, are not violations of the ban on original research if they are conducted on the talk pages.  Such discussions have two benefits: educating less knowledgeable editors to the obvious benefit of the article identifying science cranks. Although cranks, by definition, cannot be swayed, such discussions are useful for identifying them as cranks, so that further remedial action can be taken. The perception of what is original research varies according to the level of expertise of the editor; experts often do not consider it original research to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions; but this might be disputed by someone less familiar with the topic. Experts should be wary of deleting material that seems ""obvious"" to them, and take care to avoid the over-use of unexplained or underlinked jargon.  Remember, not everyone has a PhD in the topic. Contrary to what WP:V suggests, whether editors believe a statement is true is of crucial importance when editing a scientific article. The reason why WP:V depreciates ""truth"" is because, in the humanities, it is customary to interpret ""truth"" as mere opinion, as well as because the postmodern view that objective truth doesn't really exist is commonplace there. These views are not the norm in the hard sciences. The Sokal affair demonstrates very clearly what is wrong with this attitude. But since most of Wikipedia's articles are not about such subjects, we can understand why WP:V depreciates the truth.  Depreciating truth does have many supporters among editors who are active in scientific topics. This is because dealing with editors who have a wrong understanding of a theory, who are very fanatical about defending their POV, is then a lot easier. However, we need to keep in mind that the focus of WP:V is not on dealing with disruptive editors, we have many other policies for this. Indeed, in discussions on the policy talk pages when amendments are proposed, one is often asked to demonstrate why the current wording does not work. But examples where disruptive editors are involved are rejected as good examples, the argument being that an editor hell bent on having their way typically cannot be persuaded by what a policy says. Many editors have expressed the opposite opinion that truth is an important factor to consider. Truth in terms of the current understanding of the existing scientific literature is one of the most important things to consider when editing articles. Truth is certainly not to be depreciated. One may ask what the big deal is with ""truth"" if we demand verifiability anyway. The issue here is the way verifiability is defined on Wikipedia. The policy WP:V demands that anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. This is problematic if an editor who is not familiar with a certain theory, would challenge a statement that can only be verified by studying the theory in its entirety and not by a single citation to a source that directly supports the statement. Such a case will be rare and exceptional. Editors who have indeed studied a scientific theory in its entirety are very few and are certainly not the majority of Wikipedia editors. Editors who have indeed studied a scientific theory in its entirety will readily produce adequate multiple citations that, when immediately and validly combined, provide reliably inferred support for a statement; if a Wikipedia entry that relies on such a combination is reasonably questioned, that entry should be removed until it has been agreed to by a consensus of editors, and even then it should be explicitly indicated in the Wikipedia entry that the combining inference is made by the Wikipedia. Such support by editorially agreed combination of multiple citations is always open to further reasonable question, and a former consensus cannot stand against fresh reasonable questioning. Editors who do this in a disruptive way are of no concern considering the relevant policies dealing with disruption. The big issue here is that constructive editors can be unfamiliar with the basics of a certain theory, and they may well demand in good faith that certain statements, which are unverifiable by merely giving single inline citations, be clarified. One can then argue that this isn't a problem either; just give the citations to all of the necessary existing literature from which the statement follows. However, this would violate the synthesis policy that forbids combining statements given in different sources to arrive at a conclusion that is not given explicitly in a reliable source. The problem here being the clause ""explicatively"", which prevented one from giving a single inline citation directly supporting the statement in the first place. Clearly, one needs to violate the WP:Synthesis policy when necessary for verification purposes. We can gain a deeper insight into this problem by considering a model of Wikipedia editors that the core policies implicitly assume.  Consider how one should program a bot to edit Wikipedia in the way we are used to doing. Let's focus first in non-scientific articles where there arguably are no issues with the core policies. Clearly, such a bot would have to be an artificially intelligent entity, and will thus contain a huge amount of information to simply be able to understand the meaning of simple statements in sources. We thus can't assume that the bot is a simple transcription monkey. Let's call the information present in the bot ""internal knowledge"". This internal knowledge is essential to correctly interpret what a source says. It is then possible for the bot to stick to the core policies, provided the internal knowledge is sufficient to understand information form sources. One then doesn't have to have a concept of truth that applies to information from sources, truth only refers to the internal knowledge. In case of many bots collaborating with each other, all that is needed is that the bots have approximately the same internal knowledge. The policies as currently formulated, model real Wikipedians as such collaborating bots with similar internal knowledge. They don't mention  the internal knowledge explicitly, as this is taken for granted and considered to be irrelevant. That the internal knowledge is a relevant factor, even in the ideal case where the model seems to work ok., becomes clear if we consider statements that are already verified by the internal knowledge and where verification from sources is inappropriate. Take e.g. the statement ""the sky is blue"". Entire essays have been written on this problem on Wikipedia, but they all miss the core issue about the relevance of internal knowledge. The bot model can go wrong when different editors have radically different internal knowledge. Correctly interpreting statements in sources from which an article is written can require some editors to acquire additional internal knowledge. Verification of statements without violating WP:Synth can then be impossible.   Wikipedia editing should both respect truth and provide reliable sourcing. WP:SYNTH is not a rule against proper logical explication from stated reliable sources: it is a rule against inference or innuendo that combines source materials in a way that is loose, reasonably questionable, or unsound, or that misrepresents reliable sources. If a Wikipedia statement is logically implied by reliable sources but not actually explicitly stated in them, and if there is reasonable question of the immediacy and validity of the logical implication, then the Wikipedia entry should explicitly indicate that the statement is inferred by Wikipedia. Unless verification of a statement is to be found in reliable sources either explicitly, or implicitly with valid logical inference from them—either immediately and unquestionedly inferred, or in the Wikipedia entry explicitly indicated as inference by Wikipedia—, then the statement would be original research and is not admissible as a Wikipedia statement. Editing Wikipedia scientific articles requires editors to be careful, diligent, and knowledgeable. The requirement for truth cannot justify laziness by Wikipedia editors, on the spurious ground that a reliable source is too hard to find, or that a hardly reliable source is good enough. It may require editors to engage in extensive discussions on the talk page to ensure that what they write in the article is consistent with the current scientific understanding of the topic that is to be found in reliable sources. An editor who knows the current scientific understanding will be familiar with enough current reliable sources to provide verification from them. Someone who can only parrot the current understanding does not know it. Scientific knowledge is not merely verifiable, it has actually been verified, directly or indirectly, by the knower.  Actually editing scientific articles, a response to this essay Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Wikipedia:Scientific standards What is NOT OR"
579	589	1294	WP:USPE	Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections	579	The aim of this WikiProject is to bring editors together who want to edit the wide range of articles that relate to United States presidential elections. Together we will strive to build many of these articles to featured and good status and do our best to remove any bias. Many of these articles need an overhaul so they can be more encyclopedic.  These can be completed by any member:  Complete the marking and assessment of articles in our scope Expand all stubs Cleanup all start-class articles If this project interests you, you are encouraged to join by adding yourself to the list of participants.   === Table of articles === List of WikiProject articles  Articles for deletion  28 Mar 2023 – Teresa Gutierrez (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by PickleG13 (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)Files for discussion  27 Mar 2023 – File:Bill Wyatt.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries) was FfDed by Reppop (t · c); see discussionGood article nominees  25 Oct 2022 – Ralph Nader (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Thriley (t · c); start discussion 27 Sep 2022 – Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by SecretName101 (t · c); start discussionRequests for comments  17 Mar 2023 – Donald Trump (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (t · c); see discussionArticles to be merged  09 Oct 2022 – Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by 85.238.103.38 (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2022 – Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by 85.238.103.38 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  07 Mar 2023 – Draft:Marianne Williamson 2024 presidential campaign (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Zander123sims4 (t · c) 06 Feb 2023 – Draft:Ken Spain (political strategist) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Karineascott (t · c) 27 Jan 2023 – Draft:Voters of Tomorrow (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Topofthemuffintoya (t · c)
580	590	1299	WP:FLAT	Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat	580	"It is unlikely that you will ever happen upon an editor who will argue that Wikipedia cannot claim that the Earth is not flat. (Being proven to be a sphere.) But you may indeed encounter some who will strenuously maintain that a particular ""breakthrough"", or a ""notable"" or ""controversial"" idea, belief, or theory deserves more consideration than it has received in the academic world. Using the Flat Earth example (below) as a metaphor, this essay will examine ten types of arguments commonly used by advocates of fringe concepts and advise the neutrally-minded editor or administrator on how to defuse them.  It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, ""accepted knowledge"". Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial (i.e soapboxing), even if there is a slim chance beliefs on the margin may eventually gain wide consensus (as happened with the proposals of the round Earth in Archaic Periods and continental drift before the mechanism of plate tectonics, two classic examples of cutting edge views once deemed fringe theories that turned out to be justified). Wikipedia acknowledges diverse viewpoints on contemporary controversies, but represents them in proportion to their prevalence (or due weight) among serious scholars and reporters with reputations of responsibility and reliability. Wikipedia may in some cases limit its mention of theories understood to be fringe to specific articles about those theories, and remove their mention from other articles, per the one way principle. In summary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to advocate pet points of view, nor is Wikipedia in the business of adjudicating which pet points of view have a potential for subsequent wide acceptance in the future. Some marginal theories are fringe science and some are pseudo-science, but Wikipedia is not in the business of calling the shots as to where these stand except where reliable sources clarify those differences. Thus, Wikipedia is academically conservative, as is fitting for a standard reference work.   === Wikipedia's role as a reference work === The threshold for including material in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable, not merely that we think it is true. That is, readers must be able to check that the material has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Therefore, Wikipedia is not worried per se about whether the theory that the Earth is flat is true. There must be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat. But there are no such sources that are current (almost no scientists have thought the Earth was flat since about the fourth century BC), that are reliable (reliable sources are reviewed for accuracy), or independent (a journal published by a Flat Earth Society would not be independent.) If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as ""originale investigationis"". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.   === Close encounters of the fringe kind === Occasionally, civic-minded Wikipedia editors must act to mitigate, redesign, and sometimes destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular 'breakthrough' or 'notable' or 'controversial' idea or theory deserves more consideration than it has received in the academic world. Since Wikipedia is an open project that ""anyone can edit"", good editors don't take such encounters personally. They do not automatically view supporters of fringe theories as ""the enemy"". They know that sometimes these fallacies are propagated not out of malice, but ignorance. Humans are fallible creatures, and there are many more ways to be wrong than right. Science is stodgy, typically not glamorous, and entails hard work.  By contrast, speculation on ""amazing new ideas"" is stimulating, easy, and fun. It's more exciting to see yourself as a re-discoverer of ancient truths or in the vanguard of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough. Belonging to a small club with a particular belief can be very fulfilling. The world would be a more exciting place if there were malevolent aliens abducting humans, if dead people could send us messages, if exotic plants were able to miraculously cure all disease, if free energy were readily available to anyone, or if our dreams could foretell the future. In addition, popular culture can often confuse the general public with uncritical or credulous presentations of such concepts on the internet, in books, radio talk shows, TV, news, and films. It's little wonder that Wikipedia attracts individuals who feel the encyclopedia should include sympathetic coverage of these types of subjects.   === Dealing with dedicated fringe advocates === Unfortunately, Wikipedia can attract some extremely dedicated individuals whose aim is to promote pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints and the like, together with other theories entirely unrecognised by academia. These enthusiasts often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. They attempt to water down language and unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of Neutral point of view, especially by giving undue weight to their preferred theories.  Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (Verifiability, Neutral point of view, What Wikipedia is not and Fringe theories to name just a few).  These policies, correctly understood and correctly used, will successfully exclude non-notable or fringe views.  But many dedicated fringe advocates are familiar with these policies, and have become expert at gaming them or even using them against neutrally-minded but inexpert editors.  The latter often find their efforts subverted at every step by advocates who revert war over edits, frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information, argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause.  This maneuvering and filibustering is soon likely to exhaust the patience of any reasonable person who naturally prefers not to reason with the unreasonable, and who, unlike the advocate, has no special interest or passion other than striving to maintain neutrality. Additionally, by continually engaging fringe advocates in endless argument, you run the risk of turning Wikipedia into a battleground or a debating society. At the present time, Wikipedia does not have an effective means to address superficially polite but tendentious, long-term, fringe advocacy. Some contend that this is a main flaw of Wikipedia; that unlike conventional encyclopedias, fanatics can always get their way if they stay around long enough and make enough edits and reversions. In this sense, Wikipedia's 'commitment to amateurism' does not always work for the best interests of the project.  Arguments commonly used by fringe advocates to support inclusion of marginal viewpoints against official policies fall into a small number of easily recognizable categories. Here are the top ten approaches that might be used by our allegorical Flat Earth advocate to argue that Wikipedia cannot claim ""The Earth is not flat"":   === 1. Personalisation ===  Examples  Your bias against the Earth being flat is too strong to be objective. Your arguments against the flat Earth theory so resemble the arguments of editor X that you must be their sockpuppet. The flat Earth article is being degraded by those who don't like the flat Earth theory. Ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page.How to recognise Personalisation is easily the most common form of attack on neutrally-minded editors.  Personalisation is ignoring the basis for inclusion altogether, and making the argument personal.  For example, they argue that an editor is biased towards the mainstream, or that editors are ganging up because their arguments are so similar (even though they would be similar – the main argument against the Earth being flat is topographical, and it is hard to argue against it without repeating the argument).  Or they may claim that to disagree with an editor with a fringe agenda is uncivil, a personal attack, a violation of Do not bite the newcomers or a violation of Assume good faith.  It may even be claimed that sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any living people who are proponents of the fringe point of view (such as critical book reviews, etc). How to reply Ignore any personal attack altogether – and particularly do not make a personal attack yourself, however tempting it may be.  Also try to ignore the arguments and reasons used by mainstream science itself.  Your opponents will love this and turn the talk page into a battlefield of competing claims and counterclaims.  Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and there are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient.   === 2. Sourcing ===  Examples  Essex local authorities trained employees in flat Earth theory in 1993. The statement that the Earth is flat is reliably sourced from Flat Earth magazine, which is peer-reviewed by top flat Earth experts. There are published sources (including PubMed) that back up the view that people use Flat Earth theory as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses. How do you explain the EXCELLANT [sic] results which the US Army gets by using techniques which are talked about in Flat Earth literature? If it's a bunch of hogwash, then the TRADOC's results should be in shambles. Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. Since established scientists attended a flat-Earth conference, it follows they take the theory seriously.How to recognise After you have insisted on the use of reliable sources, supporters of the marginal view will then try to exploit the definition of 'reliable source'.  They will argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think-tanks rather than from the scientific literature. Occasionally, they will discover that they can get more attention if they make appeals to authority by presenting supporters who have academic credentials. Typical pseudoscience sources include:  Dedicated websites (normally registered under a .com or .org – rarely under .edu though there are occasions where this may be possible) Dedicated periodicals Self-published sources Publications made outside the typical scientific presses In-house journals (The Flat Earth Institute's Journal not to be confused with academic journals) Occasional peer-reviewed articles – often in more obscure journalsHow to reply The best sources to use when describing fringe theories or determining their notability and prominence are independent reliable sources. It's impossible to write a balanced article or describe a fringe theory in an objective way if the sources being used have a stake in promoting a specific fringe theory. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. And arguments for inclusion of fringe theories based on a proponent's credentials alone are unwarranted. Attempts to insert language that showcases a proponent's academic degrees or honorification should be treated as promotionalism.   === 3. Balance ===  Examples  You must not say 'the Earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat Earth theory, the Earth is not flat'. There should be no criticism of the flat Earth theory in the introduction to the article. There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section 94. So what if the article on flat Earth theory is 250k, and the round Earth article only 8k? The answer is not to fix the balance by writing less about the flat Earth, that only makes Wikipedia worse, but to add more information about the Earth being round. Is this an encyclopedia for academics or for the general public? Criticism of the flat Earth theory should be balanced by criticism of the round Earth theory. The article lead should begin with a pure definition. Criticism should come second, e.g.:""Flat Earth refers to the Earth's flat shape. Skeptics say the Earth is round.""How to recognise Even when supporters of fringe viewpoints recognise the mainstream view as mainstream and established, and agree that Wikipedia may state the mainstream view without qualification, they will still challenge the relative prominence accorded to the mainstream over the fringe viewpoint, and make all sorts of arguments about balance.  It is often seriously claimed that the ""N"" in NPOV (Neutral point of view) means that no negative or critical or mainstream material can appear at all in the article, since it is not neutral, or that Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and so advocates of 'scientific points of view' should not overstate their case. It is claimed that the reader will not understand the idea unless it is described without criticism, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a technical journal.  Reversing this argument, they will state that readers are smart enough to know that fringe ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources. They will propose that negative material be forked off into another article, or relegated into a ""criticism ghetto"" or criticism section or removed from the Lead section. They may argue that one must always state the idea first before criticizing it, or that any sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used since they violate the Neutral point of view. They may insist that a statement by an advocate of a fringe theory saying they ""do not agree that it is a fringe theory"" must be included in the article text. They may claim that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased. Or that any negative or critical material is unusable since it is just opinion and not fact. Some of them will even claim that there are no facts, arguing that if a fringe minority, not present in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact, it violates Neutral point of view to state it as a fact in the article. They may demand that every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted. How to reply Wikipedia's neutrality is often misunderstood as giving equal validity to mainstream and fringe views. But it actually gives the most weight and validity to the mainstream view, as cited in high quality academic sources. The fact that fringe theory promoters do not think their theory is fringe is a given. Every pseudoscience advocate strenuously objects to their avocation being called pseudoscience, it's an unremarkable detail (see WP:MANDY), and unless these objections are notable in WP:FRIND sources, they don't belong in the article. At the root of many of these arguments are intentional (or unintentional) misinterpretations of Neutral point of view, particularly undue weight, although certain kinds of deliberate pettifogging can also be a sign of gaming the system. See #6 below, ""Gaming"".   === 4. Conspiracy ===  Examples  The flat Earth theory has been marginalised by the scientific establishment in order to protect its interests. Any scientist who tried to study flat Earth theory would lose his research funding. Dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment. Rosencrantz was tremendously rude about scientists who claimed the Earth was round. If the scientific establishment has marginalized him this is not really surprising. As a professional astronomer you have a clear conflict of interest. X, Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-Earthism. They often publish in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to any theory which is not empirically verified. The scientific establishment (peer-reviewed journals, universities) are trying to suppress the Truth about flat Earth theory; they refuse to allow flat Earth papers at conferences and will not publish flat Earth research.How to recognise The next tactic is to appeal to your ideas about free speech and distrust of censorship and the establishment. All theories that are not generally accepted have a part of the theory devoted to explaining why this is.  Fringe theories are no exception.  They will claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth. This is a classic conspiracy theory. Their theory is not accepted because the black suits in the Scientific Establishment are not concerned about the pursuit of truth, but are much more concerned about not rocking the boat in order to protect their vested interests. The round-earth theorists have the backing of the major media who also have vested interests which they must protect. This explains why the discoveries of 'edges' round the Earth into which planes have gone missing, reports of travelers who have looked into the abyss, are receiving no coverage whatsoever by the major newspapers or the major TV networks. Thus, it is claimed that trying to balance positive content with negative content for due weight is censorship. It is claimed that there is a conspiracy against the fringe position and anyone who opposes an uncritical article about the fringe position is in on the conspiracy, has been bought off, is breaking the rules of Wikipedia, is just plain evil, etc. It is claimed that any source that has not written articles that are supportive and uncritical of fringe positions are not suitable as tertiary sources. For example, recently at a controversial article, it was once argued 'Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party.' How to reply  The easiest reply to these arguments is to humour them.  You can agree to their ludicrous claims, but point out that Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs, or address grievances.  Point out (see above) that if Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, it would have had a duty to report the claims of the Catholic church as fact, without qualification, despite the conspiracy that undoubtedly existed.   === 5. Reversed burden of proof ===  Examples  X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat Earth fallacy'. WP:NPOV says ""Even with well-sourced material ... if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research."" ""You are taking lack of discussion of whether the Earth is flat as evidence an author picks a side on the issue.... The evidence we should consider are those who consider the Earth is flat, and those who explicitly reject this view. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded."" There is no reliable source for the statement that 'flat-Earthism has entirely been ignored by reliable sources'. The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-Earth view' has no scientific consensus. There has been no serious study of whether the Earth is flat since 1493. Therefore we cannot claim in Wikipedia that Earth is not flat, only that a study in 1493 came to this conclusion. X's statement ""Informal soundings amongst scientists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of the flat Earth theory"" is mere opinion. X is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. You can't say ""modern geologists reject Rosencranz's theories."" Very few scholars have even read Rosencranz or care, so don't extrapolate that to the whole field as if they have rigorously investigated his work as a group. (recently from Ancient astronauts) ""Prove that there are no ______."" You can't prove that there are none, only that we haven't found one yet.How to recognise We move to the most powerful weapon in the fringe armoury: the argument from reversed burden of proof.  Instead of them having to prove that their view is supported by reliable and independent sources, they will shift the burden of proof over to you, so you have to prove either that their view is not supported, or even that it is refuted by reliable and independent sources.  This is difficult for two reasons.  First, it is always difficult to prove a negative existential statement (which is in effect a claim about everything there is).  Second, because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific. How to reply This argument is often difficult to address. However, you should always recognise the shifting of the burden for what it is, the second that ball comes thundering down the court at 80 mph.  Slam it back.  Insist that the burden is theirs.  ""When two or more theories are in competition, it is common for one of them to be treated as the established position – the default option, as it were – and the others to be treated as challengers. A challenging theory is normally expected to bear the burden or onus of proof. In other words, advocates of the challenging theory are expected to provide highly convincing evidence and arguments before the theory can be taken seriously. To use a different metaphor, it is assumed that the established theory has jumped over a very high hurdle to gain its leading position and that any challenger must jump over an equally high hurdle before being in contention for the remainder of the race.""Also, in such cases it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources. Although most of these sources will not be peer-reviewed simply because science tends to ignore pseudoscience, they are still independent.  Thus, the following are reliable sources for describing pseudoscience:  Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural Skeptic's Dictionary Skeptical Inquirer talk.origins archive Bad Astronomy Quackwatch Mainstream media reports Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.) Statements from scientific societies   === 6. Gaming ===  Examples  The statement 'The Earth is round' has reliable sources in scientific literature. The statement 'If the X is round, X is not flat' is a valid inference that can be sourced from any reliable logic textbook. But 'The Earth is not flat', while a conclusion validly yielded by these two reliably-sourced premises, is a violation of WP:SYNTH: ""Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research"". One should use only primary sources. Relying on secondary sources is POV. Words like ""alleged"", ""supposed"", and ""purported"" when used to describe the characteristics of the Flat Earth are WP:WTA and unduly prejudice the reader against the subject. Words that can be interpreted ambiguously by the reader (such as ""apparent"") are better suited to a neutral presentation.How to recognise  You have kept the marginal and fringe viewpoint at bay for some months or years.  But now they have got wise, and expert in the ways of Wikipedia.  They have read the policies carefully, and have worked out the various loopholes in it, and the endless games they can play with it. They now claim that only the proponents of the FRINGE position understand NPOV or NOR or RS, not the experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits, and FAs and GAs to their credit.  They will 'wikilawyer' to try to redefine a FRINGE position as nonFRINGE, or the mainstream position as the FRINGE position instead. They will attempt to use mainly primary sources, and to reject secondary and tertiary sources, or to redefine the preferences for secondary and tertiary sources in policy. Worst of all, it is now many months since you tidied up the article.  You have no inherent interest in the Flat Earth theory, and you have moved on to another area of pseudoscience (let's say the Geocentric theory).  But the Flat Earth supporters are interested in nothing else than their pet theory.  They will come back when you are gone and revert when you do not notice. The arguments that you successfully rebutted and dismissed, sometimes with extensive references, will be repeated over and over and over, sometimes just with a cut and paste approach. Sometimes they will be presented by the same person dozens and dozens of times over days and weeks and months.  They will try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that 'it is verifiable, so it should be in'.  They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.  They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They will make a series of silly and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear you down. They will add  tags repeatedly to well-known material, or material that is fully referenced on wikilinked articles that discuss that point in more detail. Assorted templates branding the article are thrown on the article repeatedly, such as the claim that an NPOV dispute is going on, when it is more accurate to describe the discussion as revolving around some editor's idiosyncratic interpretation of NPOV to satisfy their own personal agenda. Accusations that a group editing the article own the article since they will not change the consensus to satisfy one malcontent are common. How to reply If you are unable to discourage a fringe advocate from willfully and knowingly misusing policy you might seek support from the community via mediation or arbitration. However, many fringe advocates thrive on the increased attention and actually welcome these forums as a soapbox from which to further argue their viewpoint. Finding themselves in the spotlight, it is not unusual for dedicated fringe advocates to suddenly disavow any former or present interest/connection with the subject of their advocacy (""Gosh, I don't believe the Earth is flat, I'm just here to uphold NPOV"") and profess that they are only fighting ""for the good of Wikipedia"". The risks of continued involvement with disputes that escalate to this level should be carefully considered, especially if accompanied by obsessive/compulsive behavior.   === 7. Amenability === Examples  The flat Earth theory is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods. Flat-earth theorists are pragmatic. They are not interested in what is 'true', they are interested in 'what works'. Rosencrantz never claimed nor explicitly stated that the Flat Earth Theory is a 'science'.How to recognise Another way of evading NPOV is to avoid the requirement for reliable sourcing altogether.  They will claim that the view in question is simply not amenable to scientific treatment.  Source X was from a scientific journal, it attempted to address the Flat Earth theory in a way that science could deal with it.  But Flat Earth theory is not amenable to scientific treatment.  Source X misunderstood what the theory was really saying.  The Flat Earth theory is not something that is really a 'fact' in the scientific sense.  (See the archived talk pages of the article Neuro-linguistic programming for endless repetitions and varieties of this argument). Or they claim that writing material using facts in the same context as in reliable sources violates NPOV since they are following a ""narrative"", and we must instead choose facts which no source describes as relevant to allow our readers to decide which ""narrative"" should be chosen. How to reply Stick to your guns. This is merely a philosophically naive means of evading justification and substantiation.  All theories make claims of some sort, otherwise they would not have 'proponents' (a proponent literally 'puts forward' a certain view that is susceptible of truth or falsity).  The Flat Earth theory claims that the Earth is flat, not round.  That is a statement with a binary truth-value.  And it is capable of confirmation or refutation, it is verifiable.  For example, topography (measuring the distances between defined points on the Earth's surface) shows the shape of the Earth. Therefore, the theory is amenable to scientific treatment.   === 8. Special pleading ===  Examples  Scientist X, who claimed the flat Earth theory was nonsense, clearly had not read the literature on the flat Earth theory. Scientist X was not trained in flat Earth theory, and therefore could not make an expert judgment. The criticisms made by scientist X were valid only against Rosencrantz' version of the flat Earth theory, long since outmoded. They fail to address Guildenstern's improved version of the theory. Your arguments assume there is a mainstream flat Earth view.  There is no mainstream 'flat Earth' view, therefore your criticisms are misplaced. You haven't read any of Rosencrantz' work.How to recognise Special pleading is when the advocates of a fringe viewpoint argue that you have no expertise in the theory (which may, they argue, take years to fully master).  You do not understand the theory, and therefore you cannot make your claims.  Another version of this argument is to claim there are many different types of the theory, and that while version X and version Y are clearly nonsense, the most recent version Z (which of course you have never heard of) is scientifically impeccable.  They may even claim there is no such 'version' of the theory, and that you are attacking a straw man. How to reply The only people qualified enough to understand flat Earth theory are those who just happen to support flat Earth theory? Ridiculous. Advocates, promoters, and self proclaimed ""flat Earth theory experts"" are not independent, objective sources of fact about whether or not the Earth is flat, or whether or not flat Earth theory is valid. Also bear in mind that any ""new and improved"" versions of flat Earth theory must be notable enough to have attracted review and comment by independent, objective sources.   === 9. Controversy === Examples  The flat Earth theory is clearly controversial. This is proof that scientists take it seriously. The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the article should tell the reader what to believe. The reader should be allowed to make up his/her own mind concerning the subject. e.g.: ""Flat Earthism is a highly controversial subject, and its scientific validity is often questioned.""How to recognise Although supporters of the marginal view cannot overcome Wikipedia policies, they will try to distort and alter an article's language in a way that represents their view as less marginal.  The most well-known and often-used tactic is to claim that their viewpoint is 'controversial', as though there were a minority but substantial view held by serious scientists or academics, actively engaged by the mainstream, and which is reported as controversial by reliable sources. They will try to exploit equivocation in the description of pseudoscience. For example, instead of simply stating: ""the Flat Earth theory violates the known laws of geometry"", a proponent may argue for the equivocal statement: ""some geometers claim that the Flat Earth theory violates the known laws of geometry"", perhaps adding ""but there is considerable controversy over the matter."" How to reply  Pseudoscience should not be described on its own terms. The goal of writing an article on pseudoscience should be to present the ideas that are most commonly seen in relation to that pseudoscientific idea. This means that when writing an article on pseudoscience, popularity of ideas is a major rationale for inclusion or exclusion. Obscure iterations of pseudoscience should be eliminated, even if so-called ""experts"" in the subject believe such ideas to be of the utmost importance. The best way to write an article on pseudoscience is to approach it from the perspective of what topics are most prevalent in the popular culture about the subject. All claims that are made about observable reality which are directly contradicted by mainstream science must be represented as such. Per the rules of reliable sourcing and not unduly weighting fringe opinions, an article about a mainstream topic should marginalize all related pseudoscience topics relative to the prominence seen in secondary and tertiary sources about the mainstream topic. A pseudoscientific topic should not be mentioned in an article about a mainstream topic unless there are independent mainstream sources that connect the topics. For example, there are plenty of mainstream sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter. However, there are no mainstream sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on the former should not mention the latter. This approach is outlined in the guideline WP:ONEWAY. If it is deemed necessary to exclude pseudoscience from a certain article, there should not even be a link through a see also section. Often pseudoscience articles must link to science articles. Rarely will science articles link to pseudoscience articles. That is the principle of one-way linking.   === 10. But some of the theory is true ===  Examples  Rosencrantz claimed many times that the sky is blue, that grass is green.  These facts are well-established by reliable sources.How to recognise The last weapon in the pseudoscience arsenal is something you cannot deny: parts of the theory may be true.  Proponents will ignore the many bogus and patently untrue claims of the theory, and perhaps not even mention them in the article, but will go on at length about the parts of the theory that are true.  Often these are platitudinous, or are statements that are better and more clearly covered in reliable sources.  Worse, they will cite reliable sources which make these true claims, but which do not mention the fringe theory, as though they supported the theory. How to reply Rosencrantz may have said that the sky is blue and grass is green but he most likely isn't considered an authority or reliable source for such information. Attention to such details is only warranted if there is significant third-party coverage of them.  By the 1950s historians had established that in the High Middle Ages the educated classes had recovered the ancient Greeks' discovery that the world is a sphere, even though their world-view was geocentric, and that the notion that Columbus's voyage was to prove the world round is a piece of fiction introduced by Washington Irving. (See Myth of the Flat Earth.) Although it was presumed before Copernicus that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, with the Sun revolving around it, we now know that the educated classes still understood the Earth to be a sphere with gravity acting towards its centre, contrary to the widespread 19th-century assumption that most mediaeval people believed it to be flat. (For example, the final two cantos of Dante Alighieri's Inferno assume a spherical Earth.) However, this essay uses the flat Earth as a metaphor for explaining Wikipedia policy, not to describe any authentic historical controversy.  Civil POV pushing (essay) Creating controversial content (essay) Verifiability, not truth (essay)"
581	591	1303	WP:CSBOT	Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks	581	"These are the open tasks for the Wikiproject Countering systemic bias.  Articles are listed thematically, and then by the type of assistance requested.  An article stub for a feminist author would thus be found under the ""Requests for expansion"" section under Women's Studies.   Themes are divided into four stages: non-existent, stubby, identifiably flawed and satisfactory.  ""Requested articles"" are pages that are entirely missing from Wikipedia.  A little bit of research on the web is normally enough to write a stub.  Be sure to move the list entry to the relevant section once you are done.  Articles that are stubby, or otherwise lacking in content, may be found under ""Requests for expansion"".  If something in particular is missing, such as a university article with a long list of alumni but little historical background, be sure to say so when you enter it.  ""Requests for review"" is for articles that are of decent length but need more attention.  A need for a copyedit or for a fact check by a knowledgeable reader are appropriate reasons to ask for review.   Once an article has passed through the various stages of this process it may be placed under the Satisfactory section.  Satisfactory articles are well-rounded, long enough to cover the topic in reasonable detail, and lack any major flaws.  They are not expected to be perfect.   This open tasks list is intended to be a complement to the various Wikipedia features such as Cleanup, Requests for expansion, Pages needing attention and peer review, and you are encouraged to add articles from this list to those pages.  Many articles on this page may also be good candidates for Collaboration of the week or the Article improvement drive.  If you find a particularly good article in a CSB-related area, by all means nominate it as a Featured Article candidate.   If you feel an article is neglected due to systemic bias, feel free to add it to an appropriate section or even to start a new section below. Sections describing perceived biases that do not include articles are placed at the bottom of the page.  If no articles are placed within the section within a month, it will be assumed that the objection is not actionable and the section will be removed.  Add this table to your userpage using the following: {{WikiProjectCSBTasks}}     As of May 2011Wikipedia has major holes in its geographic coverage primarily in Africa, but also Asia and South America.     === Countries for improvement === The countries below have been identified as those most in need of work.  They are accompanied by some online resources that may be useful in contributing to the articles.  If a user feels that a country article has progressed to the level where it may be replaced by another, please seek consensus on the talk page.  Benin (see Category, BBC profile timeline, HRW, google search images news), Porto-Novo, Cotonou Republic of the Congo (see Category, BBC profile timeline, HRW, google search images news), Brazzaville The Gambia (see Category BBC profile timeline, HRW, google search images news), Banjul Guinea (see Category), Conakry Kyrgyzstan (see Category), Bishkek Mozambique (see Category), Maputo Myanmar/Burma (see Category), Yangon and Naypyidaw Niger (see Category); Niamey Suriname (see Category), Paramaribo Tajikistan (see Category), Dushanbe Togo (see Category), Lomé Turkmenistan (see Category), AshgabatSee also:Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America countriesTranslations of any appropriate articles in the French or Portuguese Wikipedia can be requested on Wikipedia:Translation into English - though some articles are actually shorter in the foreign language version. For materials not in Wikipedia, but available in electronic form, you could contact an appropriate individual at Wikipedia:Translators available.   === Missing geography articles === The following articles are about important geographical regions in the non-English-speaking world.  Northeast Africa - The region encompasses Egypt, Sudan and Horn of Africa and is missing completely from Wikipedia while other regions are available, suspecting racial bias as editors have been vandalizing sources referring to that region for fear of linking Egypt to Sub-Saharan African countries.  As of May 2011All aspects of the ""developing world"", primarily in Africa, but also Asia and South America.   === Requested Developing World articles === See also: Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics, Wikipedia:List of missing Middle Eastern topics, Wikipedia:List of missing Oceania topics, List of conflicts in AfricaComorian Secession Crisis Cascade Arpenaz Ramshila Hill Wikipedia:List of missing Latin American topics, Wikipedia:List of missing South Asian topics Panhogiao or Panho Bridge (one source) Phra Phutthos a 12th-century bridge in Cambodia (one source) At the bottom of this page is a template showing the African countries that have an article about women in that country. Many are red links as of May 2011 Women in Benin Women in Botswana Women in Zambia Women in Burkina Faso Women in Burundi Women in Cameroon Women in Central African Republic Women in Chad Women in Republic of the Congo Women in Djibouti Women in Equatorial Guinea Women in Eritrea Women in Gabon Cebuano Wikipedia redirects to List of Wikipedias; it has the second-most articles, nearly equalling the English Wikipedia Underwater Waterfall a famous sandfall off the coast of Mauritius (potentially reliable source)   === Requests for expansion of Developing World articles === History of South America – Brief and sketchy, nothing between 1820s and 1950s (as of May 2011) Bartolina Sisa, major indigenous revolt leader. Stub as of May 2011. Túpac Katari, major indigenous revolt leader. Stub as of May 2011. Pablo Zarate→Willka, major indigenous revolt leader. Stub as of May 2011. Katarismo, influential political movement. Stub/start as of May 2011. Amrit Kumar Bohara, a leader of Communist uprising in Nepal. Étienne Nzabonimana, Samuel Ndashyikirwa- were on trial for the Rwandan genocide. Nepalese Civil War Not comprehensive; largely a timeline. Gustavo Noboa - former Ecuadorian president. Floribert Ndjabu, Nationalist and Integrationist Front's  militia leader in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who was arrested for the killing of nine Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers. (Reuters AlertNet) (BBC) Sami Nair es:Sami Naïr French-Algerian scholar, known for his concept of codevelopment Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation – Algerian Charter supported at referendum, October 2005 Kintampo — archaeological site of major historical interest in Ghana. Ceramic Late Stone Age cultural complex dating around fourth millennium BP. Sometimes thought to be the first agriculturalist settlement in West Africa. Also known for its waterfalls. New Halfa Scheme — scheme located in the Kassala state of Sudan where housing and work was provided by the Sudanian government for Nubians from the inundated areas around Wadi Halfa. The forced resettlement raised much controversy. Yasuni National Park, in Ecuador. ""Yasuní may well be the single most biodiverse forest on earth,"" state some of the world's leading biologists, including Jane Goodall, E.O. Wilson and Stuart Pimm, in a February 2005 letter to the president of Ecuador. Media of Africa Union of Forces for Change, opposition party in Togo 2000 Mozambique flood Humanitarian disaster with many online resources, but short page so far Afghan parliamentary election, 2005 I expanded it from stub to what it is now in the past two days, but it still lacks any candidate information or political analysis (how much power will the parliament have? What is the expected political colour? How reliable will the results be? etc.) Ali Hassan Mwinyi Former Tanzanian president but little analysis of his reign in power Andean states A very neglected article for an entire important region of the world. --14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Benjamin Mkapa Tanzanian president could do with more detail Commission for Africa - started by Tony Blair to provide new impetus for development. --29 May 2005 (UTC) Culture of Afghanistan Culture of Iraq currently (26 Nov 2004) a pitiful stub Expanded slightly since then.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) Nepalese government party Cultural appropriation needs expansion, broadening outside Western concerns Famines in Ethiopia Major media event. One of the few events to actually catch Western attention, renamed 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia Converted Ethiopian famine from redirect into article, providing a brief introduction & a list of famines since 1535. (Note: at the moment, I don't have access to information for the period 1801-1880.) -- llywrch 00:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC) As of May 2011, this list is rated B Class (failed featured list nomination) First Sudanese Civil War, article begun but few specifics Futa Tooro, on the recent changes list, Senegalese tribal group Gacaca courts are made up of the common people to prosecute the Rwandan genocide perpetrators. Witnesses, survivors, etc. participate. see [1]. -- little stub created, help expand!--Dmcdevit 05:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) --As of May 2011 this is no longer a stub & is rated C Class. Also, the inyangamugayo are the common citizens elected as judges. --Dmcdevit 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Guinea-Bisseau Civil War History of Africa Article is very poor on African in the 20th Century, just an incomplete list of events. The article also needs to be reduced in size, and some child articles set up for the periods History of North Africa extremely spotty coverage of some periods, 20th century section only talks about Suez canal International development Huge topic, very little on this in Wikipedia anywhere Jamaican cuisine just a stub about a fairly well-known cuisine María Lionza should be a challenging topic to research, but is also a very interesting one. Cinema of Nigeria, massively popular (particularly in Africa) but only a stub As of May 2011 it's rated B Class by WikiProject Nigeria. Pan-African Parliament OK, it exists only since September 16th{{Year needed|date=March 2014}, but we should have an article on this... Parishes of Jamaica the 14 main regions of Jamaica have only a handful of stubs Politics of South Africa Poor article considering the ongoing difficulty of transition to stable, free and prosperous post apartheid state. Prime Minister of Uganda needs info on the role and also some of its other office holder. TreveXtalk 00:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Recreational drug use in Kenya. Got attention in The New York Times article for its poor condition. Terse, mostly unreferenced, narrowly focuses on heroin, lacks historical context and statistics. I've done what I can, but it's well outside my specialty. NeonMerlin 07:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Salif Keita One of the best known Mali musicians has a small article Sarcade The article is on an exotic little town in Somalia with 25,000 inhabitants. Would be a real challenge to expand it. Sétif and Guelma massacre Created but could use expansion; a major incident of Algerian history. Tuareg languages - languages of the Tuareg, stub Vietnamese television could really use some attention from someone who is familiar with the topic or who can read the VTV website and other information sources that are available only in Vietnamese.  I have looked on the Vietnamese Wikipedia but couldn't find any articles that looked like they might provide useful info upon translation, so it looks like we are on our own. Article should probably also be moved to Television in Vietnam. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) It redirects to Vietnam Television, which is a television channel.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Budhia Singh - The ""Forest Gump of India"" has recently completed a 65km run at the age of 4. He is a hero to many of the poorest people in India. Kunjin virus Rita Lobato was the first woman to practice medecine in Brazil. This is still a stub as of May 2011. Shuozhou (in China) Red Flag Canal (Hongqi Canal) (in China) Zambezi Escarpment (in Zimbabwe) Federico Errázuriz Zañartu 8th president of Chile has a 3 sentence stub Cloveapple (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC) José Joaquín Pérez the 7th president of Chile has a 2 sentence stub. Cloveapple (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)   === Request for review/attention of Developing World articles === HIV/AIDS in Africa As of May 2011 more citations are needed. Also I saw a mention in the AIDS Wikiproject that the article could use a discussion of AIDS's effects on women. Can anybody more familiar with the topic take a look and comment on what the article needs? Cloveapple (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC) African Union African slave trade, merged into ""Slavery in Africa"" article, a subtopic of the redirect's title, which may cover much more than just slavery in Africa African National Congress Again a poor article for such a significant organisation Languages of Africa African diaspora A big, big group of people. Yellow Emperor Important Chinese mythological character. It should be as long as the article on Zeus for example Poverty in Africa - This article needs to condsider the structural causes and external causes of poverty in Africa. The continent is not an island. This would includes multilateral agreements, neo-liberal policies, unfair trade agreements (it does an excellent job at covering internal causes, but it read very biased since that is all it does. Poverty reduction First Ivorian Civil War Execution of Saddam Hussein -- Lack of sources other than main US and UK news outlets such as CNN or BBC. US-sources dominate the article, and this reflects in the tone. Would need an array of both independent and international sources. A number of non-US non-UK sources have been added as of May 2011 Settler colonialism - completely missing references As of May 2011 it has some references and a bunch of unreferenced stuff got moved to the talk page. Still needs work. Some sections are just placeholders with no actual writing. Cloveapple (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Tripoli hmm... apparently Tripoli is one of those ancient cities that used to exist but its history stopped after 1911. Oh yeah, and it doesn't have any geography, culture, politics/government, economy, demographics, recreation, transportation, all that good stuff. Quite depressing. --Dmcdevit 18:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) As of May 2011 some more recent stuff has been added but it's still C Class and needs work. First Congo War and Second Congo War Work needed on intros for both and First in particular could use some expansion. BanyanTree 20:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) Rwandan genocide - The French version spans several articles. Páll has translated the French and created subpages and a navigation template, but the subpages could do with a copyedit, and content needs to be organized between the main and sub-pages. - BanyanTree 21:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS: also Initial events of the Rwandan Genocide per CSBOT template --Dmcdevit 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Ethio–Somali War – now redirects to ""Ogaden War"", could do with some work putting it into the context of both History of Somalia and History of Ethiopia Politics of Uganda - a lot of copy/pasted stuff. Not very good. Tidied up but still needs some more depth, especially given recent developments re. political pluralism in Uganda. TreveXtalk 12:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Thomas Sankara A major African leader for many African people. Arsen Kotsoyev, Ossetian writer and journalist, the article is a candidate for ""Translation of the Week"", but its English version needs to be reviewed by a native speaker of English. -- Slavik IVANOV 15:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Done (but leaving it open in case I missed something) --Nimlot 20:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Zimbabwe Republic Police, currently horribly pro-government POV. the wub  ""?/!"" 10:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Seems to have been fixed adequately for a little while now. --Dpr 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)List of populated places in Afghanistan This article is HUGE! I put it up for deletion and no consensus has been reached so far making an automatic keep. Someone suggested that it be submitted to Systemic bias so it could be a kind of to do list. --Banana04131 19:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Alcoholism luckily only affects people in N. America. Rich   Farmbrough 15:59 7  March 2006 (UTC). I spoke to Rich Farmbrough and he said the bias was ""mostly"" edited away but that ""It should still touch on the alcohol problems in post-communist Russia, and the treatment, self-help and diagnosis have a Western bent, but nothing like what it was 5 years ago."" Cloveapple (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Korean War The editorial bias in this article needs be corrected. (Postdoc 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)). Africa - there is an ongoing problem with an editor who wants to blank out all mention of the Ethiopian famine in 1984, in which almost a million Africans perished, for obviously political reasons because the facts are inconvenient and make Marxism–Leninism look bad.  This cannot be tolerated and the continuous edit warring needs to stop.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC) As of May 2011 the famine is mentioned.Cloveapple (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Groupuscule's userspace list of articles formerly citing Third World Traveler, now in need of attention Donghak Peasant Revolution This article has been edited by a single South Korean user (myself), AWB, three non-AWB users, and bots since January 8 2013, with 267 of 290 edits being made by the single South Korean user. I would not have sent Jimbo something like this if somebody else than me was editing it. Lavdrim Muhaxheri The Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article needs to be reviewed for NPOV, bias and libel, which has become an issue in recent versions.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Cyber Anakin No problems in the present though concerns abound that perspective biases against non-Anglosphere and some sub-cultural perspectives (hacking) will be made serious if a re-write with trimming goes through. Refer to this discussion. May apply to other Anonymous and cybersecurity related articles. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)   === Satisfactory Developing World articles === Yoweri Museveni was a featured article. Second Congo War has been up for peer review and failed a FAC nomination, somewhat narrowly. Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla - not sure if Mexico is in the ""developing world"", but this man is an absolute legend in Mexico, and his article is embarrassingly short. Batmanand | Talk 23:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This is now B Class. Cloveapple (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Ringley Old Bridge Seems to be a historic bridge in England?? Is there another with this name somewhere else? Or was this added to the list by accident?Cloveapple (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)since there was a picture i made it. class ii structure, notable. if anything adds to bias of anglophile old stonework.Slowking4 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)   === Featured Developing World articles === Ketuanan Melayu - Johnleemk (talk · contribs) As of May 2011   === Requested articles ===  The Beauty Myth, a review of Western ideals of corporeal beauty, how that contrasts with those of other cultures, and effects of acculturation.  I moved the article that was there on the Naomi Wolf book to The Beauty Myth.  Beauty myth now redirects there.  The blue link here should not be taken to mean that someone has started an article on the concept apart from Wolf's book.  Jkelly 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)   === Requests for expansion === See also: Category:Art stubs, Category:Artist stubs, Category:Art organization stubs, Pages needing attention/Culture and ArtsAnna Hyatt Huntington (1876–1973) Gertrude Hermes (1901–1983) Stub as of May 2011. Françoise Gilot (1921–) As of May 2011: more than a stub but doesn't say anything about her artistic work Judith Godwin (1930– ) Stub as of May 2011 Natalia Goncharova (1881–1962) Start Class as of May 2011. Needs more inline citations. Harriet Whitney Frishmuth (1880–1980) Not rated but I'd call it Start Class as of May 2011 Cloveapple (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Ethel Léontine Gabain (1883–1950) Could use a light edit to merge some ultra small sections. Cloveapple (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Clyde Connell (1902–1998) Stub as of May 2011. Mary Emily Eaton (1873–1961) As of May 2011, it's start class Dorothy Dehner (1901–1994) As of May 2011, it's a stub. No longer a stub, but still needs expansion as of December 2019. Marina Núñez del Prado (1912–1995) As of May 2011, it's start class Virginia Berresford (1902–1995) As of May 2011, it's a stub. Mirella Bentivoglio (1922–2017) As of May 2011, it's a stub. Young-ja Cho (1951– ) Created a brief stub on this sculptor - can't find anything else on the web with any substance though. Still a stub in May 2011. Surojana Sethabutra (1956– ) contemporary Thai ceramicist. This is a stub in May 2001. Sybil Gibson (1908–1995) - created a page on this artist - I'll expand it when I have time, as there is plenty of info on the web. Could do with a picture of some description though if anyone with more technical know-how than myself can look at it. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 15:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC) As of May 2011 it has a picture but needs some more citations. Frida Baranek (1961– ) Nell Blaine (1922–1996) Karen T. Borchers (1957– ) Caroline Durieux (1896–1989) Katharine Cameron (1874–1968) Louisa Chase (1951–2006) Joan Danziger (1934– ) Dale DeArmond (1914–2006) Ursula Fookes (1906–1991) Patricia Tobacco Forrester (1940–2011) Harmony Hammond (1934– ) Anna Gardell-Ericson (1853–1939) Ruth Gikow (1915–1982) Nancy Grossman (1940– ) Lilian Westcott Hale (1881–1963) Marcia Gygli King (1931–2011) Connie Imboden (1953– ) National Gallery of Thailand, Bangkok   === Requests for review/attention === The arts and Art need a lot of whole lot of work. There are also several open questions about categorization - see their talk pages.   Clubmarx 17:48, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) Chord (music) and Interval (music) have both been described as Eurocentric and are specifically biased towards European classical music. Hyacinth 19:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Physical attractiveness and Facial symmetry articles purport to be universal but appear to perpetuate Western aesthestic ideals of physical beauty. Red squirrel, at least a section on conservation is written from an almost entirely UK-centric point of view. --Eleassar  my talk 10:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC) The article is on a UK species. As of May 2011 there's a redirect to the US species.Cloveapple (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Harp, Lyre, Flute, Drum and Musical notation are all eurocentric and need to be split into a general part with a globalized view and special articles on special European forms of the topic. This is probably also true for other music-related articles (I am currently checking this). Nannus 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Harp Looks like there's been an attempt to make it more global but sections on Africa, Asia, and Latin America need expansion and references. Cloveapple (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Lyre has a ""Lyres around the world"" section that's only a list of links. (Looks like a useful list and could form the start of a separate list article but it doesn't balance the fully written text of other sections.) Cloveapple (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Flute covers a number of regional variations now, with  ""western concert flutes"" just one variation among many. Chinese and Japanese sections could use expansion and a picture. Cloveapple (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Drum looks satisfactory now. (A music expert might see more that needs doing.) Cloveapple (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010 film) seems to be written from the perspective of the producer/director.  As of July 2013Increasing number and quality of biographies of women, issues regarding women or under-covered topics of interest to women, as well as improving Wikilinks, categorization, etc. regarding women.    See also articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject_Women's_History. Note that Wikipedia Gender gap task force additionally encourages more women to start and keep editing Wikipedia.   === Requested articles === Many requests for female biographies can be found at Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics. Ongoing, redlinks from List of feminists, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karen TenEyck - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tammy Gillis - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cathleen Miller - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christiane Lemieux - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alisse Waterston - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kathleen Gilje - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary Millben Draft - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emma Jane Unsworth - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Debbie Heald - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joy Rose- postponed - removed promotional material Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reel Women - postponed - added references - submitted - declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brittany Smooch (2) - postponed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beverly Bond - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karen D. Thompson - postponed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret Williams - postponed - added references Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tanja Börzel - postponed   === Requests for expansion: biographies === Jessie H. Bancroft (1867–1952) was an American educator, a pioneer of physical education Eugénie Potonié-Pierre Anne Koedt (wrote The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm) Kat Cole, CEO of Cinnabon. There are 50 listed American women chief executives, out of 1,800 American chief executives. The article is written and referenced, and is waiting for an AfC reviewer to accept it. Now an article  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Czech feminists Eliška Krásnohorská, Anna Bayerová, Alice Masaryková Sady Doyle, an American feminist journalist for The Guardian and blogger for her Tiger Beatdown blog Gisella Floreanini, alias Amelia Valli, communist, antifascist, minister in the Republic of Ossola, first woman to be a minister in Italy, only member Republic of Ossola government to rejoin the guerrilla rather than flee to Switzerland after it fell to the Nazis, member of parliament after World War II. it:Gisella Floreanini Braga, Antonella (2015). Gisella Floreanini. Unicopli. ISBN 8840018557.. Rachel Foster Avery, corresponding secretary of the National American Woman Suffrage Association Marie-Louise Berneri, anarchist writer and activist Marilyn French, American author Doreen Granpeesheh, Autism psychologist and entrepreneur Adrienne Monnier  major figure from the 1930s Paris scene Bertha von Suttner, Austrian pacifist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Helen Lynd, American sociologist Judy Chicago  arguably the U.S.'s most famous specifically feminist artist Kartini - Indonesian feminist and anti-colonialist Shidzue Katō one of the first post-war feminists in Japan Martha Griffiths, US politician, made sure women were included in the civil rights bill Mary Butts - important modernist writer. Mary Daly  major feminist thinker, we have little but a list of publications. Min Jiayin - her work is based on feminist Riane Eisler's Rosalind Miles very important women's history author, wrote The Women's History of the World Oriana Fallaci Yenlin Ku Taiwanese feminist Yvonne Vera female author from Zimbabwe Yoshioka Yayoi (1871-1959) Japanese woman educator & physician Maiden of Ludmir (1805-1888) ""one of the few female rebbes in the history of the Hasidic movement."" Ruth R. Benerito scientist Cynthia Kenyon scientist Susan Solomon scientist Jean Macnamara scientist Elizabeth F. Neufeld Isabella Karle Marjorie Lee Browne African-American mathematician Esther Lederberg Evdokia Anagnostou Greek-Canadian neuroscientist   === Requests for expansion: topics === Search ""List of women..."" and ""list of female..."" and find a number of such list articles. Brazilian Women's Articulation, NGO in Brazil Stub as of May 2011. Chinese male writers on women's equality and feminism: Kang_Youwei's (1858-1927), Liang Qichao (1873-1929), Yu Zhengxie (1775-1804) and Li Ruzhen (1763-1830) Category:Modernist women writers See List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science, L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards, List of members of the National Academy of Sciences, look for male scientists who have notable scientist wives, Cyberbullying needs more info on internet harassment of women modern art — no descriptions or works by female artists (only included in lists); suggested additions are Frida Kahlo and Yayoi Kusama, possibly also Barbara Kruger and Marina Abramović (though they are mentioned in postmodern art) body shape — underdeveloped compared to female body shape; male body shape is only a redirect to the main article As of May 2011Non-English language literature (particularly writers whose work is unavailable or not widely available in English). See also List of African writers by country.   === Requested articles === These include all of the nonexistent links listed under ""Literature by country or language""   Sorbian literature (for inspiration, see de:Kategorie:Literatur (Sorbisch)) Mohammed Awzal (ca. 1680-1749), the most important author of the Sous Berber (Tashelhiyt) literature tradition. Needs an article as badly as As of May 2011 has a short article. the literature section of the language article needs expansion. Hoda Barakat Stub as of May 2011. Latin American and Caribbean women writers - Darline Dorce-Coupet, Daisy Cubías, Magaly Alabau, Mariá Álvarez Rios, Emilia Bernal, Teresa  Bevin, Dulce Maria Borrero, Rafaela Chacon Nardi, Fina Garcia Marruz,  Chely Chima, Mercedes Matamoros y del Valle, Mirtha N. Quintanales, Eliana Rivero. Korean women writers - Hildi Kang, Hyun-Deok Foreman Kim, Ok-Kyo Kim, Yoko Kawashima Watkins, Mia Yun Indonesian women writers - Soewarsih Djojopoespito, Elisabeth Woensdregt, Mevrouw Kloppenburg-Versteegh, Nellie van Kol (alias Jacoba Maria Petronella Porreij), Medy Loekito, Jeanne de Loos-Haaxman, Harryet Marsman, Louise de Neve, Cornélie Noordwal, Karin Ottenhoff, Mary Pos, Dé-Lilah aka Lucie van Renesse, Lin Scholte, Ena Stok-van Es, C. Swaan-Koopman, Hélène Weski, Augusta de Wit, Marie C. van Zeggelen Phra Maha Raja-Kru, one of Thailand's most famous poets For example, the story about the tiger cub and the calf written by Raja-Ru in circa 1657 is in the Thai Wikipedia but not in the English Wikipedia Red links on the Premio Nadal (a list of winners of a Spanish literary prize) Red links in the Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Prize for women writers. Indian woman writers - created using Women Writing in India, edited by Susie Tharu and K. Lalita, many many redlinks Red links on the List of Algerian writers Red links on the List of historic Indian texts   === Requests for expansion === Indonesian women writers - Mina Kruseman, Annie Romein-Verschoor Korean women writers Hyung-Soon Cha As of May 2011 this links to a stub about a novel & not to a writer. Is this correct? Han Kang Myung Mi Kim Latin American and Caribbean women writers Marie Vieux Chauvet Carmen Lyra Start Class as of May 2011. Carmen Brannon rated a stub as of May 2011, but looks like it's moved a little beyond that Mirta Aguirre Dora Alonso Juana Borrero Julieta Campos Cristina García C Class as of May 2011. Mireya Robles Mahmoud Shabestari Great Persian poet and Sufi Muslim. I couldn't find enough information about him in English.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Yaşar Kemal Major Turkish writer. Memed, My Hawk and İnce Memed tetralogy, two articles on his novels, could also use some attention. Antonio Machado One of the great poets of the 20th century gets barely more than a stub. As of May 2011, it's C Class. Arabic literature - a disgracefully short article on a huge topic. - Mustafaa 10:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) B Class as of May 2011. Yefet ben Ali A Karaite Sage of past whose commentaries were influential on Ibn Ezra and Kimchi, and was a subject of interest during the first half of the 1900s. His writings could go under Mustafaa's suggestion, as they were all written in Arabic. --Josiah 03:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Has a neutrality tag as of May 2011. Slovene literature, would expand it myself but right now I am very busy. --Eleassar  my talk 10:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Chinese literature is just a collection of lists- nary a sentence to be seen. As of May 2011, there's a good deal of writing but also several clean up tags. Latin American literature - outside of the Boom, almost no content. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Looks fixed. Multiple eras are mentioned now. Could use inline citations though. Cloveapple (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Being and Nothingness - a major philosophical essay of the 20th century. The stub is not clear, with many missing parts. As of May 2011 its grown well past a stub but has many many tags. My Life in the Bush of Ghosts (novel) Stub. Omenuko - one-sentence stub on Nigerian novel (first novel in Igbo language) Kiran Nagarkar - Indian author - he's the subject of an anthology, so surely more information is available from there if nowhere else. Up to Start Class as of May 2011. Migrant literature - This is supposed to be about a category of world literature, but needs to be expanded with examples from other contexts. Also, it needs to be better sourced. Standard sources for Post-colonial literature and Exil literature would be good here, but migration is a broader topic than just its overlap with those two well-studied fields. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Ogboju ode ninu igbo olodumare a novel by Daniel O. Fagunwa is a one sentence stub as of May 2011 Abdullah Al-Baradouni this article needs more sources. I have tried looking for sources in English but there aren't many. I suspect there would be many more in Arabic.CircleGirl (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)   === Satisfactory === Kenzaburō Ōe Now covers the basics. Many linguistic articles are written exclusively or largely from an Indo-European point of view. In some cases this becomes apparent in the examples provided (Onomatopoeia seems an irredeemable example), while others treat grammatical categories and linguistic terms as if they pertain to English or other well-known Indo-European languages only. This is something that needs to be remedied in an encyclopedia of international scope.   === Requested articles ===   === Requests for expansion === (The most common request is to correct a limited (usually Indo-European) point of view.)   ==== A–J ==== Affix. Uses English examples only (!!?). Needs work. Now also includes a Native American language. Still needs work. Johnny Au (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Augmentative. Needs more work since there is only one heading, no English examples, and needs more examples from non-Indo-European languages. Currently a stub. Johnny Au 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Closed class. English-based. Cross-linguistically, there are interesting differences here. In many African languages for example, the class of adjectives is a closed class. On a sidenote, cognitive linguistic views of reasons for the distinction between closed and open classes (e.g. Talmy 2000:413, Langacker) are also worth mentioning.This is very interesting.  I would love to see some references of how adj's are in the closed class.  While the open-closed distinction forms the basis for Talmy's model of form (grammatical) vs content, I am not sure where Langacker refers to this. Certainly it is not very prominent in his 1987/1991 texts. mukerjee (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Continuous and progressive aspects. First a section on 'the English continuous', then a section treating some other languages, predominantly Indo-European. Issues like this can only be fixed by taking a broader approach to tense and aspect. Overlapping terms would be durative or continuative. — mark ✎ 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Added information about how continuous and progressive aspects are not the same in some languages, and gave Chinese as an example. —Umofomia 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Demonstrative. Another subsection of the article on English grammar has gotten its own article. Should be rewritten from scratch.Derivation (linguistics). Could use more international examples.I think I will make some additions here, the Sanskrit tradition had a lot to say on this which remains germane today. mukerjee (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Determiner (linguistics). Really should be renamed to 'Determiner (English)' or something like that. Interesting things could be said about determiners and definiteness cross-linguistically. Reworded a bit, less LPOV, de-emphasized English. Desperately needs contrasting examples (please not plain ol' Western IE languages isomorphic with English). --Pablo D. Flores 15:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)Diminutive. Oh boy, look at the structure. First, English is treated, and then a few other languages (predominantly European) are lumped together under a heading ""non-English languages"". This needs quite some work. — mark ✎ 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC) The headings are now appropriate, since there are headings based on language families and English is now grouped with other Germanic languages. However, non-Indo-European languages are grouped together. Johnny Au 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Function word. English only. It should be noted that the term 'function word' is per definition largely restricted to isolating languages (and as such is inevitably LPOV, like many Indo-European-inspired linguistic terms).Grammatical tense. Only about the English tense system, only English examples. Should be renamed Grammatical tense (English) or something like that. There is also some overlap with English grammar.  Steverapaport fixed this, but it still needs non-English examples. The table of tenses and their uses is a bit unwieldy and hopelessly LPOV. Useful examples: periphrastic/idiomatic ""tenses"" in Eurolangs; lack of distinction in Chinese; aspect emphasized over tense ibidem. --Pablo D. Flores 15:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)See also its talk page. Additionally, cross-linguistic data collection and some brainstorming is going on at Grammatical tense/multilingual sources  — mark ✎ 21:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)Present tense, Future tense, Conditional tense and Past tense suffer from the same problem. They probably should be renamed to X tense (English). Gerund apparently only exists in English.Macgreco 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Grammatical aspect. Although the term is based on the work of Indo-European grammarians, it has been used in linguistics worldwide. At present, the article contains mainly English examples and some Serbian ones. Nothing is said about application of the term in linguistics outside the Indo-European language family.Grammatical particle. English-only. Contains a list of English parts of speech considered 'grammatical particles'. I gave it a start by toning down the misleadingly strict definition a bit, but it still needs lots of work.  — mark ✎ 23:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)IdeophoneI just made a start on this one - please review it and suggest improvements on its talk page!  — mark ✎ 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)   ==== K–Z ==== Language deathLanguage revitalization Has many links to current developments; needs copyediting attention to remove ugly cleanup tags at the top! (A non-linguist who can summarize and add references could handle this.) Djembayz (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Language shiftList of retronyms. Has many US only examples with some UK only examples.  Other countries have their retronyms, especially non-English speaking countries. Johnny Au (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Metathesis (linguistics). Universal phenomenon. Mainly covers some English sound changes. Could use cross-linguistical examples. Provided examples from Navajo (Athabaskan) and Saanich (Salishan). The Klallam example is not just phonological but grammatical (I dont explain the phono part since it would be complicated). — ishwar  (SPEAK) 03:36, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)Palatalization. Not bad, but could be more outspoken on occurences of palatalization troughout the world (Berber, Bantu, to name a few). Especially in Bantu, interesting morphophonological things happen involving (among other processes) palatalization.Pleonasm. There was actually an edit warrior who wanted to remove the non-English examples from this article. Fortunately he is gone, but in the aftermath of the battle, this article is in pretty lousy shape, and still needs some non-Indo-European examples.Possessive case. This is actually a fairly good article, even including non-Indo-European concepts like alienable/inalienable possession. The problem is its context and naming. Case is defined as a feature of inflecting languages. Indeed, many languages do not express possession by inflecting the noun (like the case article would suggest). It would be better to merge much of the content of the Possessive case article to something like Possession (linguistics) and to reserve the Possessive case article for languages that actually do show a possessive case. Additionally, all those articles could do with more cross-linguistic examples. Created Possession (linguistics) and moved the relevant stuff there. Possessive case still needs examples, relation to genitive case. --Pablo D. Flores 17:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)Prefix. Indo-European perspective.Progressive tense. English-only. Don't know what to do with this one; maybe rename to Progressive tense (English), or maybe (considering its size) merge into English grammar.Reflexive pronoun. Mostly English, mentions three other Indo-European languages and one constructed language. Nothing on non-IE languages, no typological perspective (Schladt (1999)'s 'The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives' would be a good source).Rhetoric. Nothing on rhetoric in (say) Sanksrit, or other Indian languages, or for that matter any non-European (e.g. Chinese) culture. The talk page  mentions this.Root (linguistics). Corrected and added examples, though a few more would be nice. Someone with more than amateur knowledge of linguistics, please correct me. Added a hook to word stem -- which BTW is not a synonym for root and needs a formal definition.  -- Pablo D. Flores 15:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)Semantic change Do languages aside from English undergo this change?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Tone (linguistics). Universal phenomenon. In desperate need of a good definition. Is too Mandarin/Chinese minded. Check the 'what links here' of that page and see why. Improved it by adding a section on different notational systems. Still needs much work. — mark ✎ 16:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)Question. The paragraph on grammar seems OK, albeit fairly short. However, the mentioning of just the Indo-European intonation pattern and the English-only examples narrow the scope. Fleshed it up a bit, though examples are still welcome.  --Pablo D. Flores 15:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)Relative pronoun could use some information on non-Germanic languages.  The long English section is justified as these really are tricky in English, especially for foreign learners, but it's not meant to be an article just on English grammar.  --Doric Loon 18:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's severely skewed towards IE-style relativisation in general. I turned ""Relative pronoun"" into a stub, and kept the original Relative clause that ""Relative pronoun"" redirected to, which however, and rather unfortunately, treats the whole subject mostly focusing on relative pronouns. I think the whole topic should be addressed abstractly, and English should be treated along with other languages, of which more variety should be present. Hebrew was already there, and I added Japanese (which is important as a contrast because the relative clause goes before the noun it modifies, without a relative pronoun, or conjunctions, or any marks of relativisation other than word order). Chinese, I think, does the same, but it should be there too. --Pablo D. Flores 15:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Me again: Relative pronoun filled up, Relative clause cleaner (theory only), created English relative clauses for specific English usage. Some more theory, examples and illustrating trivia needed.   === Requests for review/attention ===   === Satisfactory === Inflection. Quote from the article: 'Various major languages, including English, German, Russian, Spanish, French, and Hindi - all Indo-European languages - are inflected to a greater or lesser extent. Other languages [sic!] use almost no inflection, Chinese and Vietnamese among them.' The definition used in the article is part of the problem. More historical background should be given and current, cross-linguistical use of the term should be covered. Fixed by Steverapaport 15:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC), probably could be removed from this list. --Pablo D. Flores 15:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Mama. Currently a dab, but surely we should have an article about the striking cross-linguistical similarities in the basic word for mother (cf. Jakobson 1962 etc.). It currently reads that 'mama' is a slang word for 'mother' - speaking about LPOV! See Mama and papa --Pablo D. Flores 14:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Papa. Currently a dab, but surely we should have an article about the striking cross-linguistical similarities in the basic word for father (cf. Jakobson 1962 etc.) See Mama and papa. Reduplication. Universal phenomenon. Needs a better definition, a more logical structure and more examples. Note the phrase 'most notably in Malayo-Polynesian' (other language-families or areas are not even mentioned). Cleaned it up a little -- Pablo D. Flores 15:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Provided biblio. The linked OT papers have many examples from unrelated langs. — ishwar  (SPEAK) 03:39, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) exanded (with organization). kind of a redupl. typological survey. now includes langs from all continents (i.e. N. America, Central America, S. America, NE Africa, Siberia, E. Asia, SE Asia, Papua New Guinea, & Australia) & a few major lang families (i.e. Salishan, Siouan, Tibeto-Burman, Tupí, Pama-Nyungan, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Austro-Asiatic, Mayan, Cushitic, & Uto-Aztecan). is this enough? peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 15:18, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC) Much improved thanks to Pablo & Ish. — mark ✎ 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Spatial tense. This article should be written from a Lojban grammar perspective, and certainly should not start with the sentence: Spatial tenses are a category of tenses not found in English. See its talk for an extensive discussion. Done from a Lojban perspective, still needs natural language examples (if Hopi does indeed have spatial tense). --Pablo D. Flores 14:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) You've done great work. I don't think natural languages have it and I think I made a clear case on why not at its talk page. I think this one can be moved to 'Satisfactory'. — mark ✎ 15:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Onomatopoeia. Universal phenomenon. Very stubby, needs cleanup. What is worse, at present it only includes English examples (mainly sounds of animals). Not anymore, since it includes many non-English examples, as well as popular cultural references, which are mainly from Western and Japanese comic books, comic strips, animated television programs, and manga. Johnny Au (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Pronoun. English only. Taken care of by adding links to non-English pronoun articles. Johnny Au (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)  As of May 2011Agricultural and horticultural studies. Not typically a 'geek' concern, especially outside of botany as such.   === Requested articles ===   === Requests for expansion === United Grain Growers - also a large historical presence in Alberta, Canada Stub as of May 2011. Alberta Wheat Pool - a large factor in the rural development of Alberta, Canada. Start Class as of May 2011. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and its research organizations. Very short as of 2011. Agricultural extension - the application of scientific research and new knowledge to agricultural practices through farmer education. Was GA. As of May 2011 it's C Class. Grain elevator - limited history and development   === Requests for review/attention === Farmer - modern and Western (esp. US) bias, nothing on pre-modern farming, farming in the rest of the world Slaughterhouse -- Some debiasing is done.  Global and historical persp. needed Food science Dairy science Meat science was listed as needing attention but as of May 2011 it's a redirect to Meat. (should it be a separate topic?) Wool -- the current article is about sheep wool, rather than an overview, while limited information about alpaca wool is relegated to the alpaca article, and other animals such as goats are merely mentioned as alternative sources. As of May 2011 it's still almost all sheep and Oceania. Threshing board - great job recently done translating this from Spanish, but inevitably it show a Spanish/Iberian bias in terminology, coverage, selection of sources, etc. It's a featured article in Spanish, and it's easy to see why, but it will takes some work to get it there in English. - 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Under-represented ethnic minorities in the developed world etc. (and other related topics) List is accurate as of 19 July 2009   === Requested articles === The Long Road to Freedom: 5 CD compilation of ""the heritage of enslaved Africans""; Harry Belafonte started this project in 1961, it was completed only in 2001. Our article on Belafonte mentions it only in passing; I also found a mention of it in Daniel Brown, ""Songs of Slavery"", Index on Censorship, Volume 36, Number 1, 2007, p. 138–140, but not enough to write from. If someone is familiar with this collection, we should certainly have an article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)   === Requests for expansion === Myrlie Evers-Williams, wife of Medgar Evers As of May 2011 this needs additional sources. Lonne Elder III A stub as of May 2011. Henry Dumas Start Class as of May 2011. Needs inline citations. Sarah Ann Dickey Janet Collins Johnnetta Cole Barbara Christian Alice Childress Vinnette Justine Carroll Venda people Marigold Linton Regina M. Anderson Byllye Avery Augusta Braxton Baker Runoko Rashidi - Afrocentric historian John Alcindor - black British doctor, president of African Progress Union Black History Month Black Rock Coalition Central College was/keeps being deleted for being ""irrelevant"" - a quarter of the minority students at a college left out of fear of discrimination. This goes to a disambig; unsure which college it is referring to. Fanny Jackson Coppin, African-American educator and missionary, namesake of Coppin State University Indian Shaker Church: notable religion among the natives of the Pacific Northwest. Missing inline citations. Tina Manning, Native American activist, wife of John Trudell, died in a suspicious house fire in 1979. One of the more notable woman Native American activists of the 1970s. Wasn't even mentioned by name till recent addition to the John Trudell article. Stub as of July 09. Harold Moody - leader of League of Coloured Peoples, UK black pressure group. A stub as of May 2011. Morehouse School of Medicine historically black institution training health professionals. Clark Atlanta University historically Black college in Atlanta, Georgia. Pauli Murray, African and Native American lawyer, writer, and minister in the Episcopal church, civil rights activist Muntaqim v. Coombe and Hayden v. Pataki - disfranchisement cases; Muntaqim v. Coombe filed 1994; disfranchisement of felons in NY State, being fought on a basis of racial discrimination. Latter stubby as of July 09. Jill Nelson prominent contemporary African-American journalist and writer, David Pitt, Baron Pitt of Hampstead [2] - norefs Prince Hall Freemasonry currently a short subsection of Freemasonry.  African-American Masonry has been and is important in the U.S., and Prince Hall Lodges were sometimes organizing forces in the civil rights movement. Charmaine White Face, notable Native American rights worker. Wolof people, the largest ethnic group in Senegal, but has just a substub as article. no longer a stub but needs inline citations as of May 2011   === Requests for review/attention === Mahican - editors decline to apply the self-identification guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#Self-identification, claiming that the spelling used by today's Mohican tribe should be ignored because the opinion of academics is more important than the tribe's own self-identification, despite the fact that Britannica uses the tribe's spelling. 2TWarren (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Robert Johnson - wouldn't pass V, but good article. Samuel Ringgold Ward, abolitionist - needs inline citations, more sources Reparations for slavery, in poor condition. Tyler Perry, African American playwright and actor. Morris Brown College historically Black college in Atlanta, GA Lead Belly rivaled in his generation only by Woody Guthrie as a writer of folk songs and a conduit from folk culture into popular culture - needs refimproving. Jacob Lawrence Notable African-American artist, needs inlining. Khaled (musician) Well-known Algerian raï musician living in France. E. Franklin Frazier sociologist writing on race relation in the US in the 1930s and later. Martin Delany, leading 19th century black nationalist - needs referencing. Samuel Coleridge-Taylor Afro-British composer: poorly referenced Eldridge Cleaver Black Panther, complicated, interesting life story that we only hint at. H. Rap Brown Civil rights and black power leader, weighed towards conviction Sanjeev Bhaskar Fairly prolific English actor and television presenter who gets two sentences. As of May 2011 the article has multiple sections. Probably still room for more content but not a stub. Romare Bearden Notable African-American artist Ira Aldridge 19th century African American actor. African Methodist Episcopal Church African-American literature - FA, but could easily lose that status Chancellor Williams - Afrocentric historian Joel Augustus Rogers - Afrocentric historian Ivan Van Sertima - Afrocentric historian Owen Dodson Alexander Crummell Fanny Jackson Coppin, namesake of Coppin State University Septima Poinsette Clark Elizabeth Catlett Leroy Carr E. Simms Campbell Ed Bullins Sterling Allen Brown Claude Brown Charlotta Bass Janie Porter Barrett Houston A. Baker Jr. Hallie Quinn Brown Young Lords New York area Puerto Rican semi-gang, semi-political-party circa 1970, moved at least for a while towards trying to become a Puerto Rican equivalent of the Black Panthers. I got this one started: there is a lot of online material & probably more elsewhere. Expect sources to somewhat contradict one another. This would be a great topic for a good researcher who understands how to cite sources, etc. - Jmabel 23:19, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) Zoroastrianism, Zoroaster and related topics all suffer from serious neglect, bias and misinformation. Someone has even categorized ""Zoroastrian gods"" -- despite the fact that it is a monotheistic religion -- including listing Ahriman/Angra Mainyu in that category. This is equivalent to listing Satan as a ""Christian God""! Zosodada 20:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) Aramaic-speaking Christian groups: Syriacs, Arameans, Assyrian, Chaldeans and Assyro-Chaldeans. These are quite a mess, as ethnic definitions are not very clear, and all of these labels have political connotations. Nowruz and Newroz as celebrated by Kurds. The old Zoroastrian new year, celebrated by Persians, Kurds and other groups in the region. One ethnic group, not surprising the by far largest, seems though to be very dominant in the coverage. Bertilvidet 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)   === Satisfactory === Cheikh Anta Diop Stokely Carmichael Labor related issues. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour.   === Requested articles === 2006 Oaxaca protests A significant industrial conflict in the Mexican state of Oaxaca in 2006. Currently partially addressed at Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca and 2006 Oaxaca protests. A massive expansion is needed in the page on their union (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación), the subject of major internal contention. Job security, worker's sense of having continuity of employment resulting from the possession of special skill. Overqualification affects Job Security, African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation Regional organisation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Nothing. ITUC-Asia Pacific Regional organisation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Nothing. Trade Union Confederation of the Americas Regional organisation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Nothing. I've made a start on the three ICFTU regional organisations, but all could use expansion.  Most of the information I could find on the American organisation is in Spanish, so that one could use from anyone who can read Spanish (I can't.)  The lists of affiliated national unions (I couldn't find an online source for a list for Africa) also provide a collection of red links for us to make blue ;-) -- AJR 20:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Union federation Now redirected to National trade union center, which already existed and might be a better place for an article, since some national umbrella organizations call themselves confederations, e.g. the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. The article in question really needs improvement, though. / Alarm 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Labour council Trade unions in Burkina Faso. I know very few on this subject because they were in the uderground during the revolution, but they're widely considered as very powerful before and after. Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Moldova International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes - part of the World Bank Migrant farmworker / Migratory labor Okey O'Dell A crucial part of the Hardin county onion pickers strike, who is also in the Ohio labor union hall of fame.   === Requests for expansion === AFL–CIO America's largest federation of unions. An important contributor to the U.S. Democratic party. Stub. Congress of South African Trade Unions Played important political role as ally of the ANC. Short article. General Confederation of Labour (France) The major French trade union needs some expansion as of November 2011. European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) Similar to the ICFTU regional organisations. Very active in lobbying the EU. Nothing. Bill Haywood Important leader in the Industrial Workers of the World in the early 20th century; this article could use some expansion, but it especially needs to be cleaned up and cited. --JerryOrr 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) moving to Requests for review/attention --JerryOrr 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC) International Labour Organization Very brief text on U.N. organization that has meant a lot for working conditions in developing countries. International labor standards Defined as the ILO ""core conventions"". We have nothing on this. Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions Potentially important labour organisation in Iraq. - now a stub. Nigeria Labour Congress One of Africa's strongest trade union organisations, with a history of actively working for democracy in the country. Article now created, proofreading and expansion needed. Picketing Strike action A reasonable article, but nowhere near as comprehensive as it could be. Ver.di With 2.6 million members, this German trade union is the largest independent trade union in the world. Stub now created, more needed. Occupational safety and health The Wikipedia article only deals with U.S. legislation. A lot more could be done. There's also Occupational safety and health, which is more general, describing principles rather than specific national regulations (but is still a victim of systematic bias, it only specifically mentions US & EU practices.) Asbestos and the law An attempt to do just that. London dock strike, 1889 ""...is widely regarded as a major milestone in the development of the trade union movement, marking...""   === Requests for review/attention === Bill Haywood Important leader in the IWW in the early 20th century. I've made a to-do list; once these items are addressed, I plan on putting it in for peer review and eventually pursuing featured article status. I've pretty much been the sole contributor to this article for quite some time, so any help would be greatly appreciated! --JerryOrr 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)  Most of the articles listed on Open Tasks are neglected because of their subject matter.  The articles below are internally biased. In other words, they currently deal only with matters in certain countries, and/or often have a U.S. or developed country perspective rather than a global one.  Once they have been edited to remove the geographic bias, please place them in the Satisfactory section.  The list is split up by groups of letters of the alphabet for ease of navigation and editing.   === A–E === Academic dishonesty All but one of the modern examples and studies are American (the one non-American example is for other countries, with an emphasis on Japan, which is only one sentence long). Johnny Au (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Adoption Lacks perspective of countries that are the sources of international adoption.Interracial adoption is solely from a U.S. perspective, is from a white adoptive family perspective, and lacks information on international adoptions (which can in some cases also be considered interracial).Alcohol abuse among college students is primarily US-centric (and has one image from 19th century Germany)  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Alcohol advertising Most examples are from the United States, Europe, or Australia.  Johnny Au (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Alcohol advertising on college campuses is an academic assignment article that only has American context.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Anti-siphoning law Do non-English-speaking countries (as well as Canada) force the broadcast of major sporting events on terrestrial television?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Battle axe Lacks examples from Sub-Saharan Africa, even given that the Kongo and the Zulus (Zulu battle axes are called ""imbazo"") were among the best known Sub-Saharan African peoples to use them for example.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Battlement As if the concept is only relevant in medieval western European architecture. Lacks a global point of view, although it mentions the Great Wall of China (at the very least, Islamic architecture should be added). See also its talk. Beekeeping Has been a subsistence method from time immemorial for some societies. Article makes it almost look like a Western hobbyist practice. Bimetallism Deals almost exclusively with bimetallism in U.S. history; could use information on Islamic bimetallism and any other non-US historical/modern examples that may exist. Another editor removed {globalize/USA} tag when I added it to the article (twice) but raises no objection to having the tag on the talk page. --Eloil 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)It still is completely American.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Block party What about those taken place outside of the United States and Europe, respectively? Here is a source documenting block parties in Canada and the Caribbean: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1229674---blocko-parties-have-a-long-history-in-toronto  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Block programming What about a few non-American examples?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Bogeyman What mythical being is used in places, such as Africa and China, and among the indigenous peoples of Oceania and the Americas, is used to frighten children into being obedient?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Bomb disposal This article is heavily Anglo-centric.  Other definitions of domain terminology is also American.  Drdan 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - It was invented by the British, and refined to where it is today by the Americans. There hasn't been significant additions by other countries because most of the second and third world countries today send their Technicians to UK or US schools for training. It's not a topic many can speak about with authority. What about a topic that has systemic bias because it is monosystemic in nature? Shawn 11:42 15 April 2006 (EDT) Breakfast Scant references to non-western practices. Much added on Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Still lacking anything on Africa. 6 African examples as of May 2011 Cannabis rescheduling is unashamedly about various bits of legislation in the United States, and has nothing to say on Cannabis legislation anywhere else. Gareth Hughes 18:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Channel drift It seems that only American television channels are affected from this phenomenon.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Civilian control of the military I'm in the process of expanding this article but will be the first one to admit that my examples and structure draws heavily on the American philosophy and practice (this could be my limited perspective showing, but I think the term is probably used most frequently in this context as it is). I've attempted to add some mentions of Maoist theories and the Soviet commissars, but would really appreciate any input from editors who can contribute more material on theories of civilian control in other countries. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Columbus Day - suggests that Columbus Day has only ever been celebrated in the United States, and that opposition to the concept is limited to the United States - Now mentions similar holidays in several other countries, especially in Latin America, but none in Canada, although very few people in the latter celebrates the holiday. Examples of opposition from US and US Virgin Islands only. Community service needs more examples from outside the Anglosphere (and needs a few Commonwealth examples as well); the article also implies that Christianity is the only religion in existence.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Contract Based almost exclusively on the law of common law nations, mostly the U.K.  Even non-Anglophone common law countries like India are barely mentioned.  The article also suffers from serious perspective bias in that it only treats the ""legal"" aspects of contract and ignores perspectives from other disciplines. Elliotreed (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Countermovement reads as if non-American countermovements don't exist (the article also looks like an essay for a school assignment).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Counterprogramming has no non-American examples (of either American shows outside the United States or non-American shows).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Cronyism - only gives examples from the Bush presidency, where politicians all round the world hire their mates for the best jobs. Crossover (fiction) Too many US examples, with some Canadian examples, and few British and Japanese examples; needs much more non-US examples, especially from outside the Anglosphere and Japan. Johnny Au (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Culture war focuses on the Anglosphere with a very short section mentioning Imperial Germany.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Cyberbullying Seems as if that only occurs in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, and Canada. Johnny Au 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Cyberstalking legislation It seems that governments outside of the United States do not take cyberstalking seriously.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Dayparting mostly has American and Australian examples with very few British or Canadian examples.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Dead mall It seems that shopping malls outside the United States and the People's Republic of China never declined.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Death Legal definition section should be expanded. Derivative work Originally US-only, but now contains Canadian law; other countries are definitely needed.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Dinner Focuses on North America and the U.K. Discount store is missing examples of discount stores in the Global South, as well as those in Canada and some European countries such as France, Italy, and Spain.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Editorial cartoon Has only examples from the United States and Canada from the past supporting the war effort. Should need current editorial cartoons from other countries regarding other issues. Education reform The article is USA-centric, and is lacking information about education reforms from the rest of the world. 216.125.251.30 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Electrical conduit Cites frequent examples ""in the US"" and references to US law, and has some minor notes about the UK, but does not discuss anywhere else. Eternal September is written from an American perspective.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)   === F–M === Famine Focuses mostly on the European experience, with fairly limited discussion of the modern phenomenon. Fan loyalty It seems that it only exists in the United States, as if teams participating in international competitions had no fanbases.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Freedman USA-centred. Roman and Greek societies had such a term, to mention a quick example. Article should be rewritten as to broaden the meaning and put USA particularities in relevance proportional to the... extent to which the word refers to USA-terms. Or something, better words lacking. --portugal (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Freedom of speech Developed World examples only. Short paragraphs on the situation in India, in Asia in general and in Africa. Much potential for expansion. Friday night death slot Aside from the obvious, do any other countries' television networks have this or similar death slots?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Friendly political wager needs significant work, with more examples from outside the United States, Oceania, and Germany.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Gang Deals almost exclusively with the U.S. General strike - Rome, North America, Europe have narrative sections, nowhere else does. Note that largest general strikes have probably been in India.--Carwil (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Ghosting (identity theft) The characterization deals with the U.S. as if understood, the rest is not much better. Grade retention Most examples and statistics are from the United States, with a little from Canada, and much less for other countries Grazing rights - mostly U.S. and a little Brit.  Needs expansion for the many other countries that have domesticated grazing animals Harp, Lyre, Flute, Drum and Musical notation are all eurocentric. Nannus 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Height restriction laws Has only examples from US, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, Bali, and Singapore. Homeschooling Much of the article deals with homeschooling in the United States, especially with the statistics. Homework History section only deals with the United States. Honor system primarily deals with the United States.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Hotelling's law has American examples (in the Applications and Real Life sections) and one image showing a Polish example.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Illegal immigration Only U.S. references. (Although the French Wikipedia's Sans-papiers article does not seem to have that much to add, it might at least provide a starting point for a European perspective. However, this article needs much more than that.) Infomercial What about those outside the United States? Information about infomercials outside the United States, but is only one paragraph long.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC) There is now a (short) section on informercials outside the United States, but definitely needs expanding.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Information and media literacy Are Canadians the only ones who are media literate?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)It is more balanced, but what about continental Europeans, Africans, or Oceanians?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Innuendo Most of the examples are from American television programs.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Category:Inventions The only inventions-by-nationality categories we have are for English-speaking nations:  thus there's Category:Australian inventions but no Category:German inventions, even though we have a huge number of Category:German inventors each of whom presumably invented something notable.  It's tempting to suppose that only nationalists tag articles with invention-by-nationality.  —Blotwell 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) There is now much more list of inventions from non-Anglophone countries, but still needs more countries, especially in the developing world.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Journalistic scandal A long list of examples, all but one or two from the U.S. Kids' meal is primarily in the American context, with all examples of restaurants serving such being American. The legislation section lists a few countries that are not the United States.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Labour law Limited to U.S. and U.K. mostly, misses the fact that there are international labor standards. Trade union Some general history, but country-specific information for U.S., UK and Sweden only (excluding half a sentence mentioning China in the introduction). Land mine.  Almost entirely about the mines themselves and the countries that make and remove them.  Countries plagued by mines are mentioned only in passing. Lawyer/Solicitor Lead has U.S. perspective, only deals with the U.S., UK and Poland. Locomotive and the related Electric locomotive and Diesel locomotive. Articles need added material on European history and usage, without Euro-biased suppression of North American experience. (This problem affects almost every article about rail technology, though most commonly it's the North American side that's missing.) Manga, specifically the International Influences section, which is mostly American with a bit of Europe.  ColourBurst 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Marathon (media) has no non-American examples.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Market town You wouldn't know that trade existed outside of Europe. Marriage too much bias on same-sex marriage—western countries are minority against China, India, Japan and Third World/South America. Article ""s.s. marriage already exists"". People may consider it ""annoying information"", just looking for man/woman marriage information. Wikipedia is not a ""political platform"". Media bias Mainly concerns itself with the U.S. liberal vs. conservative bias discussion. Military cadence Do armed services outside the United States have these? Minor party There are minor political parties in many multi-party states outside of the United States and Australia as well.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Mixed-sex education Brief discussion of history in U.S. only, and some lists.  Needs internationalization in any case, and might the subject of women's education in Muslim and developing countries be appropriate here?  As of May 2011 there's very brief sections for Hong Kong and France. The UK and China have 3-4 paragraphs. Cloveapple (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Model minority Yes, there is information about model minorities outside the United States, but information about the United States takes up the bulk of the article.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Modesty - passes beyond systemic bias into outright chauvinism: modesty norms outside the industrialized Western world are only discussed (and then only briefly) in comparison and contrast to the average Western norm. Even that norm is generalized and ignores real variations between countries, regions, and ethnicities.  Discussions of religious and cultural norms are no longer based on mere comparison to the average Western norm.  However, still biased heavily in its general discussion of modesty toward generally accepted Western norms.  Still needs work. Music genre only US/West, doesn't even mention that there is music in Africa, or that people who are not Western have music at all. More discussion about ""honky tonk"" than about entire continents!   === N–Z === Naming rights All of the examples in this article are US only. Johnny Au (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) This article now has one Canadian example and a few British examples.  More outside the United States are needed.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC) List of cultural entities with sole naming rights Most of the examples in this article are Canadian with some US examples. Johnny Au (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC) It now has examples from Chile, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines as well, though more examples from other countries are needed.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Narrative evaluation seems to be almost absent from outside the United States (aside from a department within Oxford University).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Native American mascot controversy The article mentioned the case in Canada, but not Latin America, in the introduction, yet the article lacked any Canadian or Latin American examples.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Nonviolent video game mainly focuses on the American context, nothing much about non-American non-violent video games  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Nudity, especially Various modern-era attitudes has only Western perspectives, plus a short sentence on Islam, and a bit on Japan, but nothing from Central/South America, Africa, or most of Asia. Nursery rhyme solely deals with songs sung to children from a French and English perspective, and one sentence on indigenous cultures.  Nothing from the rest of the world. List of oldest continuously inhabited cities — Very uneven coverage; several major cities in the Americas, including Cusco, are nowhere to be found.--Carwil (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) One-way traffic Seems as if one-way traffic is only used in Lima, Peru; much of the United States; Canada; and Europe. Parking lot Seems as if parking lot legislation only exists in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, though there are examples of parking lots in Japan and Canada. Partial cloverleaf interchange (Parclo) mainly has Canadian examples.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC) PC Engine This article, which is about a 16-bit videogame console by NEC, is almost exclusively American-centric. It presents the US model of this system (the TurboGrafx) as an international reference. As discussed in the Talk page of the article, evidence clearly proves that this NEC console was known and distributed in Europe under its original Japanese name, and the name ""TurboGrafx"" was largely ignored there. The article doesn't need a rewrite: it mostly needs to be split into two distinct items. Kaminari (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Peasant — Focused on Europe, but most peasants don't live there.--Carwil (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Physician Generally lacking, as it currently deals mainly with training, but only covers the U.S., the UK and France. Pizza delivery -- This article has become very American centric. It focuses entirely on pizza delivery in the United States. Some effort should be made to include pizza delivery in European and Asian countries as well. (RaF (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) Plastic surgery has a section on cosmetic surgery which deals entirely with regulatory issues in the US Police Mostly U.S. and UK (for historic reasons) references. Nothing on the role of the police force in neither democratic nor oppressive developing countries. Proof coinage Article reads like the world has only two countries (One is Bulgaria, guess which is the other). Property law Article has almost exclusive focus on the common law tradition, with a few isolated references to other European legal systems (the civil law and Roman law).  There's no discussion of non-European legal traditions and none of contemporary European-derived property law outside the Anglosphere. Elliotreed (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Public relations Almost exclusively uses U.S. examples and figures. Public transport, vitally important throughout the developing world but the details focus on the decision to implement mass transit in industrialized countries Rape Western perspective. Discusses the legal definitions of the U.S. and the UK only. Apart from brief mentions of the social consequences of rape in ""societies with strong sexual customs and taboos"", and rape as a means of torturing detainees in some countries, the rest of the article deals with the U.S. situation. No mention of the practice of rape as a war crime. Repossession only has examples from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Rubbing alcohol Laws and uses are only mentioned in UK and US contexts Johnny Au 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Sandpit Mostly general, but lack details about its use in playgrounds outside North America; before my edit, it was US only. Johnny Au 03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Satire mainly focuses on those of the Western and Islamic traditions, with examples of Horatian and Juvenalian satire being primarily Western, with modern examples mainly from the Anglosphere.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Saturday-morning cartoon Do non-American television networks have such a programming block?  It lists Canada (as Nelvana) and Japan (as anime) as ""foreign"" sources of programming for Saturday morning cartoons, but it mentions nothing about those countries having such programming blocks on their networks.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Secondary education The ""in various countries"" section almost entirely excludes Africa. Social promotion Most examples and perspectives come from the United States with little from Canada and none elsewhere Special needs consists of (a) American general view (b) American legal minutiae Spontaneous order is nearly entirely about economists' views, there is short shrift given to political applications at the core of the spontaneous order concept, and even worse, little to no coverage given to the Chinese philosophers who birthed the concept of spontaneous order over two millennia ago. This is a serious problem of WP:Systemic_bias, and since Confucius and Confucianism played such a huge role in creating spontaneous order (arguably inventing the concept) failure to include this is especially problematic. State of emergency only deals with the US. Still deals mainly with the U.S., although info on other Western democracies have been added. - 25 countries now. Street suffix What about street suffices outside of North America?  Before my edits, they were US-centric (I added a few Ontario-specific street suffixes to counter the bias somewhat).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Student activism and Youth activism Deals with the U.S. only. Nothing is said about the leading role students often take in protesting against oppressive societies, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968 (see Jan Palach), Myanmar (esp. 1988), China (1989 Tiananmen Square protests), Iran (Iran student protests, July 1999), Serbia during Milosevic (see Otpor) and Indonesia (History of Indonesia). Also, the student protests of 1968 in places like Paris (May 1968 events in France) and Mexico City (Tlatelolco massacre) should also be mentioned. I've reworked this page to give it a more international scope - US-specific stuff is in its own section now, and I've added a skeletal Indonesia section. More to do - the above is a great (inspiring!) list of places where student activists have (usually) made changes. - Cdc 20:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) I've added a small bit on France. The May 1968 events in France page is extremely thorough, so all we need here is a brief overview to show the context of it in student activist history. Leyanese 17:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Store brand and Generic brand both lack non-American examples, though the latter has a few British examples (and See also links to a Canadian, a Japanese, and a fictional American generic brand).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Lists of most common surnames is split up by region and has many uncovered countries no lists at all for popular African surnames as of May 2011 Central America only lists common surnames in Nicaragua as of May 2011 Theme music only has examples for the United States and the United Kingdom (though the video game section has only a single example, one from a Japanese video game series)  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Tort This article almost exclusively discusses the common law system of the Anglosphere, contains only brief mention of the civil law, and ignores other legal systems entirely. Elliotreed (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Town drunk only has examples from the United States and the British Isles (with Shakespeare being the earliest listed example); there should be plenty of fictional alcoholics depicted in non-Anglophone media, but they aren't mentioned at all for some inexplicable reason.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Traffic congestion This article mainly focuses on traffic in the United States.  It contains only a small mention of traffic in the UK, Iran, China (including Hong Kong), Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Venezuela, with images from Russia, India, Thailand, Taiwan, Germany, and Portugal. Transportation planning Only focuses on the United Kingdom and the United States.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Unemployment Focused on the U.S., with a lengthy discussion on the U.S. definition and little or no mention of unemployment in other parts of the world. Underemployment, a much more widespread problem than unemployment in the developing world doesn't have an article at all, although it could be treated as part of the unemployment article if it was revised. --Sepa 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, there is an article for Underemployment, albeit a poor-quality one. --JerryOrr 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Urban planner There are many more urban planning institutes than those listed in the article, especially in countries that are not listed.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Variety show needs examples from other countries as well, such as from Canada, Brazil, and all of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia (aside from the Philippines).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Veneration of the dead focusses on Chinese and East Asian practices, with nothing on Africa or Amerindians (do they have ancestor worship?) --Taejo 09:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Expanded, but still nothing on Indigenous Americans. Johnny Au (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Video game controversies It seems that much of the article focuses on the American perspective.  All of the legal cases are in the United States.  There is almost nothing about video game controversies outside of the United States (aside from a few publicized incidents).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Gamergate controversy is also primarily from the American perspective.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC) List of controversial video games emphasize those that are controversial in the United States and not in other countries much (and the list is also biased in favour of recent video games; most games that are listed are American with a few Canadian and Japanese games).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Video scaler It seems that non-American television channels are not too fond of this.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Warship Virtually all information is about Europe.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Water resources ""The problem: Human populations in some areas (e.g. southern California, Israel, and Florida) are growing from 1 to 3% per year, while fresh water supplies are remaining constant or shrinking."" Ever heard of a place called Africa? This article hasn't. I've re-written and re-focused this article.  As it stands, there are no explicit geographical references - don't know if that'll make you guys happy or sad.  In the process of further refining this article, I expect specific geographical references will be worked back in or linked to.  Toiyabe 19:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Wedding. Western perspective, although some four sentences are included on non-Western traditions. Pretty comprehensive now 203.173.175.106 (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Wordfilter is mainly about its uses in Anglophone online and video gaming media, especially in the implementation section, which mainly consists of video games from the United States (and to some extent, the United Kingdom).  All of the examples in the article are applicable to English-language filters.  There is completely nothing about wordfilters for other languages.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)   === Islam, Muslims, the Muslim World, and Baháʼí === See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:List of missing Middle Eastern topicsJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Who would have guessed Wikipedia might attract writers with a pro-free-speech POV? Editors of this article have slanted it heavily toward describing the controversy as between religious zealotry and the ideal of free speech, and have excluded content that explains the context of ethnic hate speech or current regional conflict. Dirinici 07:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Istihlal is something like the crime of making up an Islamic law, recently in the news when a group of Spanish Muslims accused Osama bin Laden of the crime. --Dmcdevit 23:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) List of Islamic educational institutions: created this and would like people to add and expand it. There are almost no resources on the web--or anywhere that I can find, actually, on institutions like the Haqqania madarassa in northern Pakistan, where the Taliban leadership was educated. Or the historical universities in the Muslim world--other than Al-Azhar University.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) Should we also have a Wikipedia:Islam and Muslim World-regional notice board? I would want to do that, but only if we can get people with more than one kind of POV involved.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Theology-centrism?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)I have put in a request for Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Muslim World at Wikipedia:Wikiportal—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) See Tripoli, I listed under Developing countries section. --Dmcdevit 04:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) The Islamism article ignores the concept of Ad-Din built into the religion. Raphael1 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Contrary to the antisemitism, racism, Xenophobia or Negrophobia articles the Islamophobia article contains a section called ""Criticism of the concept"". Raphael1 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Ayatollah Sayyid Hossein Kazemeini Boroujerdi [3] Iranian dissident shia leader. --Varano 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)   ==== Requests for expansion ==== Al-islam.org Apparently a large & popular website and forum (most popular, according to Yahoo) regarding Shia Islam, but the article is severely a stub. Shalash al-Iraqi - I started this article after reading about him on an Iraqi's blog, and after doing some research I was unable to find any information on him that wasn't from other bloggers. I ended up using these as references anyway, I know that's not the ideal Wikipedia standard, but the blogs seem to suggest that he's very notable in Iraq. Is there anyone who has read a print article about him or can translate better web sources from Arabic, perhaps? Also, I'd appreciate a message on my talk page if this article is nominated for deletion. --Grace 07:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)   ==== Requests for review ==== Sünbül Efendi - this article has been posted to VfD.  I believe the topic is notable but there is an issue with transcription: apparently the correct spelling would be Sümbül Efendi (alternate Sünbül Efendi). Google returns 179 results but most of them not in English. There are also alternate spellings like Sümbül Efendi, Sünbül Efendi, Şeyh Sümbül, Sümbül Sinan, Sünbül Sinan etc.--AYArktos 22:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Baháʼí Faith--Currently the editing of this entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)I have concerns that the anti-Americanism article promotes stereotypes of the Middle East. This is mostly a bias of inclusion rather than omission, but I dislike the one-sided, slanted view. Anti-Americanism#Middle East and Africa. Help in trimming it would be welcome. Noloop (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)   === Evangelical Protestantism === Carlton Pearson - Tulsa, Oklahoma-based African American preacher and theologian, long a protegé of Oral Roberts—also an advisor to Bush on faith-based initiatives, had a TV show, etc.,—whose theology began to change in the late 1990s, when he decided that there is no Hell (or, more precisely, turned around to a rather existentialist view of Hell being something we make on earth, but not part of the afterlife). This eventually evolved into the Doctrine of Inclusion: that everyone is saved. As a result, his enormous Higher Dimensions [4] megachurch slowly collapsed, though, with his new theology, he again has a congregation numbering at least into the hundreds. Fascinating figure. Recent hour-long radio story about him on This American Life [5], but as of when I'm writing they haven't archived it to a permanent address. Founder of a Christian music festival that I believe is called Azuza, as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Since economics tend to be an issue mired in politics, pseudoeconomics are frequently invoked in political discourse and by many average people who discuss economic issues. On Wikipedia, the largest problem seems to be the promotiong of monetary crankery, by New World Order conspiracy theorists and Libertarian supporters of Austrian economics. Several articles on monetary theory currently violate WP:FRINGE. However, occasionally radical Marxists also abuse Wikipedia in the same way. Because the average person is not educated in economics, they may not be aware of the fringe-status of Austrian and Marxist arguments when they are presented, or that may not recognize a certain argument as ""Marxist"" or ""Austrian"" when it is presented. However, articles related to criticism of John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economics could use expansion...   === Requests for review === Fractional-reserve banking Fiat money Debt-based monetary system <--a POV fork of Fractional-reserve banking Criticism of socialismAnd any articles involved Austrian and Marxist economics.   === Requested articles ===   === Requests for expansion === mating - This article is a stub and should discuss more about animal mating, apart from copulation, like the behavior of animals that court or of social animals that nurture their offspring in pairs. snail - This article is underdeveloped and doesn't discuss in more detail the different taxons of snails. Also, there may be some inaccuracies. tool - The section regarding tool use in animals, while having numerous references, doesn't say much besides that monkeys & other primates, ravens, and sea otters have been observed using tools.  Could be expanded. Chinese astronomy - 3000 years of history and until recently was a single sentence. Above all, something should be added about astronomy in China today, to counter any perception that Chinese science is only about the past. Please help counter the bias against nonwestern science in this and other history of science articles.   === Requests for review === Electrical engineering - This article is currently focusing on the North American meaning of the term. European and Global use seems to indictate the separation of the terms Electrical and Electronic into different fields. sex - This article focuses too much on the human aspect of sex and does not discuss essential things about sex like genetics, biology, biological evolution and origin of sex, etc. Pregnancy (mammals) - The word ""pregnancy"" instead of ""gestation"" in the title of the article is dubious. sexual intercourse sexual reproduction Australia national soccer team - Issues with lack of gender representation for women in topical articles that are gender neutral but where the sport is gender segregated by rule. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Soccer in Australia  - Issues with lack of gender representation for women in topical articles that are gender neutral but where the sport is gender segregated by rule. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) North Korean cult of personality - There are serious issues of systemic bias - specifically, assignment of negative characteristics through uncited author POV - with two sections of the entry: Holidays and International. Please see the Talk Page for more information on these issues. BlueSalix (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Barack Obama -- Written from largely a liberal view, and not neutral. No handling of current policy criticisms.  Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I fail to see how this is written in a liberal view. It seems to be pretty matter-of-fact. If he advances a policy it is enough to say that he did so. It is a statement of fact not a statement of the benefits or detriments of the policy. As to current policy criticism, the place for that is on your favorite blog, not on Wikipedia. This is in line with the treatment of other US presidents. Look at Herbert Hoover. He was extremely unpopular, but you still don't have a huge portion of the article dealing with detailed policy criticism, when he is arguably the most deserving of it. What criticisms there are can be made with 80 years of insight and is backed up with historians as sources, not political analysts. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Execution of Saddam Hussein -- Lack of sources other than main US news outlets such as CNN or in the case of a British news outlet, the BBC. US-sources dominate the article, and this reflects in the tone. Would need an array of both independent and international sources.  Sfacets 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) As of May 2011 there are a number of non-US-non-British sources. Covance -- Focuses on animal testing information with an animal rights slant. Does not provide sufficient, accurate information on other areas of business, which include FDA nutritional testing and antibody development. Orcar967 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) paint -- only deals with the art aspect not the commercial painting aspect. Pregnancy (mammals) - focuses too much on humans by using the word ""pregnancy"" instead of ""gestation"". This article was initially split from the article about human pregnancy. Also, doesn't define well which animals gestate and which not, and discounts gestation in other animals, if any. Wikimedia movement is written from an insider point of view, without mentioning criticism made by MediaWiki developer User:Tim Starling. My edit which added it was removed by a sysop who used his revert power. Wikinerd 03:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC) FWIW, ""his revert power"" consists of skipping a click: it is exactly the same ability anyone else has to revert an edit, just slightly more efficient. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC) List of people who have been considered deities - Western bias in addressing the concept of God and divinity.  Article is currently protected due to ongoing disputes. Please come and help out at the talk page. --ZappaZ  17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC) There is no more Western bias. Johnny Au (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Robinson list -- mentions the US Do Not Call list, but then proceeds to deal with only email spam and talk about Robinson lists as if they were only for spam. Myth and related articles -- some mythologies are treated differently from other mythologies. Problems with definition. Many editors have strong feelings about these articles. – ishwar  (speak) 05:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Democracy article needs attention to ensure that it does not suffer from a bias from the point of view perspective of liberal democracy.  BruceHallman 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC) All articles related to the creation–evolution controversy, including Intelligent design, and Objections to evolution, among several others.  Particularly strident defense of bias on talk pages.  Gnixon 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage - This article would benefit from a lot more information on how media outside of the U.S. and Britain covered the war. --Mackabean 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Guantanamo Bay detention camp - The global perspective section of this article could be lengthened considerably.  I don't know a lot about this, but my sense is that Guantanamo has received considerable attention from U.S. allies and opponents around the world. --Mackabean 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Alternative education - It is heavily POV in favour of this type of education, since most authors of the article are pro-alternative education.  I believe that there should be a section about the criticisms regarding this written by those who support traditional education. Johnny Au 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Traditional education - There should be more background information regarding this topic rather than being mainly a comparison of the two types of education.  Additionally, the article seems as if it were written by those who support alternative education.  The article is also USA-centric.  Johnny Au 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC) It is no longer USA-centric. Johnny Au (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Joseph McCarthy - Several editors continue to alter any edits to their POV introduction, calling those who oppose Communism ""extreme"", and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Judgesurreal777 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Many articles about the Soviet Union rely on information from anti-Soviet sources. Both pro- and anti-Soviet sources can be greatly biased. Where possible, cite the sources used, and try to find balance. GRuban 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (greatly condensing Paranoid 17:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC))  Please review Axis powers where Soviet Union is shown as an ally of Nazi Germany, while Spain even not shown as a Nazi collaborator state.--Certh 09:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Um, did you read the article at all? It mentions that the Soviet Union was at one time an ally of Germany (which it was), but of course goes on to say how that changed after Operation Barabarosa. And there is a section discussion Spain's (and Portugal's) collaboration with Germany. I see no systemic bias in that article... --JerryOrr 12:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I think most Wikipedians do not consider themselves people with disabilities. Therefore, things such as the sociology, history, psychology, language, etc. of disabilities do not get covered in too much detail. We do have a very nice, somewhat long List of disability rights activists, but a lot of the articles are redlinks. Some of the articles that are not redlinks go to articles about people other than the ones mentioned on the page, and need to be disambiguated; a few other are pages of politicians, whose pages need to be checked for mention in their involvement for disability rights. Also, the vast majority of people on the list, if not all of them, are from the Western world.   === Requests for articles === How about Disability geography? Do a search on Google Scholar and you will find quite a wealth of journal articles that can be used to write that article.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)   === Requests for expansion === William Stokoe major contributor to understanding of ASL (American Sign Language) only has a stub Cloveapple (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) ARC (formerly Association of Retarded Citizens) is tagged for reading like an advertisement. Needs better sources, most are the ARC itself. Cloveapple (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Coal miner redirects Miner, which is a stub. Now redirects to mining, which is a decent article with info on the profession.  Now redirects to Coal mining Small engine repair - stub*Pipefitter redirects to Plumber and pipefitting redirects to Pipefitter - fixed but needs expansion --Bookgrrl 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) *Steamfitter - no article - redirected to pipefitting since everything I found everywhere including the trades description lumped the two together --Bookgrrl 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)  Machinist - stub Boilermaker - stub Steelworker redirects to the United Steelworkers Union article. Ironworker is a stub about the machine, not the profession. Steel fixer - stub Steel erector - stub Brakeman - stub Boatman - no article.  Disambig page pointing to Sailor as the nearest to this sense Baggage handler - stub roughneck, driller (oil), motorman, etc. All oilpatch jobs are stubs.General comment: one reason many of these articles do not exist, or are still stubs is that potential contributors have no model for a successful article on a profession. If one of the more complete articles could be improved into a featured article, this might help Wikipedians in filling these needs. -- llywrch 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I agree, are there any jobs that are FA status?  Engineer, or Software writer maybe? Kevlar67 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Numerous notable non-US/English scientists have no entries in Wikipedia. Ways to help include looking through award-winning scientists, Category:Awards by country,  List of members of the National Academy of Sciences,  Uncredited scientific achievements should be credited in the appropriate articles, with links to the scientists. Scientific ""pedigrees"" that include notable students or advisors should be added where appropriate. Generally advisors listed near the top with graduate and postdoc work. Notable students may be mentioned in a single paragraph about the lab and/or influences of the scientist. In addition to adding new content to underrepresented areas, we should also work on minimizing content in overrepresented ones.  It is easy to generate a hundred 1k articles out of 3k of text, if you break it up poorly and repeat yourself for a long intro paragraph in each of a hundred stubs, rather than making a single, concise page including them all. Subjects to watch for:  Star Wars characters and locales Star Trek characters and locales J. R. R. Tolkien-related characters and locales any modern television show (one article per episode summary, per throwaway character) -- particularly American and Japanese cartoons any serialized media: comic strips, comic books, serial stories, 10-part novels.  In each case, figure out what the right chunk-size is for the text... slang or jargon (can be moved to Wiktionary, or combined into topical pages with the history of that jargon type, not one page per term) Rapid transit, light rail transit, and bus rapid transit stations (should be combined into articles about individual rapid transit lines instead if the stations themselves are not notable)These are all topics that should be in Wikipedia; and none of the existing content needs to be removed; but repeated content, and generation of hundreds of stubs rather than one or two good articles, is bad for readers, for categorizers, for quality-editors, and for the 'random article' feature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs)   Not really sure what this has to do with countering systemic bias... --JerryOrr 11:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)It is relevant to systemic bias - contributors' systemic bias leads to these short messy articles. It isn't really what this project focuses on, though, which is more to do with filling in neglected areas. See umpteen discussions about choosing a less misleading name if you're interested. --Cherry blossom tree 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)isn't this akin to granting equality to cripples by chopping everyone else's legs off? certain topics are under-represented, so let's lower the representation of others to match? why not leave the content alone, and add new content for the under-represented areas, even if they're just stubs (might entice new editors familiar in those topics)? --Dak (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure this belongs here, but it seems relevant to this WikiProject -- please feel free to move it to a more appropriate place (and drop me a note). The meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have is about as Eurocentric and USA-centric as it could be. I just added a comment at meta:Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Euro-centric arguing that this is a serious problem. Perhaps attention from people in this project with more experience in these matters might help. Joriki (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)"
582	592	1305	WP:IDOL	Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force	582	"Welcome to the Idol series WikiProject!  We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Idol series. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects. Management: This WikiProject has no manager, everyone and anyone who chooses to participate in this WikiProject is free to edit and manage however much they like.  Improve, organize, and expand articles relating to the Idol series.   === Scope === Television series in the Idol format, licensed by FremantleMedia Television series and films licensed by 19 Entertainment that have significant relation to Idol Idol contestants, finalists, winners, judges, and hosts Singles debuted on an Idol show Albums and core singles debuted by an Idol winner, finalist, or contestant (not every song will fall under this scope) Bands, musical groups, musicals, movies, and shows significantly involving Idol alumni   === Biographies of contestants === For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article.   Lead section - Brief and to the point: Full name, birth date, and birth place (if applicable, include nickname(s) and hometown if different from place of birth). Should probably contain information about the Idol show that they participated in, as well as the season, and year that it happened. Biography Early years - The person's career and life before the show. x Idol - The person's persona and career during the show. Post-Idol - Events that happened after the show. Section should be titled according to the title of the album released, unless there is no album available. Discography - If applicable, information on CDs, DVDs, video, singles. Filmography - If applicable, information on movies and other television shows. List of performances - include song name, original artist, date the performance aired, and if applicable, a brief summary of judges' statements. For longer lists, {{hidden begin}} is recommended and splitting of the article is discouraged. References External links   === Albums === Only albums released on a major record label, or which have a significant amount of sales and/or promotion, will have their own articles. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and WP:MUSIC. Any others will be merged with the musical artist regardless of the contestant's place in the competition.   === Singles === As with above, major and core singles will have their own articles. Individual songs will be merged with either the album or the musical artist. Retail store lists (e.g. Amazon, iTunes, and Wal-Mart) will not be referenced in any article or included in a 'chart performance' history as they are not real music charts.   === Episodes === A list of episodes was recently created for American Idol. It is  intended to replace lists of performances. All episodes will be listed on the main episodes page, and individual pages will be created for performance shows (that follows a consistent format of naming). In order to make this happen, all records of performances must be kept on the biographies, and do not create any more pages such as 'list of Taylor Hicks' performances on American Idol'. After the transition, these lists can be removed.  These articles are currently in progress [or in-season]:  American Idol American Idol (season 12) Arab Idol Arab Idol (season 2) Česko Slovenská Superstar Česko Slovenská SuperStar 2013 Deutschland sucht den Superstar Deutschland sucht den Superstar (season 10) Idol (Norway) Idol (Norway season 7) Vietnam Idol Vietnam Idol (season 4) Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest.  ArglebargleIV -- Formatting and references; American, Canadian, Australian, Pop Idol ATC - Anything to do with American Idol Audsley - American Idol related Cleo20 - American Idol related CrazyC83 DocOfSoc-Idol guys of interest Eukesh -Indian Idol related Facha93 - Contestants biographys and discographys, also album covers. Glambert4688 - Adam Lambert! Fan till the day I die. :) Greekboy - Greek Idol and related Greek music projects Gwynand íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) J Di Jocullen84 - David Cook or Michael Johns related Julz the wizkid KC109- American Idol ladymadonna512 - David Cook, general American Idol sales/chart history Lauracs - Disambiguating song titles and artists Lazylaces - Carrie Underwood, Taylor Hicks, American Idol in general. MarkMc1990 - American Idol (primarily elimination charts) Michael MissMJ - American Idol related NicolaM – Taylor Hicks, American Idol series, et al. Oxford88 Panic!out - American Idol...I luv David Cook! User:Pat21539 Pink moon 1287 - American RaNdOm26 11:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - Australian and American Idol SDJ - American Idol, and any contestants that could be stylistically classified as ""rock"", as well as articles related to these contestants. Seth71 -American Idol Star C Zamora - Philippine Idol-related Tennis Dynamite - American Idol Tedius Zanarukando - Chikezie, Jasmine Murray, Jacob Lusk, Jessica Sanchez, American Idol in general. Traveliter – Copy editing for style and consistency; American Idol Va girl2468 - American / Canadian Idol WestJet- Canadian/American/World Idol Woohookitty - American Idol related RyannnMaccc - American Idol related Qjtv2911 – American Idol related Ggdlmnt - American Idol, Indonesian Idol, World Idol and Asian Idol related Mar4d - Pakistan Idol related articles BabbaQ (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) - Swedish Idol related articles  All articles tagged with the Idols project banner template are found sorted into their respective categories by assessment class. For more information about assessing articles, please visit the assessment page.   === By quality === Featured articles: FA-Class Idols articles A-Class Idols articles Good articles: GA-Class Idols articles B-Class Idols articles Start-Class Idols articles Stub-Class Idols articles Template-Class Idols articles List-Class Idols articles Unassessed Idols articles   ==== Candidates for featured article status ==== *Taylor Hicks   ==== Candidates for good article status ====   === By importance === Top-importance Idols articles High-importance Idols articles Mid-importance Idols articles Low-importance Idols articles Unknown-importance Idols articles   === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Idol series-related articles here with their date of creation (newer articles at the top, please).  William Segerdahl Bragi Bergsson Hanna Ferm Nikki Amini Mishavonna Henson Jesse Langseth Pinoy Idol Jan Nieto Template-Class Idols articles Idols task force templates   === WikiProject template === {{WikiProject Idol series|class= |importance= }} For more information about ""class"" and ""importance,"" please visit the assessment page.   === Encyclopedia templates ===   ==== Navigational ====   ==== Miscellaneous ==== {{AI contestant}} - creates an external link to the AmericanIdol.com website   === Userboxes === Members of this project may add the following userbox to their userpages.  WikiProject categories:  Category:Idols task force Category:Idols task force articles Category:Lists of performances on American Idol Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force/Taylor Hicks Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force/Carrie UnderwoodEncyclopedia categories:  Category:Idols (franchise)   === Related projects === Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter - (serials)"
583	593	1306	WP:DEADEND	Wikipedia:Dead-end pages	583	"A dead-end page is a page that contains no internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Adding links to these pages will help to integrate them into the encyclopedia, and assist readers by allowing for easy cross-referencing of information.  Articles tagged with {{dead end}} can be found within the monthly subcategories of Category:Dead-end pages. There is also automatically cached Special:DeadendPages. For general guidance on how to create internal links, see Help:Link#Wikilinks for the basics, and MOS:LINK#Techniques for more advanced techniques. When writing an article, try to incorporate relevant links to other articles within the text. Before saving the edit, check that the link connects to the article you intended (and not, for example, to a disambiguation page). For example, if an article begins ""Joe Bloggs was born in Birmingham,"" you should create a link for [[Birmingham]] – but first determine whether it's Birmingham, England, or Birmingham, Alabama, or another city with that name. Remember to only add links that are relevant to the context. An article with an excessive number of links is said to be overlinked; this can be distracting, and makes it harder for the reader to identify links which might actually aid their understanding of the subject. If you come across an article with no internal links, either add links yourself or apply a {{dead end}} tag. The article may need other cleanup. If so, fix the problems yourself or add the appropriate cleanup tag from WP:Template messages/Cleanup. If the article's subject is explained better in another article, consider a merge and/or redirect. If the subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable, consider nominating the article for deletion. If you're unsure whether the subject is notable, you can just add a {{notability}} tag instead. Once links have been added to the article, remove the {{dead end}} tag. If you want, you can place Dead-end pages clean up project; [[Wikipedia:Dead-end pages|you can help!]] in your edit summary. You may be interested in displaying this project's userbox on your userpage with the following code: {{Userbox Dead-end pages}}"
584	594	1309	WP:ORACLE	Wikipedia:There are no oracles	584	"There are no oracles of community opinion. Sometimes an editor will use a phrase along the lines of ""the community is calling this into question"", or ""the community does not want […] "" as an attempt to gain the upper hand in a debate. It acts as a rhetorical fallacy, painting any opposing view as ""not belonging to the community"". This is often seen in interactions with ""The Foundation"", but nearly as often is directed towards the few prolific editors who actually write Wikipedia. ""Oracling"" may occur when thousands of hours of volunteer time have been spent, spurred by a single individual who is made aware of something and makes it out that there is a sudden ""public scrutiny"" and that changes have been ""snuck in through the back door"". This is equally fallacious reasoning, as there are no back doors to consensus (or at the very least, they are few and far apart).  If something goes unquestioned for years, and is being questioned now—that's what matters. Prior history is not incriminating unless editors were knowingly in violation of policies or community decisions. They almost never are, and implying so without clear evidence violates WP:AGF. Taking the role of ""interpreter of community opinion"" is often used to mask true debate, and it is performed by writing a wall of text that discourages others from getting involved. It is a very effective strategy, and best overcome by ignoring the rambling (and often incoherent) message and pointing out that the user is ""oracling"". ""Oracling"" relies on a great deal of arrogance in assuming one's ability to interpret the ""will of the community"". The decisions and wills of the community are by definition ephemeral and changing, and no single Wikipedian has any special power to elucidate them. We have some methods to gauge the current state of community opinion, such as Wikipedia:Requests for Comment, talk-pages, and noticeboards. But without clear results run through such systems, interpreting the community's wishes and wants is to stand on shaky ground. It may give way at any time, and like the oracle perched above the abyssal gorge in the accompanying image, you may fall into the depths below when you find your interpretation does not hold.  Implied consensus is an important aspect of Wikipedia, and the fallout over an issue on Wikipedia and subsequent debates to determine consensus does not mean that all cases where the losing party reigned were wrong prior to the debate—or that any hypothetical community ""would have disapproved had they only known of the issue earlier"". How the community decides in a certain debate depends largely on who was there, at what time the question was asked, by whom it was asked and how it was formulated, who voted early and on what option, etc. If you do not believe this intuitively, there is ample evidence in the political science field, including that we vote according to how we perceive others to have voted—which obviously influences the open ballot system that is Requests for Comment (no matter how much we say that polls aren't votes). Therefore such a statement is a clear case of hindsight bias, and it is often very likely that a different result would have been reached, if perhaps only slightly. This doesn't mean that the result of any given RfC is de facto wrong, as that would be to cast aside the notion of the possibility of achieving anything resembling consensus or democratic choice. What it does mean is that you should be very wary when trying to interpret consensus and the will of the community, especially when there isn't a clear and longstanding consensus. Even in the face of overwhelming consensus you should also take care not to assume that the most extreme interpretation of support is the true consensus. It is also important to remember that consensus changes, and so does ""the will of the community"". No single Wikipedian is entitled to ""interpret the will of the community"" or act as arbiter of ""community consensus"". Experience may make you better at gauging what the community is likely to decide, but no one is ever certain—and Wikipedia's non-hierarchic nature demands we lend an ear to newcomers and those of dissenting views, just as much as we should listen to entrenched users. When two or more sides exist in an argument on Wikipedia, those subscribing to the majority viewpoint should never categorically ignore the minority one."
585	595	1310	WP:RANDY	Wikipedia:Randy in Boise	585	"Randy in Boise is the archetypal uninformed but relentless Wikipedia editor. Randy in Boise rose to fame in an essay about Wikipedia in Wired:  The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: ""Experts are scum."" For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.  Wikipedia's policies are apparently all Greek to Randy in Boise. Hearing about something somewhere does not qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.   In The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols observed that:Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything. It is a new Declaration of Independence: No longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.  Wikipedia:Due weight, which for sword-wielding skeletons in the Peloponnesian War would be zero Dunning–Kruger effect, which Randy fervently denies he suffers from. Cases: User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur, on how these discussions go Wikipedia:Randy in space, because Randy is not a modern problem. Wikipedia:Asshole John rule, how individuals inspire the creation of bureaucratic rules Philosophy and practice: Wikipedia:Competence is required, on what to do with editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but... Wikipedia:Expert retention (please don't quit over Randy) Wikipedia:Anti-elitism, and its effects (other than Randy) Advice for experts: Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, a somewhat condescending essay aimed at real-world scientists Help:Wikipedia editing for research scientists, a more advanced guide to the community Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts Related matters: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth"
586	596	1312	WP:CSS	Help:Cascading Style Sheets	586	"Cascading Style Sheets allows for flexible formatting of a page. They should be used instead of tables for non-tabular content whenever possible, because they can be manipulated by the reader or overridden by an author if your CSS is embedded in another page via a template.  Style may be chosen specifically for a piece of content, see e.g., color; scope of parameters Alternatively, style is specified for CSS selectors, expressed in terms of elements, classes, and ID's. This is done on various levels: Author style sheets, in this order: Note: See WP:CLASS for a list of all the style sheets loaded.   === MediaWiki core style-sheets === Per skin: MediaWiki Manual:Gallery of user styles etc.  Typically loaded style sheets:  common/shared.css common/commonPrint.cssSkin-specific main file e.g., monobook/main.css (normal skin for PC's), chick/main.css (normal skin for handhelds)  Browser-specific fixes (also skin-specific) Examples for Monobook:  For Firefox: monobook/FF2Fixes.css For Internet Explorer: monobook/IE60Fixes.css monobook/IE70Fixes.css For Opera: monobook/Opera6Fixes.css monobook/Opera7Fixes.css monobook/Opera9Fixes.css   === Site-wide style-sheets === Site-wide for all skins (desktop view only): MediaWiki:Common.css Site-wide for all skins (mobile view only): MediaWiki:Mobile.css Site-wide per skin: MediaWiki:Vector.css, MediaWiki:Monobook.css, etc. Site-wide for user groups: MediaWiki:Group-user.css, MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css, etc. Site-wide for specialist purposes: MediaWiki:Print.css, MediaWiki:Noscript.css, MediaWiki:Filepage.css Site-wide if gadgets loaded: see Wikipedia:Gadget for more informationNote: MediaWiki sites other than English Wikipedia may use MediaWiki:Gadget-site.css instead of MediaWiki:Common.css.   === Page-specific style-sheets === Page-specific style-sheets may be introduced through TemplateStyles. Pages, particularly templates, may also have inline CSS. Some pages have their own CSS, e.g., MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.css   === User-specific style-sheets === Global user-specific for all skins: meta:Special:MyPage/global.css User-specific for all skins: Special:MyPage/common.css User-specific per skin: e.g., Special:MyPage/vector.css, or Special:MyPage/skin.css for your current skin User-specific CSS loaded through JavaScript, e.g., loaded at Special:MyPage/common.js User-specific web-wide browser settings: local file referred to in the browser settings, or directly set in the browserNote that in CSS terminology, the user-specific style sheets are not user style sheets.   === Usage === An HTML element may be just taken from the wikitext (see HTML in wikitext), e.g., span, or the result of translating wikitext, e.g., the '''...''' code is changed into ..., or part of the code for the skin. A class may be produced by the software, e.g., ns-namespace number for the HTML-element ""body"", and extiw for an interwiki link in the page body, or taken from the wikitext. Similarly, an ID may be produced by the software, e.g., bodyContent, or taken from the wikitext. In the case of conflicting style settings for a piece of content, the resulting setting depends primarily on the indication ""!important"". Secondarily, if both are important, the user wins, if neither is, the author wins. Tertiarily it depends on specificity. Only lastly, it depends on order between and within style sheets: the last wins. Thus, a User:username/monobook.css does not win from MediaWiki:Monobook.css (both author, not user) if the specificity of the latter is greater. See also cascade.  MediaWiki supports most CSS, with such exceptions as the url() attribute. There were some bugs in CSS support in earlier versions.  You can use CSS styling in HTML elements in your code (see Help:HTML in wikitext for a list of elements supported by MediaWiki) like you would in normal HTML markup. For example, a 
...
 element with a green border and its contents floated to the right would be created with  which would produce the box to the right. Some wikitext elements allow you to insert CSS styling directly into them. An example is the table syntax:  {| style=""your style here"" |- |your table stuff |}  You may wish to use a style type that is already predefined by MediaWiki, or the site that you are visiting. You can also create a style that is unique to your page. Vector is the default style, you can view it at: MediaWiki:Vector.css You will give your CSS tag an existing ""class"" Please put a list of existing classes here.   === Non-display === In an embedded page, one can hide comments in one version, and show them in another view. One extreme ""style"" for a text is not displaying it, with  .classname {display: none} #id {display: none}  etc. Non-displayed links do not work (as opposed to links in a very small font). It cannot be used to remove text in expressions for template names, parameter names, parameter values, page names in links, etc. To view hidden text, download the Web Developer Toolbar for Firefox here, then choose Misc. → show hidden elements in that toolbar. It will make all hidden elements appear.   === Non-print === One can exclude content from being printed (if the browser supports CSS) by declaring the content to be of the ""noprint"" class:  column-content – overall space within the margins of which the content exists. firstHeading – the class of the heading tag at the top of every page contentSub – the name of the wiki immediately underneath the main heading, but above the body text content – the white background, thin bordered box which contains the main page content. bodyContent – the main page content within the content boxThe portlet class is the style used by all the div blocks around the main content.  Identified blocks using that class:  p-cactions – id for the list of page-related tabs above the main content (page, talk, edit, etc.), top. p-personal – id for the list of user-related links above the main content (username, talk, etc.), top. p-logo – id for the block that contains the logo, top left. p-navigation – id for the block that contains the navigation links on the left of the page p-search – the block that contains the search buttons p-tb – the block that contains the toolbox links p-lang – the block that contains interlanguage linksThe footer at the bottom of the page includes blocks with the following ids  footer – overall footer container block f-poweredbyico – the powered by MediaWiki image that normally resides to the right of the page f-list – id for the list that contains all the bits of text at the bottom of the page   === Variable class or id === A class or id can depend on the result produced by a template or on a template parameter, e.g. class=""abc{{{1|def}}}"". For one or more of the possible class names the style of that class can be defined. If the class is undefined it is ignored, so the standard style is used. In the simplest case we have e.g. class=""abc{{{1}}}"" and define class abcdef. If the parameter value is ""def"" it applies. If a page for general use only makes sense when styles are defined for certain classes, then these have to be specified in the page MediaWiki:Common.css, which applies for all users and all skins, as far as not overridden.   === Variable style parameter value === Wikitext that reads  will display ""Wed"" if parameter 3 is defined, but its value is not ""none"", and displays nothing if parameter 3 is undefined or ""none"". If the value of parameter 3 is a display style other than ""none"", that style is applied.  Wiki headings use the following default CSS:  Span and div Cascading Style Sheets – article on CSS Wikipedia:Customisation – also covers user names, preferences settings, skins, user scripting, etc. Help:User style – modifying style for accessibility or for additional feature testing. Wikipedia:TemplateStyles – modifying style for advanced visual appearance that can be applied with template. Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes – list of classes globally defined across the site Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/classes – list of classes used in microformats employed on Wikipedia Help:User CSS for a monospaced coding font – both for the editing window and for display of monospaced elements like  meta:Help:Cascading_style_sheets mw:Manual:CSS and mw:Manual:Interface/Stylesheets mw:Gallery of user styles m:Customization:Explaining skins mw:Skin projects"
587	597	1313	WP:PGL	Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates	587	This is a list of existing policies that can be used either to support a deletion  proposal (prod) or nomination, or in an attempt to prevent deletion in an existing proposal. This is not a place to create new policies, or to amend existing ones. Edits to this list are limited to adding those not previously listed, removing those that have been revoked, updating those that have been amended, or modifying the language, style, or other details in the manner in which this has been written.   === Favoring deletion === The following is a list of policies and guidelines that can be used for making one's case in proposing a page for deletion. Please note that:  Prod and WP:AfD are only suitable if an entire page has one of these issues and cannot likely be improved. If only part of a page has such an issue, and the remainder does not, only that section should be tagged and/or removed. Criteria for speedy deletion are not listed here; they are listed on that page. Before proposing a page for deletion, see WP:BEFORE for alternatives. For reasons to delete a category, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. For reasons to delete an image or file, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For reasons to delete a redirect, see WP:R#DELETE. For reasons to delete a template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template   === Favoring keeping or merging === The following are a list of inclusion guidelines that may be useful to help in keeping an article:  Most of the guidelines listed describe reasons why a subject is worthy of inclusion. While failure to meet one of these guidelines can be used to support a deletion case, this can be negated if the subject meets the inclusion guidelines under another. A deletion case may also be negated by arguing that the policy/guideline cited in favor of deletion is incorrect or not applicable given the circumstances, providing sources (when the article lacks them), or by making other changes to the article to address the issue. See Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions for more possible arguments to make your case. The following are a list of essays that pertain to inclusion and exclusion. While these are not policies or guidelines, citing them in a deletion debate may at times help in arguing one's case. When citing an essay, it is important to keep in mind that essays can be written by a single editor, can be edited just like an article, and does not require any further consensus. Therefore, if one is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports their case.  The guidelines in favor of keeping or deleting non-articles vary:   === Categories === Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:CFDS.   ==== Favoring deletion ====   === Redirects ===   ==== Favoring keeping ==== Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:RFD#KEEP.   ==== Favoring deletion ==== Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:RFD#DELETE.   === Templates ===   ==== Favoring deletion ====  Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
588	598	1314	WP:IMP	Wikipedia:Requests for page importation	588	"Language: de:Max Ophüls Preis New name: User:Runningislife/Max_Ophüls_Preis Note: --Runningislife (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:   Done @Runningislife: I imported it from ""Filmfestival Max Ophüls Preis"" to User:Runningislife/Filmfestival Max Ophüls Preis, because that's probably what you wanted, not the redirect. This import wasn't so easy; it's the biggest XML file I've ever dealt with (16MB). Despite what the revision history says, all the edits did appear to import correctly. Graham87 15:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Oh wow! Thanks a lot and sorry for the redirect, still learning a lot about the wiki functions... Runningislife (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)  Language: de:Aufzugswerke Schmitt + Sohn New name: Draft:Schmitt + Sohn Elevators Note: user was asking at German Wikipedia doing the import job. We transmit the request here. The enwiki draft version is a full translation. Thank you ... – Doc Taxon • Talk • 16:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:   Done Graham87 00:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  Language: commons:File:TSL Front Page.png New name: :File:TSL Front Page.png Note: Newspaper cover acceptable under fair use (see {{Non-free newspaper image}}) but not properly licensed for Commons. Please import it to here, then I will nominate for deletion there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:  @Sdkb:Not done; these imports aren't needed (and are rather unusual logistically), as per previous discussions here, most notably this one. Graham87 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Okay, I just reuploaded it given that. Thanks for the explanation! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Language: de:Atelier Brückner New name: User:Heudorf/Atelier Brückner Note: --Heudorf (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:   Done Graham87 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Language: de:Dieter Thomas Kuhn New name: Dieter Thomas Kuhn Note: --2A00:23C5:ED99:A01:81CA:6EE9:AD97:3E2 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:  Not done; we can't import a non-English article straight into the main namespace. It would be easier to fulfil your request if you made it using an established user account; it would be muh better if you didn't have a conflict of interest. Graham87 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Language: de:Christin_Neddens New name: Klaviermusikfan1972/Christin Neddens english Note: --Klaviermusikfan1972 (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note by importing administrator:  I'm not letting this one through without a request from an established user. I'm very concerned that you might have some sort of conflict of interest regarding this drummer and the German Wikipedia article was created by the subject herself, a big no-no here. Graham87 14:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)"
589	599	1316	WP:FOOTYN	Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability	589	Note that past AfD closures made prior to the development of these criteria (5/2/2008) cannot be used as precedents for keeping articles. Any future changes to the criteria must be proposed and debated at WP:FOOTY.  Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:  Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.  Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG.  Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists or in the countries whose national cup does not include all teams who play in the national league(s)) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.Country-specific criteria:  England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 of the National League System (level 10 of the English football league system), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Leagues whose teams are eligible for national cups are generally notable. Leagues that are a country's highest level are generally notable. Other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.
590	600	1317	WP:JIBBERJABBER	Wikipedia:JIB	590	"Jibber-jabber can be thought of as speech made with the rapidity engendered by panic or anxiety. Its subject may seem confusing and non-linear. As noted by that great philosopher Mr. T, who was oft found to wax dismissive with his remark, ""I ain't got time for your jibber-jabber!"", this class of speech can best be described as specious - it appears to have rational sense on its surface, but underneath it is often found to be complete bollocks, and bereft of any real meaning or application, other than that within its closed-world. Whilst many synonyms may exist - such as horseshit - one must not mistake 'jibber-jabber' for being something akin to 'mendacity'. Whereas the latter implies a willful deception, the use of jibber-jabber is often due to lack of knowledge by the speaker, or a desire to impress the listener. In many respects, the guidelines in the second definition that determine what is patent nonsense may also be applied here, albeit to a limited extent.  Wikipedia may often appear to contain a pullulation of examples of jibber-jabber. But closer examination may also reveal that, in fact, such an appellation points towards lack of specialist knowledge on the part of the one making such a judgment. Hence, jibber-jabber may appear as such from ignorance rather than fact."
591	601	1318	WP:COUP	Wikipedia:Coup	591	"Wikipedia policy requires content to have a neutral point of view, with this policy being one of the five main pillars and three core policies of Wikipedia. Recently, the legitimacy of an uprising against a government has been determined by terminology used about the event; a ""revolution"" is warranted and applauded while a ""coup"" is illegal and condemned.Another core policy, the verifiability policy, requires material added to Wikipedia to be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources differ on naming certain events as a coup and should be relied upon for content added on Wikipedia. Use of the word ""coup"" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. The use of ""coup"" should be avoided in Wikipedia article bodies unless discussing an event has been named a ""coup"" by reliable sources.  There is often debate when describing an event as a coup. When naming a Wikipedia article, there can be concerns whether the title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. These concerns can be determined on whether this is a name prominently given through common usage by reliable sources (e.g.Glorious Revolution) or if it is a descriptive title promoted by Wikipedia editors.  Per Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy:  NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are ""Verifiability"" and ""No original research"". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. A descriptive title promoted by Wikipedia editors, even by consensus, does not hold more weight than a title that is neutral, verifiable by reliable sources and is not original research. If an event occurs that some describe as a coup meets all three core policies, (i.e. widely described as a coup by reliable sources, wide use proves to be neutral and the source is not from an involved Wikipedia editor) then the word ""coup"" is suitable to be used in an article's title.   === Use by reliable sources === Since the use of the term ""coup"" has become more divisive, especially following the Cold War, its use in reliable sources has lessened. It is important that Wikipedia editors maintain a neutral point of view and rely on sources when creating an article title instead of using their opinion to promote a viewpoint utilizing their own descriptors of an event. If a name or term is commonly used among reliable sources, it is possible that it can be commonly used on Wikipedia. For those concerned about the representation of their viewpoint on an uprising event or whether a certain title will draw attention away from readers, please redirect the article using a separate and suitable title. However, refrain from using this separate title in other articles and utilize the actual, neutral title that is in use.   === Use by politicians === The use of the term ""coup"" has been used heavily by politicians. World leaders and politicians have described an event as a coup in order to delegitimize events taking place. Depending on international relations, politicians in various countries may use or avoid the use of the word ""coup"" when describing an event. Politicians and political groups are not reliable sources, especially for describing an event as a coup. The inclusion of the opinions of political entities in the article body is different, however, and their use in the body should always be attributed.  Describing an event as a coup in an article body is only valid when using an article title that has ""coup"" included, as the title has most likely been determined by the use of reliable sources. However, overuse of the term ""coup"" in the article carries a lot of weight and will remove the neutral point of view. Use of ""coup"" in the article body should be used as sparingly as possible in order to maintain neutrality.  WP:Label WP:POVNAMING WP:Recentism"
592	602	1319	WP:UNKNOWN	Wikipedia:Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know	592	"You will come across articles where someone will assert that a certain fact is unknown.  Before you write in an article that a certain fact is unknown, consider if the fact is unknown to you or unknown to the body of collective human knowledge.     If the answer is the former, then please, don't write in this encyclopedia that the fact is unknown. Your ignorance (perhaps despite some research) does not make it a fact suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia.   By stating that it is ""unknown"" when someone, somewhere knows the answer is deliberately adding false information to the encyclopedia.  WP:Editing Policy clearly states, ""on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content."" If the fact is truly unknown, then cite that it is unknown with an inline reliable source.  WP:UNKNOWNHERE"
593	603	1320	WP:NFL	Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League	593	"Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to the National Football League (NFL).  This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians.  If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.  WikiProject Watchlist - WikiProject National Football League  For more information about Version 1.0 assessments, see WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP.For more detail on this topic see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment Article assessment functionality was added on in 2007. Please tag any NFL-related article with the project banner and assess the article.   === Article Alerts ===  Did you know  27 Mar 2023 – Frank LeMaster (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by BeanieFan11 (t · c); see discussion 27 Mar 2023 – Jake Witt (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by BeanieFan11 (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2023 – Darryl Milburn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by BeanieFan11 (t · c); see discussion 19 Mar 2023 – Eldridge Milton (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by BeanieFan11 (t · c); see discussion 01 Mar 2023 – Quarterback (TV series) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Soulbust (t · c); see discussionArticles for deletion  24 Mar 2023 – Chargers–Rams rivalry (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Frank Anchor (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)Proposed deletions  29 Mar 2023 – Troy Barnett (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by AirshipJungleman29 (t · c)Good article nominees  24 Mar 2023 – Don Coryell (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Harper J. Cole (t · c); start discussion 26 Feb 2023 – Stan Robb (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BeanieFan11 (t · c); start discussion 29 Jan 2023 – 1980 San Diego Chargers season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Harper J. Cole (t · c); see discussion 09 Jan 2023 – Super Bowl LI halftime show (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GagaNutella (t · c); start discussion 27 Dec 2022 – Grant Morgan (American football) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PCN02WPS (t · c); start discussion 17 Nov 2022 – Dominic Olejniczak (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gonzo fan2007 (t · c); start discussion 28 Sep 2022 – 1964 San Diego Chargers season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Harper J. Cole (t · c); see discussionRequested moves  28 Mar 2023 – Mace (wrestler) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to ma.çé by LichCake (t · c); see discussionArticles to be split  04 Feb 2023 – List of Super Bowl halftime shows (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by JMyrleFuller (t · c); see discussion 30 Mar 2020 – Monday Night Football (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zzyzx11 (t · c); see discussionArticles for creation  26 Mar 2023 – Draft:Mel Black (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 24.209.152.112 (t · c) 12 Mar 2023 – Draft:Todd Black (American football) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 24.209.152.112 (t · c) 09 Mar 2023 – Draft:Aaron Manning (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 24.209.152.112 (t · c) 27 Feb 2023 – Draft:Champions Round (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Pbober96 (t · c) 17 Jan 2023 – Draft:Dartez Jacobs (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Euroz (t · c) 12 Jan 2023 – Draft:Joe Danna (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by DANNA1706 (t · c)   ==== Open deletion discussions ==== Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football   ==== Deletion review history ==== Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive – dates back to September 2007  For dates pertaining to the regular season and playoffs held prior to the AFL–NFL merger, the year should be in which the majority of the season was held. For playoffs after the AFL–NFL merger, the year should be in the form 20xx-yy. This is a compromise between die-hard and casual fans. Prior to the 1980s, most of the playoff games were in December. Currently, they are all in January and sometimes February. As a result, many die-hard fans still consider the playoffs leading to Super Bowl XXXIX as the 2004 playoffs, while many casual fans call it the 2005 playoffs.  The template {{NFL playoff year}} contains this logic and will generate the correct link for you. For individual playoff games, the year should correspond with the regular season which preceded the playoffs of which the game was a part, not the year in which the game was played, for both pre- and post-merger games. For example, post-merger, the 1998 NFC Championship Game was played on January 17, 1999 as part of the 1998–99 NFL playoffs, and followed the 1998 NFL season. Pre-merger, the 1965 NFL Championship Game was played on January 2, 1966 as part of the 1965 NFL playoffs, and followed the 1965 NFL season. When referencing Pro Bowl selections for individual players, the year should be the year of the NFL season. Links should display the year of the season, but be piped to the appropriate Pro Bowl game. (ex. [[2008 Pro Bowl|2007]]) When referencing All-Pro selections for individual players, the year should be the year of the NFL season. Links should display the year of the season, but be piped to the All-Pro team. (ex. [[2007 All-Pro Team|2007]]) For articles pertaining to specific events or games, whenever a team name is used, it should be the team name at the time of the event, but link to the current team page (unless there are pages for the team in earlier forms). Following the NFL's naming conventions and official record book, the Baltimore Ravens are considered a 1996 expansion team, while the Cleveland Browns are considered to have suspended operations from 1996-1998. See the following sub pages for information on article structures. If you would like to comment on the recommended format for an article type, please do so on the talk page for that article type's subpage.   === Article formats === Team pages Player pages Regular season pages Playoffs pages Super Bowl pages Pro Bowl pages Defunct team pages NFL Draft pages Listing the team seasons Team single season pages This WikiProject aims primarily to organize and standardize the efforts of those working on NFL related articles.  The parent of this WikiProject is WikiProject Sports. WikiProject American football for general football strategy articles.  WikiProject American Football League (inactive) WikiProject Arena Football League (inactive) WikiProject Canadian football (semi-active) WikiProject College football Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Sports (includes football stub templates) {{NFL team}} {{Infobox NFL game}} {{Infobox NFL biography}} {{Infobox NFL season}}  Featured articles1998 NFC Championship Game • Carolina Panthers • Chris Gragg • Otto Graham • Heidi Game • History of the New York Jets • Lumen Field • Bob Mann (American football) • National Football League Players Association • Packers sweep • Rex Ryan • Jim Thorpe • Thunder (mascot) • Billy Joe Tolliver • Tyrone Wheatley • Scott Zolak Total pages in content type is 16   Former featured articlesChicago Bears • New England Patriots Total pages in content type is 2   Featured lists2001 NFL Draft • 2002 NFL expansion draft • 2007 NFL Draft • 2012 NFL Draft • List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL draft • Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award • Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award • Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award • List of Carolina Panthers seasons • List of Denver Broncos head coaches • List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft • Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame • List of Chicago Bears seasons • List of Detroit Lions head coaches • List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks • List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches • List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks • List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches • List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks • List of Buffalo Bills head coaches • List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks • List of Chicago Bears head coaches • List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks • List of Cleveland Browns head coaches • List of Cleveland Browns seasons • List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks • List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks • List of Green Bay Packers head coaches • List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame • List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers • List of Green Bay Packers seasons • List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks • List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks • List of Indianapolis Colts head coaches • List of Indianapolis Colts seasons • List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches • List of Las Vegas Raiders head coaches • List of Los Angeles Chargers first-round draft picks • List of Los Angeles Chargers head coaches • List of Los Angeles Chargers seasons • List of Los Angeles Rams first-round draft picks • List of Los Angeles Rams head coaches • List of Los Angeles Rams seasons • List of Miami Dolphins first-round draft picks • List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks • List of Minnesota Vikings seasons • List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks • List of NFL tied games • List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders • List of National Football League annual receptions leaders • List of National Football League rushing champions • List of New England Patriots head coaches • List of New England Patriots seasons • List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks • List of New Orleans Saints head coaches • List of New York Giants first-round draft picks • List of New York Giants head coaches • List of New York Giants seasons • List of New York Jets first-round draft picks • List of New York Jets head coaches • List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks • List of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches • List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches • List of Pittsburgh Steelers first-round draft picks • List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches • List of Seattle Seahawks first-round draft picks • List of Super Bowl champions • List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks • List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons • List of Tennessee Titans head coaches • List of Washington Commanders head coaches • List of Washington Commanders seasons • List of NFL champions (1920–1969) • List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft • List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft • Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award • List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft • List of UConn Huskies in the NFL draft • List of Washington Commanders first-round draft picks Total pages in content type is 79   Former featured lists2002 NFL Draft • 2003 NFL Draft • 2004 NFL Draft • 2005 NFL Draft • 2006 NFL Draft • List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks • List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks Total pages in content type is 7   Good articles1920 APFA season • 1920 Akron Pros season • 1920 Buffalo All-Americans season • 1920 Canton Bulldogs season • 1920 Cleveland Tigers (NFL) season • 1920 Columbus Panhandles season • 1920 Dayton Triangles season • 1920 Hammond Pros season • 1920 Muncie Flyers season • 1946 Cleveland Browns season • 1947 Cleveland Browns season • 1948 Cleveland Browns season • 1960 Los Angeles Chargers season • 1961 San Diego Chargers season • 1962 San Diego Chargers season • 1963 San Diego Chargers season • 1973 Buffalo Bills season • 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season • 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season • 1986 New York Giants season • 1986 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season • 1987 San Diego Chargers season • 1987 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season • 1988 San Diego Chargers season • 1989 San Diego Chargers season • 1990 New York Giants season • 1990 San Diego Chargers season • 1991 San Diego Chargers season • 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season • 2013 Chicago Bears season • 2015 Chicago Bears season • 2021 Los Angeles Chargers season • Acrisure Stadium • Tony Adamle • Tony Akins (Canadian football) • Tuineau Alipate • Ian Allen (gridiron football) • Jeff Allen (defensive back) • Josh Allen (quarterback) • Butch Allison • Buddy Alliston • Gerald Alphin • Charles Alston (gridiron football) • Richard Alston (gridiron football) • Jon Anabo • Mark Bavaro • Bert Bell • Gordon Bell (American football) • Sean Bennett (gridiron football) • Raymond Berry • LeGarrette Blount • Russ Bogda • Tony Boles • Lynn Bomar • Justin Boren • Keith Bostic (American football) • Sam Bradford • Jarrett Brown • Paul Brown • Phil H. Bucklew • Vontaze Burfict • Joe Burrow • Dick Butkus • Robb Butler • George Whitney Calhoun • Earl Campbell • George Campbell (American football) • Billy Cannon • Bob Chappuis • Jack Clancy • Gerald Francis Clifford • Terrence Cody • Blanton Collier • Myron Cope • Brodie Croyle • Hugh Culverhouse • Ramsey Dardar • Thom Darden • Antone Davis • Joe Delaney • Paul Des Jardien • Parnell Dickinson • Maurice Douglass • Don Dufek • Drake Dunsmore • Darian Durant • Kenny Easley • Mike Echols (gridiron football) • Julian Edelman • Ben Edwards (American football) • Electric Company (football) • Keith Elias • Hayden Epstein • Carl Etelman • Ray Evrard • Obi Ezeh • Financial history of the New York Giants • Emil R. Fischer • George Floyd (American football) • Forbes Field • Len Ford • Dan Fouts • A. J. Foyt IV • William Fuller (American football) • Lu Gambino • Frank Gatski • Don Gault • Horace Gillom • Paul G. Goebel • Brandon Graham • Bud Grant • Ryan Grant (running back) • Green Bay Packers Foundation • Joe Greene • Rex Grossman • Lou Groza • Remy Hamilton • Connor Hamlett • Mercury Hayes • Health issues in American football • Joel Heath • Ralph Heikkinen • Junior Hemingway • Devin Hester • History of the Cleveland Browns • History of the New York Giants (1925–1978) • History of the New York Giants • History of the New York Giants (1979–1993) • History of the New York Giants (1994–present) • Ed Hochuli • George Hoey • Hogettes • Les Horvath • Chris Howard (American football) • Weldon Humble • Hal Hunter (American football, born 1932) • Don Hutson • Instant Replay Game • Tommy James (American football) • Lee Joannes • John Madden Football '93 • Calvin Johnson • Ezra Johnson • John Henry Johnson • Dub Jones (American football) • Julio Jones • Cato June • Mike Junkin • Mike Kafka • Kansas City Chiefs • Stacy Keibler • W. Webber Kelly • Jack Kemp • Wade Key • Don Kindt • Kevin King (American football) • Kevin Kolb • Jordan Kovacs • Joe Kraker • Lambeau Leap • Dante Lavelli • Ryan Leaf • Brock Lesnar • Joe Lillard • Tyler Lockett • Jake Long • Steve Longa • Sid Luckman • Greg Mancz • Peyton Manning • Leonard Marshall • Arthur B. McBride • Josh McCown • Colt McCoy • Hugh McElhenny • Bo McMillin • Zoltán Meskó (American football) • Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) • Minneapolis Miracle • Brandon Minor • Gardner Minshew • Freddie Mitchell • John Mitchell (American football coach) • David Molk • Corey Moore (safety) • Steve Morrison (American football) • Marion Motley • Jonas Mouton • Captain Munnerlyn • Ed Muransky • National Football League • NFL playoffs • New England Patriots • New York Jets • NFL Europe • Jared Norris • Patrick Omameh • J. T. O'Sullivan • Ara Parseghian • Alan Pastrana • Walter Payton • Joe Perry (American football) • Alabama Pitts • Al Pollard • Ricky Powers • Jarrod Pughsley • Mike Quinn • Sammis Reyes • Jerry Rice • Dick Rifenburg • Garrett Rivas • Garland Rivers • Denard Robinson • Rockwood Lodge • Johnny Roepke • Roy Roundtree • Willard Ryan • Lou Rymkus • Lou Saban • Fair catch kick • Mark Sanchez • Barry Sanders • Gale Sayers • Mike Scarry • Stephen Schilling • O'Brien Schofield • Da'Rel Scott • Sean McVay effect • Clark Shaughnessy • Phil Simms • Greg Skrepenak • Jackie Slater • Torrey Smith • Mac Speedie • Wilton Speight • Tai Streets • Super Bowl XLI • Super Bowl XLVI halftime show • Super Bowl commercials • Jim Taylor (fullback) • Jonathan Taylor (American football) • Lawrence Taylor • Terrible Towel • Three Rivers Stadium • Bob Timberlake (American football) • Y. A. Tittle • T. T. Toliver • LaDainian Tomlinson • John Tosi • Andrew B. Turnbull • Toussaint Tyler • Brian Urlacher • Jack Vainisi • Ryan Van Bergen • Steve Van Buren • Jon Vaughn • Michael Vick • Mark Vlasic • Rick Volk • Marquise Walker • Stan Walters • Donovan Warren • Washington Redskins name controversy • Jamaal Westerman • Nikita Whitlock • Garry Williams (gridiron football) • Jordan Williams (American football) • Trevor Williams (American football) • Bill Willis • Al Wistert • Butch Woolfolk • Chase Young • Jack Youngblood Total pages in content type is 273   Former good articles2006 Cleveland Browns season • Marcus Allen • Paul Allen • Reggie Ball • Terry Bradshaw • Tom Brady • Tom Cousineau • Brett Favre • History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks • Las Vegas Raiders • Darren McFadden • Pittsburgh Steelers • Super Bowl XL • Super Bowl • Jack Tatum • Tim Tebow • Tyler Thigpen • Vince Young Total pages in content type is 18   Good topicsHistory of the New York Giants • Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) Total pages in content type is 2   Did you know? articles1925 Rochester Jeffersons season • 1929 Dayton Triangles season • 1933 NFL Championship Game • 1942 National Football League All-Star Game (December) • 1962 NFL Championship Game • 1966 Miami Dolphins season • 1973 Buffalo Bills season • 1986 New York Giants season • 1990 New York Giants season • 1991 Birmingham Fire season • 1992 Birmingham Fire season • 2000 Miami Dolphins season • 2011 Pro Bowl • 2013 Chicago Bears season • Tumbo Abanikanda • Ameer Abdullah • Bob Adams (American football) • Tony Akins (Canadian football) • Josh Aladenoye • J. I. Albrecht • Gene Alderton • Tuineau Alipate • All-purpose yardage • Ian Allen (gridiron football) • James Allen (running back) • Jeff Allen (defensive back) • Ryan Allen (American football) • Butch Allison • Buddy Alliston • Gerald Alphin • Charles Alston (gridiron football) • O'Brien Alston • Richard Alston (gridiron football) • Marty Amsler • Prince Amukamara • Jon Anabo • Andre Anderson (gridiron football, born 1955) • Colt Anderson • Ockie Anderson • Antonio Andrews • Announcerless game • Dawn Aponte • Joe Arenas • Geno Atkins • Francis Bacon (American football) • David Bakhtiari • Lou Baldacci • LaVar Ball • Benton Bangs • Vince Banonis • Freddie Barnes • Kevin Barnes (American football) • Michael Bates (American football) • John Beckett (American football) • Tom Beckman • Lester Belding • Gordon Bell (American football) • Stephania Bell • Heinie Benkert • Chuck Bennett • Sean Bennett (gridiron football) • Nat Berhe • Chuck Bernard • Big A Sign • Bills–Dolphins rivalry • Don Bitterlich • Beau Blankenship • Russ Bogda • Tony Boles • Lynn Bomar • James Bond (American football) • Justin Boren • Keith Bostic (American football) • Josh Boyd • Garland Boyette • Jarrett Boykin • Jim Brandstatter • John Brennan (American football) • Brooke Brewer • Sean Brewer • Jon Brittenum • Jarrett Brown • Jonathan Brown (gridiron football) • Justin Brown (defensive lineman) • Matt Brown (kick returner) • Stevie Brown • Bruise Brothers (San Diego Chargers) • Rick Buffington • Buddy Burris • Leon Burton • John Butler (American football coach) • Butt Fumble • Ernie Caddel • George Whitney Calhoun • Lonny Calicchio • George Campbell (American football) • Connie Carberg • Gabe Carimi • Dwaine Carpenter • Jack Carpenter (American football) • Rob Carpenter (wide receiver) • T. J. Carter (defensive lineman) • T. J. Carter (defensive back) • Todd Carter • Bernard Carvalho • Mike Catapano • Kam Chancellor • Gil Chapman • Bob Chappuis • Chicago Cardinals–Toronto Argonauts exhibition game • Chicago Honey Bears • George Christensen (American football) • Gus Cifelli • Jack Clancy • Frank Clark (American football) • Steven Clarke (gridiron football) • Gerald Francis Clifford • Joey Clinkscales • Joe Cocozzo • Jim Collier • Ricky Collins • Tom Cousineau • Britain Covey • Jack Crabtree (American football) • Michael Crabtree • Brad Craddock • Steve Crosby • Julius Curry • Neno DaPrato • Kevin Daft • Bill Daley (American football) • Jalen Dalton • Mike Daniels (American football) • Sam Darnold • Austin Davis (American football) • Bruce Davis (offensive tackle) • Milt Davis • Russell Davis (running back) • Tyrone Davis (American football) • Dawg Pound • Walter Dean • Jack Deloplaine • Kenny Demens • List of Denver Broncos head coaches • Paul Des Jardien • Rick DiBernardo • Eldridge Dickey • Jim Dillard (gridiron football) • Dean Dingman • Cris Dishman • Jordon Dizon • Demarcus Dobbs • Don Doll • Jon Dorenbos • Kevin Dorsey • Glenn Doughty • Maurice Douglass • Walt Downing • Weston Dressler • Thomas Duarte • Moon Ducote • Don Dufek • Greg Dulcich • Lance Dunbar • Drake Dunsmore • Pat Dunsmore • Don Durdan • Curtis Dvorak • EA Sports Active NFL Training Camp • Mike Echols (gridiron football) • Julian Edelman • Mike Edwards (cornerback) • Electric Company (football) • Keith Elias • Matt Elliott (American football) • Hayden Epstein • Carl Etelman • Jahri Evans • Ray Evrard • Obi Ezeh • Kyler Fackrell • Kaʻimi Fairbairn • Sam Ficken • Harry Field (American football) • Financial history of the New York Giants • Emil R. Fischer • Charles Fisher (American football) • Dennis Fitzgerald • Freeman Fitzgerald • Joe Fitzgerald (American football) • Marquis Flowers • George Floyd (American football) • Furlong Flynn • Len Ford • Dennis Franklin • Dennis Franks • Charley Frazier • Ed Frutig • Devin Fuller • William Fuller (American football) • Jake Funk • Tony Furst • Bob Gambold • Devin Gardner • Guilian Gary • Rashan Gary • Curtis Gatewood • Tim George • Wally Gilbert • Johnny Gildea • Johnny Gilroy • Jug Girard • Willis Glassgow • George Godsey • Paul G. Goebel • Angus Goetz • Chris Gragg • Brandon Graham • Alex Green • Green Bay Packers Foundation • Charlie Green (American football) • Hugh Green (American football) • John Greene (American football) • Cedric Griffin • Noel Grigsby • Mel Groomes • Lou Groza • Burt Gustafson • Ace Gutowsky • Charlie Guy • Art Haege • Joe Hall (American football) • Vic Hall • Robert Halperin • Steve Hamas • Remy Hamilton • Ching Hammill • Darrell Harper • Roland Harper • Perry Harrington • Rob Hart • Andy Hastings • Johnny Hatley • Mercury Hayes • Casey Hayward • Health issues in American football • Tom Hedden • Ralph Heikkinen • Junior Hemingway • Tommy Hendricks • Grant Hermanns • Chris Hewitt • Lavert Hill • Dick Hoerner • George Hoey • Hogettes • Brady Hoke • Ray Holley • Homosexuality in American football • Levi Horn • Steamer Horning • Les Horvath • Arnold Horween • Ralph Horween • Davon House • Chris Howard (American football) • Harlan Huckleby • Khaleke Hudson • Marty Huff • Iolas Huffman • Margus Hunt • Micah Hyde (American football) • Joe Iacone • John Idzik • Instant Replay Game • Invisible (U2 song) • Heath Irwin • Raghib Ismail • Chris Jackson (wide receiver) • Malik Jackson (linebacker) • Jacksonville Roar • Po James • Michael Jameson • Ed Jasper • Josh Jasper • Steve Jastrzembski • Carlos Jenkins • M. D. Jennings • Leo Jensvold • Jim Thorpe Trophy • Lee Joannes • Brian Johnson (American football coach) • Charles Johnson (wide receiver, born 1972) • Jaymar Johnson • Tom Johnson (tackle, born 1931) • Vernon Johnson (American football) • Mike Jolly • Arthur Jones (American football) • Datone Jones • Johnnie Jones • Jeff Jordan (defensive back) • Kevin Jordan (American football) • Fred Julian • Cato June • Mike Junkin • Bryan Jurewicz • Tom Jurich • Jack Karwales • Alain Kashama • Hakeem Kashama • Eric Kattus • Eddie Keenan • Stanford Keglar • Mike Keller • Red Kellett • Joshua Kelley • Larry Kelley • W. Webber Kelly • Bill Kenney • Nick Kerbawy • Jeremy Kerley • Wade Key • Bobby Keyes (gridiron football) • Derrick Kindred • Don Kindt • Kevin King (American football) • Dick King (American football) • Terrance Knighton • Ralph Kohl • Mike Koken • Robert Kolesar • Ken Kortas • Jordan Kovacs • Joe Kraker • Ejiro Kuale • Zak Kustok • Pete Ladygo • Lambeau Leap • Greg Landry • James Laurinaitis • Milan Lazetich • Rogers Lehew • Charles Leigh (American football) • A.C. Leonard • Richie Leone • Kevin Lewis (American football) • George Lilja • List of Denver Broncos seasons • List of AFC champions • List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches • List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches • List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame • List of Cleveland Browns head coaches • List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks • List of Green Bay Packers head coaches • List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers • List of Las Vegas Raiders head coaches • List of Los Angeles Chargers head coaches • List of NFL 1,000-yard rushing duos • List of National Football League annual receiving touchdowns leaders • List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders • List of National Football League career punting yards leaders • List of New England Patriots head coaches • List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks • List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks • List of New Orleans Saints head coaches • List of New York Giants first-round draft picks • List of New York Jets head coaches • List of San Diego Chargers Hall of Fame inductees • List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches • List of Seattle Seahawks first-round draft picks • List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches • List of athletes who played in Major League Baseball and the National Football League • List of black starting NFL quarterbacks • Derrick Locke • Aaron Lockett (gridiron football) • Kevin Lockett • Tyler Lockett • Randy Logan • Logos and uniforms of the Pittsburgh Steelers • Tony Lombardi • David Long (defensive back) • David Long Jr. • Jake Long • Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers • Rommie Loudd • Hugh Lowery • Dean Lowry • Herb Lusk • Scott Lutrus • Colt Lyerla • Matt Lytle • J. D. Maarleveld • Bill MacDermott • Eddie Macon • Madden NFL 25 • Bob Mann (American football) • Owen Marecic • Joe Marhefka • Ali Marpet • Mitch Marrow • Doug Marsh • Manny Martin • Mike Martin (defensive lineman) • Blake Martinez • Mass Transit Super Bowl • Arthur Matsu • Casey Matthews • Devante Mays • Jermaine Mays • Scott McBrien • Jim McCanless • Ed McCaskey • Dewey McClain • Mike McCray • Edorian McCullough • Terry McDaniel • Quincy McDuffie • Max McGee • Mayes McLain • Bruce McLenna • Zoltán Meskó (American football) • Wayne Messam • Norm Michael • Anthony Midget • Mike Mikulak • Scott Milanovich • Minneapolis Miracle • Brandon Minor • Gardner Minshew • Kevin Minter • Freddie Mitchell • Eddie Moegle • John Mohardt • Bo Molenda • David Molk • Tony Momsen • Quincy Monk • Collin Mooney • Joe Moore (running back) • Nat Moore • David Moosman • Moses Moreno • Grant Morgan (American football) • Earl Morrall • Jack Morris (American football) • Jamie Morris • Maynard Morrison (American football) • Steve Morrison (American football) • Greg Morton • Mount Davis (Oakland) • Jonas Mouton • Stanley Muirhead • Chuck Muncie • Captain Munnerlyn • Art Murakowski • Ed Muransky • Guy Murdock • Bill Murphy (businessman) • Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1993) • Rob Myers • Gern Nagler • Namath: From Beaver Falls to Broadway • National Football League (1902) • Never Miss a Super Bowl Club • List of New England Patriots first-round draft picks • Harry Newman (American football) • Cam Newton (safety) • List of NFC champions • 1960 NFL Championship Game • Dadi Nicolas • Walt Nielsen • John Nies • Dave Noble • Craig Novitsky • Mally Nydahl • Pat O'Donnell • Arnold Oehlrich • John Offerdahl • Cedric Oglesby • John Ojo • Mitchell Olenski • Segun Olubi • Patrick Omameh • Chuck Ortmann • Mark Ortmann • Jim Ostendarp • Jim Pace • Packers sweep • Derrell Palmer • Nate Palmer • Riddick Parker • Rodney Parker • Alan Pastrana • DeWayne Patmon • Rod Payne • Jordan Payton • Malcolm Perry (American football) • Nick Perry (linebacker) • Art Pharmer • Dennis Pitta • Alabama Pitts • Al Pollard • Paul Posluszny • Alvin Powell • Ricky Powers • Jordan Poyer • Merv Pregulman • Mike Quinn • Radovich v. National Football League • Baby Ray • Marcus Ray • Fred Reid • Lee Remmel • Fuad Reveiz • Bob Reynolds (American football, born 1914) • Keenan Reynolds (American football) • Jay Riemersma • Dick Rifenburg • Garrett Rivas • Garland Rivers • Stan Robb • David Robidoux • Denard Robinson • Tony Robinson (American football) • Doug Roby • Alden Roche • Rockwood Lodge • Johnny Rodgers • Herb Roedel • Craig Roh • Dave Roller • Roy Roundtree • Evan Royster • Mark Rubin • Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio • Carl Russ • Frank Ryan (American football) • Jake Ryan • Willard Ryan • Chris Sailer • Michael Sam • Stanford Samuels Jr. • San Diego Super Chargers • Johnny Sanders • Herman Sarkowsky • Craig Sauer • Chris Scelfo • Stephen Schilling • Michael Schofield (American football) • O'Brien Schofield • Jody Schulz • Ade Schwammel • Elmer Schwartz • Geoff Schwartz • Mitchell Schwartz • Nick Sciba • Da'Rel Scott • Drane Scrivener • Paul Seal • Sean McVay effect • William Shakespeare (American football) • David Shaw (American football) • Michael Shaw (American football) • Jacoby Shepherd • Keith Shologan • David Sills (American football) • Walt Singer • Greg Skrepenak • Cedric C. Smith • D'Anthony Smith • D. J. Smith (American football) • Rankin M. Smith Sr. • Torrey Smith • Bill Smyth (American football) • Wilton Speight • Jason Spriggs • Jake Stahl (American football) • Buster Stanley • Anthony Steen (American football) • Howard Stevens • Gaylord Stinchcomb • Mike Stock (American football) • Tai Streets • Rich Strenger • Pat Studstill • Caleb Sturgis • Patrick Sullivan (American football executive) • Super Bowl XLIX halftime show • Will Sutton • Bill Swancutt • Brett Swenson • Gene Swick • Sam Sword • Andrew Szczerba • Ronald Talley • Vai Taua • Bruce Taylor (American football) • Larry Taylor (gridiron football) • T. C. Taylor • Mike Teeter • Lou Tepe • List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft • Sarah Thomas (American football official) • Robert Thompson (American football) • Syd'Quan Thompson • Khyri Thornton • Thunder (mascot) • Bob Timberlake (American football) • Gaynell Tinsley • Casey Tiumalu • Billy Joe Tolliver • LaDainian Tomlinson • Bob Topp • Jack Torrance (athlete) • Total offense • Brett Toth • Ed Travis • Morgan Trent • Dimitri Tsoumpas • Charles Tuaau • Jeff Tuel • Andrew B. Turnbull • Toussaint Tyler • List of UConn Huskies in the NFL draft • Jack Vainisi • Bob Valesente • Ryan Van Bergen • Jon Vaughn • Ernie Vick • Alejandro Villanueva (American football) • Mark Vlasic • Rick Volk • Sid Wagner • Kerwin Waldroup • Derel Walker • Marquise Walker • A. J. Wallace (American football) • Jackie Wallace • Lenny Walls • Stan Walters • Carl Ward • LaShaun Ward • Donovan Warren • Lonnie Warwick • Trey Watts • Andre Weathers • Martell Webb • Clayton Weishuhn • Gibby Welch • Joe Wendryhoski • Charles Fremont West • Jamaal Westerman • Bob Westfall • Terrence Wheatley • Tyrone Wheatley • Brad White (defensive lineman) • D. J. White (American football) • Gerald White • William White (American football) • Nikita Whitlock • Ed Widseth • Eric Wilbur • Jonathan Wilhite • Brock Williams • Clarence Williams (running back, born 1977) • Garry Williams (gridiron football) • Jacquian Williams • Jesse Williams (American football) • Ted Williams (American football coach) • Ricky Williams trade • Billy Wilson (wide receiver) • George Wilson (American football coach) • George Wilson (quarterback) • Russell Wilson • Chase Winovich • Ryan Winterswyk • Al Wistert • Butch Woolfolk • Jerel Worthy • Lonnie Wright • Pudge Wyman • Bill Yearby • Garo Yepremian • Ernie Zampese • Scott Zolak Total pages in content type is 686  In the News articlesPhillip Adams (American football) • Paul Allen • Rashard Anderson • Doug Atkins • George Atkinson III • Marion Barber III • Erich Barnes • Garland Boyette • Cliff Branch • Colt Brennan • Marlin Briscoe • Jon Brittenum • Leon Burton • Dave Butz • Dennis Byrd • Reche Caldwell • Billy Cannon • Gino Cappelletti • Dean Carlson • Dwight Clark • John Clayton (sportswriter) • Mike Cofer (linebacker) • Jimmy Cole (American football) • Walt Corey • Irv Cross • Jake Crouthamel • Bruce Davis (offensive tackle) • Tyrone Davis (American football) • Len Dawson • Ralph DeLoach • Fred Dean • Jack Deloplaine • Bob DeMoss • Tom Dempsey • Jim Dillard (gridiron football) • Terry Donahue • Speedy Duncan • Gavin Escobar • Jaylon Ferguson • Doug Fisher (American football) • Dennis Franks • Charley Frazier • Bill Fulcher • Dwight Garner (American football) • Frank Gifford • Daren Gilbert • Jeff Gladney • Terry Glenn • Bud Grant • Kevin Greene (American football) • Burt Gustafson • Ray Guy • Franco Harris • Dwayne Haskins • Wayne Hawkins • Chuck Heberling • Dave Herman (American football) • Aaron Hernandez • Ronnie Hillman • Sam Huff • Wayne Huizenga • Tunch Ilkin • George Izo • Tarvaris Jackson • Lionel James • Ed Jasper • Charles Johnson (wide receiver, born 1972) • Ron Johnson (running back) • Deacon Jones • Leroy Jones (American football) • Jeff Jordan (defensive back) • Shelby Jordan • Chuck Knox • Ken Kortas • Mike Labinjo • Jim Langer • Bill Laskey (American football) • Rogers Lehew • Keith Lincoln • Floyd Little • Jared Lorenzen • Herb Lusk • Jim Lynch • John Madden • Don Maynard • Mike McCoy (businessman) • Hugh McElhenny • Joe McKnight • Bobby Mitchell • Gary Moeller • Jack Morris (American football) • Jim Mueller • Don Newman (basketball) • Riddick Parker • Ara Parseghian • Bob Parsons (American football) • David Patten • Markus Paul • Marvin Powell • Rick Redman • Dan Reeves • Konrad Reuland • Jerry Richardson • Alden Roche • Pepper Rodgers • Herb Roedel • Buddy Ryan • Gale Sayers • Marty Schottenheimer • Tony Siragusa • Mike Stratton • Pat Summerall • Super Bowl XLIII • Super Bowl XLV • Super Bowl XLVI • Super Bowl XLVII • Super Bowl XLIX • Super Bowl 50 • Super Bowl LII • Super Bowl LIII • Super Bowl LIV • Super Bowl LV • Super Bowl LVI • Super Bowl LVII • Dick Swatland • Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962) • George Taliaferro • Lars Tate • Charley Taylor • Jim Taylor (fullback) • John Teerlinck • Demaryius Thomas • John Thompson (American football executive) • Pat Tillman • Y. A. Tittle • Charley Trippi • Jerry Vainisi • Ira Valentine • Alvin Walker • Wayne Walker (linebacker) • Clayton Weishuhn • Steve White (American football) • William White (American football) • Doug Wilkerson • Quency Williams • Willie Wood • Sam Wyche • Frank Youso • Ernie Zampese • Adam Zimmer Total pages in content type is 150  Picture of the day picturesFile:Connor Barth attempts field goal 8 November 2015 151108-F-ID984-017.jpg • File:Leland Melvin.jpg Total pages in content type is 2   Featured picturesFile:Connor Barth attempts field goal 8 November 2015 151108-F-ID984-017.jpg • File:Leland Melvin.jpg Total pages in content type is 2  This is a list of Wikipedians who are committed to this WikiProject. Please, feel free to join by clicking ""edit"" on the right and inserting your username alphabetically into the list using the following format: #{{u|Username}} If you would like to add our category to a userbox on your user page, please insert {{User WikiProject NFL}} It will look like this:  This list consists of editors who are members of the project that have made no contributions to the English Wikipedia within the last two years (since March 29, 2021). Following each editor's username is the date of most recent edit. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are editors who have been either blocked indefinitely or banned from Wikipedia. If you were moved to this list in error, or if you become ""active"" again, feel free to move your name back into the list above.List current as of December 15, 2020  Category:National Football League (Recent changes) Category:National Football League seasons (Recent changes) Category:National Football League teams (Recent changes) Category:Defunct National Football League teams (Recent changes) Category:National Football League players (Recent changes) Category:National Football League coaches (Recent changes) Category:National Football League playoffs (Recent changes) Category:American Football League (Recent changes) Category:American Football League players (Recent changes) Category:American Football League players by team (Recent changes) Category:Super Bowl (Recent changes) Category:Pro Bowl (Recent changes)   === Related categories === Category:College football players in the United States (Recent changes) No classification of this project has been defined.  Popular pages Active editors NFL Communications Dept and press releases CBS Sports press releases ESPN press releases Fox Sports press releases NBC Sports press releases"
594	604	1326	WP:PO	Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan	594	Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organise information in articles related to the pipe organ and related musical pages. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you have knowledge of or an interest in pipe organs and wish to make Wikipedia a reliable source of reference for organs, organists and organ music, please add your name to the list of participants. For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.  The scope of this project includes any articles related to:  History and mechanics of the pipe organ. Organists. Organ composers. Organ repertoire. Specific organs, both historic and modern.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Article List for a full list of articles supported by WikiProject Pipe organ.   === Proposed ===   === Current ===   ==== Organ pipes ==== Copyedit:  Organ pipe. Organ console. Flue pipe. Reed pipe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDCollins (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)   ==== Recordings ==== If any organist has a recording they would be happy to release to Wikipedia (or preferably Commons, the database for such things, see: Commons:Commons:Media_help), it would be a great addition to the articles on that composition and the composer: articles we already have for organ compositions may be found at: Category:Compositions for organ. If anyone has or would like to make recordings for wikipedia of any other organ compositions, it would be an easy enough task for me or someone else to write the corresponding encyclopaedic article (given that the composition is significant enough). Clavecin 10:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)   ==== Specifications ==== Adding or improving/formatting specifications in articles about, or with, specific organs. See also: Category:Pipe_organ. Please add organs and tag them with in progress when you start out doing one, to avoid more than one participant working on a list at the same time.  Aarhus Cathedral DONE Danmuz (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Las Piñas Bamboo Organ DONE Danmuz (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) St Mary's Church, Ewell – DONE Danmuz Danmuz (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Methuen Memorial Music Hall Sydney Opera House Grand Organ Sydney Town Hall Grand Organ Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ stoplist – this stoplist should be more clearly split in divisions for a better overview.   === Completed ===   ==== Article Assessment 2021 ==== Assessing the backlog of nearly 600 articles which have not been fully assessed for quality and / or importance. This will help to track the necessary work that is still needed. The current WikiWork (ω) = 2552, while the relative WikiWork (Ω) = 4.908 - these numbers may change was more articles are assessed. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)  Finished! The current WikiWork (ω) = 5190, while the relative WikiWork (Ω) = 5.014. This shows that there is a lot more work to be done than initially anticipated. Bibeyjj (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)   ==== Aeolian-Skinner ==== Aeolian-Skinner - The lead is good, but then it jumps immediately to the Harrison years, giving none of the information about the pre-Harrison time of the company. I hope someone can add something so I don't have to go looking for my ol' books on Skinner. :-)  – Philippe | Talk 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)  Finished! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Participants for participants of the project. Feel free to add yourself to the list.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Templates for a summary of the templates used by the project.   === Clean-up tools ===  See Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Categories for a hierarchy of articles under WikiProject Pipe Organ.   === Project categories === Category:WikiProject PipeOrgan – top-level category, for Project pages, or those with {{Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Sidebar}} Category:WikiProject PipeOrgan articles – automatically added by the {{PipeOrgan-project-page}} template Category:WikiProject PipeOrgan participants – automatically added by the {{PipeOrgan-project-member}} template Organ key actions Windchest designs Casing revision Instrument Infobox:Pipe organ Main tool page: toolserver.orgReflinks –  Edits bare references – adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks – Edit and repair external links Dab solver – Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer – Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.   === External watchlist === Wikiproject Watchlist – WikiProject PipeOrgan
595	605	1329	WP:RF	Wikipedia:Readers first	595	"Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers. For an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, this clearly means providing reliable and accurate information. But it goes beyond this. It means providing that reliable and accurate information in a way that the reader will understand and find interesting. This encourages readers to stay, to follow links to more information, maybe even to contribute to Wikipedia themselves. If information is reliable and accurate, but presented in a way that is difficult for the reader to understand, or in a style the reader does not like, then the reader will go to one of the many other online encyclopaedias or other sources of information. You may have been directed to this page because an article you're working on has been identified as being difficult for a layman to understand. If so, please do not think it means your contributions are not appreciated – they are! Instead, it means that a reader is suggesting that the wording or style be changed or modified to make it easier for a layman to read – and hopefully increase the readership of your efforts to boot. The rest of this page outlines further the importance of putting readers first, together with offering some guidelines of how to make an article reach a larger audience. You should decide yourself whether it is more important to write articles or to promote Wikipedia, whether it is more useful to write new articles, improve existing ones, organize indexes, etc.  All good communicators have a clear message they want to convey, but to convey that message, they do not always use their favourite language and style. They do not use jargon their audience will be unfamiliar with (at least without explaining it clearly first). In short, when deciding the style of language to use, they put their readers first. We do this naturally in our everyday lives. How you talk to a young child will be different to how you speak to your partner, your boss, your colleagues, your mates and your clients. If you're a mathematician, say, trying to explain the concepts behind a mathematical theory, you would do so in a very different way depending on whether you're explaining it to a fellow mathematician or a young child. In the same way it is important to choose the style of Wikipedia articles, and to do that we first need to consider who the reader of a Wikipedia article is.  When you do write articles, consider the audience.  That would be anyone who might search on the internet for English-language information on any  topic; thus, any general-interest article should be worded so that any English reader can understand it. Sometimes, though, articles don't have everyone worldwide as their potential audience. Maybe an article on a mathematical theorem is likely to be read only by mathematicians. Perhaps an article about a minor character from Star Trek is  likely to be read only by a Star Trek fan. But perhaps both audiences can be served. For example:  A mathematical theorem attempts to prove certain concepts which could be undestood by a reader who only knows secondary-school mathematics. Yet such an article might go on to have a section on ""Technical details"" that only an advanced mathematician might understand. And the article on the Star Trek character can clearly tell the reader that the character is from Star Trek, who played the character, and why the character is significant to certain storylines. Our audience, then is wider than we think.Likewise, an article on ""Extended vocal technique"" is likely to be read mainly by musicians, and so technical details and jargon are entirely appropriate. But an article entitled ""Rap music"" is likely to be read by laymen who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to more detailed information if available.  Having established that potentially every English-reader may also be a reader of Wikipedia, albeit that certain elements of a very small number of articles may include some technical details not everyone will understand, how should we cater for this audience? This can be difficult. Wikipedia is fortunate in having many editors who are full-time academics and who know a lot about their subjects. Their edits are very welcome, but often they are too complicated for the average reader. This is not surprising; when you are accustomed to writing for one audience throughout your professional life, it is difficult to write for a completely different one. Perhaps some good advice would be to imagine you are writing for people who read serious (i.e. non-tabloid) newspapers. Don't worry, that doesn't mean write in a newspaper style, it means imagine the selection of words and how much knowledge it is fair to assume that audience will have (bearing in mind they could be anywhere in the world). Another group which might make a good theoretical audience are high school and college students.  Many of them do use Wikipedia to read about certain topics on a reasonably advanced level for the first time.  Wikipedia:Reader Readability § Definition Wikipedia:Wikipedia is for readers (essay) WP:Make technical articles understandable"
596	606	1330	WP:LYRICS	Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry	596	"A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact. This page discusses how they should be written. For how lyrics and poetry should be displayed, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#Style for quoting from poems. Foremost, copyrights should be respected. In addition, any interpretation of lyrics requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate lyrics yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. To be included, works ought to fit into the framework of notability. In general, a song from a b-side to a minor band shouldn't be included (see also Wikipedia:Notability (music) and deletion policy).  First you should bear in mind some important points to avoid:  Most modern songwriters and poets have not released their works under an open content license and therefore their inclusion in Wikipedia violates their copyright.  Copyright usually expires 70 years after the author's death (see below). External links to copyright violations should also be avoided. Many archives and collections of lyrics on the Internet are not licensed and are likely to involve copyright violations. In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may, if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context.   === Copyrighted works === Quotations of the work within the analytical framework can fall into the fair use provisions within US copyright law (and to a lesser extent fair dealing and related concepts within other jurisdictions). Such quotations can be done through inline text, block quotes, or (in the case of a song) inclusion of an image showing part of the sheet music. However, how much of a song you can quote is open to interpretation, but you should follow the Non-free content policy. Examples of good articles and featured articles on works still under copyright that should be used as guidelines are:  W. B. Yeats (includes block quotes from several poems) ""A Day in the Life"" by the Beatles (includes selected lyrics inline) ""The Scientist"" by Coldplay (includes selected lyrics inline and audio excerpt) ""Love Story"" by Taylor Swift (includes selected lyrics inline and audio excerpt) ""Like a Rolling Stone"" by Bob Dylan (includes selected lyrics in block quotes and audio excerpts) ""Running to Stand Still"" by U2 (includes selected lyrics inline and in blocks, and an audio excerpt) ""Last Post"" poem by Carol Ann Duffy (includes selected lyrics inline and in blocks) ""Hey Ya!"" by OutKast (includes inline discussion of selected lyrics)   === Copyright-expired works === Generally, these expire in all countries (except Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Samoa) when all of the following conditions are satisfied:  The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later. The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year. No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work.Consider the following:  ""Old Dan Tucker"" (featured) ""Three Blind Mice"" ""And did those feet in ancient time""   === National anthems === National anthems are generally considered to be a special case of fair use, if modern, or copyright expired if older. Examples include:  ""God Save the King"" (copyright expired) ""Advance Australia Fair"" (copyright expired) ""Namibia, Land of the Brave"" (copyrighted) If you are adding a new text on Wikisource, follow the local guidelines. Use Template:wikisource-inline at the top of the external links section to link to works on Wikisource (see the documentation). For example, use {{wikisource-inline|Anthem for Doomed Youth}} to link to the poem ""Anthem for Doomed Youth"". This produces the line below:  Works related to Anthem for Doomed Youth at Wikisource  Help:Score Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) § Poems and lyrics for guidance on article naming."
597	607	1332	WP:proposed deletion	WP:proposed deletion	597	"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. A nominated page is marked for at least seven days. If nobody has objected during this time the page is considered by an uninvolved administrator who reviews the page and either deletes it or removes the PROD tag. Any objection kills the PROD procedure, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present. Even after the page has been deleted, anyone may have a PRODed article or file restored through a request for undeletion.  PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. A special case is for biographies of living people (BLPPROD): an article that has had the BLPPROD-tag removed still can be PRODed via the process described here. PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.  There are three steps to the PROD process To nominate a page, place the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag at the top of the page. This is automatically converted to {{proposed deletion/dated}} which lists the page in Category:Proposed deletion. You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. The page is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the page). If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion, they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the page. The page may be undeleted upon request.   === Before nomination === Is there a valid reason for deletion? For articles, consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. If a file meets the Wikimedia Commons scope and licensing requirements, consider moving it there. Review the page history to confirm it has not been recently vandalized. Confirm the page is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that: it has not previously been proposed for deletion. it has not previously been undeleted. and it is neither currently being, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD. Consider whether alternatives to deletion make more sense than outright deletion. Note: Only articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files hosted on Wikipedia (not on Commons) may be deleted using the proposed deletion process.   === During nomination === Add the {{proposed deletion}} tag to the top of the page to nominate it, and provide a clear and non-generic reason like this: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} For articles, it is considered good practice to indicate the general subject area or what notability guidelines it falls under. Provide a clear edit summary indicating the page has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor. Consider adding an {{Old prod}} tag to the talk page. Consider adding the page to your watchlist. The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion. This should be done by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag, or other appropriate text.If you use the above template, you do not need to add a section header, as the template will do this for you. Twinkle has an option (which can be configured as the default in Twinkle preferences) to inform the page creator.   === To second a proposed deletion ===  If you see a {{prod}} tag on an article, and endorse its deletion, consider seconding it with the {{prod2}} template. This goes on the line after the {{prod}}, and can be filled out with an optional comment:  {{prod2|Notability is mostly inherited from his interaction with the Stardust Crusaders, and a search of secondary literature has failed to reveal any mention of his research into Stands.}}This template should not be SUBSTed. Category:Endorsed proposed deletions lists pages proposed for deletion by multiple editors.  To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article or the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} tag from the file. You are encouraged, but not required, to also:  Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page (the conreason parameter of the {{Old prod}} template is available for this purpose). Notify the editors who placed or seconded the PROD by placing a {{subst:Deprod}} tag on their user talk page. Add or modify an {{Old prod}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past proposed deletion candidates for tracking. Improve the page to address the concerns raised.If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article's creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If an editor's intent is unclear, an objection should be assumed. Removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, may be restored. In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block. After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion.If the page has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion. Any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request (unless there are other reasons for keeping it deleted, such as a copyright infringement),  but it may then be nominated for a deletion discussion. A person requesting undeletion must comply with WMF's Terms of Use (especially in the context of the required paid-contribution disclosure).  Pages that are proposed for deletion are listed in the subcategories of Category:Proposed deletion by date of tagging. Any editor may patrol the category to check that pages are correctly nominated, and either endorse the PROD by adding {{Prod2}} or remove the PROD tag. You are encouraged to give an explanation whenever you endorse or remove a PROD. You can use either the edit summary or the talk page for this purpose, or both. Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling has further information on checking PRODs. Pages that have been tagged for at least seven days are listed in Category:Expired proposed deletions. Administrators should check the pages in this category, and follow the deletion advice below.   === Deletion === Before deletion, administrators should check the page, its history, and deletion log to confirm that:  The nominator's edit summary stated that the page was proposed for deletion. The {{proposed deletion}} tag has been visible on the page for at least 7 continuous days. No objections have been raised on the talk page. The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion.If you decide to delete the page, provide an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator or editor who clarified the nominator's reason – not just ""expired prod"".  Note that once the page is deleted, the reason that was given in the {{proposed deletion}} can only be seen by administrators. If you are using an automated script, make sure it leaves an adequate message. To ensure independent judgement, a page should not be deleted by the same person who added the {{proposed deletion}} tag. After deleting the page and its talk page, it is recommended to check What links here to find any redirects to the page which should be deleted. In addition, consider unlinking incoming links from other pages (except discussions, archives and tracking pages), and list entries should be removed altogether if notability concerns were raised. If you decide not to delete the page, consider editing it to deal with the concerns raised, or nominating the page for a deletion discussion. You should document that it has been contested with an {{Old prod}} on the talk page.   === Undeletion === An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion. A user may request undeletion as per WP:DELETED#Undeletion.  All biographies of living people (BLP) must have at least one  source that supports a statement about the subject, or else it can be proposed for deletion. The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until a reliable source is added, and if none is forthcoming within seven days the article may be deleted. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the BLP prod has been legitimately removed.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Common outcomes Alternative outlets Deletion guidelines for administrators Archived deletion discussions Wikipedia:Files for discussion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling – WikiProject to ensure pages are correctly PRODed and de-PRODed Centralized discussion Undeletion policy Category:Past proposed deletion candidates Category:Proposed deletion – This category contains a list of the pages which have been PRODed"
598	608	1333	WP:DDD	Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts	598	Guideline Manual of Style Reader help
599	609	1335	WP:FRAM	Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram	599	"Shortly before 18:00 UTC on 10 June 2019, the English Wikipedia administrator Fram was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year, consistent with the Terms of Use (quote taken from the block log). A note was placed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, resulting in a large community discussion. In order to both centralize the discussion and remove it from the noticeboard two 'crats agreed that it should be moved to a new location. The original discussion (Special:PermaLink/901372387) was copied here at 12:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC) with this diff. Note that threading may have changed for readability. There is a collection of prepared/official statements published by various stakeholders, for your convenience. There are also different summaries of this page if you do not wish to read the entire page and its archives. Please also see the two Arbitration cases that were opened in relation to this incident, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions (decided 5 July 2019) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram (Case closed on 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)).  (edit conflict) Dear members of the English Wikipedia community, We have been approached by several volunteers with questions concerning the recent Office Action, the time-limited partial Foundation ban of User:Fram covering your project. As we saw similar questions also being asked in your discussions around the project, including here, we thought it is most accessible to interested community members to provide clarifications publicly here:  What made the Foundation take action at all and why at this specific time? As described on the Metapage about Office actions, we investigate the need for an office action either upon receipt of complaints from the community, or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community. All office actions are only taken after a thorough investigation, and extensive review by staff. This process usually takes about four weeks. Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case. Who made the complaint to the Foundation? The Foundation always aims to be as transparent as possible with office actions. However, as outlined in the general information section of the office actions page, we also prioritize the safety of involved parties and legal compliance. Therefore, we do not disclose who submitted community complaints. Why did the Foundation only ban for a year? As part of the Improving Trust and Safety processes program, less intrusive office actions were introduced. Those options include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are, however, temporary or project-specific in nature. For example, if a user has been problematic on one project in particular while contributing without concerns to another community wiki, this can now be addressed in a more targeted way than a full Foundation global ban. Why did the Foundation de-sysop? Does this mean that Fram will not be an administrator when his ban ends in 2020? The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram. It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban. What kind of appeal is possible against this office action? As a this time-limited Foundation ban is an outcome of a regular office action investigation, it is governed by the same rules already familiar from Foundation global bans: it does not offer an opportunity to appeal.As the team carrying out office action investigations, Trust and Safety starts cases from the position that it is up to volunteers to decide for themselves how they spend their free time within the frame of the Terms of Use and the local community’s rules provided for in section 10 of them. The Terms of Use do not distinguish whether a user participates by creating and curating content, building tools and gadgets for peers doing so, helping out as a functionary handling admin, checkuser or oversight tools or in other forms. However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)  However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Of all the non-answers I've seen in my life, that's possibly one of the most long winded. Reyk YO! 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Award-winning.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Oooh, this sounds like a whole new way of getting rid of people we don't like... without going through the tedium of due process, ANI, ArbCom or anything. Just badger the WMF with complaints and, hey presto, the user is vanished. Winning!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC) This is the most vague statement/response I have ever seen. WMF has mostly described the policies like when, and they can block/ban some individual (not one account by the way [by the way, that made me go: bwahaha]), but they still have not adequately explained why did they ban Fram. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)@WMFOffice: What was it about this complaint that meant it required investigation and action by WMF Trust and Safety instead of enwiki's ArbCom? If you cannot state this publicly (even in general terms), please send an explanation to ArbCom's private mailing list so they can confirm that there were good reasons for this action to be handled in this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @WMFOffice::  However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy.  Is this such a case?  Do you feel enwiki is currently ""consistently struggling to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use"", and if so, how?  We can and have drastically revised policy in the past to meet the requirements set by WP:OFFICE, but if you don't tell us what's wrong, we can't fix it; and I think it's clear at this point that parachuting in to ban a longtime user with no explanation isn't going to help that underlying situation at all.  We need details about how you feel enwiki is falling short and what we would need to change to reach the point where disruptive action like this from outside the community is no longer needed.  I think there's a lot of people who would be willing to tighten our rules on harassment and civility if you would make it clear how you want us to do so and set some baseline requirements we need to enforce; but trying to go it alone by stepping in to handle occasional high-profile cases is counterproductive, since it can't possibly scale up to the point where it protects the userbase as a whole and produces backlashes that make broad-based reform more difficult.  What I assume you feel we need are changes to Wikipedia's culture and policies; this ban isn't going to help with that, especially given the frustrating lack of meaningful dialog afterwards in terms of what you feel we're doing wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)  Trust and Safety starts cases from the position that it is up to volunteers to decide for themselves how they spend their free time... — I'll tell ya how I'm not spending my free time: that's editing Wikipedia until resolution of this incursion by San Francisco on behalf of a well-connected power player over the head of the community's established discipline procedures. The lame semi-punt to ArbCom is not enough, the ban should be ended forthwith. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)  Thank you to everyone who commented at the various discussions or sent me an email about this. I'm as baffled about this as any of you, I'll share whatever information I have. i'll not repost full emails, as that is normally not allowed, but I'll try to give a fair assessment. In April 2018, I received an office email from Kalliope (on behalf of the Trust and Safety team) with a ""conduct warning"" based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors. ""I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility—and counterproductive escalations."" The ""as well as Foundation staff"" is quite telling here... In March 2019, I received a ""reminder"" about two edits I made in October 2018 (!); this one and this one. Even though acknowledging that my edits were correct, and that ""We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable."" (which is true, as I was, as is most often the case, new page patrolling when I tagged and corrected these), they issued a one-sided interaction ban (yep, the WMF issues interaction bans as well apparently, no need to bother enwiki with these any longer).  And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one. That's it. ""This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here [1]. This action is effective immediately and it is non-appealable."" Basically, after you recive a conduct warning from the Office based on undisclosed complaints, any pretext is then good enough to ban you (1 year now, I presume indef the next time I do anything they don't like). That I just happen to be one of the most vocal and efficient critics of the WMF is probably a pure coincidence (sorry to tout my own horn here, but in this case it needs to be said).  No evidence at all that the enwiki community tried and failed to address these issues. No indication that they noticed that my conduct has clearly improved in general over the last 12 months (I said improved, not been raised to saintly standards). No, an edit expressing widefelt frustration with an ArbCom post is sufficient to ban me.  I would like to state empathically, if someone would have doubts about it, that I have not socked (despite the rather nefarious sounding ""Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case.""), I have not contacted or otherwise followed or bothered anyone offwiki, I have not even contributed to any of the Wikipedia criticism sites or fora (though it does become tempting now), ... Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.  Basically, this one-year ban is at the same time a means to silence one of their most vocal (and fact-based, consistently supporting WMF criticism with many examples of what goes wrong) critics, and a serious (and unwarranted) blame for the enwiki admin and arbcom community, who are apparently not able to upheld the TOU and to manage the site effectively.  This ban is not open to appeal, so I'll not bother with it: but I most clearly disagree with it and the very flimsy justification for it, and oppose this powergrab by the WMF which can't be bothered to deal with actual serious issues (like the rampant BLP violating vandalism at Wikidata, where e.g. Brett Kavanaugh has since 31 March 2019 the alias ""rapist""[2] (A BLP violation whether you agree with the sentiment or not).  I have not the faintest clue why the WMF also couldn't post the justification for their block online, but communication has never been their strongest point. Any non-violent action taken by enwiki individuals or groups against this WMF ban has my support. If you need more information, feel free to ask. I also allow the WMF to publish our full mail communication (I don't think it contains any personally identifying information about me or others), to give everyone the means to judge this impartially for themselves.   Again, thank you to everyone who expressed their support, especially those who would have reasons to dislike me based on previous interactions. I'm not a model admin or editor, but I believe I was steadily improving. But that's not for enwiki to decide apparently. Fram (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Copying Fram's statement from Commons here. --Pudeo (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  +clear right so content fills width: no content change. --Mirokado (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)""empathically""? I suspect you meant ""emphatically"". Maproom (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)The particular diff Fram refers to on Kavanaugh's Wikidata entry has been suppressed.  However, you can look at the revision history for the past nine months and variations of ""creep"", ""molest"" and ""rape"", plus ""white privilege"" are evident and visible in numerous other revisions and edit summaries.  In other words, Wikidata is no different than Wikipedia, where admins are mindlessly reactive instead of proactive.  This helps to explain why, in the end, no one will really care, despite the hundreds of thousands of words expended on this so far.  The graphic in another thread below containing the phrase ""topics no one cares about"" and the scattershot enforcement of policies, one example of which I refer to above, should alert anyone to the fact that this community is not NPOV no matter how hard some may attempt to assert otherwise.  Perhaps some of you missed the coincidence of timing of Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you being taken to MFD and the parting shot of ""Valid project space expression"" reflecting consenus in that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioKAOS (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Admin Fram locally banned by T&S for one year. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Semi-humorous aside, not to be taken too seriously. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Request for action regarding the ban of Fram User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Who put the WMF in charge? User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#What was the outcome of the board meeting? (no response) User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Yet more WMF questions raised User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#There is no contact information for Trust & Safety User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Where to write to tell the WMF that they have violated the ToU? User talk:Jimbo Wales#Ten daysTwo weeks User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Did you establish the current version of WP:OFFICE? User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Bungling incompetence User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_235#Forthcoming FRAM-related case at ARBCOM Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales""I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[3] ""[…] Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[4] ""I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[5] ""I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to ""fall on their sword"" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[6] ""I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[7] ""I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[8] ""Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)""[9] ""I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)""[10] ""Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence.  I continue to recommend the following to everyone here: Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase ""important but not urgent"" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months) I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here.  The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the ""constitutional issue"" of process and procedure.  Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)""[11] ""To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)""[12] ""[…] This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)""[13] ""[…] If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error.  It's not as easy as that.And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream.  And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either.  But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome is better than if I do something sudden.I suppose if I had to decide ""whether the community or the foundation is my true heir"" I'd go with community.  But I actually don't think in that way.  My true heir is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about.  One of the reasons that Wikipedia has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent.  WP:IAR and WP:5P5 spring to mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)""[14] ""[…] I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)""[15] ""We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.In those board discussions, I am stating my own views directly and clearly, but it would be inappropriate to share them here and now, because as we all know, there are those who like to engage in ""Jimbo said"" argumentation, which doesn't clear the air but instead often only creates more heat.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)""[16] ""This is pretty accurate as a too-brief summary of the history. This is an edited version of the key sentences as I would put it myself: ""Jimbo's goals then were for the community to be self-sustaining and self-governing such that it would fulfill its mission with less of his involvement as time went on. It was never a goal for the WMF to have any sort of authority over or involvement in community or content decisions beyond the removal of libellous material and copyright violations and other limited actions for public safety of various kinds, which the WMF took on for reasons of compliance."" And that isn't the whole of it really, I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)""[17] ""You have clearly misunderstood what I said. Nothing about ""facilitating and guiding community consultations"" even remotely implies that I think they should be ""judge, jury, and executioner"". I don't even know what chain of thought got you from one to the other. The point is that there are things we know to be true: there are very few admins created and while most people (the vast majority) think that's a problem, there is no consensus and no process towards consensus towards resolving that issue. It's a thankless task to take on and run a project to work through various options to find something that would get us to a better place - no one has stepped up to do that (a few have tried, and thank goodness for them). WMF community support people have done a great job on consultations around terms of service and so on - we do have some positive examples of how to do this right. It isn't about ramming things down people's throat - it's about taking on the hard job of listening and framing debate, convening real-life groups to work on issues, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)""[18] ""Yes, the ED is aware. The board is still discussing with each other and with staff. I'm a participant in this but not in a position to say when it will come to a conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)""[19] ""Without commenting at this moment on any of the rest of it, I can say that I do not know, and don't personally consider it particularly relevant or interesting, whether legal was consulted beforehand. I don't think legal is the right avenue for any of us to be thinking about how to improve things in this or in related circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)""[20] ""I will raise the issue. As you can imagine, I'm trying not to cause any additional problems by making any firm declarations of what I am and am not empowered to do in my traditional role in English Wikipedia, but I can indicate that I share the view that I could do that - or should be able to do that. One reason we have kept some vestiges of a ""constitutional monarch"" system is precisely to have pressure relief valves for highly unusual situations. One reason I haven't tried to be forceful with it is that I don't believe in it as anything other than a safety mechanism. So long as other avenues exist for me to try to help everyone reach reconciliation and find a solution in which almost everyone says ""we are now in a better place than we were when this whole mess started"" - I'm going to try.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)""[21] ""I think of our constitutional arrangements as being very like those in the UK. A broad array of written and unwritten rules, policies, guidelines, and traditions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)""[22] ""In the current situation, I think that the composition of the board is not a big part of the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)""[23] ""The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this.  It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward.  As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)"" [24] ""Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. ""There's a giant flame war on the Internet"" never really makes a dent. ""Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit"" makes a big dent. Also: ""The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior"" is helpful."" Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) [25] To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) [26] To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) [27] [Forthcoming shortly] WMFOffice (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Dear members of the English Wikipedia community, Over the last few days we have received many requests to review the recent issues that have surfaced due to the office action taken against Fram. We are reviewing such feedback with care and aim to reply in helping to clarify the situation. We expect to reply at least one more time as we continue to review the feedback. We hope the following helps to address several points raised so far: The Foundation is strongly supportive of communities making their own decisions within the framework of the Terms of Use, as outlined in section 10. There have been many questions about why the Foundation's Trust & Safety team handled this case rather than passing it to the local Arbcom to handle. This happened for two main reasons.   First, our privacy provisions do not always allow us to ""pass back"" personal information we receive to the community; this means there are cases where we cannot pass on to Arbcom things like the names of complaining parties or the content of private evidence that might support a concern. As a result, the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it. Secondly, we believe it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case.For these two reasons this case was handled differently than Trust and Safety would usually have handled cases falling under section 4. of the Terms of Use. In terms of us providing direct justification for this ban to the community, as both several community members and we have already mentioned, we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. What do we mean by that? We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like ""who the named party was targeting"" or ""what dispute this investigation arose from"") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” Many of you have asked questions about why a one-year local ban was placed in this case, as opposed to the more-common indefinite global ban. The Trust & Safety team updated the policies to allow these less-stringent sanction options for use in cases where there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project. The intention of these new options is to be able to act in a way that is more sensitive to an individual’s circumstances and not have to give out indefinite global bans for problems that are limited in time or project-scope. Based on the evidence we received, this is such a case and we are hopeful that if Fram wishes to resume editing in a year, they will be able to do so effectively and in line with the terms of use. Prior to this policy update, the only sanction option available in a case like this would have been an indefinite global ban.  We know this action came as a surprise to some within the community, and we understand that many of you have deep concerns about the situation. We can only assure you that Trust & Safety Office Actions are not taken lightly, nor are they taken without sign-off by multiple levels of staff who read the case’s documentation and evidence from different angles. We take these actions only in situations where we believe no other option is available that will preserve the health and/or safety of the community. We will continue to monitor your feedback and provide at least one more reply regarding this matter. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  To follow up on the earlier statement from today, we can provide additional clarifications: The scope of Trust and Safety investigations: The Foundation's office action investigations generally review the conduct of the user as a whole. Therefore, they usually involve conduct on the projects over an extended period of time. In the case of established editors, the time window reviewed often extends beyond any individual complaints received and can include conduct spanning several years. The scope is one of the main reasons why such investigations usually take at least four weeks. Such investigations evaluate the conduct of a user and by default not the substance of their views. Conduct warnings: Conduct warnings are a rare office action. They are normally issued when a situation is observed to be problematic, and is meant to be a preventative measure of further escalation. It is considered as a step geared towards de-escalation of the situation, when there is believed to have sufficient margin for it. It informs the recipient that behavior they may consider acceptable is in fact not, grants them the opportunity to reflect on it, and encourages them to take corrective measures towards mitigating and eventually eliminating it. However, should these warnings be ignored and the problematic behavior continues, further actions (such as bans) may be deemed necessary and their text usually references the possibility. Style and substance: Critique is an inherently important part of an encyclopedic community. Neither the Foundation nor community institutions, like ArbCom, are above criticism. Such criticism naturally can be direct and hard on the facts, but in a community it should also remain strictly respectful in tone towards others. Enforcement: The Wikimedia Foundation never seeks to force administrators or other community members to enforce the Terms of Use (just like an admin is rarely 'obligated' to block a vandal), but we do greatly appreciate the work of administrators who choose to do so. Admins who do take such actions should not be subjected to threats of removal of their admin rights, when their actions are based on a good faith belief that they are upholding the Terms of Use (and any action in support of enforcing a Foundation office action or a community global ban is, by definition, upholding the Terms of Use). If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion, if necessary, a different approach. We are always happy to join in such conversations unrelated to individual cases. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)  Hello all, We are aware that a number of community members believe that the recent Trust & Safety Office Action taken against Fram was improper. While the Foundation and its decisions are open to criticism, Office Actions are actions of last resort taken by the Foundation as part of our role and our commitments to hosting the Wikipedia sites. In section 10 of the Terms of Use, we identify that the need may arise as part of our management of the websites to take certain actions, and these actions may not be reversed. Using administrative or other tools or editing rights to reverse or negate an Office Action is unacceptable, as is interfering with other users who attempt to enforce an Office Action or the Terms of Use. As has been correctly observed by users on the bureaucrats' noticeboard and other places, Office Actions are explicitly not subject to project community rules or consensus. If a user attempts to reverse or negate an Office Action, the Wikimedia Foundation may take any action necessary to preserve that Office Action, including desysopping or blocking a user or users. In this case, and in consideration of Floquenbeam's actions in reversing the Office Action regarding Fram, we have reinstated the original office action and temporarily desysopped Floquenbeam for a period of 30 days. Floquenbeam's contributions to the projects are appreciated and we are not against them regaining admin rights in the future, hence our action is not permanent. If they wish for their admin rights to be restored, a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse, and the community may decide on the request at that time in such or another way. However, we cannot permit efforts to obstruct or reverse Office Actions or to subvert the Terms of Use. Doing so would undermine the policy's ability to protect our projects and community. On these grounds, we will not hesitate to take further appropriate actions should such abuse occur again. The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today or by attempts by others to override that sanction. We will reply to other concerns in a separate statement as indicated in the post prior to the attempt to overrule the office action. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)  I have to step away from the computer for a bit, but there has been a further response from Fram over on Commons, see here. Maybe someone can copy that here, or include as a subsection above in the original response section. Not sure. Obviously too much back-and-forth will get difficult to manage, but pointing it out as no-one else seems to have seen it yet. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)  For the record, since Fram has wisely not been saying too much over on Commons (apart from dealing with some trolling directed against them), but has said some more, there is this. My experience of this sort of cross-wiki communication with a single-project banned user is that it can get out of control, so it should be minimised (but it is still important to keep an eye on what is being said). This is particularly important in this case, because the head of the WMF's T&S team have said they will enact a global lock if Fram edits over here, and arguably proxying here for them can be seen as enabling that, so some care is needed here. Please note I have asked Fram if they wish the local block to be re-enacted to avoid accidentally triggering that (this is a pragmatic response to what the WMF said, not a judgement either way on whether the WMF should have said that or the principles involved). I believe self-requested blocks are still allowed (and can be lifted at any time), so if that gets requested (no idea what Fram's response will be), maybe someone else could look out for that as I am logging off soon for the night. Maybe put this in new section if it needs more prominence. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)   === About the ban === First, thank you to everyone who stands up against or at least questions the handling of this by the WMF (no matter if you think I'm a good admin or if you believe I should have been banned a long time already).  Then, to the actual case. As far as I am concerned, there are no privacy reasons involved in any of this (never mind anything legally actionable). I'll repeat it once more, if it wasn't clear:  I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever) I have not discussed anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (e.g. I have not contacted employers, I haven't discussed editors or articles at fora, twitter, reddit, whatever). I haven't threatened to do any of the above either. I don't know who made complaints about me to the WMF, and I won't speculate on it. The information I gave in my original post here just repeated the info I got from the WMF.I invite the WMF to either simply confirm that my original post was a fair summary of the posts they sent me, or else to publish the posts in full (I don't think any editors were named in their posts, but if necessary they can strike out such names if they prefer). I also invite the WMF to explain why standard procedures weren't tried first, i.e. why they didn't refer the complainants to our regular channels first. I'll not comment too much further, to avoid throwing fuel on the fire (or giving them a pretext to extend the ban). I'll not edit enwiki for the moment either, even when unblocked (thanks for that though), at least until the situation has become a bit clearer. Fram (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC) One more thing, regarding my first post here, and now BU Rob13 claming that it was misleading: they have their facts wrong (e.g. the warning was not from a year ago, but from March 2019), but I noticed on rereading my post that I had one fact wrong as well. I said that I had received an interaction ban, but what I actually had was:  ""However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end.""To me, a ""suggestion"" that I stay away from her or I would get sanctioned by them does read like an actual interaction ban, but technically it wasn't. But whether it was an interaction ban or not, former arb BU Rob13 should be aware that mentioning an interaction ban and the editors you are banned from in the course of ban discussions and the like is perfectly acceptable. I did not drop her name just for the fun of it, I raised the issue because it was the only thing I got alerted from by the WMF between their vague first warning in April 2018, and the ban now. I was trying to be complete and open, but apparently that was ""misleading""?  BU Rob13 may think the LauraHale thing was unrelated, but the actual mail by the WMF says otherwise:  ""This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. ""(note that the ""including"" may suggest that there is more than these two, but there isn't: the March 2019 reminder is the LauraHale one).   All of this could be made easier if the WMF posted their full mails of course (although by now large chunks have been reposted here). Doing this the wiki way instead of through mail would have helped a lot. Fram (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)  Dear members of the English Wikipedia community, My name is Jan Eissfeldt and I’m commenting in my role as Lead Manager of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team about the team’s recent investigation and office actions. In addition to this comment, the Trust & Safety team will be making a statement at Arbitration Committee Requests/WJBscribe tomorrow. I want to apologize for the disruption caused by the introduction of new type of sanctions without better communication with this community beforehand. While these changes were the result of the changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope, I know that these changes to the processes came as a surprise to many people within the community, and that many of you have questions about the changes. Responding to community concerns about the office action requires deliberation and takes some time. We have been in active dialogue with staff and others - including the Board - to work on resolutions, but we understand that the time this takes opens the door for speculation and allowed concerns to expand. I realize that this situation has been difficult for the English Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). The Trust & Safety team apologizes for not working more closely with them in the lead-up to this point. We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties.  I also want to elaborate on the reasons that Trust & Safety cases will not be discussed in public and often not even privately with members of the Wikimedia movement who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). When we receive non-public information, the Wikimedia Foundation must handle it in a manner that is both consistent with our Privacy Policy and any other commitments made to the person disclosing their information. When dealing with sensitive allegations of inappropriate behavior, we must ensure that we are upholding a relationship of trust and confidence with people who have entrusted us with personal information about their experiences. This means that even in cases where users have signed a community NDA, our legal obligations may not allow us to share information given to us. Additionally, I want to explain the reason for using a role account when performing office actions and during follow up communication. Decisions, statements, and actions regarding things such as Office Actions are not individually-taken; rather, they are a product of collaboration of multiple people at the Foundation, oftentimes up to and including the Executive Director. As a result, we use the WMFOffice account as a “role” account, representing the fact that these are Foundation actions and statements, not a single person’s. Some of you may remember that Trust & Safety staff used to sign with their individual accounts when discussing Office Actions. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible due to safety concerns for Foundation employees, as in the past staff have been personally targeted for threats of violence due to their Office Action edits. I am taking the step of making this statement personally in this case due to extraordinary necessity. There continue to be questions from some people about the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team doing investigations about incidents occurring on English Wikipedia. I want to clarify the rationale for Trust & Safety doing investigations when requested and they meet the criteria for review.  Part of the Trust & Safety Team’s responsibility is upholding movement-wide standards based on the Terms of Use. We recognize that each of the hundreds of global communities under the Wikimedia umbrella have their own styles and their own behavioral expectations, but we also believe that there must be a certain minimum standard to those expectations. Sometimes, local communities find it difficult to meet that minimum standard despite their best efforts due to history, habit, dislike by some volunteers of the standard, or wider cultural resistance to these standards. However, it is important to keep in mind that even communities that are resistant to it or are making a good faith effort are expected to meet the minimum standards set in the Terms of Use. In cases where community influences or barriers interfere with the meeting of these minimum standards, the Foundation may step in to enforce the standards - even in situations where the local community dislikes or outright opposes those standards. It is important that victims of hostilities like harassment have a safe place to make reports and that we uphold and respect their privacy when they do so. The Foundation is currently working with the community on a User Reporting System that would allow communities and the Foundation to cooperate in handling complaints like harassment, and we have every hope that that system will facilitate local, community handling of these issues. However, at the current time, no such system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public. Indeed, it is often true that a mere rumor that someone was the victim of harassment can lead to harassment of that person. Unfortunately, that has been proven the case here as some individuals have already made assumptions about the identities of the victims involved. Accordingly, the Foundation is currently the venue best equipped to handle these reports, as we are able, often required by laws or global policies, to investigate these situations in confidence and without revealing the identity of the victim. That is why we will not name or disclose the identities of the individuals involved in reporting incidents related to this Office Action. There have been some concerns raised about the level of community experience and knowledge involved in Trust & Safety’s work. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Engagement Department, of which Trust & Safety is a part, supports contributors and organizations aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation mission. In order to conduct informed and contextualized investigations, safeguard the community at events, and support community governance, Trust & Safety has focused on building a team with a combination of deep Wikimedia movement experience and team members who have experience with Trust & Safety processes with other online communities. To better assess incidents, the team has people from diverse geographic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. We have former ArbCom members, administrators, and functionaries, from English Wikipedia as well as other language communities, informing our decisions, and expertise from other organisations helping to build compassionate best practices. We have utilized all of this experience and expertise in determining how best to manage the reports of harassment and response from members of the community. One of the recent changes to the Trust & Safety policy is the introduction of new options that include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature. This change to policy is not a change of the team’s scope of cases taken. However, it does alter the way that sanctions are enforced and unintentionally introduced ambiguity about the ability of local communities to overrule office actions. In acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the application of this newer type of ban, we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date. However, despite the ambiguity in its application, the ban continues to stand whether it is being technically enforced by a block or not. Should Fram edit English Wikipedia during the one-year period of their ban, the temporary partial ban of User:Fram will be enforced with a global ban (and accordingly a global lock).  We must stress again that Office Actions, whether “technically” reversible or not, are not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment. The occurrence of Office Actions at times is unavoidable, but it is not our intention to disrupt local communities any further than necessary. Here we failed on that score, caused disruption to your community, and we welcome feedback about how such disruption could be avoided in the future when the Foundation takes Office Actions, and ask that we all engage in a good faith discussion bearing in mind the legal and ethical restrictions placed on anyone within or outside of the Foundation engaging in reports of this nature. In addition to asking for feedback about the trust and safety office actions in this incident, over the next year, the Foundation will be asking members of the Wikimedia movement to work with us on several initiatives that are designed to promote inclusivity by ensuring a healthier culture of discourse, and the safety of Wikimedia spaces. --Jan (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)  I would like to thank you all for your comments and feedback in regard to my recent post. I will try to reply here some of the main points and questions the community has asked.  The changes to our Office Action policy were made publicly on February 19, 2019 as part of the documentation on Meta. It has not been our practice, historically, to report changes to T&S policy to the hundreds of local communities we work with. As I have noted previously, the use of local and time-limited bans is not a change of the team’s scope but was intended to be a less heavy handed option than indefinite global bans for cases that fall within the established scope. Their intention has been to close the gap between conduct warning office actions, which played a role in this case more than once, and indefinite global bans. The community’s reaction here to these more gradual bans has been clear that such less-”nuclear” options are both confusing and not felt to be acceptable and I will consider that carefully (and these two ideas, too). Regarding questions on balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party, this is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we or anyone else has perfected. By default, we reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties. To address questions about how the T&S investigations procedures work, I have asked my team to put together some public documentation that is easier to digest than the approval path table already available on Meta together early next week. Regarding the desysoping action taken, my team's reasoning was guided by the precedent set in 2016. You can find a bit more on that in my statement to the ArbCom case.I am continuing to read this and other related pages, and as noted in my ArbCom statement will continue to engage with the community on several other points next week when the public documentation will be ready. Jan (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)  On the question of how many cases reaching T&S result in office actions, the answer is two-fold:Roughly 90% of the outreach to T&S does not result in T&S cases. There are two big reasons for that: community self-governance and the hurdle for opening T&S cases being consequently pretty high. Much of the outreach we receive therefore can be routinely addressed by others and is being redirected - including to OTRS, ArbCom, other community processes. Last quarter, for example, the percent of T&S cases opened relative to outreach received was 8.1%, the quarter before 11%. Within these ~10% that become investigations, T&S cases resulted in actions in 48.18% of all investigations conducted over the last four years. That number includes both types of office actions: secondary like a private conduct warnings, and primary, like Foundation global bans. For historical context: T&S cases historically used to come mainly from the English language projects but that has steadily declined to less than a third of cases (again Q1 and 2 18/19 data). The main cause for the trend has been a consistent rise in requests from other language projects.I know some of you have expressed concerns about the new reporting system and the universal code of conduct here and on ArbCom’s talk page. T&S staffer Sydney Poore, who has been pinged by several editors already, will be engaging directly about these initiatives in the conversations. On questions on better communications of office action procedures: Going forward, news of all substantive changes to the office actions policy will be going out to all communities; just like technical changes already do. T&S will work with ComRel to make sure it follows the usual setup and feedback reviewed on the policy’s talk page on Meta. We are also reviewing, in line with Vermont’s suggestion from last week, whether to include individual public office actions, which is more complicated. We have heard your concerns about fairness to Fram of the case as it proceeded. Balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we’ve perfected. Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties, but our efforts do remain a work in progress when it comes to finding the right balance in each individual case. As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step. There have been suggestions that T&S should have piloted the newer office action measures first before proceeding with a potentially controversial case like Fram’s. I don’t agree with that as I think that bending the selection of cases to cherry-pick a good “starter” case endangers the independent investigations approach T&S has to uphold. There have been questions about the investigation process itself. As indicated on Friday above, my team has built a graphic to visualize the overall process to make it easier to navigate. Traditionally, it has been documented as a table on Meta and is always followed. I hope that the graphic puts the number I detail in the first bullet of this edit above into its context. ~10% go through the process visualized here and less than half thereof result in office actions taken. Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)   ==== Community questions, responses, and comments ==== Question. This all seems pretty par for the course; but to Jan (WMF), you never gave a figure as to describe the quantity of requests (only percentage). If you are authorized to make that statistic public, please do so and be sure to ping me. Either way, thank you for this response and the infographic from the team. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Actually I think it's quite fair to only give percentages, especially over time rather than merely one quarter of results. I found the information quite informative and pretty reassuring and thank Jan for that. It wasn't, however, quite what I had asked for. What I had hoped for was once we entered the approval process grey box, what percentage ultimately end up at all approvals received and what percentage end up with no office action recommended/office action declined.  Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC) User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the noticeboard. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --Rschen7754 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Interesting, thanks Jan. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an ""investigation"" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the ""Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups"" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but ""conduct warning"" gets a checkmark for that one and ""interaction ban"" doesn't? Is that right?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC) That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the ""accused"" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible. This is unfair trial par excellence. As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so. Mautpreller (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (from German Wikipedia). This is grossly insufficient.  I'd like to call attention to the following statement:  Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties  This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia.  This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases.  Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I too find this problematic. Being unable to defend yourself effectively puts someone in a kangaroo court with no means of defense. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks Jan. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are: Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision? What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement [28] in which it is agreed that ""The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages."" What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones? Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Wikipedia who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?Thanks in advance for considering these questions. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC) SilkTork, we know what happens when volunteers cross the line and become salaried employees (or contractors). In 2013 one was desysoped for particularly egregious behaviour, right in the middle of an outgoing ED's valedictory speech at a Wikimania in which she was presenting a prerecorded video that specifically praised the individual's work (the surpressed sniggers in the lecture theatre were audible). Needless to say, although the community called for it, that individual was not sacked from their paid job. I am reminded of this recent comment by Seraphimblade: JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a ""higher authority"" than the English Wikipedia community, and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say ""You're fired"", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not ""higher"" than the English Wikipedia community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes. Oh, the irony. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Kudpung Sorry, but what does ""ED"" stand for here? Executive Director? If so I take it you're referring to Sue Gardner's keynote? [29] IntoThinAir (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC) IntoThinAir, 'ED' in  this context  means Executive Director. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive.  How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line?  Jheald (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure. As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor. Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like ""Well, it's looks like [name] did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."" It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of ""minutes"" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do not mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it. As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks Jan. I have a few questions: m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019, tells us, There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [30] Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us, The purpose of this policy is to help improve the actual and perceived safety of Wikimedia community members, the movement itself, and the public in circumstances where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. Local policies remain primary on all Wikimedia projects, as explained in the Terms of Use, and office actions are complementary to those local policies. However, there may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as in complying with valid and enforceable court orders to remove content that might otherwise comply with policy or in protecting the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. If it's within your purview can you tell us whether the OFFICE action and override of local governance was necessary to protect the community? A simple yes of no is fine, or simply indicate if you're unwilling or unable to answer. In the findings of the report written by Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP) on page 23, the failures in our noticeboard practices are noted (findings, which, generally seem spot on). [Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) explains the function of specialized noticeboards (page 9). In the initial ""warnings"" to Fram (not sure whether I'm using the correct term), I'm wondering whether anyone on your team considered suggesting s/he report issues with users to relevant noticeboards (i.e, WP:AN/I; WP:RSN; WP:CCI? Regardless of the (HNMCP)'s recommendations and that the community should absolute see to strengthening those boards in-house, noticeboards are generally a good first stop, help to get more eyes on a situation and prevent a single editor who is working unilaterally from becoming overly frustrated and from being subjected to ""anecdotal"" stories. Again, if the question is not something you're able to answer, I'll understand fully.Finally, I've spent quite a few hours finding documents, reading, checking sourcing, but had RexxS not posted a series of links here there wouldn't have been a starting point. Would it be feasible to have more information available here on en.wp? Links are easy to post and easy to find, and it is, after all, a wiki. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Jan, you have provided some background about the position you hold in the WMF. Basically admitting that you are in charge of T&S but are not aware of what goes on there. Perhaps you could let Arbcom and the community know who your immediate superior is.  It might help towards establishing lines of responsibility and communication for the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)   ==== Response from Fram to Jan ==== Jan Eissfeldt said[31]  ""As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step.""""we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action."" understood, but you should at least be able to confirm that it is about on-wiki behaviour only surely? ""In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step."" Yes, as I noted on Commons but which you (WMF) failed to acknowledge until now, I got two such reminders (one very general, which is now being discussed at enwiki and doesn't seem to be really well recieved as an acceptable warning; and two, about a specific issue where the general opinion at enwiki seems to be that no warning was necessary for these quite normal edits), and then a sudden one-year ban (plus desysop) for quite different behaviour (not the supposed harassment of an individual, but incivility against the Arbcom), which doesn't seem to fit any of the ""harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism"" category.  In any case, I guess we can use your note as a rather well hidden acknowledgment that my account of the WMF communications was accurate? That would at least lay to bed some of the more wild speculations made in these discussions. Fram (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Copied from Commons Tazerdadog (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Some thoughts on how we might collectively deescalate the situation. Of course, if there is significant additional information that remains unknown to us, this might not work. But if the facts are basically as the community has come to understand them, how about this plan:  The Office terminates Fram's ban. We don't argue any more about whether it was right or wrong, legitimate or outrageous, although everyone can maintain their individual feelings about that. But the ban is just terminated as of now, on the grounds that (1) it seems to remain counterproductive to Foundation-community relations, and (2) one presumes that any ""clean up your act"" message that was intended for Fram has been received. If there is a specific editor or two with whom the Office believes Fram was interacting problematically, Fram quasi-voluntarily agrees, without admitting any wrongdoing, to stay away from that editor(s). The editor's or editors' name(s) do not need to be disclosed on-wiki. Fram also quasi-voluntarily agrees to improve his decorum a little bit. It may only be a surface issue, but there really are better ways to say ""I disagree with ArbCom's action"" than ""Fuck you, ArbCom"" (and I would say that even if I hadn't been a long-time ArbCom member myself). The community hopefully accepts that even if this one was mishandled, Trust and Safety actions are generally taken with good intentions, and that there is a reason many of them can't be publicly discussed. As Opabinia regalis reminded us in her comments on the arbitration request, ""T&S is these people."" Most of them come from the Wikipedia communities, many from this community. They're not perfect, but they didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of  perpetrating a hostile takeover. The Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there (assuming it's somewhere it's desirable to be). It's been pointed out that various consultations have been open for awhile, but have flown under the radar of many editors, and certainly were not expected to culminate in this type of action. WMF, if you didn't before, you have our attention now. What are you trying to do, and how do you plan to go about doing it?Comments appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)   === Endorse === All of that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Samesies. nableezy - 18:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Sounds good to me. If the Office is acting in good faith, I do not see why they would not accept this. Enigmamsg 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a fair compromise Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Fair. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable and good faith way out of this mess.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse I like the good faith part and it being reasonable.Yger (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Seems a reasonable way to try to walk back this situation. Jheald (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Generally Endorse If behavior is inappropriate, WMFOffice should bring it and evidence to the appropriate board immediately (such as ArbCom). The undoing of the ban need not be instantaneous if exigent circumstances are present (such as a death threat and WMF is working with local authorities). Buffs (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Addendum: It would also be acceptable to keep a ban in place on all en.wiki activities until such time as an ArbCom case is resolved (consider this the equivalent of house arrest while the case is heard Buffs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse This feels reasonable and responsive to issues on multiple sides and so I support it. I would hope that this reasonableness would receive a positive response from the foundation rather than it being seen as a negotiating posture (e.g. ""well you you asked for immediate reinstatement and we said a year so let's compromise on six months""). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Perfect / brilliant. We should mention this in the other places that it is being discussed.   North8000 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Reluctant Endorse but pending BoT statement. It might be very plausible that Fram actually did something quite serious enough (in which case, the ban shall stand) or that the staff were  plainly incompetent in a bid to discipline and micromanage the community. We need to learn the rough details. Also, echo Headbomb; fuck an institution will be somewhere around 2, on a scale of 10, if we are rating various forms of harassment and bullying. ∯WBGconverse 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Sounds like a good plan, and much more sensible than the ArbCom case request. Headbomb makes a good point though. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse with changes: I do admit that Headbomb has a point. However, having read through enough AN/I and AN threads with Fram's involvement, I'm sure that Fram can improve somewhat in terms of decorum. At least, I do hope so. Now, setting that point aside: I'd like to amend the proposed resolution to provide for the opening of an Arbitration Committee case, pursuant to Fram's request, as seen here. Of course, I may be able to accept it without this change. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) I've got a few issues with a detail or two (for example, if I understand right, WMF would refuse to tell Fram who to avoid, though I imagine he could guess as well as the rest of us by now).  The overarching idea of the WMF vacating the ban, leaving any action (if needed) against Fram to en.wiki processes, and then having this much talked-about, calm, no-deadline, respectful discussion seems better than what we have now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse with similar qualms and wimpy caveats as Headbomb and Floquenbeam. But peace matters. Thank you, Newyorkbrad! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Sounds perfectly reasonable. (if I may, as I'm mainly active in German-language Wikipedia and on Commons, so I don't feel wholly part of English-language Wikipedia's community - although my first edits were made here, back in 2003 :-) ) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse per Floquenbeam. Haukur (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - with ArbCom case - The main issue here is the question of whether and where our policies are deficient, and that is something the ArbCom is best equipped to figure out (as this may well require assessing past cases where private communications were involved). That said, such an ArbCom case should stick to fact-finding on this subject and interpreting that as much as possible to make recommendations to the community. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Makes sense to me as a possible option--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Reluctant Endorse I view any action that leads to Fram no longer being office-banned as progress, although much of this proposal accepts a level of office involvement in the community that I, and probably many other users, feel is excessive. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC) A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse with an additional request: if and when an editor with an instance of problematic editing such as WP:CopyVio is identified, en-WP admins and editors – including Fram – may scrutinize other edits of that editor. WMFOffice accepts that this is neither stalking nor evidence of hostility or harassment, rather such efforts are in good faith and necessary to maintain or improve the ""Quality and Reliability"" of the en-WP. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a first step. In my opinion, this focusses too much on the individual case, not on the general relationship between the foundation and the communities. But it might rebuild some bridges and de-escalate the situation to allow for a constructive dialogue. Thanks for a useful contribution, Brad! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. This seems reasonable. Neutral on ArbCom case. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a way forward, not perfect, but hopefully acceptable by all parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC) +1. Also support the ArbCom case. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - sensible compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a positive way forward. However, bullet 4 sticks in my craw. The only insight we have into whether Trust and Safety's actions were taken with good intentions are the actual results of their actions, and their written response. The results are what they are, but the written response and inability to engage in meaningful dialog falls short. Trust and Safety is a very serious role for an organization to undertake. A company with $100+ million in annual revenue has no business staffing such a department with amateurs. Thank you NYB for trying to turn this in a positive direction.- MrX 🖋 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse noting that Fram suggested a less lenient compromise the better part of a week ago, now. EllenCT (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse too many hours have already been spent on this. If WMF wants to destroy Wikipedia, I guess no one can stop them; but we can at least try, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse, with the disclaimer that I haven't been able to keep up with all the relevant pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Clarification: all I'm supporting here is the effort to work out a temporary truce. It's hard to keep up with everything. I'll come back to this after we hear from the Board. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. In the end, regardless of what Fram has or hasn't done, this has been appallingly badly handled by T&S. Absolutely no-one disagrees with global bans for those editors who have violated certain community norms, especially where that concerns such things child protection or serious off-wiki harassment. And there are plenty of those. But here, we have the WMF granting themselves a new ""partial ban"" ability, where such issues are not as serious as those I've just mentioned. Who is the first target on enwiki? Someone who has been a serious (and usually accurate) critic of the WMF. Whether or not that is bad, it looks terrible. And especially when the diff given as a main reason for their ban is telling ArbCom to ""fuck off"". A lot of editors have said that, many times, in many different ways. We don't ban them for it. And we never should. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse, per Huldra. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse A sensible path. I'll resist the temptation to suggest any tweaks but will note that the proposal does not address the issue of Fram's admin-bit and whether the de-sysop should be endorsed, overturned, or decided through a fresh RFA. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC). Endorse The base line from which we have to operate is good will and good faith on both sides - because without that, this project is already systemically screwed and will crumble (and it doesn't matter whether that ultimately happens via bottom-up or top-down processes). This suggested bundle provides room for everyone to demonstrate that; roll back the drama; undo a few bad decisions; and allow the community to have a calm go at improving some things. Good effort by Newyorkbrad, and thanks for thinking it through. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse It's a good  way to bring all of this chaos to an end. I don't think telling Fram to be more careful will fix their civility issues, but at least it's progress. ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a sensible way forward. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse in general, and especially the last point. While it will be good if this particular issue gets resolved and we can stop seeing if we can set a page size record, we have to resolve things going forward so that this will not happen again (or, if we decide it should, it happens in a way that will not cause a blowup like this). I don't think anyone, WMF included, wants a repeat here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse A sensible compromise. An de facto IBAN against any complainants who felt they've been harassed (the mere existence of which remains unconfirmed), paired with a general civility mandate, which would presumably address the root of the ban. If the Foundation is to take a no-compromise approach even in the most contentious situation, they should be able and willing to justify that decision, which they have refused to do, in spite of the fact that basic transparency and privacy protection are not and have never been mutually exclusive. Either the ban is outright unjust, or it is arguably just but the community disagrees with it. In that case, the Foundation should have no problem accepting a reasonable alternative offered by the community, and that is exactly what this is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse per Swarm and so many above. Miniapolis 00:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse At this point, WMF has to make a good faith step forward if they're ever going to start regaining our trust. Platitudes and corporate double-speak aren't it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Also, can we make two subheadings for those who ""endorse"" vs ""oppose""? It's harder to gauge consensus this way. (I'd move all of them but I think that would be too disruptive.) Rockstonetalk to me! 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Although I'm not overly optimistic.©Geni (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) Endorse I had little hope any productive change would come out of the discussion, but this is a good start. – Teratix ₵ 02:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Reluctant endorse per Black Kite. I considered opposing because I'm not persuaded that Fram has done anything to warrant even an unofficial IBAN, but an oppose would seemingly put me in the same camp as the Fram-bashers, and I'm not interested in that. I'm also amused that some keep bringing up the Terms of Use as if that's some kind of magic bullet. Yeah, we know about the Terms of Use, and we still aren't going to let ham-handed actions from the WMF go unchallenged. That should be obvious by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - Whether Fram's activity on the English Wikipedia warrants action is something that needs to be address by the appropriate channels. WMF overstepped in attempting to circumvent that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse dot points 4 & 5.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - a possible way forward for the community. starship.paint (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. On the point of ""these people"", I would also request the WMF explain what training/education is given to members of the team. Having former editors among them is a great idea, but what steps have been added to get them to the point from being an ordinary editor to such a crucial and sensitive role. (And globally it's an increasingly high-profile and important one, given the same type of departments popping up in Facebook, Twitter, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse I'd also like to see an assurance from the WMF that they have cleaned their act up to at least our standards, and that the WMF will no longer stand by staff who make personal attacks, on IRC or elsewhere. It would be nice if they also assured us that they had forgotten it was Fram who threatened to block a WMFer for personal attacks and assured us that their block of him was not revenge. As for the interaction ban, yes T&S may not be able to tell Fram who the complainant was, so that bit may not be possible. But if they deemed that the incident only merited a 12 month single project restriction on Fram, T&S presumably did not consider that any harassment merited a longer term interaction ban such as the global, permanent bans that they give harassers. ϢereSpielChequers 04:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - Not as rough-and-tough an outcome as I would prefer, which would involve a unilateral retreat of WMF from matters that are not within their purview followed by some sort of internal penalty against those WMF employees who threw gasoline on the fire in the first place; but, all things considered, probably the best outcome we can hope for at this juncture, given the incredibly weak performance of the WMF Board and Arbcom. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse.  Let me be clear.  I am NOT happy if this is the outcome.  This leaves unresolved major questions involving COI, the communities trust in the WMF, and how we prevent similar scenarios from re-occuring.  I will note that point 5 is insufficient, and also the most important one here.  The foundation exists to serve the community, and that relationship must be respected, or we're wasting each others time.  That said, this is a compromise negotiation and a good compromise makes everyone unhappy, so even though I'd have liked to see the result include a more major wakeup call to the WMF, I can hold my nose and accept this.  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - This seems sensible. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse AGF --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. I am not happy with the communication or action from Trust & Safety so far, and this would restore my willingness to continue to perform administrative work on en Wikipedia.-gadfium 05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse a sensible compromise if all parties agree. Hut 8.5 06:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Seems sensible. talk to !dave 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse- A reasonable compromise that will allow everyone to walk away having made their point and learned something: The WMF needs to understand that enforcing smiles and sunshine with an iron fist is not going to work here. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. Handing out arbitrary and capricious bans to alter that culture ultimately will not work. All you'll accomplish is to lose a lot of good editors and make everyone hate you.  At the same time, fixating on certain editors and their (admittedly dubious) edits can border on cruelty even if that's not the intent. Admins and rank-and-file editors can definitely work on our approach there. Reyk YO! 07:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. I guess this is a sensible compromise. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse  By no means a fan of thoughtless ""fuck you"" comments, but this bolt-from-the-blue action leaves us needing reassurance that the staff concerned didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover. Without a substantive response from the WMF, they'll be getting no more work out of me: Bhunacat10  (talk),  08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse – A good way to cool down. — JFG talk 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - a sensible way forward. GiantSnowman 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - Not perfect, but good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) Conditional support iff the matter is examined by ArbCom. Otherwise, I agree with those in opposition that this basically ignores the real problems that were apparently raised to lead to this action. My problem with the T&S action was never the ban itself but that established community processes were not followed. If ArbCom can independently and impartially review the case against Fram, I think the WMF should allow it to do so. If that fails, T&S can still step in again. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - an ArbCom case is probably a good idea but is not a condition on my part (I don't think it's likely that one would not be filed). Encouraging actual communication and actual respect for the people involved on all sides seems like the only way forward. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - per WereSpielChequers whose institutional memory will recall at least one instance when the community desysoped a foul-mouthed contractor who all but killed off the efforts to improve NPP and introduce ACTRIAL (plenty of diffs available). That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that this this entire debacle is not so much about Fram or other admins who fell on their swords in support, but more about the sleazy hegemony and exploitation by the WMF of the volunteers who provide their raison d'être, salaries, and junkets. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a start. And presuming that arbcom is privy to the basis of T&S's actions and supports this route. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a good-faith start to re-building the bridges summarily destroyed by WMF in their actions.  However, what bothers me the most is that the WMF could take this kind of bizarre unilateral action again, at any point, for any reason.  The clear questions over some members of WMF and various COI still exist.  But given the utter recalcitrance from WMF to show any kind of openness to actually discussing this (no more boilerplate, perhaps they're not aware of {{DTTR}}), that might be an ask too far.  So let's at least undo the damage the WMF have done, and then we can move on, but with a much more cautious eye on WMF, their behaviour and the various inter-relations in an attempt to avoid more such community devastation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse, not as a satisfactory solution, but as a start. As for the perceived problem of #2, regarding identifying those allegedly aggrieved editors: we can be pretty certain at this point that there aren't any. We know of exactly one case of somebody who complained to the foundation about harassment (no secrecy, because she said so herself); we know that the foundation took that complaint at face value; we know they were wrong in doing so because in fact there was no harassment. Per Occam's razor, there is no reason whatsoever to assume there are any more genuine complainants, at least none whose complaint would be seriously enough to warrant a demand for privacy, or if there are, their complaints are just as wrong as the first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a way forward from this debacle. Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I am not perfectly happy with item 1, but maybe I missed something in the last few days and the WMF has been in contact with ArbCom to let them handle the ban (""take over"" if there really is meat on that unidentified bone), and we have to start somewhere. Thank you NYB. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - It's a way forward, beyond the ""fork off or fuck off"" mentality that some other people seem to have.--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse - a reasonable suggestion to de-escalate this crisis. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse.  Seems a perfectly reasonable compromise.  If the WMF had just said ""it's a private matter, we can't talk about it"" and issued an indefinite ban, then I would assume something Really Bad happened, but since that isn't what WMF did, their explanation has been highly lacking.  WMF should admit that it was an overreach and move on.  SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. It's refreshing to hear such a calm, reasonable, respectful, and compromising proposal. Benjamin (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Get a fresh ""re-start"". Kante4 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse – seems like a sensible course of action to me. Graham87 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a possible move forward to a more constructive relationship between the projects and WMF. I've some reservations, though. Firstly, this is not just about Fram, it is about our relationship with WMF in regard to the enforcements of the ToU. Most global WMF bans in regard to cases I was familiar with appeared to be justified. Cases like continued harassment of users outside of our projects, huge zoos of sockpuppets across multiple wikis, upload of very problematic material etc. are indeed best handled by T&S. However, usual on-wiki misbehaviour should be still handled through community processes where those responsible to handle it are elected (admins, checkusers, oversighters, and arbcoms). WMF staff should go forward and communicate their concerns if they see shortcomings in our processes. Such an outside view can be helpful and would allow us to develop our processes into a better direction where needed. Secondly, I've some concerns in regard to Jan Eissfeldt, lead manager of T&S. In 2014, he participated in a wheel war including the application of super-protect at de:wp for which his regular account was desysoped: [32], [33]. At that time he was nearly entirely unable to communicate, this was his only comment where he pointed to a statement by someone else. This pattern of a wheel war just re-appeared now again. Like before, this was not an emergency, this could have been resolved through communication. I've absolutely no trust in anyone who resorts to wheel-warring without even attempting to communicate. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Maybe it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable start. One aphorism I used to use when teaching Master's  degree students about government policy making was ""the best is the enemy of the good"". I think that applies here. This is a good start. It may have to be tweaked along the way, there may be stumbling blocks, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing and the best proposal we've got. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse A fair compromise.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse per Doug Weller and many others. We can't force WMF to do anything, but should they decide it's a good idea to start mending some fences, we need to offer them some sort of consensus-based way to move forward. There are some issues with this proposal, but if we assume a assume a modicum of good faith on all sides then I can't see why any of them would be insurmountable. GirthSummit (blether) 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a place to start -- but the T&S committee's unilateral action remains unacceptable, & the WMF needs to acknowledge this. AFBrochert raises the important point that Jan Eissenfeldt was involved in 2 Foundation actions that offended the en.wikipedia community; if he was critically involved in these offensive acts then his dismissal from the Foundation should be added to this resolution. We must be able to reasonably trust all of the employees of the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse per proposal. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse This is the reasonable action. There is a Wikipedia Justice System and it operates according to a defined process. The WMF actions are the cause of a cascade of transgressions against this process. I am only able to imagine two possibilities: either the WMF power who issued the ban is competent and understanding, and they correctly anticipated this community response; or the WMF power who issued the ban is incompetent, and failed to recognize the great likelihood of the community raising these objections. So far as I know, the wiki community observers who are withholding judgement are waiting in faith for the WMF to explain the extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such an extraordinary action. I have no opinion whatsoever about Fram, their actions, or anything specific to these circumstances. I only endorse this remedy because I want to see due process and rule of law in opposition to opaque authoritarianism. The problem is not that the WMF took an action, but that the WMF took an obviously extraordinary action seemingly unaware of how bizarre it was. At this point my fear is that the people at the WMF who are operating the levers of power are ignorant of what they are doing and outsiders to community values. I could be wrong - the WMF could have had a unique and dramatic reason for extrajudicial action. I hope that as a result of this the WMF increases its collaborative infrastructure.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse This way forward opens the option of something good coming out of this: a shared view of goals between wikipedia editors and the foundation, a shared array of methods of achieving those goals, and clarity on who fulfils which roles. It also brings back the sense that there are people behind the role-accounts (it's always easier to rant against ""WMF"" than against the person actually communicating behind the account.). Wikipedia editors (as a group) are right to intervene here, as some of the fundamental principles of wikipedia (I know, we are not a legal system, but we have established principles like to ""due process""): possibility of appeal, sufficient clear and to the point warnings and right to a clear explanation, were not applied here. This way forward is creating an ad hoc appeals option, and it shows something more definite needs to be implemented. L.tak (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. With respect to Bluerasberry's two possibilities, I'd guess somewhere in the middle: they cannot have been quite so unaware as to think there would be no response, but  obviously they didn't anticipate anything like the extent of it. Myself, I think the extent of it is not just because of the action itself or T&S in general, but the skepticism of all WMF actions focussed on the enWP, such as superprotect, or VE, or Flow--all of which derived from other elements of the Foundation than T&S.  This may not have been obvious to T&S, who are devoted to a particular set of problems, not to problems generally.    DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Probably symbolic anyway, but per Doug Weller. --Rschen7754 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse Obviously that ship has sailed, but I'll add my name to the roll call.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Partial Endorse: NYB’s proposal sounds perfectly reasonable and shows the level of good faith that will be required to move things forward. However, the information provided by WMBE has left me concerned that there are broader issues with how the T&S team conducts itself that may go unaddressed under the above action plan – Especially if the intended scope of #5 relates solely to the incident that had occurred on en-wiki. The WMBE situation amounts to a plausible accusation that a WMF grants-committee member had weaponised the T&S team to unfairly target the WMBE treasurer with vexatious allegations, that were not adequately investigated, resulting in the treasurer feeling obligated to leave the project. Hence, I can't help but think that these incidents (Whether found to be true or otherwise) must be considered as a whole, and need to be a catalyst for a broader discussion about the T&S team, that encompasses the en-wiki concerns with the concerns relating to how it conducts its business with foundation projects more generally-speaking. Perhaps someone could help me understand how this proposal achieves that discussion?   «l|Promethean|l»   (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Punching up is different from punching down.Jehochman Talk 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse per user Pppery, although less reluctantly (for the moment…). ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a necessary first step towards possibly regaining community confidence that is very badly damaged. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a sensible way forward. –Davey2010Talk 00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse I'm late to the party, but it seems obvious to me. Deb (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. — Racconish 💬 18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Support points 1 and 5. The rest is unnecessary: any opinion or action by WMF on Fram should be discounted just like that of an involved admin, given past history of sections of WMF having disagreements with Fram on perfectly legitimate opinions. WMF should also conduct a thorough investigation of any conflict of interest or other unproper procedure which led to this failure (I hope that a number of WMF employees who had a history with Fram recused themselves from the decision and asked some neutral employees without a COI to take their place). I came here after reading some quotes which show a surreal level of straw men and evidence fabrication against Fram: a post where he said writing the n-word is unacceptable was labeled a racial slur! (I hope I dreamed that.) By this token, soon whoever says ""Wiki Loves Pride"" on the wiki will be instantly banned for homophobia. Nemo 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Nemo bis: that racial slur thing was probably Jehochman at the Arb Com case request, not WMF. starship.paint (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Still, it gives a sense of the scale of misinformation in the anti-Fram campaign. WMF has a history of taking such biased information at face value when it comes from people personally connected to some employee (there's even a past post by Sue Gardner where she says she learnt to only listen to Wikipedia editors who were liked by Jimbo), and the ban decisions are completely non-transparent. So we can only assume that bad information was used, until proven otherwise by a transparent report on how the decision was taken. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Nemo 10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse fully. I have been skimming over the arguments presented, and I feel that the Office should back down a bit in the interest of rebuilding community confidence. You know, the ""Trust"" part of ""T&S"". Anyway, I get the impression that this was blow up out of proportion, and the the resolution (aka the ban) was achieved by filling in check boxes in a very bureaucratic manner (as in Kafka's Bureaucratic Nightmares...) GastelEtzwane (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Fram is in general factually correct, even when his attitude gets in the way on occasion. I highly dislike the Foundation meddling in the community. We must have communication, it would have been better for the person who was feeling harrassed to find a third party to approach Fram and ask if this is the case. Corrections can hurt and feel like harrassment, even if they are not. That's why it is so important to keep a respectful tone, and to assume no bad intentions. --WiseWoman (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Following Dweller's reasoning. C(u)w(t)C(c) 16:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Endorse' Makes sense to me.   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 08:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a compromise way forward. Widefox; talk 12:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Both sides need to relax, clear the air, and come up with a consensus solution. This is a good first step. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse' That's the obvious way forward. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse Here to build an encyclopedia—not a bureaucracy—if the editing community is trusted to edit and maintain the content, it must be responsible to maintain conduct. Any paid organizational maintenance of TOU should be as narrow and as transparent as possible. The methods and interpretations T&S has taken upon itself is harmful to the editing environment and should be developed further within the editing community, not the serving bureaucracy. The source of oversight is important' — Neonorange (Phil) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Thank you Newyorkbrad. I'm not totally happy with #1 but at least it would be a path forward without further deteriorating the community and administrators' faith in the Office.--Cúchullain t/c 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse, for most of the English speaking world a presumption of innocence, a right to a fair trial and a right to face your accuser are fundamental legal principles, not exile by a despotic administration for an arbitrary term for unknown crimes against unknown parties. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC). Endorse, a sensible way to de-escalate the situation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse, this whole situation seems to have been mishandled phenominally, and this is the only way that I can see forwrd without continuing to drive a wedge between the WMF and the community. 114.110.34.162 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse. This proposal is the most sensible contribution I have read anywhere in this whole extensive mess. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse we need to move on and this seems to be a very sensible way of doing so. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Endorse this. I can see why the office would get involved in level 1 desysops and the like, but there are ways of handling this privately between office and arbcom that at least allow some kind of independent review of what is otherwise a single person's view of the situation. Fram is a valued contributor of many years' standing and it seems to me that we owe at least that much, especially in an area which is very much a hot-button issue for some people. I disagree that the office has no right to do this (they clearly do), but having the right to do something doesn't make it sensible or appropriate when the case is ambiguous and there are trusted processes available. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)   === Oppose === This doesn't sound realistic to me. I'm sure that the Trust and Safety team had good reasons for banning Fram, and I have no reason to think a long, angry discussion between editors who don't know the situation constitutes a reason to overturn that ban. I also don't think it's realistic (or desirable) for the WMF to disclose private information that they're not authorized to disclose. The other suggestions seem like good ones. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)  To be clear, I do not endorse as I don't see this as a realistic proposal, and I do not support the unauthorized revealing of private information or the reversal of a ban on the basis of objections from people who don't know the reasons for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people.  This summation outlines the problems better than I could here. If the community thinks the existing system should have been allowed to run its course, too late now. Perhaps an alternative would be to allow ArbCom to review evidence “under seal,” at least what they can legally be permitted to access, and then prepare a statement (perhaps with majority and minority opinions) for the community expressing whether they concur with the ban or if they recommend another solution.  “Tell Fram to be nicer” is not going to cut it; if it had, he would have toned it down long ago.  Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC) @Montanabw: I took the liberty of fixing an obvious typo in your link. I think it only fair to point out that the summation was authored by an editor who had been caught in a great many copyright violations by Fram over the years. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Ellen, thanks for the tweak. But FYI I worked with Blofeld on some FAC projects ( such as Frank Sinatra. Blofeld was a solid editor.  Like most WP editors, his later work was better than his earlier efforts. Fram, however, became obsessed about edits dating back a decade, mostly close paraphrasing more than straight plagiarism,  and it perfectly illustrates Fram’s obsession about people who violate his personal guidelines. Just because he may be technically right doesn’t grant him carte blanche to hound people like he did. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Then it should have been handled on-wiki through Arbcom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose ""Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people"" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose ""quasi-volunteering to improve decorum"" is insufficient. Thank you Montanabw. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.[34] While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and reporting policies will come of this. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose. ""Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site."" This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC) That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: - that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is quite generous, given your collective actions. ~ Rob13Talk 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC) You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say ""please sir, can I have some more?"" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the ""crowd"" should speak out about problems that concern us. And then, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go. Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram.  Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending Wikipedia, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case.  Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose.  I really expected a smarter solution from you than ""ask people to be nicer"".  Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Heh. I see you've never met User:Newyorkbrad: this is what he does! And lots of us think it is plenty smart, actually. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose It is obvious Fram disagrees with the warnings he was given, rescinding the ban because the community feels it was communicated poorly is just kicking the can down the road. The underlying problem the WMF has raised with Fram in two warnings has not been addressed, and there's no sign that Fram has taken these on board. MLauba (Talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose I'm pretty confident the Office Action was done with good cause, and on some sort of 'three strikes' basis after off-wiki warnings. WMF clearly believes this community has failed to get to grips with certain behavioural issues amongst certain long-established editors or admins (that possibly we ourselves wouldn't tolerate coming from new editors?). It seems unreasonable to propose complete termination of the ban for this individual editor, but I could endorse the resolution if the following changes (except #1) applied to everyone in future: a c.75% reduction in the duration of the ban as a sensible compromise to immediate reinstatement; no disclosure of any other editors' names to anyone, on or off-wiki (victims shouldn't become targets. Limited disclosure to ArbComm a possibility ); removal of the words ""hopefully"" and ""generally"" from our community accepting that T&S Office Actions are taken with good intentions; recognition by any banned editor that their 'decorum' must 'improve' (NYB's words), and that further Office Actions may ensue if they don't; that T&S inform ArbComm whenever any editor or admin is issued with an off-wiki warning (possibly extending to sanction implementation by ArbComm, not T&S, per RexxS); and any admin, desysopped by an Office Action, shall be expected to edit normally for a period equivalent to the length of their ban - up to a max of 6 months - before submitting a new RfA (in order to give the broad community time to decide if it now has confidence in that person being handed back the tools, based upon that editing). But I do absolutely endorse the need for a better dialog between WMF's T&S Team, ArbComm and the community (so that we can properly appreciate and act on their intended message, especially if they believe we are 'institutionally failing' in some parts of our editing or admin culture). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose though I am open to the suggestions for modification by Nick Moyes. I also agree that since this was done in such as way that caused a huge problem for relations between en.Wiki and the T&S team that further communication is necessary to repair the rift. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose dot points 1, 2 & 3.  The facts underlying the ban may be confidential, although I wish WMF would explicitly that if true.  Moving forward from here should not depend on Fram.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose per BU_Rob13, you wanted compromise, you have a compromise, nobody other than Fram is banned even though they should have as per the original statement of the ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC) That makes sense if you operate from the principle that the WMF is the sole authority and that their word is automatically law. But from my vantage point, it is not a compromise for long-term encyclopedia-builders like Bish and Floq to not be banned. It's common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose as, quoting Mx. Granger, ""I don't see this as a realistic proposal"". I am also open to considering some of the elements suggested by NickMoyes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose T&S make a commitment not to release details to the person accused of harassment. You can't then ask then to tell that person who complained, even if couched in the terms of ""stay away from..."". - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose Tony (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose Disappointing proposed resolution.  Only the last point is a good idea.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose expands a dialog is too wooly, an Americanism that just kicks the can down the road. T&S are ungoverned, unaccountable and based on this bizarre case, may well routinely take actions that if assessed in the cold light of day would be found incompetent or perversely unjust. A system with no published procedures, that refuses to answer questions about its procedures or explain basic case evidence that was always public and has no need to be handled like they were the NSA trying to take out terrorists, is wide open for corruption and the deliberate burying of mistakes by banning those that have been treated badly. In comparison, an hour ago I reported a porn revenge Twitter post made by a woman who claimed to be a victim, the process that Twitter follows is open and accountable whilst the cases they remove can remain confidential. Our expectations for T&S should be no less than the incredibly basic and straightforward policies that Twitter follows, just because they are jolly nice people with good intentions who believe they are good at their jobs and protect each other... --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC) case evidence that was always public Was it? Says who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) My point was a general one. The Framban case does have public evidence, lots of it actually, including emails the WMF sent to Fram for which there is no NDA in place nor should there be, and folks are still debating whether the claims about secret evidence are credible or represent any significant evidence for the ban action, considering that our elected and trusted Arbcom members do not know of any. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose I can't agree with points 1 and 2, which basically gives Fram a slap over the wrist (I'm AGFing here that the T&S team acted on a serious and legitimate concern, as they don't have a history of doing otherwise, and the claims they targeted Fram for being a trouble maker for the WMF lack credibility). Point 3 is also very unsatisfactory: admins are expected to have a high standard of behaviour and encourage constructive discussions - being only a ""little bit"" better than ranting about ArbCom is not at all the standard admins should set. A better solution would be to refer this matter to ArbCom, which is where it should have gone in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose on two grounds: first, because it's a moot point; T&S has seen what the community has to offer in this regard and has chosen not to blink. Another demand for the same is not going to change things, it'll just draw out the drama. Second, because I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the impassioned defense of an admin who may have crossed a line into harassment. The thing about harassment being that the perpetrator doesn't get to define it. Even if Fram believed sincerely they hadn't crossed a line, they may have. And I find the demands that a volunteer suspension be treated with the same gravity and seriousness as a criminal trial cringe-worthy at best. Perhaps Fram will take the year to reflect on how their actions impacted people and will make a change when they return - that door has certainly been left to them by T&S and it's probably the best course of action at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose per many above, not least Simonm223. Though perhaps after voting to overturn T&S's office action, we could vote for peace in the middle east and a unicorn for everyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose per Mx. Granger. However, I wish to extend appreciation and thanks to Newyorkbrad for his measured and reasonable response to the situation, and his efforts to drive us forwards towards a constructive resolution. I can provide moral support, at least. :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose because this is not about Fram, it's about the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom, and the Foundation and enwiki. Fram is one of the symptoms, yes, but we need to be looking at the causes and treating those. I don't think if Fram has been so toxic as the Foundation believe and some here on enwiki believe, that letting him back into the community without investigating those allegations is appropriate. My feeling is that as regards the specific case of Fram in this incident, that ArbCom should take over the ban, and hold a case investigating his behaviour. I said that right at the start to Jan. I would prefer that to shrugging the whole thing off as ""he's learnt his lesson"" because I'm not sure anyone other than those who complained to the Foundation and those within the Foundation who saw the report knows exactly what that lesson is, particularly not Fram himself. How is Fram to know exactly what he should avoid if he's not aware of it? The only aspect of this that I support is dialogue between the Foundation and enwiki/arbcom, but we have already made that clear. I have suggested that the current ArbCom request be made a focus for that discussion, while OR has suggested a RfC. Dialogue cannot happen until a venue is accepted and agreed. That appears to be the stage we're at. My preference is for the ArbCom case to be the venue because the Clerks have both experience and appropriate authority to maintain decorum, ArbCom are involved (and ArbCom is fairly central to this as the current main point of contact between WMF and enwiki, and the community authorised body to deal with situations like this), and private evidence, if appropriate, can be handled by ArbCom. If the consensus is against that as a venue, then let us do a RfC (and please let us not have any other suggestions for a venue, otherwise time and energy will be dissipated while we argue among ourselves over a venue, thus justifying any concerns the Foundation may have that we are not equipped to deal with serious issues). I think this is a nice gesture NYB, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it addresses the real issues. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The issue is, and has always been, about the relationship between Wikipedia editors' elected governing body, the Arbitration Committee, and the Foundation. I'm glad to see some Committee members rising to that occasion. The position the Committee takes as a whole, however, is indeed what's key to safeguard against questionable overlap. To do that, the Committee is going to need to assert itself. El_C 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose. I cannot endorse this degree of extension of good faith to Trust and Safety or the WMF as a whole after these events and their statements. Nor can I agree to muzzling anyone's criticism of Arbcom, or to going against an RfC that explicitly recognized our right to say ""fuck"" on-wiki. There are governance issues here, but also classism issues and an abundant assumption of bad faith on the part of the WMF and some of its defenders. I cannot endorse anything that endangers individual editors by endorsing their treatment as pawns, or as subjects without rights. ArbCom has been bad enough in this respect, but at least we can seek to remedy wrongs done by ArbCom. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose. Did Fram harass and abuse people? If the T&S thinks so, I trust their judgement. The identities of his victims should be protected, especially considering the utter vitriol that has been on display on this page. AdA&D 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Sounds like a question to ask the WMF... If I were to guess I'd say it's because ARBCOM's civility standards aren't stringent enough to enforce the Terms of Use. AdA&D 01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Actually after rereading this statement it seems it was due to privacy and COI concerns. AdA&D 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose The first bullet point itself is ludicrous. There is no real reason why the Office should unban Fram. If Fram were ever to receive the ""clean up your act"" message, that would have happened years ago. Their statement on Commons, ""of course it is rather hard for me to avoid [the involved editors]"" doesn't inspire any confidence either. And they still seem to be obsessed about their admin status. SD0001 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I think it's fairly obvious at this point. They can't even agree right now to create a case based on the banning of Fram and/or the three uses of tools to overturn Office actions. The ban is complicated. Creating a case and reaching out to the WMF for details in private is the base minimum that they could do to form their own conclusion whether the ban was proper or not (even if they can't enforce the unbanning). The three uses of tools to overturn Office actions is all on-wiki behavior and we don't have a case on it. At this point, I wouldn't trust them to sift through Fram's edits to examine his on-wiki behavior.  — Moe Epsilon 23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose This kind of remedy has been floating around Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes since time immemorial, and it's not effective. If this sort of action is what it takes to get the message through, I say do it. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Also I can imagine the press coverage that could easily happen if Fram is unbanned and the media starts talking to the people he allegedly harassed. Chances are they'll report the allegations, maybe find the diffs (if the victims are willing), and then conclude that on Wikipedia, if the community kicks up enough of a fuss, they can overrule the WMF's actions. Maybe some will like this kind of portrayal, but I find it very unflattering. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose while I understand Newyorkbrad is trying to do, I am not convinced the proposals will be enough to address whatever concerns there are with Fram's behaviour without knowing more details of that behaviour which I can't and don't know. I am also concerned that for this proposal to work, it may require T&S share info with Fram they feel they cannot disclose. As others have noted, there's nothing nor anything in the proposal stopping Fram disclosing the identity of the person. (See also later.) While Newyorkbrad has acknowledged that what we don't know may mean the proposals don't work, I am concerned from what I've seen that if we come up with a proposal that is not going to work and send it to the WMF and then they reject it because it was never going to work, this will generate way more heat than light and so is not helping anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC) BTW, an additional problem is that since this is all quasi-voluntary and short on details, it's not clear what happens if everyone agrees to it and then it falls apart. For example, from Fram's reponse they agree to it but have noted they may not notice who's page it is when they edit during routine cleanup. As hopefully most of us know, if this were a formal iban, not noticing is rarely an excuse. When you have an iban you do need to make sure you check stuff before editing. It may impose additional work but that's the nature of the best when the community have decided you need to stay apart. What will happen in this case? And if the identity is secretive, even handling it is fraught. And notably, if a perceived violation of the quasi-voluntary iban results in re-imposition of the WMF site ban, even if the community can't figure out who it is from the timing, if Fram feels they were unfairly treated, there's nothing stopping them revealing the details they know including, as mentioned before, the identity of who the iban was with. And one thing which should have occurred to me with Fram's earlier responses but didn't. For any 2 way iban there are additional complications. Even if the other party involved in the iban wants to respond, there are complications. While the community accepts ibans don't preclude the raising of issues about the iban in appropriate places and within limits; WTF happens if lots of other people are talking about the iban on en.wikipedia, based on details perhaps revealed on other communities or outside the WMF universe, somewhat akin to what has happened in this case with one particular person and their private life? Again if you've been around AN/ANI enough you know the community general rejects anyone with an iban getting too much involved in discussions surrounding the iban relating to the person they were ibanned from. While to some extent this is the case even without an iban, it's much more acute when there is an iban. So assuming there is a 2 way iban, and such details were not mention in the original proposal so I have no idea, the complainant finds themselves in an IMO very bad situation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose:  (ristrettomente) #1 is unacceptable.  WMF has the right to deny service to anyone, just like any website or 24-hour diner.  Parenthetically, while sometimes I do agree with some of the reasoning behind Fram's ""campaigns,"" I have never once agreed with their sharp wording in what I've read from them.  Let's imagine: an alternate universe in which the WMF did not have the right to ""DO WHAT THEY WANT"" with or without reason concerning access to their site Fram was ""right"" about every case they argued Fram was likewise ""right"" to use extreem language in every case they ever argued. In that case... mistakes happen, get over it.  Personally,  I have done more than twice the amount of time Fram is being asked to serve for nothing more than posting authorship information and asking if ""a bit of today politics"" had anything to do with Cirt's extensive contributions to ""And you are lynching Negroes"" (and by implication Fake news & Fake news website).  Sometimes, life just isn't fair.  ;(  ^^  🌿   SashiRolls  t ·   c 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose:  The new information shown by Carcharoth below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient.  rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose: the proposal is premature, and for the record, it is not about being a FramBasher as some have alleged to be the only motivation to oppose. I am also undecided if it is proper protocol for so many in the community to be WMFBashers. WP isn't the UAW or Teamsters - it's a Foundation with enormous responsibility, and we are simply volunteers doing whatever it is that motivates us to be here. There is nothing I'd like to see more than a harmonious community, but I am simply not convinced that the way we're going about it is the right way, much less the best way. Atsme Talk 📧 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose because as written this would require disclosing the people who filed complaints against Fram, which is a nonstarter on several levels.  First, there's valid reasons for an anonymous reporting system to exist; second, it would put them at risk; third, even aside from the risk to them, and even if you disagree with the idea of an anonymous reporting system, it's unlikely the WMF even can disclose them in this case without putting itself in legal jeopardy.  Finally, the first few points of this resolution all assume that whatever private evidence exists fails to justify Fram's ban, which we don't know.  What we need is a system to evaluate (and, yes, accept appeals for) such privileged evidence without disclosing it publically and without keeping the entire process inside the silo of T&S, ensuring at least some degree of community involvement by allowing us to appoint trusted representitives ala ArbCom - I doubt everyone will be completely happy without knowing all the facts, but it could be far better than things are now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording) more IBAns (does he not have one already) yet retains admin status, despite having IBANS?. Maybe if Fram had been told (not asked nicely, told) to treat others with the same courtesy ans respect (and tolerance) we are being asked to treat him with we would not have been the in the first place. As far as I can see Fram has been told nicely not to do any of this, and has up till now not taken heed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Fram is not currently blocked, and actually Fram being blocked or not has very little to do with this. If what what is meant above is that Fram being unbanned is ""oddly not in wording"", the first bullet point of the proposal is The Office terminates Fram's ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Not is not, its that it odd that we have (in effect) weak IBANS in all but name, but only if we tell him who did it to him. Nothing that prevents him acting playing silly buggers. Given the fact he has been told more then once to tone it down I have no reason to believe it will work this time either. Giving him the names of those who got him banned, without giving them any kind of meaningful protection is not (to my mind ) a solution to this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC) To be clear, I was referring specifically to So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording), and not to anything the above ""response"" addresses. I thought that was obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC) That is not the full sentence. As such I am not going to try to explain anymore what I meant, I will let others decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 1. Stop breaking the !vote count. 2. I have no earthly idea what That is not the full sentence. means; I guess it's just more evasive trolling like at that recent ANI thread (or that other, current, ANI thread) or on your talk page. So I guess it probably be better to just not feed into it any more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC) I didn't realise this had turned into a !vote. Seems fairly pointless, as the plan proposes things we have no power to enact. On #1 I am neutral, given that we don't specifically know what prompted the ban. Letting Fram back early in return for better behaviour would be a useful olive branch, but Fram will be back in June 2020 anyway, and a year isn't such a long time in Wikitime. #2 I Oppose. Aside from the fact that WMF will never in a million years give Fram the names of his accusers, it would be a bad plan anyway. Even assuming good faith on all sides, it would represent a betrayal of those who thought they were communicating with the WMF in confidence. And we've seen what would happen if the community got wind of who the complainants were. We don't need more vengeance seeking, and it's far better to draw a line under the matter. #3, 4 and 5 are reasonable and I hope they will happen anyway. So, taken as a whole, and with thanks to NYB for making the proposal, but I don't see this as a viable plan.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Procedural oppose We can't actually force an ultimatum on the Foundation. Clearly the vast majority of the community would like something like this as a solution, but it's been clear for weeks that we are not going to get it by !voting on it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillar policies of Wikipedia.  Only asking Fram to ""improve his decorum a little bit"" doesn't square with that policy. Incivility drives new editors away. Admins should be exemplars of civility. Maybe the Foundation over-reached here, but I cannot support asking them to reduce their ban without a strong commitment to change by the banned editor.--agr (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose Very premature and everyone just needs to take a big breath. I think the foundation should lay out what it is aiming to do more explicitly to stop abuse. Chill pill in the interim. I think this won't be noticed by most editors. Just accept it, don't take a sledgehammer to the project, IMHO. Teacup storm. --E.3 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose The dispute resolution process is absolutely broken and biased. The community has failed to implement a fair and impartial system. Who has not read Wikipedia:Unblockables and found themselves nodding in agreement with every word. There is one rule for some and one rule for others. e.g. user:Jytdog see [35], which for some reason is in a hidden archive?? I say it is high time the foundation stepped in and did something. If people want to strike or leave over this I say, that is your right and I'll wave as you leave.Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose WMF clearly handled this poorly (the idea that ArbCom couldn't handle the case because Fram insulted ArbCom is silly) but not something to escalate over. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose we have a way forward via ArbCom, which has accepted the case. We will get a result from them. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose WMF's actions are a healthy intervention against an overly-cosy clique of senior editors, interested only in pursuing personal projects and who now barely engage in editing of the encyclopedia, and who chase away new editors by vindictive application of the rules against them whilst essentially exempting themselves from those same rules. I think the Daily Mail ban was a classic example of this kind of behaviour and brought a lot of bad publicity down on the Wikipedia project. FOARP (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC) FOARP, that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years. You're going to need to come up with some very hard and compelling evidence if you want your vote and claims to be taken seriously. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) The approximate equivalent of an edit a day for twelve years being thought insufficient to even comment on this matter is very demonstrative evidence of what I'm talking about. I did, also, cite an example of the kind of behaviour I criticised as well. Whether you want to take it seriously or not is up to you. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC) @Kudpung: I really don't think that's being fair. --Yair rand (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC) FOARP, don't take my words out of context - that's not being fair, it's got nothing to do with with your 'evidence'. As I said, you'd have to come up with some hard evidence for your overly-cosy clique of senior editors - before they became 'cosy' many of them were making as many edits a month as you have done in 12 years and they probably deserve a rest. Now that's something I can back up with hard evidence and name names without being uncivil. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC) I agree with Yair rand. The statement ""that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years"" is not being fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Oppose. This is a better community without Fram in it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)   === Other === I removed ""a little bit"" entailing the ""improve his decorum"" bit as it means nothing additional compared to an arbitrary improvement. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Change reverted.  ""A little bit"" is material.  Fram is not being asked to promise to be a saint, but he would be being asked to be more careful.  Jheald (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) See WP:TPO, if youd like NYBrad's comment changed you should ask him to change it instead of changing it yourself. nableezy - 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) If possible, let's focus on the bigger picture here rather than nuances of the wording. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Please don't chastise me about policy, meaningless wording is concerning in a proposal the community has to endorse and I removed it for that sole reason. I personally don't care about being reverted so, meh. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Uncertain I endorse this in spirit, although the specifics make me queasy. The main point I disagree with is saying ""I am angry"" in a ""calm collected manner"" can be in many situations much less effective than showing that you are angry (Whether or not FUCK ARBCOM is the most effective way of showing that, I'll leave up to debate). So I don't think Fram should be required (based on what I know of the publicly available evidence, at least) to self impose an interaction ban / clean up his act, especially if that interaction ban leads to the other editor(s) resuming their poor encyclopedic behaviour or Wikipedia institutions failing to hear that something is unacceptable when it is unacceptable. That said, that doesn't mean I'm not in favour of Fram generally improving their behavior (if indeed poor behaviour has occurred), or that I don't acknowledged that it is unpleasant to be on the ass end of a ""FUCK "" comment.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Comment - it sounds like this plan entails the WMF disclosing to Fram the names of those who reported him. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, unless the reporters themselves agree to it... whatever else may come out of this, the foundation's privacy policy for people who contact them will remain sacrosanct, and I would have thought rightly so. Other than that this may be a reasonable way forward if the WMF and Fram both buy into it, but let's not forget there are other avenues already being explored through Jimbo, DocJames and the board. As for Headbomb's point, I disagree. I've never really got into the discussions over language and tone before, and it offends me not at all, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia has a diverse range of ages, genders, races, creeds and cultures, and if WMF enforce a stricter guideline on the tone we use then I for one won't be complaining. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC) It's hard to find fault with the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think a bit of skepticism needs to be added. Yes, it would undoubtedly be helpful if WMF drops the stick over the ban. Yes, it would unquestionably be a good idea for Fram to be more empathetic in his interactions with others. But are we just kicking the can down the road in the event that, a little later, someone secretly contacts T&S asserting that a recent comment by Fram violates his ""quasi"" commitment? Yes, the community should be cooperative with WMF staff, rather than adversarial. But I actually think the overwhelming majority of us have been willing to do that all along, and no amount of consensus will dissuade those who really want to be adversarial. And the problem arose from T&S not being willing to cooperate with us, not the other way around. Yes, there needs to be dialog between the community and T&S, as well as between ArbCom and T&S. But a lot of that is already being initiated, and the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. WMF does need to communicate with the community about what they intend, but we need to expect that the community response will be complex, and WMF needs to expect that, if they express it as a top-down take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, it won't work. I'd actually prefer to decide on all of this only after we find out what the outcome of the Board meeting Friday was, and what the upcoming WMF-ArbCom meeting leads to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Unrealistic - The WMF has already claimed ownership of bat, ball, and the field - they aren't going to give any of it back.  I'm sorry - really I am - but that's just the way it is. — Ched :  ?    —  22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Moot unless your final bullet point ""the Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there"" happens first. Like I said in my statement at the pending ArbCom request, it's the Foundation who has the ball in their court to act. You can have ""consensus"" to do anything here like unblocking Fram's account (even though he still can't edit en.wiki) but it's still the Foundation who gets to decide because they hold the technical access to enforce their decisions at the end of the day. Unless you can actually enforce anything, then this entire discussion is for nothing. If they read this and reach this conclusion themselves and start engaging, then that's the starting point. With as many suggestions that have been thrown about though, it's unlikely this one is going to stand out though anymore than the others. At any rate, the rest of it reads as ""everyone gets a slap on the wrist and let's discuss terms of use more"", which isn't the problem. Civility is the problem on this website, which is why T&S stepped in. If you don't handle civility on the website, then they will again. — Moe Epsilon 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I don't understand why is it important to terminate Fram's ban.  It is not the ban per se, it is the lack of explanation.  Give a proper explanation.  Details need not be given.  If the details of the reason are out of scope for ArbCom and the community, then say so, otherwise refer it back to the community (which includes ArbCom).  Fram's possible negotiations to end the ban should be completely separate from resolving issues of WMF heavy-handedness and non-transparency.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying ""fuck Arbcom"", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: The WMF has already said Fram violated the Terms of Use section that prohibits ""harassing and/or abusing others"". What more do you want than that, if you're not looking for details? ~ Rob13Talk 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Hi BU Rob13.  You're tempting me to argue the other side to my intended thrust, that the way forward should not require a resolution of the Fram question.  I think the resoltuion need only deal with the process of WMF bans, the scope of WMF-only decisions, Community (inc. ArbCom) only decisions, and where there may be overlap.  I think User:Newyorkbrad's dot points 4 & 5 should be the focus.  But your question is fair:  A. The assertion ""violated the ToS"" is sufficient justification for the WMF to act.  I am asking for an explanation for why, without details, the ban, ongoing, can't be referred to ArbCom or the community generally.  I think it would be very reasonable for WMF to declare a ban, and then refer to ArbCom to review or modify.  Surely, ArbCom should have the option to extend the 1 year ban?    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)@SmokeyJoe: Lengthen? ArbCom can already do that, if they receive reports related to harassment. Otherwise alter/shorten? That would now put the WMF in very sketchy territory. If they have become aware of an editor harassing others on this site, taken action they felt necessary to enforce the Terms of Use, and then allow another body to overturn that action without having the full evidence, I think that may open them up to liability. (It's worth noting that the WMF's existing procedures/policies prevent them from disclosing the reporter even to ArbCom. That confidentiality may have been the only reason a reporter came forward, because Fram's influence - see this entire page - has a chilling effect on those he chooses to harass and abuse.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)""Confidentially prevents WMF from sharing details with ArbCom"", if true, with ""violated the ToS"", is the minimal sufficient statement I would ask them to give.  Have they said that?  If they say that, then the Fram ban comes of the table for the purpose of this discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) What kind of liability? Assuming that Fram is truthful that there was no off-wiki harassment, there isn't really anything in his on-wiki activity that would be enough to involve the law. On the other hand, copyvios can get the project in legal trouble; Fram has been doing the dirty work of cleaning it up (it's a fight no one else wants to fight), so preventing a major liability mitigator from doing their work is ironically exposing the project to liability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)BU Rob13 The ToU clause that you're referring to prohibits harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism. According to Fram, the offending comment that triggered his ban was this, which was certainly uncivil, but not ""harassment or abuse"" as is defined by the ToU clause that is supposedly being enforced. So, yes, additional explanation beyond ""see the ToU"" is quite obviously needed, as it doesn't even seem applicable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)@Swarm: I encourage you to read. Fram has posted the email he received, and it contained that diff as an example, with the email explicitly noting that it was part of a repeated pattern continued after the past warning. One example diff - likely the least relevant example diff, even, since the worst diffs likely had to be hidden to protect the reporter - does not mean that's ""the offending comment that triggered his ban"". You are trying to apply the ToU and determine whether it applies to evidence you have not seen. Do you understand how that is an exercise in futility? ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)@BU Rob13: Okay. I read it all. It doesn't claim or imply that that clause of the ToU was actually breached. Go back and look, it literally doesn't even imply that Fram was outside the ToU. Actually, no where, from what I see, and no one, has tried to argue that point. The Foundation cited ""abusive communications such as X"". X is a problem, but it's not a breach of the ToU. There's no mention of anything beyond such ""abusive communications"". You're just assuming there is. They simply did not cite to Fram or even claim in any of their explanations that he breached the ToU. They cited petty incivility towards Arbcom. So, that gives the impression that Fram was banned for his pattern of petty incivility, rather than breach of the ToU. You trust that that's not true, and that there's a higher level of offense, but it's clear that both Fram's and the community's impression that this is civility policing and nothing more has disrupted the project, demonized the complainant, demonized the Chair, vilified the T&S team, resulted in admins resigning, and harmed community relations. Why, if there was more to the story than ""civility policing"", has the Foundation simply not said so? All we want is for the Foundation to confirm that Fram actually breached the ToU. I have no personal affinity towards Fram, but this harms my perception of the WMF. Why would they not simply confirm that Fram breached the ToU, unless it would be a lie? Like I said, there's no privacy considerations in simply saying ""there was harassment"" or ""there was stalking"". But instead they said ""there was abusive communication"", which is no different except for the fact that it does not invoke the ToU. That's the only issue here. If there's evidence they can't disclose that's in breach of the ToU, I don't need to see it. I don't need to know about it. I just need to know that it exists. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)@Swarm: Cool, because they already have. The original email to Fram did not cite ToU violations. The WMF basically never cites ToU violations for office actions, because such statements could open them up to defamation lawsuits, theoretically. I know of one that is making its way through federal district court now, and it will probably be dismissed with prejudice because the WMF so clearly did not make any statements of fact that even have the potential to be false.  But the WMF, in their statement to the community on this page, said this particular office action was made pursuant to the ""Harassment and/or abusing others"" section of the ToU. Their exact wording was thus: ""What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled 'harassing and abusing others.'"" This is an extraordinary level of openness, given that it could theoretically get them sued. It is a shame that there are Wikipedians that have just failed to read it, apparently. ~ Rob13Talk 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Okay, so you believe the WMF without any question, evidence, or explanation. I really don't believe the same thing. You resigned from Arbcom in the face of overwhelming community condemnation. I don't believe blame [sorry, legitimate typo] you for sympathizing with the WMF in a similar situation. However, I'm just asking for a cursory acknowledgment of my concern, which the WMF refuses to provide. You are unable to provide that beyond blind trust, and while I don't hold your position against you, I don't think it's necessarily the truth. ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Especially because the terms are somewhat subjective. Let's take ""stalking,"" for example. At RFA voters routinely go check through a candidates past contributions, sometimes in great detail, to find edits that reveal a mindset not suitable for the tools. Rob himself, at RFA not too long ago, had this to say about candidates with a somewhat low edit count - Trust me, in the future, I'll go through every single edit and highlight every potentially objectionable one when an editor has less than 4,000 edits. One could consider that stalking, a violation of ToU Section 4, and worthy of a WMF ban. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Umm.... This seems like textbook stalking; our self-proclaimed-retired friend might have something to state ..... ∯WBGconverse 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Vetting an RfA candidate is stalking? Get real. ~ Rob13Talk 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Correcting an error prone editor's mistakes is harassment? Mr Ernie (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)@Swarm: ""Overwhelming community condemnation""? This is just false, and a personal attack. Nice. I resigned from the Arbitration Committee for a variety of reasons, none of which included pressure from the community. Moreover, you are demonstrating plainly that you fail to assume good faith in anyone on the project, apparently. Again, fork the project if you don't like the fact that the WMF has legal obligations. Or, better yet, approach the Foundation and offer to take on all legal liability that Fram's future actions may bring them in exchange for his unban. If you are so certain that the Foundation is acting with sinister intentions and that Fram has done nothing wrong, that should be no problem, no? ~ Rob13Talk 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Wait, what? ""I don't believe you"" was a typo, I meant ""I don't blame you"". But that said, ""overwhelming community condemnation"" was quite obviously and unequivocally the response to wording of the Arbcom circular. I don't recall a single person speaking up in favor of it. Virtually 100% of the community response was negative. So I'm not sure why you'd call ""community condemnation"" a ""personal attack"". Why would I personally attack you? As I said at the time, I think you're one of our best administrators. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile and defensive. You resigned, citing an essay that the community does not treat Arbcom with the same assumption of good faith that is the standard. Not sure how all of a sudden the community had nothing to do with your resignation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Neutral I don't mind the proposal, but it's not our position to compromise. I hate to say it, but unless all of us stop contributing to the project, we really don't have control over this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Even if, if we're being honest with ourselves. nableezy - 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) ""Control"" is irrelevant, moral influence is.  Gandhi had no control over the British in India, M. L. King had no control over Jim Crow laws in the South or the Federal government, what they both had, and built up more of as time went on, was moral influence.  That is our lever, not whether we ""own"" the website or who can turn it off if they want to.  People really don't appear to be understanding this, which is as much a part of the real worl as who possesses the keys to the place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) An issue with this is that you lose moral influence by condoning wrongdoing. Acting as if nothing has happened is a form of condoning. In other words, the guilt of the WMF rests on us all if we know what is going on and yet act as if things are normal. Reflected in the comments above are radically different conceptions of authority. In Hegelian-derived philosophy, authority belongs at the collective-subjective level, as the final judgment of history at the end of time is unavailable. Authority bleeds in at many levels, wherever people act rationally and in good faith. In Kantian thought, authority derives from the chief executive down through subordinates. Both concepts are used today--for example, in science, an authority is someone who is has established themselves as knowledgeable through hard work, study, and a good track record. Their authority is channeled down through to TAs, teachers, journalists to the public. On wikipedia, we call them ""reliable sources."" On the other hand, appeals to ""the community"" to enforce something is an example of the collective-subjective form of authority. Appeals towards passive aggression are consistent with Hegelian thought, as in Hegelianism an irrational governance can be legitimately subverted (think Red-Scare style infiltration). In contrast, in Kantian governance the resistance must be allowable in a constitutional sense where opposing parties can act against each other in an orderly fashion (e.g. Kant's ""nation of devils"" quote), or the resisting parties may be Lesser magistrates (in this case, Floquenbeam and Bishonen are acting as resisting lesser magistrates). Subversion is not allowable because honesty and truth are too valuable and lying is extremely wrong. In contrast, Hegelians tend to be more relativist and see honesty and truth as being at least somewhat compromised in the dialectic process, which will not resolve as long as history endures. One Kantian approach would be to let some of the other higher-ups deal with it, and to not take a position one way or another, or to just leave wikipedia and not think about it to maintain moral purity, maybe to go to a rival wikipedia website instead. Because in Hegelianism, ""whatever is, is right,"" there can be a tremendous need to win, while in Kantianism maintaining your individual moral purity and establishing the truth is more important because what is right is determined through careful ethical analysis.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)In Hegelianism, the broader levels of authority encompass the lower levels. For example, the state is expected to have an antithetical relationship to the authority of the family, and this is expected to be a good thing. Fran's request that the ArbCom ""Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so."" does not reflect this understanding with reflect to the ArbCom. ArbCom, due to both the democratic character of its selection and the rationality of its actions, could be considered a broader level of synthesis than the ordinary English Wikipedia community. Fran rejects this completely on the basis of past experience with ArbCom. This form of argument is an Existentialist critique of Hegelianism. His appeal to an impartial jury is compatible with both Existentialist and Kantian forms of authority, but should ArbCom grant it, they are admitting that they are not the broadest and most supreme level of collective-subjective authority.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)It isnt about owning the website that makes whether or not we all stop editing irrelevant. Its the tiny proportion to the wider community that is present here. Yeah, a lot of us are active in the WP namespace and a ton of the admins here do a huge amount of work in the day to day functioning of this website, and yes there are a number of content creators here that have helped make this place something that the WMF can say hey give us millions of dollars to keep running. But as of this writing there have been 365 editors to this page. I posit that if every single one of these people, and every single person who has edited the AC case request page, including the arbitrators, suddenly stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow the effect would be negligible, at least as far as WMF is concerned. There will be articles that get either vandalized, or skewed to a POV, BLP violations will be undealt with. But for the most part Wikipedia will continue on. Im not trying to be Debbie Downer, just a realist on the limits of my own power here. nableezy - 05:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)In politics, decisions are strongly influenced by a numbers game: in ethics, calculations of numbers are ignored. General human behavior tends to think and act politically, 'can I get away with this,'; 'they are wrong, but if I protest, and no one else does, I'll cop it too.' etc. Ethics, as opposed to morality and politics, is not 'realist' - proceeding only after carefully assaying whether one has sufficient support or not.  The crux was illustrated by Antigones' clash with Creon,-her stance is echoed in Luther's Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders,- a tragedy given a famous reading by Hegel. I remember taking a train in the city, sitting down to read in anticipation of an hour-long trip, noting with a smile a young couple of kids smooching  opposite, and burying myself in my book. Three stops down, the train pulled up at a station opposite a football ground - and the compartment was filled with drunken fans disappointed in their side losing that day. One of the group of 6, full as a bull's bum from an afternoon of beers but built like a brick shithouse, eyed enviously the boy smooching with his girlfriend, and without much ado, went over, grabbed him in a headlock and began punching him in the head. The girl screamed, the kid wept - and I, opposite, made the natural rapid calculation. If I intervene, there are five of his mates who will join and and beat the shit out of me. But one had no option - you can't watch passively as someone is mercilessly beaten or ill-treated. With a sickening  feeling in the pit of my stomach, I reached out and caught his wrist as it drew back to land another punch. I won't recount the following 25 minutes,-a stand-off with me holding my grip while palavering to stop the other five from doing anything other than menacing me, but no other person of the 20 or so male adults in the carriage looked up from their newspapers. It's not that folks are generally unethical - it's that before acting according to their inner lights, they tend instinctively from a self-survival biological reflex to calculate their own interests.  The banning of Fram in obscure circumstances created, for some, an ethical dilemma, and Floqueanbeam, Bishonen and WJBScribe essentially said that the high risk of silent complicity in the exercise of blind power gave them little option but to do what they did, challenge the higher body by overruling it. I expect that the assertion of secretive powers will automatically translate into a very small minority being compelled in conscience to desist from donating (I'm not a tenant on this property) their labour to a charitable institution. I know that a bureaucracy doesn't worry about marginal attrition, a number of analyses like your's will tell them it will have a negligible impact. That others see no problem, and just move on with their hobby is the normal reaction one would expect. And all this crisis of conscience because? because somewhere across the world a small board is obsessed by legislating to objectify what is a cultural variable, good manners, and enforce an Americanocentric code globally regardless of what communities elsewhere may, if they ever do, think. It is unlikely to step back because there is a question of face that, as usual, rules out creative conflict resolution.  Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)What's not clear from above is what happens to Fram's status as an editor, and as an admin? I was recently reminded of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Block of Martinevans123 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested where Fram was strongly criticised (if not actually admonished as such) for controversially blocking two longstanding editors. Combined with ""fuck the Arbcom"", incivil edit summaries and picking a fight with BU Rob13, and that many people have criticised the WMF getting involved and overriding the community / Arbcom with no possible appeal, rather than Fram's actual conduct, I would like to see a guarantee of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram before I can support this. It would allow everyone to have their say and if the consensus is that Fram hasn't done anything terrible enough to take any long term action, then at least everyone will have had their say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Assuming Fram gets unbanned there seem to be three options: 1) he gets the sysop bit back automatically 2) we have an RfA to decide, or 3) ArbCom case decides. I don't see much wrong with any of these options, a nice change from the lose-lose scenarios surrounding pretty much everything else in this drama. Reyk YO! 11:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Over the particular discussion about Security-Circular, nearly everyone was at their non optimal behaviours. And, tone-deafness from  a few arbs compounded it. Given that Fram's conduct definitely improved throughout the year, it's unfortunate that he be put to an ArbCom case because of this mess. Obviously, anybody might propose a case but I will urge for a decline. ∯WBGconverse 11:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately I disagree with 3/5's of the proposal - however since the oppose section above appears to be made of people who are opposing any resolution because they have issues with Fram I am sticking my response here instead. Point 1 - should be a demand regardless. The WMF should not be banning people from the ENWP community unless there is an actual safety issue or child protection issue. That is it. Point 2 - this sets a dangerous precedent in that it both encourages and enables problem editors (who are pulled up on their actions) to go running to the WMF. It rewards them for not following dispute resolution and chills future discussion - what admin or editor is going to risk dealing with them if it risks being muzzled. ""Without admitting any wrong-doing"" - quasi legalistic reference to WoP - which while in a technical legal sense is no admission of liability, it is *always* taken as such by everyone - ""I'm not admitting anything but im doing what you say anyway"" just instantly means everyone goes ""Oh hes totally guilty"". If there is an editor that Fram needs to be interaction banned with, then Frams interactions in relation to that editor need to be scrutinised by either the community or arbcom. The stealth interaction ban-but-not-ban by the WMF in communication with Fram is one of the more disturbing things to come to light as a result of this. Its saying the WMF is ready to prevent scrutiny of editors on the encyclopedia - directly interfering with editorial control. Point 3 - Completely pointless and appears to just be a sop to the 'Fram is awful' crowd with past axes to grind. Fram's editing record is already out there. Take a look at the last's years interactions with other editors and compare it to say the previous 2 or 3. Its effectively holding Fram to an unrealistic and intangible standard given he has already improved beyond which many respected editors already operate. Point 4 - Evidence not provided that T&S are there with good intentions. While I agree that its unlikely any of them joined the WMF specifically to take over ENWP - that doesnt mean they wont take the chance to do so given the opportunity. And given who they are is public knowledge, so is their history. Jan certainly has zero credibility after the superprotect fiasco, and the place-that-shall-not-be-named has links about other members of the staff involved in this situation that are extremely problematic for what are supposed to be employees engaged in ensuring the safety of wikipedians. Their actions so far lead me to conclude that they are there to protect wikipedians they approve of. Point 5 - About the only point I agree with in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Unclear difference between what this says and what people have been proposing/demanding throughout this page. First of all, the last bulletpoint should happen regardless. But as for the rest, it's perhaps more diplomatically worded to allow a little bit of face-saving with ~""everyone admit they can do a little better"" but still boils down to T&S backing down and Fram making non-binding assurances that he'll take [the mostly unspecified] criticism on board. If everything else wasn't persuasive, I don't see why one more !vote would be.Advice for T&S: There are a lot of users that WMF will never convince -- people who has a strong distrust for the WMF in general, people who don't think the WMF should ever supersede community process, people who don't think there's any reason to ever keep things private, people who worry about themselves if WMF is starting to issue blocks for long-term behavioral problems, etc. But there are also a lot of people you can convince: people who do think that there is a role to play for T&S to address intractable long-term behavioral problems that the community has failed to address -- people who support the concept, but who are confused or bothered or concerned about what has happened in this particular case. ""Severe enough to keep everything a secret and take office action without involving the community"" is difficult to reconcile with ""you can still use all the other projects and you can come back to this one after a year."" If this were a global ban I dare say it would be less controversial in that way (which is not to say uncontroversial, obviously). The other problem is that diffs were provided, but only a handful, and they came from Fram, not from T&S. Those diffs shaped the narrative, and makes the conversation about whether those diffs merited action. That's not a good place to be.The approach I think would be most effective -- which would've been best at the outset of this case -- is premised on the idea that this isn't actually just about the LH diffs and the diff directed at arbcom that Fram supplied (that those were tipping points but it was more about a longer-term pattern). Assuming that's the case, and that T&S was stepping in to address something which, in their judgment, was severe enough and which the community failed to address, then they should release a big data dump showing (a) a long-term pattern of behavior and (b) community efforts failing to address it sufficiently. I suspect you already have that data. Releasing it would at least would shift the discussion of evidence from what Fram provided to a bigger picture that's harder to point to and say ""that's it?"" By casting a wide net as such, it's possible you'd actually be better protecting complainants than by forcing speculation through Fram's diffs. It would take time to compile, but I suspect you're already spending quite a lot of time on this.The other way forward, which isn't very likely but about the only compromise I can see being at all possible, is through a hand-off to ArbCom with conditions, including the understanding that some of the material will still be private and the understanding that it's about a long-term pattern (it's not atypical to see older diffs dismissed or limited consideration to particular types of behavior). ArbCom cases are reasonably well equipped to handle lots of diffs and lots of evidence, on-wiki and off. This has been articulated better by others already, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)This whole story has nothing to do with Fram. (a)A principle is at stake, (b) massive open discussion by one affected party has been met with oracular comuniqués by the other.(c) in conflict theory this disparity is something everyone here and at the WMF office would deplore were the face-off with this communicative dissonance to occur with a real state. The outcome is usually brinksmanship to see who is bluffing. We huff here, and have no means to bluff. I'm sure that was not the WMF's intention, but their failure to perceive the obvious implications of their communication 'strategy' is deeply disturbing. Emotionally, I would endorse. But I see strong sense also in SilkTork's oppose, but disagree strongly with most other comments and editors in that section. Only in death does duty end has summed up concisely what I also think are the basic reservations about an otherwise sensible attempt at compromise. I have no problem with leadership, but in critical times, leaders who have made a mark do so for the fact that, if they err, they made a difficult gesture, symbolic or otherwise, of stepping back. They drop the issue of face-saving. Do that, and you will find people far more accommodating than otherwise seems the case.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)I appreciate the thought that went into this proposal, but it goes a touch too far for me. Obviously, a large number of people here believe Fram to be completely innocent, but the fact is that the community does not have the ability to make that judgement, and given the presence of private information, is never going to have that ability. I don't see a way out of this that does not involve a community-appointed body (ideally, ARBCOM; but it could be someone else) investigating the situation in full, including the private evidence, and determining whether the ban is necessary. Also, Fram should be unbanned while such a determination is made. Obviously, the nature of the complaint process means that the identity of the complainant cannot be revealed to Fram; but anything claiming that it cannot be revealed to ARBCOM is legalistic nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC) We don't know what is behind the ban, so I'm neutral on this one. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)   === Discussion === The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them ""[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting"".[36] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Comment I note that neither Fram or Laura Hale have edited (EN) WP for ten and eight days respectively. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Lugnuts, Fram is communicating from Commons. Not sure about how he can edit en.wiki, given that T&S have threatened to impose a global-ban, shall he ever try that. ∯WBGconverse 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Well, Fram is currently banned and probably couldn't edit even his own talk page. Reyk YO! 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC) He can certainly edit over en-wiki; unblocked, he is. ∯WBGconverse 07:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The Foundation blocked him with Talk revoked, so presumably the ban extends to his talk page. See Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety -- If he edits enwiki, he will be globally blocked and globally locked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks both. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this and the vitriol directed at her is quite unpleasant. If a bunch of people shouted at you, ""your work sucks, don't let the door hit you on the way out"", would you ever want to contribute again? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Agree on the first aspect. But, to be mild, d/dt(Laura's learning curve) was too negligible. Mis-use of sources, incoherent paragraphs, weird synthesis, writing unsourced stuff ..... And I went through only a few of his crrations. Sometimes, we need to realise that Everyone can Edit ought not be taken in a very-literal sense. ∯WBGconverse 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, The way I would put it is that ""everyone can edit"" doesn't necessarily mean that ""Everyone should edit""S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) ""I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this"" and pigs might fly. Given the only evidence given to Fram so far by the T&S team points to his interactions with her previously as a causitive factor for the ban. We all know the reason why T&S have no wish for Arbcom to get involved, it is because arbcom (despite its many flaws) will take a look at all editors in a dispute/complaint and judge actions by their context. And that basic principle of fairness is directly at odds to T&S and certain editors ideological totalitarian approach to dealing with those not of the body. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I mean that I don't believe Laura Hale has directly complained to T&S about Fram, or at least not recently enough in the last 18 months which is the timeframe that seems to be under discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Given their history I just dont agree with you on that one. T&S however wont reveal that information so its a pointless dispute. What is relevant is that editors above are trying to claim that this is a result of long terms actions on the part of Fram. And arguing on the one hand that its a result of long term interaction issues onwiki while trying to exclude editors involved in that time period, despite that they are the cause of one of the few direct interactions between Fram and the T&S team, is being deliberately deceptive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I'm almost certain I know who triggered the recent T&S involvement (95%+ if I was a betting man), and if I'm correct, it's not Laura. I won't share how I was able to put the puzzle together because I could well be wrong, and if I'm right, well, I'm not going to reveal their identity either for more or less the same reasons T&S won't. I'll say that the complainer wasn't necessarily wrong to contact T&S if they are who I think they are, and T&S certainly made the right call in withholding who made the complaint. I'm still really not sure T&S had the moral authority to make that call over the community, and I'm still not sure it doesn't involve putting feeling harassed over being harassed. But if the complainer was who I think they are, it at least makes me believe that T&S acted in good faith.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC) So it's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a vest. El_C 17:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I wouldn't expect T&S to expose their identities regardless of who filed the complaint, and, speaking as someone who has pushed the Laura theory, you're right about not revealing your sources or who the putative suspect is. But you being able to do so is still an indictment of T&S here because all they have done here is ban a user in (presumably) good standing with little warning, no explanation of anything, and limited to one wiki for a year. If a T&S member (using the WMFOffice account) had done the outrageous and unthinkable step of explaining just why Fram was banned at the time of the block and the unusual limits on the block we wouldn't be speculating as much as to whose cereal Fram pissed in. Their secrecy in this case resulted in a Streisand effect which has the potential to (if it hasn't already here or on off-wiki fora) out the complainant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC) @Headbomb: I can also guess my way to a story where what happened (including the secrecy) makes sense to the complainant and to T&S, without involving any long-term conspiracies, gender wars or gamergate relations. But I still wouldn't agree with the outcome, nor that this issue was worth damaging the WMF-Community relations even further. Unappealable secret bans have no appeal to me whatsoever. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC) @Ritchie333: the vitriol directed at Laura is not only ""quite unpleasant"", it is also exactly the sort of thing WMF are talking about when they made their decision to repatriate some powers to block users for abuse. There should be action taken against people who have hounded her during this saga, based on unproven allegations that she was involved in the banning of Fram, because by no stretch of the imagination is it acceptable. You and I, and the majority of Wikipedians don't act this way, and it's expressly against policy, so why should we tolerate those who do?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Are people going to her talk page or emailing her to harass her, or abusing her because of this as she edits? That would be wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC) @Wehwalt: I don't know exactly where it's been, to be honest. I gather that there has been a huge amount of negative coverage and digging into her personal life off-Wiki somewhere, probably some of it by people who also edit here, some of which has spilled into accusations and undue pressure on-Wiki. I don't have the time to keep up with all that drama though. BU Rob13 knows more of the details, I believe. Apologies for being vague, but I'm not accusing any specific individuals it's just based on what I've heard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)   === Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad === Hi Newyorkbrad, thank you for this. I agree with your first point (though some clarification about my admin status should be included as well probably). For the second point, I understand that the WMF is not willing to tell me who are the editors involved, but then of course it is rather hard for me to avoid them as well. For the one editor already mentioned here: I already tend to avoid their articles and will let others deal with them. I can't guarantee that I won't edit their articles in routine cleanup runs (e.g. when I am adding short descriptions to categories of articles, I don't first check who created each article). Your third point, the decorum; as some editors already indicated, I already did this in general the past year, but I'll strive to improve even further. I had already indicated some possible methods to resolve this higher on this page, this is one fine by me as well. Fram (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Copied from Commons Tazerdadog (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Is there any reason the WMF or Arbcom can't ask the complainant(s) whether they object to a confidential disclosure of their identities to Fram in order to effect an interaction ban? EllenCT (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC) This would be self-defeating - Not only would this expose them to Fram, but Fram isn't gagged (per T&S' own actions) so this would end up blowing up in their faces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) I asked about this, and Fram agreed to keep the names of such subjects of an interaction ban confidential and take additional steps to avoid them which would not ordinarily be part of Fram's new page patrolling, if the WMF were to accept this compromise. EllenCT (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC) It would still require the WMF to disclose those names to Fram, which they explicitly state they will not do, and doing so - after informing those who complained that they won't - would be highly unethical. And to ask those who believe that they've been harassed by Fram to trust that Fram would never reveal who that are seems foolish. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Nobody seems to have suggested that Fram has ever betrayed anyone's trust, so perhaps the Foundation would be willing to ask them if they would consent to letting Fram know who they are to effect an interaction ban. Frankly though, this is silly. Fram's original compromise proposal for an independent binding evidence review is less lenient, so the Foundation should go with that. EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC) The problem is that Fram is accused of harassing one or more editors to the point that those editors lodged a complaint with the WMF under the guarantee that their details would not be provided to Fram. Obviously, the WMF can't then release those details. I agree that the WMF could ask them, but as they raised their concerns with the WMF, possibly in order to avoid being revealed as the ones raising the complaint, I can't see that they would want this shared with Fram. And if, as we have every reason to assume, they believe that Fram has been harassing them, how can we ask them to trust that Fram will never tell anyone else who they are? You say that Fram has never betrayed anyone's trust, but I imagine to them Fram has betrayed theirs (especially if Fram had previously been warned), so I can't see how we can expect them to trust Fram in this way. I don't know what the solution is, but saying to Fram that ""these are the people who complained about you - don't interact with them and don't tell anyone who they are"" seems very unlikely to be happen if it depends on getting the permission of the people Fram is accused of harassing, and unethical if it doesn't. The WMF don't need to compromise at all, so choosing between revealing who the people are to Fram, and revealing who the people are to Fram and others, isn't a choice that they need to make. They can work out their own solution, or enforce this one, or walk away. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC) You know, I really don't like the idea of harassment going one way like this. People accusing others of harassment should be forced to reveal themselves, or otherwise both the accused and accuser should be secret. That's the only fair way, otherwise the accused loses any degree of anonymity while the accuser is protected. As much as I hate the way Universities define harassment (like I said earlier), at least they keep the names of both individuals secret. I don't know why Wikimedia couldn't have come up with something less arduous than a yearly ban, anyway. Fram, I'm rooting for you. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC) I've seen enough situations where people are scared to complain due to the fear of retaliation, and live with harassment rather than face something worse. I've also seen enough situations where that fear was realised. Having some channel that allows people to confidentially raise their concerns is important. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC) And like it or not, T&S is going to be that outlet - but the way they handled this is completely counterproductive to this, in that they banned them without giving any real notice beforehand (it was mentioned in minutes in a conference call OR took), nor giving a justification as to why the ban is project- and time-limited as opposed to a global ban. It should come as no surprise that the extremely unusual circumstances caused a Streisand effect that they should have seen coming. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC) You assume they care. They plainly believe that imposing this on the community is worth whatever heat it generates. I doubt the metrics we saw cited in the Board minutes have shifted much if at all. The rest is words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Alarm bells go off in my head whenever I hear ""without giving any real notice beforehand"". Whenever any admin (or someone from T&S) tells me to stop doing something, I stop immediately. Even if I am 100% convinced that they are wrong, I stop immediately. If the warning was way out of line, I would talk to them on their talk page and if that didn't work bring it up at AN, but while discussing it I would stop immediately. This is the main reason why I have gone 13 years with zero blocks. Any block would have to be without warning, or me doing something that is grounds for an immediate block like doxing someone. (I have never done that sort of thing anywhere on the net. See South Park (season 20) for some reasons why (smile).) I would hope that T&S would make the same commitment that our administrators have made to give me warning and allow me to stop doing what I am doing. My clean block record is very important to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)   === Comments to keep this proposal from being archived to the talk page === Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)   === Suggestion to archive this proposal === Elements of this proposal have been partly adopted by various involved parties. I suggest that this proposal be archived. --Pine (✉) 18:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)  Oppose. If you like playing Whac-A-Mole, close down the central place where people still want to talk about this and watch as dozens of discussions on dozens of pages are started. We still don't know how this will play out. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia Has Been A Safe Haven From The Online Culture Wars. That Time May Be Over. by Joe Bernstein. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)  Yeah, a good summary.  Hopefully this will start to impact on WMF's pockets when they realise they can't treat the community like this and donations start to dry up.  In short, if all the evidence is available on-wiki, it's Arbcom's turf.  If not, then WMF will be contradicting Fram, effectively calling him a liar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC) So much for the earlier perception that we'd be viewed as a bunch of entitled self-interested volunteers by the popular press. Keep talking to them everyone! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC) It's a nice, unbiased article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's positive in the way you think. The only off-wiki discussion of the article I've seen so far from outside the MediaWiki community seemed to be fairly on the side of the WMF, because people outside the community look at Fram's behavior and think ""Yeah, we wouldn't want that around either"". ~ Rob13Talk 22:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Oh really? Well MY personal echo chamber says the article is unabashedly anti-WMF and they’re all clamoring for Xavier Beccera to launch an investigation. /s —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Interesting. Being the pedant that I am I counted about a dozen errors of fact, but the main thrust of the piece is solid. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)  +1. That is a decent article imho which captures the many sides of this affair without coming down heavily in any direction.  I note from the just declined Jehochman ArbCom Fram case, that Joe Roe said that the information that ArbCom would need to get to be able to make an independent judgment on the WMF action is not likely to be forthcoming; in that case, it clarifies GorillaWarfare's comment at the Fram case, that there is nothing further to be done by ArbCom on the affair; therefore, wrongly or rightly, WMF will reserve the right to conduct their own civility actions in the future.  Silk Tork also clarified at the Fram case that there has been no contact between ArbCom and WMF since the 19 June, but that there was a call set up for the 3 July. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I think that was a well-written and reasonable summary. That's quite a pleasant surprise; journalism about Wikipedia is not always the greatest. Of course, if the media attention keeps up, just imagine how things will get when we find ourselves actually writing an article about FRAMBAN. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC) JANFRAMBAN? JANBANFRAM? EEng 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Whoa, Black Betty GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I'm surprised no Australian editors have proposed this one Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC) That's a good one. SANFRANFRAMBAN? SANFRANJANBANSFRAM?  EEng 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Don't give me ideas ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Is it too early to call this FRAMGATE?Mojo Hand (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Mojo Hand, WP:FRAMGATE exists, but I think we need a few more reliable sources until it gets mainspace. However, User revolt could do with updating. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)(edit conflict)You know it’s not a bad idea. Unflattering material about T&S in articlespace as a result of media coverage might force their hand by making T&S less-able to achieve its mission—if you can’t trust them, why report to them? That may or may not bode well for us but I think that’s better than stagnation and status quo. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC) You could do that, or read a book :| cygnis insignis 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Why not do both?! Genius! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Article-writing would be a nightmare - almost every editor who's participated in this discussion would have a COI! It might have to be an article written by the newcomers to Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC) The user claims to be a pedant, but says, ""… I counted about a dozen errors"". Standards have really slipped around this joint. cygnis insignis 22:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Well played, sir. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the article. A few factual errors but pretty accurate on both sides. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Pretty much what I was going to say.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Mhmm. Appreciate you bringing it to our attention, Floq. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks from me too, for bringing the article. Facetiously: The article refers to Fram at one point as being an ""asshole"". I think someone should alert T&S about this harassing of Fram. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I mean, if the press are making individuals in the community feel less safe to contribute, I would think that falls within T&S's bailiwick, and merit some office action. Perhaps a press release explaining the situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Good stuff, thanks. I had put off reading it thinking it would be crap and was surprised.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The news article talks about Wikipediocracy, an almost moribund site (though it links to some others), as if it were a major forum.  But if the WMF keeps this up, these sites will not remain moribund -- and they are not prone to paralytic moralizing over victim privacy. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Did everyone miss WMF’s statement to BuzzFeed News in the article? In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the organization said it had leveled the ban to maintain ""respect and civility"" on the platform. ""Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects,"" it said. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I wasn't aware that civility fit any of those TOS labels. I hope the relevant parties have contacted WMF to request litigation holds of all relevant records. This is incoherent enough that I can see this situation becoming very ugly very quickly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Also, I think when this article was first posted WMF hadn't made a statement. I distinctly remember it saying that WMF hadn't responded to requests for comment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I'm almost certain it was there when I read it, between Floq's and TRM's comments at the start of this section.  The Wayback Machine's 19:22:34 archive agrees.  Fram declined comment; are you misremembering that? —Cryptic 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I may have just missed it. Doesn't matter either way. This statement is dynamite. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC) User:Katherine (WMF) the terms of use do not list incivility as bannable. It lists harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism as bannable. Not mere incivility.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The Buzzfeed article is a pretty good summary until ""Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment."" The ""woman"" was no ""fledgling"", having started her account in 2010 and created hundred of articles (about which very many people have had complaints) by 2017. I think her period as wikipedian-in-residence predated 2017 too. The so-called ""transgender editor"" (for it is xe) makes a point about not identifying in any direction online, but I know xim quite well & have never thought of xim as anything but a gay male, although of course xe often addresses transgender issues. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC) To set the record straight, the Buzzfeed article contains a glaring error when referring to my ""sarcastic references to a forthcoming Nobel Peace Prize"". The certain fact that Wikipedians will eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is the furthest thing from sarcasm. This grand experiment, born jumping off the deep end, has surprisingly tapped into an unprecedented marriage of societal wisdom, advancing technology, and an almost unfathomable basic trust in the potential of collective unselfishness in the human race. Wikipedia's creation was soon joined by millions of inquisitive sharing minds, and is constantly being recreated, polished, and improved by a literal second-by-second outpouring of intellectual strength. Wikipedia, now a recognizable treasure of civilization, changes the world for the better at an accelerating rate. In 2024, give or take a year or three, when the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee fully analyze the effect our project has had, and will continue to have, on every person, household, and the historical advancement of knowledge and ethics it provides to every corner of the Earth, the recognition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians will be an obvious and easy choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)(e/c) It's more likely that this marks this end of Wikipedia as we know it than for anyone involved to be getting a Nobel Prize. Enigmamsg 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Fram's partial ban wasn't the first (something Buzzfeed claimed to be). Someone pointed out above in one of the collapsed section that 2 users in Germany Wikipedia received partial ban back in February, shortly after partial ban was introduced. The parital ban is probably not something WMF created specifically to address Fram's behaviour, but something they used in their toolkit. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)I think they were just misusing ""Wikipedia"" to mean ""English Wikipedia"", which is fairly common even on here, especially when talking about policies or precedent that is actually only applicable to enwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)It gives a different perception though. The current story reads like WMF created a tool to specifically target Fram but in fact it wasn't. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Good article. I note it has been put to use in mainspace: User_revolt#Framban Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)There's another article about all this kerfuffle, but I can't post a link because of the spam filter (it's on breitbart.com). Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Breitbart is ""journalism"" in the same sense that Taco Bell is ""Mexican food"". They try to make it look vaguely like it, but it's nothing actually like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)   === Katherine Maher tweet === Utterly unimpressed with Katherine Maher's subtweet about the article:"" When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares.""[37] (referring to https://twitter.com/Bernstein?s=03) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  Arbs, you need to see this above. @GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned,  and Callanecc: @Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos,  and Joe Roe: @AGK, KrakatoaKatie, SilkTork,  and Opabinia regalis:. Extremely likely reference to a media piece [38] by Bernstein. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  Wow. That's pretty stunning, actually. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Well, we'd all been waiting for a statement. —Cryptic 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) In comparison with the rest of her tweets it's pretty good. But only in that comparison. And it's a low bar. I'd be interested to know if this was anything to do with our current woes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I doubt it, she clarified later that she was editing something that had been prepared by a vendor. (And apparently the turnaround here is not 24 hours, and we might be lucky to hit 24 days). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Welp, I rescind my earlier endorsement of the idea that writing her personally will be helpful. It clearly will not. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Something else just struck me: If ""no one"" cares about this Buzzfeed News article... what does that make all of us here in her eyes? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Unbelievable, but it explains a good part of why the WMF culture is what it is.- MrX 🖋 02:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Mendaliv See, the Maher tweet is not telling us anything new. I thought it was already clear from the previous statements that the WMF has considerable disdain for Wikipedia editors and views us as subhuman (I wanted to use the proper German term but that would lead to Godwin being invoked). Enigmamsg 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Talk about pouring flaming napalm on troubled waters... This was a communications director before being promoted? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I am trying to avoid throwing any sort of fuel on any fires here, but it is difficult to view Ms. Maher's tweet as a model of the civility the WMF says it's trying to promote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  I support what Newyorkbrad wrote and am deeply disappointed by this tweet, which I see as completely dismissive of the legitimate concerns expressed by many highly respected editors. I am shocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)So, out of idle curiosity, what does T&S do when they receive anonymous reports about a WP editor harassing another WP editor offline about a Wikipedia-related issue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Prediction: Not a fucking thing. Not. A. Fucking. Thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: - this is a serious issue, I think we should go straight to the WMF CEO on this. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Or, we could be good little sheep, like the WMF wants, and block User:Katherine (WMF) for harassment ourselves. Knowing what we do about the kind of environment they would like us to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) It just occurred to me. Is our WMF CEO arguing that no one cares about Wikipedia? Because if I cared about Wikipedia, I would read the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I guess we're ""no one"". 😢 —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Maybe I'm deficient in Twitter comprehension - how do you know that the pseudo-thinkpiece she was referring to was the Bernstein article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  I think because Bernstein tweeted it out three times, which is what Ms. Maher is making light of. There's no direct link as far as I know. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Uh, there are a lot of articles that someone might have tweeted about three times today. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Her tweet was in direct response to one of the journalist's tweets promoting that particular article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC) How do you know that? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Given that it was a subtweet, we may never know for sure. Perhaps one (or more) of the WMF staff members who ""liked"" it could share what they believed it was in reference to. Killiondude (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I think we know well enough. Someone tweeted three times to promote an article that was rather critical of the WMF. Not but a couple hours later, the ED of the WMF is complaining that a ""shitty"" article got three tweets to promote it. I don't think we have to draw the line very damn far from that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I totally get that, but because of the logical consequences, I am reluctant to draw any conclusions without more confirmation. --Rschen7754 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)... and someone who liked her tweet has a profile called ""Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia."". and (Redacted) by myself starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  Hmm. I wonder if that makes it an official statement. Please remember to archive official statements of the WMF just in case anything happens. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I suspect if a WMF staff member was going to make an official statement, they would not do it on their Twitter account and not link to it from anywhere onwiki... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I don't know.  It seems, well, Presidential.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  @Mendaliv: Now done: File:Krmaher tweet 27 Jun 2019.png I think it is tagged properly so Commons won't delete it. I can't guarantee it. --Rschen7754 07:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I've asked Jimbo, who I know tweets from time to time, to confirm this.  I don't do Twitter so I can't see who liked it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: One of the likes is from ""Joe Sutherland@jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia."" Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I assume that's User:JSutherland (WMF), egging on our model of wikipedia etiquette. I'm not outing anyone, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC) We have four three likers claiming to be part of Wikimedia, plus one Free Knowledge advocate starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Joe Sutherland @jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia. jdforrester @jdforrester Coder @Wikimedia Gregory Varnum @GregVarnum Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee. Joseph Seddon @JosephSeddon Free Knowledge advocate (UPDATE: Seddon reversed the like) starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I can confirm that. Personally, while this does not look good, I would prefer to ask what she meant before making an assumption. --Rschen7754 04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The account jrbsu appears to be either Joe Sutherland or someone impersonating him. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)@Floquenbeam: - I think now is the time for us to start a statement of no confidence in the WMF. starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  [Re Maher's tweet] That's an incredibly disappointing piece of double standards. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I have gone to Meta Wikimedia to ask Katherine to explain her tweet. [39] If you are also curious, you may wish to ask too. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  Appreciate the ping, Starship.paint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: - do whatever you want. I merely wanted you to be informed. Maybe I should have pinged you after I found the list of people who publicly liked the tweet (this is public info on Twitter) including James Alexander, Joseph Seddon, Joe Sutherland, jdforrester and Gregory Varnum. These 4 3 stated on Twitter that they are part of Wikimedia (Liker Joseph Seddon didn't say they were part of Wikimedia, but apparently is a Free Knowledge advocate. EDIT: Joseph Seddon unliked the tweet). I don't want to ping every Arb again, so could you help me inform the rest of the Arbs on this. starship.paint (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Yep, the link to this section has been shared on our email list. For what it's worth, James Alexander has not worked at the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Oh... Trust and Safety at Twitter and Periscope. I got confused. I'm sorry, James! starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Since I've spent 12 years of my life contributing in some way shape or form to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I would hope I can in some way lay claim to that fact I am an advocate for free knowledge. I've not publicly commented on this whole Fram issue and another voice is not going help on either side of the argument. Given that a single like is going to severely misrepresent my views on this matter and arbitrarily and somewhat incorrectly place me on ""a side"", I've reversed that action. Seddon talk 05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Seddon: - my wording was too vague. I've never questioned that you are an advocate for free knowledge. What I meant is, you didn't say you were part of Wikimedia on your Twitter profile. starship.paint (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)wow.... just... wow. Have those at WMF gone on a ""How to piss off your volunteers"" course? Between that, the Gamergate accusation and the heavy-handed power grab, they seem to be making such a ham-fisted mess of absolutely everything here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Ha. This just gets more and more bizarre. She won't even try to justify the office action that shattered the project's stability far more than Fram ever could, but when the press inevitably runs the story, she will stoop to respond—not to make her case, but to personally attack the journalist with childish insults? WTF? This is the Executive Director? And other WMF officials are endorsing her? What kind of sad joke is this? I mean, that Tweet is not even as respectable as Trump Tweeting ""fake news!"" at an unfavorable story. The self-awareness is nonexistent. The professional competence is nonexistent. This is who we're trying to reason with? This is who's at the helm? Honestly, what's the point? This kind of shameful public conduct isn't tolerated in any professional field, at any level. I mean, seriously, a fast food chain wouldn't even tolerate this from an acne-faced shift manager. It really is stunning that the WMF Executive Director is not held and does not hold herself to even a basic standard of civility, maturity or professionalism in the public eye, particularly as the staff purports to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Eh Maher's former PR so responding to the press is kinda expected. As a response it does seem rather odd although given the conditions under which she took over the foundation I can understand it would be important to be seen as having her employee's backs. Still if the tweet is about what we think it is about it is kinda unfortunate.©Geni (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)This a joke? Ignoring a community controversy over your own actions, to the point where it gets so out of control that the press picks it up, and then only breaking your silence to call the article a ""shitty pseudo-thinkpiece"" that ""nobody cares"" about is about the farthest thing from competent PR that I can even imagine. Like I said, this behavior is not tolerated in any professional setting, with or without PR professionals. So the fact that you'd actually go so far as to point out that ""she's PR"", as if that makes it more understandable, is hilarious. All that means is that she knows better, and yet she literally can not give two shits anyways! Lol!! ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Assume good faith. K. Maher has worked for Wikipedia's benefit for years, and giving her the business because of a quickly worded probably off-the-cuff tweet does throw more unneeded fuel on this campfire. She'll answer at some point, and Jimbo is probably going to have to step in to take command of this entire situation soon, but we should all be reminded that this is all inside-baseball. Here is the real Wikipedia. Please everyone, take a minute, or even 20 seconds, to take it in and remember what we are here for. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)A public tweet in response to a journalist by the Executive Director of the organization is no longer ""inside baseball"". What it is, is unprofessional and a fine example of ""Do as I say, not as I do"" that will not, shall we say, serve to help the situation. She could have expressed disagreement with what was written without doing it like that. (Not to mention she's apparently got time to be tweeting about all manner of things, but none to respond to the concerns raised here.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)All true, but at some point we all have to calm down and stop jumping on each other. I have a felling that ""The Tweet"" may be the twig that moves this mudslide back up the hill. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)If we consider WMF execs and the like to be part of ""each other"" we're really doomed. There's a damn good reason execs and management aren't given a vote when a workplace unionizes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)That seems the only way that this drama will have to shake out, as the concept of putting the encyclopedia first guides well. I think today's events have moved the dial towards unification of purpose and the probable solutions to this energized crisis, no matter how it looks right now. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)This is stunningly tonedeaf and entirely inappropriate. Entirely separate from the WMF's original action, this comment should not be coming from any WMF employee, let alone the person at the top. Doc James, I hope this will be a topic of conversation at a future Board meeting... ~ Rob13Talk 05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years, & there have been times when I've drifted away & seriously considered finding another hobby, but I come back because I basically believed in Wikipedia's mission -- making information free for everyone -- despite that writing useful articles at this point is hard & often tedious work. But when I read such a casually & flippantly nasty response from one of the people who are supposed to set an example for the rest of us ... well, it sucks to discover I've been a sucker. I hope she enjoys that job with a 6-figure salary I helped to create for her. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Yeah, that's basically how I feel. I had even been mostly on the WMF's side, but now I want to burn it all down. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)A further reply: [40] --Rschen7754 05:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I perceive it as declining any connection with Bernstein's piece but the original coincidence was too well, to be an accident. ∯WBGconverse 05:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I guess I don't know. I mean, I have a Twitter account (with an easily guessable handle) but I rarely post anymore. I don't really get all the nuances of this subtweeting thing. It doesn't read to me like an explicit denial. --Rschen7754 05:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Maher is no idiot. If she wanted to say we were completely wrong, she'd outright say it. She wouldn't muse at how we squirmed at the knife in our collective backs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) That's a point. ∯WBGconverse 06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I don't see her coming out and saying ""You got me, it was referring to the Buzzfeed article"". But if she doesn't come out with an explicit denial within 24 hours, or deletes the tweet, I think we can draw our own conclusions. --Rschen7754 06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Well that's kind of my point. Yeah, fair enough, we can't take anything she says as a confirmation because she's not gonna outright do that. But if we were completely incorrect and she was just cursing the darkness a little bit, or complaining about someone else, it would cost her nothing to say ""You have it wrong,"" or even in that exchange say, ""The crazy thing is that they're going crazy about something I'm not even talking about."" —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I absolutely do not buy that explanation in the follow-up tweet. If she wants me to believe her, she needs to post a link to the actual article she was criticizing. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Thanks for the ping above, starship.paint. I've asked a question about this here. (Here is an archive of both relevant tweets, for reference.) Otherwise - there's a lot of interest in this thread about likes and replies and such; let's please all continue to be careful about off-wiki identities. (Also, I have no idea how the WMF works, but there are workplaces where liking, sharing, and otherwise signal-boosting your boss's or organization's social media is part of the expectations of the job, so please don't be tempted to draw undue conclusions about other editors.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Opabinia regalis: - you're welcome. So, you asked on en.wiki, I asked on meta.wiki. Let's just see what replies she have for us. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Some comments from Jimmy Wales himself, and some more from Katharine down further on the thread [41]. --Rschen7754 06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Yep, they're gonna keep posting on Twitter to keep their donors believing that they're trying to do something, rather than actually putting out this fire. I'm this close to just saying ""Let it burn."" This project may need to end tonight. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I read that that as tacit acknowledgement that it does indeed relate to the article. This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 06:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Bellezzasolo - thank you for that astute observation. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)So the T&S people liked it by mistake?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The backpedaling is pathetic. I wholeheartedly echo Dan's call for her resignation. It is, on multiple levels, necessary at this point. A Twitter cyberbully with the regrettable title of ""WMF Executive Director"" is an embarrassment to the WMF and to the enwiki community alike, and will do nothing to heal the deep wounds that have been created in the community and in the public eye. His call for the board's resignation would be a plus as well. Though Jimbo can stay. He retweeted the article, rather than attacking the author. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I wouldn't go so far as to call for a resignation for this tweet. This is her livelihood, after all, and I don't think this was egregious enough to warrant a resignation. But we do need a full explanation, and an apology if a mistake was made. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)That looks like the sort of thing Trump would tweet. Reyk YO! 06:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC) They have the same taste in corporate law firms, after all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I'm OK with getting up a collection to send Jimmy and the three board members who supposedly represent the community a matched set of second-hand fiddles with a request for their resignation burned into the wood.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)For a community who claims they can handle their own disputes on harassment, you sure did a good job of following someone onto Twitter, following their followers likes, and inflaming the situation by tying a vague tweet to the block of Fram, even after denial it had to do with anything on-wiki. Good job! — Moe Epsilon 07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Moe Epsilon: - writing This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. isn't a very strong denial. I agree with Bellezzasolo that it instead seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)You can say that, but she's explicitly denied it being related to any one piece or author in further tweets. If you don't believe her then that's your problem. — Moe Epsilon 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)@Moe Epsilon: - if you actually believe that this quote retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times is not related to any one author, that's your problem. starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)It's funny because you think being a public figure gives you any more right to go after other people. At any rate, she can say what she wants on her own social media account any more than you can. If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now, I suggest we talk to those launching personal attacks at her on Twitter. — Moe Epsilon 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now is thoroughly, deliberately disingenuous. We are holding the head of the WMF for what she says on her Twitter account, where she posts as WMF head, for statements she makes about Wikipedia. Your counter here is intellectually dishonest dissembling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)@Grandpallama:: No, I am being entirely serious. Quick question, before the incident with Fram, did you ever check her Twitter for updates about the Foundation? Because if you look at her timeline, I would think you'd stop going there for updates since she doesn't frequently post updates on it but rather her every day life. — Moe Epsilon 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)So? Someone usually uses their gun for target practice; one day they accidentally shoot someone in the face. The fact that they generally don't shoot at people means they didn't really shoot someone in the face? Come on...there is absolutely no realistic interpretation that this tweet wasn't about the current situation. Grandpallama (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)That was a very tone deaf tweet from Katherine Maher; does she not realise that the article is from Buzzfeed News [42], one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as designated in 2019.  Why does this crisis keep self-perputating at very opportunity? Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Britishfinance: - just because a source is perennial doesn't mean it is reliable (there are unreliable perennial sources), though There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: We are all aware of that; however, many editors (incl. Katherine I am guessing), may not be aware of its status as an WP:RSP. Britishfinance (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Twitter is a fucking wasteland of Minimum Prosecutable Units without details or context being sprayed back and forth in conversations you can't follow or figure out.  Wikipedia has Talk Pages, it has a mailing list, it has Bugzilla -- why the hell are we finding out that all the BIG STUFF is being said by various hotshots I never heard of like Women in Red and Executive Directors, out on this wasteland blogosphere medium?  Exalted glitterati of Wikimedia, get back on the bus before you get run over! Wnt (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I find it rather rude to say that very few people had asked her directly when she failed to respond to any of those that did (including myself). For that matter, none of the WMF staff I emailed did, except 1 who I asked about an interpretation of a WMF ToS explanation and redirected me to the general email (no reply from them either). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC) To be honest, I am not sure that writing directly to all WMF employees is in any way a good idea. All of them have certain job descriptions, and most job descriptions do not include communication with volunteers. One can argue that they should include this, and any request, onwiki, on a mailing list, by e-mail, whatever, to any WMF employee must be immediately answered, but then they will be all the time answering the requests and not doing their job. I think by this time we have enough evidence that Katherine Maher is aware of WP:FRAM, and I do not see how another 357 e-mails, tweets and pings would do any better.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC) AFAIK, a board meeting can't be held w/o her. And, since the BoT discussed this on the 14th, she ought to have been aware of the circumstances, from that point of time onwards. ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)   ==== Hashtag ==== I so wanted to reply to that tweet, but decided against it as I'd probably end up banned from Twitter. All those on Twitter, tweet the Bernsten article, and let's get the hashtag #FRAMGATE #Wikigate trending. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  @Mjroots: - no no no! You will be accused of supporting a harasser and maybe even sexism. You will lose the optics war. It should be WMFGATE or maybe WIKIGATE (the most relatable). No FRAM, please, no one out there knows who Fram is. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)OK, I've deleted my tweet. #Wikigate is a good suggestion, let's go with that. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Twitter is a very different beast from Wikipedia, and one whose community has long been toxic to each other. I don't see the benefit of publicizing this within the Twitterverse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)   === Katherine Maher responses on Twitter ===  Discuss. starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  At least she hasn't actually said ""Fake news"" yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC) More tweets I didn't notice. Hold on guys! I'm still updating! starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Or WMFEFE? Reyk YO! 08:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Done. @SilkTork, Slatersteven, Haukurth,  and Rschen7754: - you may be interested in this quote: I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly. starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Why should I find that interesting?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Slatersteven: - I thought you personally emailed her. Did I get that wrong? starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Still not seeing why I should find this interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, I just read that. It's probably true. There were only a handful of us who wrote to her directly, and she appears not to have noticed the emails, only that which was in public view. While I am disappointed that she still hasn't acknowledged (except via Twitter) that we contacted her, I am even more disappointed that so few in our community did write to her, especially in view of how many people have been involved in this page, either to propose ideas or support or comment on those ideas, or just to read. We can't blame the CEO for not getting the message if people didn't send her the message. Please, folks, do it now. Contact her in whichever manner you prefer or feel is appropriate - email, twitter, or her account here on enwiki or on Media. But whichever means you do, please, please, please, be civil. You can indicate you are angry, emotional, disappointed, frustrated, whatever. But don't be hostile, don't be insulting, don't be rude. She has said that our community is a ""monolith misnomer"" because 10 Wikipedians come up with 20 different opinions. Can we show her that we are a unified community, and what we want is improved communications and a better ongoing relationship between WMF and enwiki. We don't wish to be ignored, insulted, and treated as fractious and toxic. We want to be treated with respect and equality, and for enwiki and WMF to work together to continue our existing work on building this project. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC) When we've had ArbCom in telephone meeting with the WMF, and we've had Jimmy Wales and Doc James working on this as board members (and having had a meeting covering it), it's hardly our fault if the ED isn't getting the message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC) It may be relative, if we all wrote to her (who are participating here) what percentage of Wikipedians would that be? If it is over 100,000 this would be less the 1% (of 1%), by any stretch of the imagination that is ""very few"" people who actually care or have noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC) So no-one should do anything, Slatersteven? Not sure what your point is but the issue of an alleged silent majority has been raised here before and one outcome of that was an influx of previously silent people acknowledging that they have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC) When did I say no one should say anything? I never once said no one should comment, and really fail, to see how my Post could in any read be seen in that way. I am not saying there is a silent majority who holds an opinion, I have said most users have no commented, and so only a few have really shown any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case).Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I asked you a question as to the point of your post. I didn't say you believe no-one should do anything. You're writing quite a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitive stuff here and, as is common, obfuscating matters. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC) You asked me if I said something that there was no possible way you could have read into my comment. Someone asked why she said X, I ...no because you will just strawman whatever I say. This is my last response to you on this subject, if you cannot debate honestly then I cannot be arsed to debate with you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Break it up guys, let's not fight over this, alright? starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)To echo Boing’s point, if the ED isn’t aware of this conflict between the community and the WMF because the community hasn’t told her, it reflects poorly on the internal communication at the WMF, or strengthens the point that the WMF sees this as so inconsequential that they don’t need to inform the management. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Slatersteven: - it's true that the 460 editors who have weighed in here are only small subset of the community. But, how many singular issues in the community can even generate a response from 460 editors? According to Newyorkbrad, we have now [53] achieved a record number of statements for an Arbitration case request at over 120. This is momentous in Wikipedia history. starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The point is why she said ""so few people"". Now it may well be true this has generated more controversy then any other single issue here. But that does not mean that it is still a lot of people commenting (or contacting her), just a lot more then usual. So it does not make her statement false or misleading.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC) The point isn't that 460 editors have responded. It's the proportion of the top 10% or even 5% of active editors who have responded. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)My tweet to Ms Maher [54] DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC) And her reply to me [55]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC) If I may note what follows, I'd rather the conversation be here on-wiki, too. I have significant concerns regarding the usage of off-wiki sources to handle on-wiki matters in this case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think I've ever gone off-wiki to ask something that should be asked on-wiki before. I disliked having to do it, but it was clear that the only way of attracting her attention was to go to Twitter. I really shouldn't say any more. But I will, I am appalled at her behaviour. I don't think she gives a flying fuck about editors. And I'm sure she'll come out with a load of ""we're listening, we want to bring you with us"" bullshit when she does eventually manage to remember how to log in to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)I couldn't sleep so I also responded to her tweet [56]. -- llywrch (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) ""Very few people have asked her directly"" -- well of course not.  We're not on her site.  If you want to have a say in Wikipedia, obviously you should spend your time on Twitter!  The WMF Office has tried its best to make plots to redesign Wikipedia to look a little more like Twitter so we can get used to it so we can stop talking here and move over to where All The Big Stuff Happens.  There, under the watchful eye of Twitter censors, the competent posters who have networks of PR bots behind them can get the upvotes they need to be accepted as Serious Players worthy of the WMF's respect!  Someday we can replace all of Wikipedia with Twitter and if you think something is a good source on ghost imaging or seventeenth-century iron smelting you can just retweet the citation -- ought to work so much better than our system of article writing! Wnt (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC) That is an odd response, inasmuch as at least three people emailed her about this issue three days ago. She might claim that in the crush of emails she (presumably) receives she had missed seeing them, but (presumably) her subordinates did update her that there was some serious pushback on en.wikipedia about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Just saw the thread above. I plead lack of sleep week nights for way too long in defense of repeating information clearly visible. -- llywrch (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just blocked, I assume for this post. His talk page access was also revoked. MrX 🖋 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Clarifcation: I was definitely blocked for inappropriate questions asked on en.wiki of two WMF staffers, definitely considering a warning for inappropriate questions I asked of a former Arb. A question to a WMF staffer on meta.wiki may have also contributed to the block. Obviously, I am unblocked now. However, my contributions to this page will be cut down. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Not just that post.--MONGO (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Odd that he was blocked longer than Fram, however.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Well if the block notice is correct he had already been warned about this sort of thing before. But it does seem to be an overreaction, is there a history of outing here?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Poor blighter was indeffed for lèse-majesté. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)For the record, Maher has now admitted that the initial tweet was directed at the Buzzfeed article. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure that she does. In the tweet that this one replies to, she says: This was not a directed comment. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC) She's still using Twitter instead of answering editors on wiki. I think her priorities are clear, and they're not here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC) She hasn't replied to mine, but I didn't expect she would.  For that matter, she should be too busy dealing with this onwiki to check Twitter.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Katherine has replied to me to say that she is in meetings this afternoon (Pacific Time) but will take a look at her talk page after. I want a response as well, but it's not unreasonable to give her some time to attend to her meeting schedule. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Swell.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Yeah. The feeling I get is that this all came as a great surprise to her and she is just now trying to get back onto a good footing. Even if she comes around on it, this is breathtakingly unsatisfactory. How on earth could anyone with her job have been so oblivious to what has been going on, for all this time? It's not our fault for failing to do a good enough job of reaching out to her. It's her job to be aware of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Katherine Maher's tweet is unacceptable and reminds me of something Katie Hopkins or Ann Coulter would write. I would be thoroughly unimpressed if an admin said it, much less the editing director of the WMF. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)   ==== Comment from Guerillero ==== Since Katherine Maher seems to have poured petrol on the fire by tweeting about the Buzzfeed article, I guess I should say something. The Tom Fish mentioned in the article is myself. I was connected with the author on twitter by a friend who saw that Joe was asking for a Wikipedia admin to talk to. I was worried that the piece could turn out poorly and I knew that commenting here wasn't going to move the needle with the WMF. (It seems to have made impact by broadening the conversation beyond just us.) I tried my hardest to be a guide to our community and provide background information. None of the information in the section about harassment came from me. I am unimpressed by her statement below and I am planning on resigning my tools/positions in the community if the board doesn't say something in a week. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)  Thank you for helping make that article good. I for one commend you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Guerillero, the article turned out well, so apparently your information was helpful and well-received. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC) I thank you for your candour and for helping with the article. It turned out surprisingly well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Guerillero, Great job. Thanks for taking that on.  Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)   === Katherine Maher's reply === Copying Katherine's reply here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)  Hi folks. I'm not very active here mostly because it's not a very active page in general. It's usually vandalism, which is quickly reverted by folks who watch the page (thank you!). But when I'm pinged there's a lot of activity here, like today, you have my attention, and here I am.  I understand people are very upset about my tweet yesterday. My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article about the situation here on enWP, it was meant more a comment about Twitter and media culture in general. (If I’d wanted to comment on the article, I would have linked to it directly.) But I understand why it was upsetting, and why it could be seen as dismissing or dismissive of perspectives and people here in the en-wiki community. That truly wasn't my intention, and I apologize. (It was also a somewhat ill-conceived and hasty throwaway, which is Twitter in a nutshell, versus what I hope will be a more thoughtful and well-written reflection here, more in line with the nature of this community.) Thank you for reaching out and inviting me to clarify my intention here. My actual feeling on the BuzzFeed article, which I also clarified on Twitter, is that it accurately covers the situation in the community and the anger or frustration people have expressed about the ban and the Foundation's action. In general, I don't have issues with negative press coverage of criticisms about the Foundation or my own judgment and actions. That’s part of my role, and often I find it very useful to help me learn and improve. To that end, the coverage of the conversations was a fair characterization of many perspectives here. Very often the press doesn't really understand the workings of Wikimedia, however, the journalist clearly did his homework to understand community conversations and processes. He put in the effort, so kudos - that's not easy and it often takes people a long time. (I personally found the “culture war” framing to be strange, because seemed like it was trying to make a Wikipedia issue into a comment on society as a whole, using a very American perspective for what is a fairly international community.)  However, while I don't have any issues with the things I described above, I did felt the way it handled reporting on the alleged targets of harassment was objectionable. For people who know how the communities work, it would be very easy from the article to identify those individuals. That is not okay, and it would have been possible to write the article on the issue and the controversy without needing to take that approach. The Foundation communications team has been in touch with the Buzzfeed editors with our concerns around that. I take very seriously the matter of protecting members of our community, especially ones being harmed by harassment. Criticism is fine, but you shouldn't make it harder for people who already are in a hard place in order to make a point. Or, as I've been taught, don't 'punch down.' Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so. I believe there are things that could have been handled better on the Foundation side, including my own communications. My goal, which I’ve shared with the Board and am happy to share with you all here, is to find a path to de-escalate the current situation and build better, lasting solutions to the issues of harassment. To me, this means consulting with the enWP community to address your articulated concerns about our respective roles and community processes, identifying some clear next steps to resolve some of the current concerns, and consulting on how we can work together to strengthen community self-governance while also cultivating a respectful editing environment that safeguards everyone in the community.   As always, I appreciate people's passion and the community's efforts toward holding the Foundation accountable, even when these conversations are difficult. I recognize I've also not answered every question or responded to every comment on my page today -- there's a lot, and I wanted to focus on the things that seemed most important and to have the most energy around them.   I know it doesn’t seem like it to many people at the moment, but I wholeheartedly support and am committed to the principle of partnership with members of this and other project communities. It’s been a part of my commitment as a Foundation employee for five years, and consultation is something I’ve made an effort to embed in every aspect of our work, from the movement strategy conversations to the product development process. We don’t always get it right, and even if we do, we don’t and won’t always agree on everything. But I know that collaboration and discourse is essential, and something we all -- Foundation and staff alike -- should always be working toward. Thank you. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) It's unclear to me who she's apologizing to, or for what, and if she's told the members of T&S who hastened to associate themselves with her tweet that her present stance is that she was not criticizing the BuzzFeed article. Aside from that, to stay on the Shakespeare meme, it would have been helpful to have more matter, with less art.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)I want to say thanks to the arbs, former arbs, admins and veteran editors who have engaged with Maher on her talk page over this crisis. I am proud of you and although I am not nearly as active or committed to this project as you are, your frankness with her makes me feel represented and that I am part of a community that it is a privilege to belong to. Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Okay, she was not intending to criticize the article. She just so happened to be using it as an example to make a general criticism about media and Twitter culture. Nothing even to do with Wikipedia. Pay no attention to the fact that the article's about her, or to the fact that she called it a ""shitty pseudo-thinkpiece"" that ""no one cares"" about. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the article. It was just a philosophical meta-commentary on Twitter culture. She knows she directly attacked it, but that has nothing to do with her intent. If she wanted to criticize the article, she obviously would have directly referenced it. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest tweet, but that's Twitter, you guys get that, right? Anyway, I'm glad we're all forgiven for the misunderstanding. I really feel like this has been a come together moment. On that note, she really appreciates us holding the WMF accountable. They've been stonewalling and ignoring us, but rest assured, that doesn't mean anything. They're taking accountability and transparency seriously. Just like her tweet, the obvious evidence to the contrary is completely meaningless. Just ignore it. They're on our side. Oh, by the way, ""harassment"". That's right, ""harassment"". Oh, and ""victims"". Don't forget about the ""victims"". WMF is getting serious about it, that's what this is all about. No, they still haven't confirmed that this incident has anything to do with harassment as opposed to incivility, but don't question that. They're gonna drop the buzzword in a generic, nonspecific way instead—draw your own conclusions! I have to give Katherine credit for the most human-sounding response to date, but this still boils down to empty rhetoric, which is more than likely necessary to save her job and/or reputation at this point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)The reply makes no sense to me: lots of being ""kind"" and corporate twaddle but little substance that gels with any logical reading of the tweets. It seems to be an attempt to square a circle, and perhaps even a little bit reverse ferret-ish. When I make a mistake I own it but there is precious little owning here and if indeed we have misinterpreted the intent then perhaps that indicates the ED as being someone who is not fit to hold a post for which communication skills surely are a prequisite. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC) This is why WMF needs to be careful. I recalled Frams name, but could not recall form what dispute, now I know. A dispute that involved (as I recall) one of the proles getting warned for (what in effect) Fram was also doing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Like Swarm and Sitush, I find this message somewhat underwhelming. ""My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article"". Either it was about it or it wasn't - wasn't really meant is linguistically slippery; it implies that the result didn't match the intention, and thus shifts the focus from observable fact (the tweet) to something with more wriggle room (the intention). And ""I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so"" - closely monitoring, but saying nothing. Er, thanks for watching? And then there's the transferral of some responsibility from one's own words to the medium that carries them (Ms Maher doesn't go quite so far as to say 'Twitter made me do it', but it's not far off). Still, there is an apology in there, and an acknowledgement that the WMF has handled this badly, which is something. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)It's an apology that really isn't, as it is not directed at anyone and it doesn't say what it is for. It's actually worse than the WIR apology, which apologized to the empty air, rather than to Fram, for implying ""crimes"" on the grounds that it was imprecise. I must say I am impressed by the competence of WMF and in particular Katherine, and possibly Legal. When I, in the course of my legal practice, have written a blow-off letter, I was never successful in making it half as long as this one. It takes talent to say nothing in so many words.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Katherine has replied to a couple of my tweets (the less pointed ones, @dennislbrown).  When I told her we should be having this conversation onwiki and not on twitter, she replied ""You’re right, that is where we should be having that conversation, and that’s what tried to start this afternoon. I plan to continue."" (~1am EST 5/29)  I have no idea where she tried, or what she has planned this afternoon (or what time zone she is in for ""afternoon"").  I haven't seen anything, but will reserve judgement for 24 hours.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Over the course of these discussions, some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of getting a clear statement from ArbCom. I think it's important to take note of the comments that multiple Arbs put on Maher's talk page. Those comments show unambiguously that they understand what the rest of us have been so upset about, and that they really are trying to get that message across to WMF. So I want to say that it's not ArbCom's fault that we have gotten so little in the way of adequate responses from WMF. The fault rests squarely with WMF themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)@Tryptofish: For clarity you're referring to comments starting about the 27th? Looking at both meta and en talk pages those look to be when people started commenting, I mean not just arbcom members. I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the timeline here because a lot of people are surprised she has indicated she didn't know that well what was going on here or the level of reaction but it also looks to me like a lot of the direct approaches to her are fairly recent. Of course emailing or similar was likely a better bet anyway, and I see some discussion about that above but it sort of looks like that also only took off on the 25th i.e. very recent, although it's difficult to know how many did before then. It does seem things have really taken off now with the Tweet and the controversy surrounding it. For clarity, I make no comment whether she should have known from the BoT meetings or other means. It's more that I'm surprised given how strongly some here feel about the WMF's actions that approaching the ED directly seems to potentially be a fairly recent thing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC) I didn't have any particular comments about ArbCom in mind. Indeed, at this point I can hardly even keep track of who has said what. So I wasn't so much criticizing any particular comments, as praising the work done by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC) It's interesting that, in her statement above, Maher says the following: ""Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so"" - dated 28 June. Though she didn't state when she started ""closely monitoring"" it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)   === A less desired news source === A breitbart news article (can't directly link), titled Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator has now been made. To be fair, it's less biased and significantly better than most of the publication's usual articles. It doesn't consider the other side as much, and has more errors, but is still not miles off. Not the 2nd news source I'd have liked to have cover it. It's also starting to twig up more elsewhere (Quora, reddit etc) from non-participants Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)@Nosebagbear: - I see that the bottom of that article states: T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias. starship.paint (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Nosebagbear, actually the Breitbart piece contains a very interesting clue to all of this. It appears Fram violated their WMF imposed IBAN on May 8, which leads me to assume the WMF saw it and banned for that violation (or someone brought it up to them), not any of the other possible complaints. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC) May 8 had some ugly diffs.  [57][58] but I don't see a violation of the IBAN.  This one [59] is close but probably not a violation. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Jehochman, It may not be an IBAN violation by the traditional definition. The WMF told Fram ""we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc."" This is a special sanction the WMF cooked up. I wonder if we could ask T&S if they used this diff in justification of the 1 year ban. I guess there's no chance they would ever answer that though. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)"
600	610	1338	WP:BRAIN	User:MPS/It's ok to use your brain	600	"Your brain is not a source for article content, but using your brain is certainly not prohibited when framing content on articles, arguing about guidelines, or discussing article content on discussion pages. In fact, don't think for a second that the rules of Wikipedia require you to turn your brain off. Using your brain is an essential component of editing Wikipedia. Your thoughts and ""point of view"" count at Wikipedia, but brain use must be subordinated to and guided by policies when editing the ""Main"" namespace.    == Rationale == Some editors have been chastised  (for example on the WP:NOR discussion page) for using the discussion pages to express their desire to refine the clarity of a certain wiki-policy. They have also wondered whether WP:SYN (the Wikipedia ""synthesis"" policy) is clearly scoped to allow thinking during editing. This essay seeks to clarify that, in fact it is appropriate to use one's brain when editing Wikipedia.   == Applicable policies == The Neutral point of view policy says that ""All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view"" but it does not say that discussion on discussion pages cannot express the editorial opinion of individual editors. In fact, discussion of editorial opinions is the purpose of discussion pages. This discussion often involves thinking, which may include your brain. The No original research policy  ""determine[s] the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles""  but does not necessarily apply to editorial discussions on article discussion pages. In fact, an editorial decision will often require a brain, or in wikipedia's case, many brains. The No original research policy prohibits the ""synthesis of published material serving to advance a position"" in an article but not necessarily on article discussion pages. Discussion pages are supposed to advance and reconcile various editorial positions. Often, the sources of editor positions are in fact editor brains. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.   == Appropriate use of your POV == Many Wikipedians have editorial points of view on things; when discussing the article on the discussion pages, wikipedians may occasionally find themselves consulting their points of view to determine ""what they think"" about how the article is phrased, for example whether they think it is perhaps offensive or awkwardly worded. These editors need not necessarily cite a dictionary definition of ""offensive"", or consult the NYT manual of style for all style opinions. In some cases, the discussion pages on Wikipedia may permissibly be filled with comments like, ""I think this page is ugly"" or ""this article is offensive; we should adjust some of the wordings"". Such unsourced comments on the talk page do not violate WP:POV or WP:NOR.   == Synthesis == Synthesis is defined as ""the combining of the constituent elements of separate material or abstract entities into a single or unified entity.""When you are writing an article on Wikipedia, you may at times find it useful to combine multiple facts together and create the single entity called a ""lead paragraph"" that summarizes the article. This lead paragraph content may actually reflect facts from the article that were synthesized in your brain. Sometimes while editing, an editor may run into NPOV, sourced, verifiable content that meets notability policies but that just looks ugly (for example, proseline and WP:TRIVIA). It is fully within the realm of appropriate editor behavior to be bold and improve the ""look"" of the prose without necessarily being accused of inappropriate POV-pushing. This may involve combining the fact nuggets into smooth prose. Similarly, if something appears to you to be recentist content on a page, you may eliminate or migrate less relevant content according to judgements you make with your brain. If there is disagreement on your edits, you should seek to form consensus on the discussion page. Additionally, when you are creating summary tables you are permitted to use your brain to come up with the number of columns the title of each field names without necessarily citing a source for said fields. The source is your brain. The source is logic. The source is creative license. You may use these sources on the discussion page to advance your editorial position.   == Using your brain for the ""common sense test"" on talk pages == When the article on chess quotes a source to say ""over ten billion people play chess on the internet"", it is permissible to question this source on the talk page by asking ""that number is absurdly impossible; there aren't that many people on Earth."" The Wikipedia NOR page does not require this initial discussion page statement to be made with a specific source that says ""it is impossible for there to be ten billion chess players."" In this case, it would be a sufficient argument (it would not violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN) for the Wikipedia editor to post a source on the talk page saying that the world population is 7 Billion and then conclude (synthetically?!) that it is illogical for the internet chess playing population to be 10 billion.    Yes, a claim must be sourced when included in an article, but merely using your brain to draw attention to apparent inconsistencies via the discussion page is appropriate use of the brain and is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policies.   == Inappropriate use of your POV == Your brain/POV is not a source for articles, and your point of view does not automatically contradict established sources. When editing articles in the ""Main"" namespace, you must  edit in accordance with content policies. These three are a non-negotiable part of editing on Wikipedia:  Neutrality -- Your brain has a point of view, but the article must promote all significant points of view on the ""Main"" namespace. Verifiability --  Your brain knows things, but sources verify things. Your brain is not a sufficient source for verification of facts on the ""Main"" namespace. No Original Research  -- Your brain can put two facts together to create new facts, but these new facts do not belong on Wikipedia ""Main"" namespace. They must be sourced.   == Summary (created from my brain) == When thinking about the content that should be included in Wikipedia, and when registering this opinion on the structure of articles and on article discussion pages, there is no guideline that says you need special sources for your opinions outside of your own brain. Say what your editorial opinion is, and cite your brain. It's ok.   == See also == Metawiki:instruction creep,   == Notes =="
601	611	1340	WP:tag team	WP:tag team	601	"Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike ""meatpuppetry"", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from ""tag teams"" in professional wrestling, in which teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring – one brings in a teammate as relief/backup when in danger of losing. Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process.  In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V). Editors may revert article changes that violate Wikipedia's core content policies; this is not tag teaming. A tag team is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding tag teaming. Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as disruption or canvassing (which are guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming.  Signs that may point to tag teaming include:  Working together to circumvent the three-revert rule ""Ninja"" editing – terse comments, little talk page justification Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's tendentious, disruptive editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to ""let the matter drop"" at article talk pages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus. However: Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where Wikipedia's core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Wikipedia policies, such as those applying to biographical material on living persons, then the information should nonetheless be removed. Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it ""violates consensus"". However: Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the guideline on reliable sources. Furthermore, edits that violate the neutrality policy, for example by giving undue weight to a minority opinion, will often be reverted. Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article. However: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process. Meatpuppetry. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists. This often manifests as disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up to parrot support or opposition for a particular proposal made by the tag team. The goal is to make it appear that consensus has happened when in fact it has not. Then, if/when other users notice the proposal and take sides opposed to the tag team, the tag team members may respond by claiming an extant consensus. However: Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating in the discussion; this does not make those editors meatpuppets. Harassment and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources. However: Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may lash out when provoked. Simple incivility is not proof of tag teaming.   === Goals of tag teams === Potential goals of tag teams may include:  Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Wikipedia policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress particular points of view. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything except uniformly positive or uniformly negative information. Revenge or personal vendetta, driven by a real or imagined grievance can be a powerful motivation. Once an editor or administrator is identified as an enemy, tag-teamers might stalk that editor's contributions or user pages to annoy them, to try to undermine their credibility, or to keep them distracted from the tag team's sphere of control. If an editor is fending off attacks on their prized featured article, they will have less time to spend on one of the tag team's closely guarded articles. Support of a team member. Tag team members may support anything that another member does, without question. Some team members may have no knowledge of the actual topic being discussed, but are just interested in supporting their friend against perceived adversaries.   === Multiple-editor ownership ===  A related problem is ownership of articles. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Wikipedia article. In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is ""consensus"". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, group members might accuse them of edit warring or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, target them with spurious complaints to administrators, threaten them with blocks or bans, or bluntly tell them (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. As the benefit of the doubt is normally extended by administrators to users who have made valid contributions in the past, often little is done initially when two or three users act to chase a new contributor away from modifying ""their"" article. A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Wikipedia entirely. The best defence in these cases is to seek a broader consensus. Check the edit history for others who had proposed changes to the same or similar topics, perhaps only to be reverted, and ask for their input (but avoid canvassing). Seek a third opinion from an outside or neutral source, get peer review to get an outside look at the content of the page instead of focussing on the behaviour of individual editors. Encourage others who may have an interest in the topic to add the article to their watchlists and offer their own input. Don't edit war as an army of one, but don't assume that two or three people asserting ownership of one obscure topic speak for all Wikipedians. An outside editor might be able to propose an entirely different alternative which would serve as a compromise while advancing the primary goal, which is to build an encyclopaedia.  It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a ""tag team"" should be avoided as it is uncivil. Use of the term on article talk pages should be descriptive only. For example, it might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors. It is generally not necessary to use the term ""tag teaming"" in order to deal with a dispute, though it can be an effective shorthand when describing the situation in a neutral forum such as a dispute resolution noticeboard. Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to consensus and other relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal dispute resolution processes. Where at all possible, assume good faith and start from the assumption that there is not a tag team.   === False accusations of tag teaming === It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a ""tag team"". What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team? The accusation may be a form of baiting that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way. Therefore, it is important that you:  Stay calm Stay civil Avoid personal attacks Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors. Stay fair. A common problem on Wikipedia is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on ""their side"". This kind of behavior, rooted in a common cognitive bias, may be regarded as ""tag-teamish"", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a perception of being a tag team, ensure that policies and guidelines are being adhered to equally. If you see someone being uncivil even if they're on your side – make that especially if they're on your side – point it out to them, and ask for calm. This can be an excellent way to de-escalate the dispute, as the ""friendly"" editor may be more likely to listen to you if they see you as an ally, and the ""opponent"" editor may calm down if they see that policies are being enforced equally. This goes not just for incivility, but other policies as well. For example, if the ""opponent"" editor is being chastised for adding information without sources, then it's essential that all other editors are also held to the same standard of using sources.Ultimately, don't let false charges intimidate you. Just stay calm and civil, abide carefully by all policies, and treat everyone fairly. In an ideal world, the truth of the matter should be apparent to outside observers.  It is often not possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. However, it is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams – and those who accuse others of behaving as a tag team – may try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand. No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:  Engage in good-faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build consensus, and work through the normal dispute resolution process. In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR is of paramount importance. Civility is an essential part of the Wikipedia code of behaviour and should be maintained. Open a request for comments, and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, to determine a wider consensus. Ideally, you will be able to attract the opinions of reviewers who are familiar with the subject matter and will be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view. Don't go after the team as a whole, but focus on specific policy violations by individual editors. Concerns about user conduct can be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the most appropriate noticeboard. Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at Wikipedia:General sanctions. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.Note that if there are two, or more, groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, or even a group of editors claiming to be fighting a tag team, none, any, or all of these groups may end up acting as a disruptive tag team, so be cautious. A group of editors opposing a tag team must be careful to stay within policy, and must make genuine good-faith efforts to build consensus and to seek outside opinions. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; Wikipedia is not a battleground. Accusations of tag teaming do not give any extra rights or privileges to revert, or to otherwise act outside of policy, when dealing with those editors or their edits. Finally, consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. While it can be frustrating when one's edits are repeatedly resisted, what looks to you like a tag team may instead be editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic at hand, more familiar with the nuances of content policies, or otherwise working within the goals of Wikipedia.   === Suggestions for third parties === Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute. Identify the key participants in an article or topic area. Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with evidence. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations. Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few diffs may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who bait others into lashing out. Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are sockpuppets or throwaway accounts. Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute. Check block logs. Determine whether administrator action is required.   === Suggestions for administrators === Sometimes the best way to deal with a tag team is to obtain the attention of an administrator. If an affected article is placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.  Administrators should follow the suggestions for third parties above, especially in terms of analyzing evidence. Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as disruptive, and warned, banned, or blocked as necessary. Check to see if policies are being enforced fairly. If a group of editors is insisting that the rules need to be enforced only on ""opposing"" editors, and not on editors on ""their side"", then this may be tag-teaming behavior. Thoroughly examine the history of the dispute to verify such claims and counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly. Leaderless resistance (article) Vote brigading (article) Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report#Definition of tag team (report) Wikipedia:Consensus (policy) Wikipedia:Sock puppetry § Meatpuppetry (policy) Wikipedia:Assume good faith (guideline) Wikipedia:Canvassing (guideline) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (guideline) Wikipedia:Gaming the system (guideline) Wikipedia:Assume bad faith (essay) Wikipedia:Cabals (essay) Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (essay) Wikipedia:Describing points of view (essay) Wikipedia:Griefing (essay) Wikipedia:No soliciting of cliques (essay) Wikipedia:POV railroad (essay) Wikipedia:One against many (essay) Wikipedia:Sham consensus (essay, referencing Wikipedia:False consensus and Wikipedia:Wrongful consensus essays) Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (essay) Wikipedia:Words of Wisdom (essay) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Externally coordinated editing (ArbCom case)  Meta:What is a troll? (essay) Meatball:DefendEachOther"
602	612	1342	Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University	Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University	602	Welcome to the WikiProject page for Brigham Young University. This page is designed to streamline collaborative efforts to improve the quality of BYU-related articles. We are currently reviving this project and its accompanying project page (as you may notice), but that just means it's a great time for you to get involved!  If you would like to help, please add yourself as a participant in the project, inquire on the talk page, and see the to-do list, below. Feel free to contact any project members with any questions or to drop us a note on this project's talk page. Go Cougs!  Improve Content Articles related to Brigham Young University Prominent Alumni of BYU  Please help by making at least one contribution to a BYU article a month. Primary contact(s):   Jmjosh90 (talk · contribs) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) Jgstokes (talk · contribs)Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest.   === Featured content ===   ==== Candidates ==== Please list your candidates for Good Article Status below with a link to the article, reason and your signature. Example:   Brigham Young University-I've spent the last months working with a few people to overhaul this article. --YourSignature   === New articles === Please feel free to list your new Brigham Young University-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them, are at least over 1,500 characters, don't have any dispute templates on them, and cite their sources, should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Wikipedia Main Page.   === Assessment === Assessment   === Peer review === Peer review   === Statistics ===   === Basic Templates ===   ==== Navigation Template ====  This template should be placed below the External links section of every BYU-related article byu copying and pasting {{Brigham Young University}}.   ==== Talkpage Templates ==== {{WPBYU}} This template should be placed on all article talk pages in the BYU article series; doing so will automatically add the article to the category Category:WikiProject Brigham Young University. Use this template on an article's talk page only if: the article is not biographical in nature.  Articles about people should use template {{WPBYU people}}{{WPBYU people}} This template should be placed on article talk pages of noteworthy people affiliated with BYU; doing so will automatically add the article to the category Category:WikiProject Brigham Young University.   === Userboxes === Students and alumni of BYU can add {{user BYU}} to their userpage for the following userbox (note that BYU offers nine different userbox types, which can be seen here):  Students and alumni of BYU–I can add {{User BYU-Idaho}} to their userpage for the following userbox:  Students and alumni of BYU–H can add {{User BYU-Hawaii}} to their userpage for the following userbox:   === Inviting others to join === {{WPBYU invite}}This is a basic infobox that can be added to a user's talk page as an invite to the BYU WikiProject. {{WPBYU invite Bro Brigham}}This is a little bit more cheeky infobox that can be added to a user's talk page as an invite to the BYU WikiProject.   === Related WikiProjects === WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement   === Sister project links ===